the use of the internet in higher education

The use of the internet in highereducation

Academics’ experiences of using ICTs forteaching and learning

Rebecca EynonOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract

Purpose – To explore academics’ experiences of using information and communication technologies(ICTs) for teaching and learning.

Design/methodology/approach – Analysis of three discipline-specific focus group discussionsheld with academics based in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that use ICTs for teaching theirstudents.

Findings – The most common use of ICTs in all subjects was to provide students with access to arange of online resources. Academics’ motivations for using ICTs included: enhancing the educationalexperience for their students; to compensate for some of the changes occurring in higher education,such as the rise in student numbers and demand for flexible learning opportunities; and personalinterest and enjoyment. The difficulties academics encountered when using these technologies forteaching included: a lack of time; dissatisfaction with the software available; and copyright.

Research limitations/implications – This is a small scale, exploratory study. Further research isrequired that is sampled in such a way as to ensure that the findings can be generalized to allacademics in all institutions in the UK.

Practical implications – The institutional, middle managerial, staff and student level all need to beconsidered when encouraging the further adoption of new technologies for teaching and learning inhigher education. Institutional level strategies must also account for the diversity of ways ICTs may beused in teaching in different contexts across the institution.

Originality/value – Research exploring academics’ experiences of using ICTs for teaching andlearning is scarce. Further work is required to ensure the successful development and implementationof future technological and policy developments in this area.

Keywords Academic staff, Higher education, Communication technologies, Internet, Teaching,Learning

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThere has been a great deal of debate regarding the use of information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) for teaching and learning within universities. Thepotential of ICTs for higher education is well documented and has been muchpromoted by policy makers and enthusiasts within the sector. The Dearing Report(NCHIE, 1997), The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003), and the more recente-learning strategy proposals developed by the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE, 2003) are all examples of policy commitment in this area, and thiscommitment is reflected in the majority of university teaching and learning strategiesacross the country. Given that investment in this area is likely to increase in the next

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0001-253X.htm

AP57,2

168

Received 21 October 2004Revised 6 December 2004Accepted 13 December 2004

Aslib Proceedings: New InformationPerspectivesVol. 57 No. 2, 2005pp. 168-180q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0001-253XDOI 10.1108/00012530510589137

decade, research is required that explores academics’ experiences of using ICTs forteaching and learning in order to: provide a clearer vision of where it is appropriate touse new technologies in higher education; to develop strategies to support existinginitiatives and encourage further adoption (where appropriate); and ensure thesuccessful development and implementation of future technological and policydevelopments in this area.

Surprisingly little is known about lecturers’ opinions on, and experiences of, usingeducational technology (Steel and Hudson, 2001); though the research base is steadilyincreasing. From analysis of the available research on this topic it is clear that there area range of individual, practical and cultural factors that shape academics use (and nonuse) of new technologies for teaching and learning (e.g. Selwyn, 2003). Two factors thatare likely to influence academics’ use of ICTs in teaching and learning are theinstitutional (Clegg et al., 2003) and disciplinary (Rowley et al., 2002) contexts. Thus,this exploratory study set out to investigate the potential similarities and differences ofacademics use of new technologies for teaching and learning both within and acrossthree disciplines, namely English, Law and Nursing/midwifery. Academics wereinvited to one of three discipline specific events to share and discuss their ownexperiences of using ICTs for teaching their students. This paper will focus on four keythemes that emerged from each of these discussions and consider the differences andsimilarities within and across each of these groups. The four themes to be explored are:

(1) How ICTs are being used in teaching and learning.

(2) The motivations of academics to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning.

(3) The difficulties they have encountered when using these technologies for theirstudents.

(4) The factors that may influence the further adoption of new technologies inhigher education.

These will be discussed in detail in the results, discussion and conclusion sectionsbelow. First, the methods utilised for the study are summarised.

MethodIn June 2004 three discipline focus groups were held with academics from English, Lawor Nursing/midwifery that used ICTs to teach their students. Each discussion groupwas part of a one day, discipline specific, event where staff from HEIs across the UKwere invited to a workshop where they were presented with the findings from aresearch project that explored the use of the web for teaching and learning in highereducation (Eynon, 2005); and were then asked to participate in a focus group to discusstheir own experiences of using ICTs in teaching and learning. The events weredesigned to provide a greater insight into the use of ICTs for teaching and learning inhigher education, explore the similarities and differences of academics use of newtechnologies for teaching and learning within and across the three disciplines, identifyfurther areas for research, enhance network opportunities, and promote crossinstitutional discussion about the use of the new technologies for teaching andlearning.

Potential participants were contacted via several methods. In the first instance therelevant subject centres of the Learning and Teaching Subject Network (LTSN) werecontacted, and as a result specific individuals who were likely to be interested in the

The use of theinternet

169

study were contacted, adverts were placed in the centre’s newsletters, and e-mailmessages were sent to their members. E-mail postings were made to relevant subjectspecific web sites (for example, the CHAIN[1] network in nursing/midwifery) andpersonal contacts were also utilised.

Seven academics participated in each focus group, and each group encompassedacademics from higher education colleges, pre- and post-1992 universities. Fiveparticipants from each group were “traditional” academics who carried out typicalteaching, research and administrative responsibilities. The remaining two membershad slightly different roles and responsibilities within their own institutions. In eachgroup a sixth member had greater responsibility for the development andimplementation for ICTs in teaching and learning within their own department orschool, with reduced teaching time; the seventh participant in English andNursing/midwifery was an educational technologist; and the final member of theLaw group was a librarian who also had teaching responsibilities. Participants in eachof the three groups were involved in teaching a range of courses and programmes intheir discipline at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The focus group discussions lasted an hour and a half and were semi-structured.The debates were recorded and notes were made at each meeting. The tapes weretranscribed and the resulting transcripts were analysed in accordance with theprinciples from the qualitative tradition (e.g. see Miles and Huberman, 1994) and wasaided through the use of NUD*IST (e.g. see Boulton and Hammersley, 1996).

ResultsIn this section the four main themes that emerged from each of the focus groupdiscussions are explored:

(1) How ICTs are being used in teaching and learning.

(2) The motivations of academics to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning.

(3) The difficulties they have encountered when using these technologies for theirstudents.

(4) The factors that may influence the further adoption of new technologies inhigher education.

The use of ICTs for teaching and learningIn all three subject areas, the most common way participants used ICTs for teachingand learning was to provide students with access to a range of online resources, oftenincluding online discussion boards; with some participants using more advancedmultimedia to provide web casts of lecturers, simulations, and problem based learningexercises. The majority of participants in each focus group utilised a virtual learningenvironment (VLE). In the main, these online resources were used to enhance theexisting learning experience for students in some way as opposed to transforming theway the students were taught. The use of ICTs in the way described here, that is toenhance existing teaching practices and to maintain the current teaching paradigm, istypical and can be seen in a variety of different subjects, degree programmes anddepartments (e.g. Dutton et al., 2004).

AP57,2

170

From the discussions in each of the three groups there did not currently appear to bea great deal of difference in the way new technologies were being used for teaching andlearning both within and across the disciplines. Yet slight variations in emphasisemerged from the discussions around how ICTs could be most valuable to students. InEnglish, online resources, such as newspapers, journals, graphics and books, were feltto be particularly valuable as was the use of online communication between studentsand staff via e-mail and discussion boards. Similarly, in Law, online resources anddiscussions were thought appropriate to enhance understanding and knowledge aboutthe subject; but there was an additional interest in using the technology for students tolearn about, and develop, the skills necessary to become a Law professional. In thisgroup there was a great deal of interest (and some use) of ICTs to create simulations tohelp students learn the more practical skills they would require (e.g., negotiation) intheir professional practice; though how, and the extent to which, these were usedvaried depending on the level of the student and the stage of qualification. InNursing/midwifery the use of ICTs were thought appropriate throughout the students’programme in order to help them learn both subject knowledge and practical skills. Inthis group academics were using ICTs primarily for access to resources andadministrative purposes; yet there was a move towards the use of ICTs for simulationand the introduction of more multimedia in problem based learning exercises. Thesesubtle differences in emphasis are perhaps to be expected and related to the generaldifferences in the disciplines: English is a “traditional” academic subject wherestudents are not being prepared for a particular profession, whereasNursing/midwifery students are required to learn specific, clinical skills in additionto academic knowledge. Law falls between these two disciplines, with the early yearsbeing seen as a “traditional” academic subject, moving towards a more vocationalemphasis in the later years.

Motivations for academics to use ICTs for teaching and learningIn all the focus groups, the participants’ main motivation for using ICTs was toenhance the educational experience for their students in some way. It was clear fromthe discussions that for all subjects the decision to utilise ICTs was based oneducational, not technological, decisions. As a member of the Nursing/midwifery groupexplained:

I think it is important just to start with the outcomes that you want to achieve . . . Then youwork backwards to see what is the best media to achieve that; and for some it will be face toface in the classroom, but for some of those characteristics, or behaviours, or learning then,you know, a classroom isn’t appropriate. So then you find the appropriate bit of technologythat might be able to support that. Rather than thinking, “oh, I have got a good bit of kit here,or I have got [name of VLE], therefore it is going to be the panacea for everything.” Well itisn’t, you know (Participant 2, Educational Technologist, Old University).

A lesser theme in each of the three groups was their personal interest and enjoyment inusing technology to benefit their students. For example, in English participantsdiscussed the sense of satisfaction they obtained from the creative process ofdeveloping web sites and knowing the students were using and benefiting from theseonline resources.

In all three groups, academics were using ICTs to compensate for some of thechanges occurring in higher education. For example, in English and Law, participants


171

highlighted some of the difficulties of teaching far greater numbers of students withoutan associated rise in funding. Particularly in English, ICTs were considered useful toprovide students with access to scarce resources, materials not available at their owninstitution or resources that were in very limited supply in the library.

In Law and English the use of ICTs was thought to help assist with providing asocial function for students who may feel lost in very large teaching groups through,for example, the use of online discussions. In addition to the increase in the number ofstudents, there had also been changes to the characteristics of the students lecturerswere expected to teach. This was a particularly apparent theme in theNursing/midwifery group, where participants felt that ICTs could perhaps assistwith challenges, such as, improving students study skills or developing theirbackground knowledge of the subject.

Also, ICTs were thought to be useful to assist the increasing number of part-time,geographically dispersed learners and/or students who spent a great deal of time offcampus. This was particularly the case for postgraduate students in each of the threedisciplines. However, members of the Law group stressed that more flexible learningand/or a move towards more resource based learning were also sometimes demandedby campus based, supposedly full-time, students as increasing numbers of studentswere working to fund their studies.

As a participant in the Law focus group commented:

The make up of our students . . . they don’t live on campus, they travel in, live at home, theyconstantly say – at the beginning of the year you can guarantee if they have got four days inthe university and perhaps only one hour on one day they say, “well for a start we want tomove that to that day,” and then say, “well, why can’t we have all our lectures bandedtogether in one day and do six hours?” So to be fair to the university there are also a lot ofstudents who, if you like, with customer pressure coming and saying, “we actually want allour teaching taught in blocks because I have got a part time job . . . .and therefore I won’t behere,” you know. Perhaps 20 years ago when I was at university I was in the university fivedays a week – my life was around university and very much now they are here when theyhave lessons, possibly to use the library, and then they are off campus (Participant 4, LawLecturer, New University).

While members of the Law group noted that such block teaching was noteducationally beneficial for students, it was, in some cases, preferred by students forthe reasons cited above and was also desired by the university to ease timetablingpressures and overcome the difficulties of accommodating all the students on thecampus at one time.

Institutional factors, such as decisions by the school or senior management toencourage the adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning were not a major motivatingfactor for academics who participated in this study. Indeed, as is clear from the resultsin the section under The staff level, academics tend not to be given time in theirworking day to pursue such e-learning initiatives and are unlikely to be promoted onthe basis of good teaching. However, it was evident in each group that the universitiesdecision to support such initiatives had alerted at least some academics to thepossibility of using ICTs for teaching and learning and, in the case of the educationaltechnologists, provided them with a job opportunity.

AP57,2

172

Difficulties encountered by the academics when using ICTs for teaching and learningOverall, the discussions in each of the three groups were overwhelmingly positive. Yetit was clear the academics in each of the three groups had encountered some difficultieswhen using ICTs for teaching and learning.

Lack of time was an issue for the majority of the participants in each group.Interestingly, this was not presented as a particular problem as the academicsappeared to simply accept that a great deal of their activity in this area took place intheir own time. The only concern that arose from this situation was that academicswanted to have more time to develop and improve the online resources they wereproviding for their students.

As a lecturer in Law commented:

I am probably like a lot of you, you know, the IT bit, the development, which is terrible, isalmost added on to my other duties [general agreement from the group] it is not integral to myduties. I don’t begrudge that, but there is a limit therefore how much time I can spend doing it(Respondent 4, Law Lecturer, New University).

A second factor that was raised in each of the three groups was dissatisfaction with thesoftware the academics had access to. Virtual learning environments (VLEs) wereraised as problematic both by members of the Law and English groups. In Englishacademics felt VLEs were restrictive as only registered students could use it (thuspreventing previous years returning to the material) and was sometimes notstraightforward to use (e.g. to upload files). In Law participants pointed out that thestandard VLEs on offer were too corporate and not flexible enough.

As one participant in the Law group explained:

[Name of VLE] is highly constraining and very, very generic and it has to be because they . . .

want to sell as much and as many, you know. But it comes back to the point people madeearlier that these kind of generic solutions are imposed corporately and institutionally uponus. Whereas we are at the coalface, and it is our discipline, and we want to teach in ways thatwe want to teach, you know, and it is really annoying to have to teach in the way that [nameof VLE] says that we have to teach. I think it is outrageous I really do (Respondent 2, LawLecturer/Educational Technologist, Old University).

In the Nursing/midwifery focus group members felt the software had to improve agreat deal, and similar to the other groups there was a feeling that educators shouldwork more with software developers in order for programmes to be developed thatwere more suitable for their subject.

As a member of the group commented:

I would like people like yourselves to really think about how you can influence technologiststo develop better technologies, you know, this is what we need for our students, build it. Thisis what, this is the kind of interaction, the kind of multimedia, we want. We do not just wantlinear discussion boards we want something more real (Participant 6, Midwifery Lecturer,Old University).

A third issue that was raised by members of the English and Nursing/midwiferygroups was problems with copyright, due to the prohibitive costs or the time it took togain permission to use materials that delayed, or prevented, the development of onlineresources for their students.


173

Factors influencing the adoption of ICTs for teaching and learningIn each of the three groups there was discussion regarding factors that may enhance, orinhibit, further adoption of ICTs across participant’s institutions. The discussion issplit into four areas:

(1) The institutional level.

(2) The school/department level.

(3) The staff level.

(4) Other factors.

The institutional strategy. Members of the Nursing/midwifery focus group stressed theneed for an institutional, strategic vision in order for the use of ICTs for teaching andlearning to be adopted successfully across the institution. Without such a vision, workin this area would typically be dispersed in small pockets across the organisation. As amember of the group commented:

You have got the people on the bottom that have often got some fantastic ideas and can seewhere the market is for it, and the use; but unless you have got that strategic vision. If, forexample, whether the university is going to go for profit in offering online distance courses orwhether they are going to use technology to support their current learning I think that needsto be a very clear strategic decision made by the institution. If they don’t make that kind ofdecision then people will just go off and do their own thing but then needless to say you havethe champions that are going off and developing things fantastically, you don’t bring thefollowers on behind and you don’t then have the infrastructure to support it (Participant 5,Nursing Lecturer, Old University).

However, it was clear that the kind of institutional strategy implemented was central tothe successful and appropriate adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning. Indeed,there were concerns from members of the English and Law focus groups that top downstrategies could be counter productive and have a negative influence on the standard ofteaching and learning at that institution and the likelihood of the development ofinnovative teaching using ICTs. Such a situation was most likely to occur whereuniversity management stipulated that academics had to use the university approvedVLE and had to use it in a specified way. For example, in some institutions academicsare expected to have, at the very least, a module web site that contains the lecturehandouts and the aims and objectives for the module. Such an approach was thought tobe very damaging on the appropriate adoption of ICTs for teaching and learning.Members of the Law and English focus groups argued that university managersshould not dictate to people about how they teach; as such methods and approachesmay not be appropriate for that particular course or discipline. Further, members of allthree groups were concerned that this kind of top down approach may reduce thelikelihood of academics ever adopting or considering utilising ICTs in a moreappropriate way in their future teaching. This was because such a prescriptive, topdown strategy often meant that academics first contact with these kinds of newtechnologies tended to be based on technological or cost saving agendas (such as theavailability of the technology, passing the cost of printing course booklets ontostudents, or saving lecture space) not the educational potential of these newtechnologies which would interest and motivate academics. As a participant in Law,whose own institution had adopted a top down approach, commented:

AP57,2

174

The university said every module must have a [name of VLE] site and the minimum you musthave on there is an outline of the lecture materials. So obviously, I mean if you give thatprescription, you know, you go and look at half the Law modules and they have all got a nice[name of VLE] site and they have got their lecture outlines on and that is it because that is,you know, it is just the total wrong way to go to get people to use it. It worries me that at themoment it has all been kind of management based, driven down, you will do this. Rather thanus, as you said, who are teaching it, saying well, you know, we actually don’t want that, itdoesn’t work; we want to do it this way (Respondent 4, Law Lecturer, New University).

The department school level. As many participants came from a devolved institutionthe more local, middle, level of management was clearly thought to be important fornegotiating the institutional level policies to fit with the needs of the students withinthe department/school, to provide extra resources where/if necessary in terms oftechnical support or time to develop materials for staff. However, often this “middlelevel” was not supportive of the development of ICTs for teaching and learning or didnot take a particularly strong view. This issue was discussed at most length inNursing/midwifery, and to a certain extent by participants of the Law focus groups. Asa member of the Nursing/midwifery focus group commented:

It is the middle managers that are the block; they’re the ones who decide how much time youcan have to develop things. Our higher echelons are really keen . . . but they cannot doeverything, it has got to be down to the individual faculties or departments. But if yourdepartment head is saying, which is what is happening in mine, you have got to do thisamount of teaching and that has to be face to face rather than preparing e-material then thee-material is not going to be as good if I bother with it. It is not going to be as good because Ihaven’t got the time for it. So somehow we’ve got to get, got to join the top and the bottom(Participant 1, Nursing Lecturer, New University).

Similarly, members of the Law group noted how important it was that the head ofdepartment was supportive of the use of ICTs for teaching and learning. If so, far morewas possible. As a member of the focus group commented:

All pioneers of IT should become heads of department as soon as possible! (Participant 1, LawLecturer, Old University).

In some cases, where school/faculty and or department level strategies were developedwell the “top down” and “bottom up” strategy could come together quite fruitfully. Asa member of the Nursing/midwifery group where this had occurred commented:

So you begin to mesh the two things – the wider college and what it is doing with the school,and as the team of two got embedded we won money from central teaching developmentfunds so we could gradually employ extra people . . . So we ended up with a team of 4/5, andthe flexibility then to do things with people becomes much greater because you have a muchgreater resource in terms of skills . . . and you get in little bits of people to create a coresupport team who will then allow people to do whatever they feel they want to do to supporttheir [teaching] . . . It has been terribly important to talk to other people across the college whoare doing different things and picking up their ideas and – that has been very valuable(Participant 2, Educational Technologist, Old University).

The staff level. From discussions with participants in each of the three groups it wasclear that one factor that was inhibiting the adoption of ICTs in teaching and learningwas the lack of value the institution placed on the development and implementation ofe-learning initiatives. A clear example of this is the lack of time academics had


175

available within their working day to develop the necessary skills and create onlineresources for their students. A related issue that was raised by members of the Lawand English groups was that academics were more likely to be promoted on the basisof good research as opposed to good teaching. A further, connected, issue was theability of academics to take risks. Members of the Law group raised this issue asyounger members of staff were less prepared to take risks compared to senior staff asthey had to consider promotion. Younger members of staff were also more likely to belacking in confidence and lacked the local, cultural knowledge required to negotiate therules of the institution in order to create e-learning resources. The need to be able totake risks was also raised by members of the Nursing/midwifery group who arguedthat the culture of the institution needed to allow academics to innovate and managershad to accept that such initiatives may not always succeed. As a participantcommented:

If you are very much bound into a bureaucratic institution and they don’t want to take risks. . . I think it needs quite a mature leadership to allow people to take risks. It is a learningprocess. The whole thing is a continuous evolution; you won’t always get it right (Participant5, Nursing Lecturer, Old University).

A further factor that may inhibit adoption that was identified by members of theNursing/midwifery and English focus groups was the lack of IT skills staff possessed.However, members of the Nursing/midwifery group felt that a change in emphasis bythe institution from a focus on the use of ICTs as a technical “solution” towards a stresson the educational potential of new technologies may assist academics to overcometheir perceived barriers about using technology for teaching. As a member of theNursing/midwifery focus group commented:

A lot of people have perceived barriers . . . A lot of people in my university persist in thinkingthey have to have some specialist expertise, they have to have some IT magic or something,to be able to do it and this puts them off and prevents them from seeing what you are saying,you know, it is just a way of enhancing my teaching. That is quite a big change in attitude toget across and even in a new university where the priority is teaching and learning, people aremore interested in that, but they can’t quite believe that it is not technology driven and manyget put off by that and they think, “oh, no, I would have to go on some big special course andit would take ages and I haven’t got the time” (Participant 7, Midwifery Lecturer, NewUniversity).

In addition to valuing teaching and learning through various strategies, such as,promotion for good teaching and creating time for staff to engage in e-learningactivities, a further factor that may help the development and implementation of theuse of ICTs in teaching and learning is the employment of a departmental or schooleducational technologist. This issue was discussed in the Nursing/midwifery andEnglish groups. In general, such support was considered valuable; though members ofthe English group stressed the need for the individual to have some subject expertiseand/or an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of learning technology asopposed to an individual who just had technological skills. Such an individual couldsupport academics who knew very little about using ICTs for teaching and learningand those with far more expertise.

Other factors involved in the adoption of ICTs. In addition to more top down,institutional level policies, participants in each of the three focus groups felt that they

AP57,2

176

had a role to play in encouraging greater diffusion of the use of ICTs for teaching andlearning; through evaluating what they were doing, teaching others to use thetechnology and demonstrating how it could be used to benefit students. However,members of the English and the Nursing/midwifery groups noted that innovatorscould actually be a negative influence on encouraging adoption of these newtechnologies as they may appear to be too technologically advanced. As a member ofthe Nursing/midwifery group commented:

It is easy for people who do it to underestimate other people’s barriers. I know myselfsometimes by saying things to people like, certain dangerous phrases like, “it is quitestraightforward”, you know, don’t say that . . . if you don’t find it quite straightforward it is soeasy to be put off (Participant 7, Midwifery Lecturer, New University).

A further important factor was the student experience. Members of the three focusgroups raised issues around accessibility, both in terms of availability of computersand/or the level of IT skills as an issue for their students. Access to computers wasoften highlighted as a problem by members of the English focus group, but not to agreat extent in Law or Nursing/midwifery groups. Slow download times wereconsidered a problem by members of English and Nursing/midwifery groups and theuse of passwords (such as ATHENS) at home was also considered problematic bymembers of the English and Law groups. IT skills were thought to be improvingsteadily among Law students – though members of the group felt that support shouldstill be provided for the minority that required it. Basic IT and internet skills were alsohighlighted as a problem by members of the Nursing/midwifery group, particularly formature students updating their skills on part-time courses. Members of the Englishfocus group felt that their students needed more support to develop informationsearching skills and other research skills required to use the online resourceseffectively. A third problem that was raised by members of the English and Lawgroups was the costs that were sometimes being passed on to students when they wererequired to print their course packs as opposed to being given their own paper-basedcopy. Clearly, these and other factors that are part of the student experience need to beconsidered in order for the adoption of ICTs to be successful.

Discussion and conclusionThe discussion above has highlighted some of the main themes that arose from focusgroup debates with academic staff who have used ICTs for teaching their students. Aninteresting finding arising from the analysis is the high level of agreement within eachof the three groups. Due to the very different institutional and departmental contextswithin which the individuals work, their different roles, and the different aspects of thediscipline they teach, it was anticipated that there would be a great deal of differenceamongst academics – even among those who are using ICTs to teach the samediscipline which is not obviously apparent in the analysis here. A potential reason forthis is the method utilised; academics have few chances to discuss the use of ICTs inteaching and learning with others from their own discipline, and perhaps, in the spiritof collaboration, academics found common themes to discuss in detail and ignored thenuances of their experiences in this context.

While ICTs were being used in similar ways both within and across disciplinesthere appeared to be some differences in emphasis in the way new technologies were


177

being used, which may, in part, be explained by the vocational emphasis of the course.A clear motivating factor for academics in each of the three groups was to use ICTs toenhance the educational experience for their students in some way and to overcomesome of the difficulties associated with teaching far greater numbers of studentswithout an equivalent rise in funding. Academics were also using new technologies toaccommodate the needs and demands of the student population. For example,academics were using ICTs to provide more flexible learning opportunities and tosupport students who, in some cases, had additional educational needs to the“traditional” student entering higher education. Intrinsic rewards were of greaterimportance to the participants as opposed to institutional rewards such as promotionor greater prestige within their institution; this finding is supported by other researchin this area (e.g. Hannan et al., 1999; Eynon, 2005). However, the motivations whichpropel innovators to adopt new approaches are likely to be different from otheracademics and more “mainstream” staff are unlikely to adopt the use of ICTs forteaching and learning without such extrinsic benefits.

Clearly, academics in each group stressed the need for a greater sensitivity to localcontexts. Academics in each of the three groups highlighted the need for greatercollaboration with software developers in order that future programmes andtechnologies would be developed that could accommodate the varied demands ofeducators. There was also a need for the institutional strategy to support the diverseways that ICTs could be used for teaching and learning in different contexts across theinstitution. Certainly, academics felt they should have a greater role in shapinginstitutional strategies in this area; and a prescriptive “top down” strategy was thoughtto have a potentially damaging effect on the future adoption of ICTs for teaching andlearning. From analysis of the discussions, there is some tension between the needs ofthe individual member of staff to develop, implement and use ICTs for teaching withintheir own contexts alongside the call for the institution to provide support fore-learning. A balance must be struck by the institution between providing support andallowing academics the space to innovate in their own particular contexts.

Factors identified here that need to be included in institutional strategies have alsobeen raised in other research on this topic. For example, the provision of resources,incentives for staff, training and financial investment are often highlighted in theliterature (e.g. Taylor, 1998; Ryan et al., 2000). Further factors identified here include:the need to value research that explores the use of ICTs in higher education in order todevelop an evidence based culture; to make decisions to support ICTs in teaching andlearning that are based on educational philosophies as opposed to cost saving ortechnological deterministic agendas to enhance higher education and to convince staffof the value of new technologies in teaching; and to consider the student experience.Students may require improved access and technical support in order to effectively useICTs as part of their university education (Tweddle et al., 1998; Ryan et al., 2000); yetthere are other factors that need to be considered. Individuals will only use newtechnologies when they see them as valuable, fulfilling a useful function or purpose(Morrison and Svennevig, 2001).

Indeed, while academics do need the resources and infrastructure to support theirinitiatives, the innovative process should be encouraged in as flexible a way as ispossible; there needs to be a greater sensitivity to the needs of the individualdepartment and discipline. Academics are best placed to determine where ICTs should

AP57,2

178

be used (if at all) in teaching their students. Indeed, academics do use othertechnologies where they perceive them to be appropriate, though they remainpressured; thus, it is unwise to conclude that non-use is simply down to practicalissues, such as a lack of time or institutional rewards, as there may be other goodreasons (Crook, 2002), such as a lack of student demand and inappropriateness ofsubject matter. What is apparent is how important local context is in the use (or nonuse) of ICTs for teaching and learning and that academics need to be part of the processwhen developing future policy and technological developments in e-learning. Clearly,further research is required to explore the issues raised in this exploratory project inmore detail.

Note

1. CHAIN is an online network for people working in health and social care, based aroundspecific areas of interest, and gives people a simple and informal way of contacting eachother to exchange ideas and share knowledge. See www.nhsu.nhs.uk/webportal/chain/

References

Boulton, D. and Hammersley, M. (1996), “Analysis of unstructured data”, in Sapsford, R. andJupp, V. (Eds), Data Collection and Analysis, Sage, London, pp. 282-97.

Clegg, S., Hudson, A. and Steel, J. (2003), “The Emperor’s new clothes: globalisation ande-learning in HE”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 39-53.

Crook, C.K. (2002), “The campus experience of networked learning”, in Steeples, C. and Jones, C.(Eds), Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues, Springer, London, pp. 293-308.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003), The Future of Higher Education, HMSO,London.

Dutton, W.H., Cheong, P.H. and Park, N. (2004), “The social shaping of a virtual learningenvironment: the case of a university-wide course management system”, Electronic Journalof e-Learning, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-80, available at: www.ejel.org (accessed 10 June).

Eynon, R. (2005), “The use of the web for teaching and learning in higher education: rhetoric andreality”, submitted to Innovations in Education and Teaching International.

Hannan, A., English, S. and Silver, H. (1999), “Why innovate? Some preliminary findings from aresearch project on ‘innovations in teaching and learning in higher education’”, Studies inHigher Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 279-89.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2003), Consultation on HEFCEe-learning Strategy, available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2003/cl21_03.htm(accessed 20 April 2004).

Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.,Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.

Morrison, D.E. and Svennevig, M. (2001), “The process of change: an empirical examination ofthe uptake and impact of technology”, in Lax, S. (Ed.), Access Denied in the InformationAge, Palgrave, New York, NY, pp. 125-39.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) (1997), Higher Education in theLearning Society, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Hayes.

Rowley, J., Banwell, L., Childs, S., Gannon-Leary, P., Lonsdale, R., Urquhart, C. and Armstrong, C.(2002), “User behaviour in relation to electronic information services within the UK highereducation academic community”, Journal of Educational Media, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 107-22.


179

Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H. and Patel, D. (2000), The Virtual University: the Internet andResource-Based Learning, Kogan Page, London.

Selwyn, N. (2003), “Apart from technology: understanding people’s non-use of information andcommunication technologies in everyday life”, Technology in Society, Vol. 25, pp. 99-116.

Steel, J. and Hudson, A. (2001), “Educational technology in learning and teaching: the perceptionsand experiences of teaching staff”, Innovations in Education and Training International,Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 103-11.

Taylor, P. (1998), “Institutional change in uncertain times: lone ranging is not enough”, Studies inHigher Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 269-79.

Tweddle, S., Avis, P., Wright, J. and Walker, T. (1998), “Towards criteria for evaluating websites”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 267-70.

AP57,2

180