A review of staff engagement with digital technologies on an undergraduate language programme

Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
A review of staff engagement with digital technologies

on an undergraduate language programme

Benoît Guilbaud
b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk
@benguilbaud

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/3.0/

Benoît Guilbaud, 2012

#LLASconf2012


Picture by Pete Lambert via ﬂickr.com

Picture by Partick Havens via ﬂickr.com

Picture by One Laptop per Child via ﬂickr.com

Picture by National Museum of American History via ﬂickr.com

Usefulness Cost
Relevance

Making technology work
Time
Assessment

Curriculum
Employability Policy

Context

Undergraduate Spanish, French, Linguistics,
language programme Italian & German EFL & TEFL

30 academic Approx. 500 Face-to-face &
members of staff BA students blended learning

The study
Review staff usage and perceptions of three technological tools

Highlight barriers to uptake, limitations and incentives

Evaluate perceived usefulness (Judson, 2006)

Suggest strategies to improve future provision

Methodology


A$review$of$staff$engagement$with$digital$technologies$on$an$undergraduate$language$programme
Participant$questionnaire$V$Benoît$Guilbaud$V$June$2012

Section*1*–*Interactive*whiteboards*(IWB)
#
NB:#For#the#purpose#of#this#study,#only#activities#involving#the#use#of#the#wireless#ActivPen#to#interact#with#
the#touchscreen#of#the#IWB#are#taken#into#consideration.
Using#a#computer#and#data#projector#to#display#or#edit#information#without#the#use#of#the#wireless#ActivPen#
does#not#qualify#as#using#an#IWB.

# To#what#extent#do#you#agree#with#the#following#statements?#Please#tick#one#box#per#line.

Part 1
1. Awareness
$

Strongly$ Somewhat$ Somewhat$ Strongly$ Don’t$know$
# Statements
agree agree disagree disagree N/A

I$consider$myself$familiar$with$the$
1.1 17% 50% 10% 20% 3%
capabilities$of$IWB

I$am$aware$of$some$of$the$basic$

May-June 2012
1.2 33% 50% 10% 3% 3%
functions$of$IWB

I$am$aware$of$some$advanced$
1.3 10% 23% 30% 30% 7%
functions$of$IWB

I$consider$myself$an$advanced$
1.4 10% 7% 20% 57% 2%
IWB$user

Quantitative questionnaire
2.*Training

# Statement Yes No I$can’t$remember

I$have$attended$IWB$
2.1 training$provided$by$my$ 43% 50% 7%
institution

# Statements

IWB$training$provided$by$my$
Strongly$
agree
Somewhat$
agree
Somewhat$
disagree
Strongly$
disagree
Don’t$know$
N/A
(Bernard, 2000)
2.2 institution$was$sufRicient$for$my$ 27% 13% 13% 10% 37%
needs

Complementary$IWB$training$
2.3 37% 40% 10% 3% 10%
should$be$offered

The$times$and$dates$of$IWB$
2.4 training$were$convenient
17% 20% 3% 13% 47%

I$was$interested$in$attending$IWB$
2.5 50% 17% 23% 7% 3%
training

Page$2$of$12

Part 2

July-September 2012

Semi-structured interviews

(Gall, Gall & Borg, 1996)

Picture by Kamujp via ﬂickr.com

Tools reviewed
#1. One that seems to work - Virtual Learning Environment

#2. One that doesn’t seem to work - Interactive Whiteboards

#3. One that seems worth developing - Social Media

Findings


#1. VLE (Moodle)


VLE
Skills & training
Basic use 100 %

Advanced use 90 %

Training attended 93 %

Interest in training 84 %

Satisfaction with training 81 %

% of total number of participants

VLE
Institutional requirements
Good awareness of requirements 76 %

Requirements are reasonable 63 %

Requirements are not enough 53 %

Feel supported by institution 67 %

Driving innovation 70 %

VLE

Tutor
Communication

Student
Student


VLE
Open / closed

Other
Unit tutor
tutors

Other Outside
Moodle unit
students world

Institution Unit students

VLE
Other considerations
Beneﬁcial to students’ learning ✓

Large amounts of content can discourage attendance ✓

Content should be a satisfactory replacement for classes ✗

Saves time ✗
Useful overall & should be developed further ✓

(IWB)
#2. Interactive Whiteboards


Picture by Pablog61 via ﬂickr.com

IWB
Equipment

Basic use Advanced use
36% of teaching
rooms equipped
Writing Annotating screen

Drawing Interactive activities

Estimated initial Student engagement
cost: £50,000
Saving contents

IWB
Skills & training
Basic use 83 %

Advanced use 33 %

Training attended 50 %

Interest in training 67 %

Amount of training sufﬁcient 40 %

IWB
Institutional requirements
& recommendations

Error 404
Slide not found

IWB
Use
“IWB are (or can be) useful
83%
for teaching and learning”

Use it 2 to 3 times
per year or less 60%

Never use it 37%

IWB
Use
Writing 53 %

Drawing 30 %

Interactive activities 23 %

Annotating desktop / video 13 %

Engaging students 40 %

IWB
Other considerations
I feel encouraged by my institution to use IWB ✗

I have sufﬁcient time to use / prepare classes with an IWB ✗

Using an IWB saves me time ✗

IWB are usually available in the rooms where I teach ✗

If more widely available, I would use IWB more ✓

Open learning Digital identity

Digital literacy
Participation

Sharing
Social

Personal Learning Transparency
Network

Social Media

% of don’t know answers
23%
Awareness


Social Media
Skills & training
Basic use 57%

Advanced use 35%

Training attended 33%

Interest in training 72%

Amount of training sufﬁcient 42%

% of opinions expressed

Social Media
Use
“Social Media can be useful
77%
to my students’ learning”

Use it 2 to 3 times
per year or less 74%

Never use it 60%

Social Media

Tutor
Communication

Student
Student


Social Media
Open learning (Couros, 2011)

Privacy Outside
Tutor world
Awareness
Personal
VLE Training Learning
Network
Time
Open
Student Resources education

Conclusions


Tool selection

Select technology to address an issue or encourage innovation

Critically evaluate technological tools
(Chappelle, 2010)
Picture by toolstop via ﬂickr.com

Curriculum
integration

Deeper integration prevents “bluetak” effect

Adequately factor training in staff workload

Picture by Gingher via ﬂickr.com

Over-reliance
on hardware

Allocate no more than 1/3 of buget to hardware + software
(Morino Institute, 2001)
Ensure consistency & availability

Picture by ehpien via ﬂickr.com

Open learning

Raise awareness of applications and beneﬁts of OL

Develop Digital Literacies
(Belshaw, 2011)
Promote participation
(Jenkins, 2006)

Belshaw, D., 2011. What is digital literacy? A Pragmatic investigation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at http://
neverendingthesis.com and http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/cgi/latest [accessed 28th March 2012].

Chapelle, C., 2010. Evaluating computer technology for language learning. Contact: Teachers of English as a Second
Language of Ontario, 36(2), pp.56-67.

Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International
Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Chajut, E., 2010. You Can Teach Old Dogs New Tricks: The Factors That Affect Changes over Time in
Digital Literacy. In: Journal of Information Technology Education, vol. 9.

Judson, E., 2006. How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning - Is There a Connection? In: Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), pp.581-597.

Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the
classroom: developmental scenery. In: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), pp.233-263.

Morino Institute (The), 2001. From access to outcomes: raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income
communities. [Online] The Morino Institute. Available at: http://www.morino.org/divides/report.pdf [accessed 4 July 2012].

Wheeler, S., 2012. Digital Pedagogy: Content is a Tyrant, Context is King. In: NAACE 2012 Annual Conference, 9 March
2012, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Any questions?
#LLASconf2012

Benoît Guilbaud
b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk
@benguilbaud

A review of staff engagement with digital technologies on an undergraduate language programme

A review of staff engagement with digital technologies on an undergraduate language programme

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (10)

Más de Benoît Guilbaud

Más de Benoît Guilbaud (7)

Último

Último (20)

A review of staff engagement with digital technologies on an undergraduate language programme