1. Effective use of educational
technology: Upskilling academics to
deliver learning that successfully
blends pedagogies
Carol Aeschliman, Senior Learning Designer, Learning Transformations Unit,
Swinburne University, PhD Candidate Torrens University.
Dr Bella Ross, Lecturer, Student Academic Support Unit, Faculty of Medicine,
Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University.
Dr Anne-Marie Chase, Course Coordinator, Australian Council for Educational
Research
Dr Ekaterina Pechenkina, Research Fellow, Learning Transformations,
Swinburne University
2. The context
In many universities there are increasing institutional pressures to incorporate
educational technologies in teaching delivery (Becker et al., 2017).
enable more flexible, personalised and mobile types of learning.
Increasingly Universities are attracting diverse cohorts of students who may
be negotiating competing demands of work, health, family and society
(Henderson et al., 2017, Te Riele, 2014).
3. Current climate
Many academics tasked with integrating educational technologies into their
teaching may feel unprepared and untrained for the task (Tyilo, 2017).
Academics are required to stay current, not only in their subject expertise
and the changing pedagogical trends, but also with educational technologies
(Martins & Nunes, 2016).
How best to teach diverse cohorts of students that may not have equal access
to technology or the required skills to use technology for educational
purposes (Becker et al., 2017, Wilkin et al., 2017)?
4. The Challenge
Top-down and structural approaches to implementing change are generally
not very well suited to higher education institutions with their focus on
academic freedom, consultation and collegiality (Carbone et al., 2017).
Despite the best intentions of university learning and teaching strategies, the
focus is not always on pedagogy or best teaching practices (Holmes & Mockler,
2015).
Commonly, universities provide a variety of professional learning opportunities and
employ learning designers and educational technologists to assist academics with
integrating technology into their face-to-face teaching (Dahlstrom, 2015).
There is a clash between academics’ choice and the aspirations of institutions
regarding the adoption of educational technologies (Islam et al., 2015)
5. This study
This presentation focuses on academics’ perceptions of technology-focused
professional development and the factors that impact their ability to deliver
technology-enhanced teaching and learning in their current university
context.
Part of a PhD thesis which employed a mixed methods approach.
Explores issues that impact academics’ ability to manage their blended learning
and teaching
This presentation is informed by the quantitative data gathered from survey
data from 97 participants across 13 Australian universities in 2017.
6. Findings
Of the respondents, 86 per cent (n=97) rated professional development as
either ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’ to the integration of
technology into their face-to-face teaching.
7. Findings: Most useful professional
development
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Internal Workshops External Workshops One on one
sessions
Small group
training
Conferences Advice from
colleagues
Formal programs or
courses
Online training
%ofeducators(N=97)
not at all useful somewhat useful very useful
8. Findings: Professional Development
Most useful PD:
Advice from colleagues: “The most valuable type is relevant and practical.”
1-on-1 sessions: just in time: “There is no point learning about something
that can’t be implemented straight away.”
Internal workshops: “practical Canvas training grade centre and
assignments”, “Blackboard training to upload materials.”
9. Findings: Professional Development
Least useful PD:
Conferences (time, relevance an issue – related to research, subject area, not
technology)
Formal training courses e.g. Graduate certificates (post-graduate)
Online training (except for YouTube)
10. Findings: Drilling down to the additional
critical factors
Findings also revealed several professional development challenges faced by
academics:
Technical support – 90 per cent (n=97)
Better equipped teaching spaces – 84 per cent (n=97)
Time to upskill – 84 per cent (n=97)
Management support – 80 per cent (n=97)
11. Findings: Timely and Time
“Even with all the bells and whistles without prompt and skilled technical
support everything grinds to a halt if something is bumped, projector is out
of focus, the latest upgrade not installed or a student uses the room in
between times and switches things around.”
“Time release to enable development of interactive elements and present
online content beyond simply text”, and “The time to develop new tools is a
significant problem. Where the technology is new, support is also needed to
develop the tool/s” and “Motivation and time to learn…”
“Implementing new tech in the classroom is incredibly time consuming and
often not related to the learning outcomes of the class. It generally needs to
be repeated and maintained therefore actually creating more work without
having the benefit of saving any time at all.”
“I like going to workshops but I learn the most from giving it a go on the spot
and having time to sit at my desk with the tool and a good YouTube video.”
12. Findings: Opportunity
“I don’t feel that my management team is really concerned about giving us
the best training and PD to use technology. They expect us to use a lot of it
but don't encourage it or implement a lot of learning opportunities.”
“At present there seems to be little incentive to innovate, and in fact there
seems to be more incentive through things like the workload model to keep
doing the same old thing.”
13. Drawing conclusions
For some educators the use of technology in their classrooms appears to be
more about meeting student expectations than their learning needs
Others believe that universities expect them to use technology in their face-
to-face teaching. One survey respondent observed that blended teaching “is
a given, that genie’s out of the bottle.”
14. References
BECKER, S. A., CUMMINS, M., DAVIS, A., FREEMAN, A., GLESINGER HALL, C. & ANANTHANARAYANAN, V. 2017. NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium.
CARBONE, A., EVANS, J., ROSS, B., DREW, S., PHELAN, L., LINDSAY, K., COTTMAN, C., STONEY, S. & YE, J. 2017. Assessing distributed leadership for learning and teaching quality: a multi-institutional
study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39, 183-196.
DAHLSTROM, E. 2015. Educational technology and faculty development in higher education. Louisville, CO: Educause Center for Analysis and Research.
HENDERSON, M., SELWYN, N. & ASTON, R. 2017. What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 1567-
1579.
HOLMES, K. & MOCKLER, M. 2015. Ongoing Professional Learning. In: HENDERSON, M. & ROMEO, G. (eds.) Teaching and Digital Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions. Cambridge University
Press.
HOOVER, E. & HARDER, M. K. 2015. What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 175-
188.
ISLAM, N., BEER, M. & SLACK, F. 2015. E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3.
MARTINS, J. T. & NUNES, M. B. 2016. Academics’ e-learning adoption in higher education institutions: a matter of trust. The Learning Organization, 23, 299-331.
SELWYN, N. 2016. Is technology good for education, Cambridge, Wiley.
TE RIELE, K. 2014. Putting the jigsaw together: Flexible learning programs in Australia. Melbourne: The Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and Lifelong Learning.
TYILO, N. 2017. E-Learning as instructional innovation in Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s): Lessons learnt from the literature. Journal of Communication, 8, 87-93.
WILKIN, S., DAVIES, H. & EYNON, R. 2017. Addressing digital inequalities amongst young people: conflicting discourses and complex outcomes. Oxford Review of Education, 43, 332-347.
Most education institutions offer some form of online or blended teaching modes to students. This has enabled more people to access high quality education – students want study to suit their lifestyle.
Universities are pushing for more technology in teaching delivery (top-down approach to implementing teaching change - never a good idea at universities)
discussion/background
current climate of edtech usage in universities.
Digital divide is about access and skills
Issues:
The reality is: academics are not prepared, trained or confident to do this (implications - push for edtech is done poorly; academics are stressed/unhappy; bad teaching practice affects students)
Upskilling academics to deliver learning that successfully blends pedagogies
This presentation focuses on how academics can be upskilled.
One on one sessions
Small groups
Advice from colleagues
Online training – not formal courses – informal learning
Academics raised the following as the most critical factors:
Torrisi’s (2012) research into factors predicting the use of academics’ blended strategies determined that time was a more important factor than teaching facilities, technical support and funding
Teaching spaces - educators expressed their frustration with equipment failures, computer installations not updated and other people “switching things around” in rooms.
Management support - Educators in this survey, perhaps disengaged because they felt disempowered, resisted the LMS, searching rather for technical solutions outside the system.
Quotes that illustrate critical factors
Time to upskill
Assistance to up skill in a tiemly manor – technical support
Management support
Solution:
How best to do this from academics' perspectives (better outcomes for students and staff - and universities)
Selwyn (2018) claims, there is a long way to go before teachers are totally won over by hyperbolic claims of the advantages of technology in teaching, and before the blended teaching and learning paradigm is fully understood.
