Appendix A: Sample Introduction
Background • Research Focus • Overall Research Aim and Individual
Research Objectives
Background
The traditional approach to teaching and learning has, for millennia, rested on
the central premise that for instruction to take place, the tutor and student
co-exist in the same place at the same time. Aristotle’s lectures, preserved in
the writings of Plato, are examples of such an approach, where the student
is educated on particular topics through the mechanism of illuminating con-
versations – dialogues – between tutor and student (Taylor 1955). However,
few universities have the generous resources required to support one-to-one
tuition as the prevailing mode of educational delivery; rather, the common
method consists of a combination of lectures, seminars/tutorials and, where
appropriate, laboratory work; where each of the aforementioned ways of
imparting knowledge involves face-to-face instruction and discussion.
At a simple level, the use of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) are used frequently to support the traditional teaching and learning para-
digm. Academic staff regularly use presentational software, such as PowerPoint,
to facilitate lectures; during laboratory sessions, university networked com-
puter systems are used by students to access applications software and print to
a common printer; and e-mail systems are used by students to send messages
to one another and receive advice from tutors. Haywood et al. (2004) believe
that most students about to enter university own a PC with Internet access,
and that they use ICT regularly, for a variety of activities, ranging from recre-
ational purposes, such as browsing online music stores or e-mailing friends, to
more complex activities, such as media downloads or shopping; and that as a
result, their expectations of ICT-usage at university are high.
Universities not only use ICT at a simple level – for e-mailing, printing
documents, student access to common application software – but have moved
rapidly into acquiring advanced software and hardware technologies. In
particular, use of the Internet coupled with dedicated software platforms that
206 APPENDIX A
enable independent learning, such as Blackboard and WebCT, provide institu-
tions with the opportunity to offer educational programmes free from the
shackles of time and place (Farrell 2001). It is estimated that over 80% of the
use of WebCT, a course authoring software platform, is to support classroom
teaching (Bates 2001). There is also much interest from universities to exploit
ICT in distance learning, with Moe and Blodget (2000: 104) emphasizing that
‘the next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education’.
Online learning, networked learning, distributed learning, flexible learning,
virtual learning, are some of the terms used to describe learning that uses
technology as a vehicle for educational delivery (Salmon 1998; Jung 2000;
Rosenberg 2001; Collis and Moonen 2001; Britain and Liber 2002). Another,
more commonly used term is e-Learning (Ryan 2001; Sloman and Rolph
2003). Tearle et al. (1999: 14) caution universities that they need to engage
e-Learning, particularly for distance learning, and that ‘it is no longer possible
to opt out.’ In the UK, the Dearing Report (1997) foresaw benefits of using ICT
in higher education:
. . . we believe that the innovative application of . . . C&IT holds out much prom-
ise for improving the quality, flexibility and effectiveness of higher education.
The potential benefits will extend to, and affect the practice of, learning and
teaching and research. (13.1)
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE 2000) in an
online press release, reinforced the promise of e-Learning as outlined in the
Dearing Report, when it enthuses that e-Learning will be a ‘dynamic new way
of delivering high quality higher education’.
It is not difficult to find examples of universities responding to the call
to develop e-Learning initiatives. The International Virtual Medical School
(IVMeDS) is a worldwide partnership of 36 leading edge medical schools and
institutions, including Trinity College Dublin (Ireland), James Cook University
(Australia) and the University Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy). IVMeDS uses
e-Learning to aid medical education. Partnership institutions have access to
the online digital learning resources (Figure A1). The Centre for Instructional
Technologies, a unit of the Division of Instructional Innovation and Assess-
ment at The University of Texas at Austin have embraced enthusiastically
the concept of e-learning by creating an online ‘World Lecture Hall’, whereby
online course materials are provided free to any interested parties who, in turn,
can also contribute new material if they wish.
However, is this push for e-Learning, whether on-campus or off-campus,
problem-free, leading to an educational utopia, where university staff and stu-
dents can seamlessly exploit e-Learning to enhance teaching and learning?
Technological advances increasingly present a serious and genuine challenge
to the traditional teaching and learning model (Collis and Moonen 2001;
Laurillard 2002). Tomei (2004), for example, highlights the impact of online
teaching on academic staff ‘load’, warning that the ideal class size for online
APPENDIX A 207
Figure A1 IVMeDS
Source: (www.ivimeds.org/).
Reproduced with kind permission of IVIMEDS.
teaching ought to be 12 students. Jones et al. (2004) highlight that e-Learning
students expect staff to respond expediently to their online queries, and no
later than 48 hours. And Hodges (2004) argues that e-Learning tutors need to
incorporate techniques to motivate students involved in subjects that are
delivered through e-Learning. Increased staff workload, response times and
online motivational techniques are some of the issues that academic tutors
involved in e-Learning ought to be trained to cope with, particularly if they are
new to making the transition from teaching and learning in the traditional
environment to one where e-Learning technologies are to be used.
E-Learning environments are changing the role of the university tutor, where
tutors need to learn to become guides and facilitators, rather than the main
source of knowledge, as in the traditional teaching and learning environment
(Collins and Berge 1996), with Salmon (2000) underlining that such a transi-
tion requires new skills, including time management skills, ability to monitor
the student learning process, and the skill to change teaching methods to meet
the needs of e-Learning students.
208 APPENDIX A
Research focus
There is some confusion about the benefits of e-Learning. Serious issues are
being raised concerning possible impediments to the successful adoption of
e-Learning. For example, there have been concerns over student drop-out rates
(Flood 2002), inadequate IT infrastructures to support e-Learning (Cowan
2004), and the need to ensure that e-Learning software facilities can accom-
modate students with disabilities (UK eUniversities Worldwide 2003). Massy
(2002), in a European survey on quality and e-Learning, lamented that only
1% of respondents – a mixture of Higher Education (HE) teachers, Further
Education (FE) Teachers, HE and FE managers, and private trainers – rated the
quality of e-Learning courses as excellent, with 61% of all respondents rating
the overall quality of e-Learning negatively.
E-Learning commentators are also warning that academic staff in uni-
versities require to be prepared to cope with e-Learning, to make the shift from
sage on the stage to guide on the side. As early as 1997, Dearing highlighted in his
report (1997: 36) that ‘many academics have had no training and little experi-
ence in the use of communications and information technology as an edu-
cational tool.’ Laurillard (2001) argues that e-Learning requires new skills to
deal with new pedagogy. Straub (2002), the director of eLearning Solutions
and chairman of the European eLearning Industry Group, complains that
‘e-learning [is not] taking off [in Europe] in our daily lives – in schools, com-
panies and universities’, concluding that key reasons for this include, inter alia,
the lack of ‘professional development of educators’ and a failure to engage
‘new pedagogy’.
Clearly, academic staff support is crucial for the success of e-Learning, and a
major factor in gaining academic support is the need to prepare them to be able
to meet the challenge of e-Learning (Bates 2000; Epic 2002; Gerrard 2002).
Given that the traditional model for teaching and learning in the university
environment is one that has prevailed for centuries, and that e-Learning
(theoretically) encourages a different, more collaborative relationship in the
learning process between the principle teaching and learning stakeholders –
staff and students – then it would be unwise to assume that such a significant
shift in educational practices will occur naturally in the university environ-
ment. Critical to the value and logic of the research in this study is an under-
standing of the type of support that is required to prepare academic staff from
making the change from sage on the stage to guide on the side, the type of
support that is available to prepare staff for e-Learning, and what recom-
mendations can be made to help improve existing support frameworks.
Understanding how academic staff are being prepared for e-Learning, and
their views on their preparation experiences is therefore an area worthy of
study and one that would contribute knowledge to the e-Learning research
community. The importance of research in this field of e-Learning becomes
APPENDIX A 209
even more apparent when other researchers mourn the lack of research in this
area. Vermeer (2000: 329) complains of too little research of staff experiences
in e-Learning and that much commentary is anecdotal in nature, mainly com-
ing from ‘the enthusiasm of the recently converted’, while Coppola et al.
(2001: 96) urge that ‘there is a critical need for study of faculty experiences’;
and as far afield as New Zealand there is a national priority for ‘more research
into the effectiveness and theoretical base of e-learning’ as a result of practi-
tioners ‘finding their progress restricted by the lack of available research into
e-Learning’ (Ministry of Education 2004: 1).
A major focus of this research will concentrate on university academic staff
preparation issues related to e-Learning, including barriers to the successful
implementation of e-Learning. What training are they receiving to prepare
them for e-Learning? What advice is available to help staff better understand
the pedagogical shift from traditional teaching and learning paradigms to
e-Learning environments? Are there guidance models or frameworks to help
prepare staff for e-Learning? What motivates staff to become involved in
e-Learning? What demotivates them to become involved? What barriers can
hinder staff involvement in e-Learning? To gain a deeper understanding of
these issues related to academic staff preparation, two main activities will
need to be tackled: a review of relevant literature to ascertain current research
findings on e-Learning preparation issues, including potential barriers; and
empirical data collection on academic staff experiences of preparing for
e-Learning.
Further, to gain a meaningful picture of how academic staff are being pre-
pared for e-Learning, including personal drivers and barriers, it is important to
place academic staff preparation issues in the context of the wider e-Learning
picture in universities. Thus, the literature review will examine the forces that
are driving universities to engage e-Learning, and the potential barriers to
successful e-Learning innovations. Similarly, the empirical data – although
concentrating on academic staff experiences and perspectives – will seek the
views of those who are directing e-Learning (mainly senior staff ) to place the
views of academic staff in a wider university context.
One could argue that e-Learning is a subset of learning, and that a study of
e-Learning is actually a study of learning, and that, as such, the ‘e’ in
e-Learning is, if not superfluous, then over-emphasized. To adopt this
approach would be to introduce unnecessary artificial barriers between learn-
ing and e-Learning. The traditional approach to teaching and learning is based
on an instructional model, where teachers are the providers of knowledge and
students the receivers; e-Learning underlines a constructionist model, one
which requires participation between teacher and student, where the student
plays a more active role in the learning process, and the tutor a more passive
role in the teaching process (Papert 1998). In other words, e-Learning is a
different approach to learning (and teaching) in terms of emphasis placed on
staff and student roles: it is not different from learning. This may be a subtle
point, but it is an important one. The move away from the traditional teaching
210 APPENDIX A
paradigm to a constructivist model impacts on staff and students and thus
makes the study of e-Learning – a vehicle for a constructivist paradigm – an
area worthy of study.
Overall research aim and individual
research objectives
The overall aim of this research is to advance an understanding of the impact
of e-Learning in the university environment in relation to academic staff train-
ing preparation. However, in order to understand staff preparation issues it is Howev
felt necessary to gain an insight into the forces driving e-Learning and to er后⾯
explore the barriers to the implementation of e-Learning programmes. It
would be difficult to comprehend how staff ought to meet the challenge of
加
e-Learning without knowing the drivers behind e-Learning or the potential Focus
barriers, both strategic and personal. And given the confusion between those
who predict an exponential e-Learning utopia and those who raise some con-
cerns, it is all the more important to try and clarify e-Learning drivers and
barriers. Further, this research will assess existing guidelines supporting staff
and student needs (teaching staff need to understand what support a student
requires to be in a position to help the student) and explore the experiences
and views of staff involved in e-Learning preparation. In turn, two main
research vehicles will be exploited to facilitate this study: an in-depth review of
relevant literature and the collection and analysis of empirical data. The section
entitled Research Methods contains the details of both the research strategy
and the data collection techniques to be used to obtain the empirical data.
Specifically, within the context of higher education, the objectives of this
research are to:
1 Identify the forces driving e-Learning and the barriers to the successful
delivery of e-Learning programmes.
2 Evaluate critically models and frameworks relevant to supporting academic
staff in coping with e-Learning.
3 Explore staff stakeholder views and practices related to e-Learning prepar-
ation, including drivers and barriers to e-Learning.
4 Formulate recommendations on staff preparation issues.
At the risk of oversimplification of the purpose and value of each of the above
objectives, objectives 1 and 2 focus on reasons and emerging issues, whereas it
is in objectives 3 and 4 where this research will make key contributions to the
field of e-Learning. It would be a mistake for the reader to view each of the
stated research objectives as separate, unrelated activities. The listed objectives
APPENDIX A 211
are necessarily interlinked. The first objective – on e-Learning drivers/barriers –
will cover initially both strategic and personal drivers, each of which will be
of relevance to universities preparing for e-Learning. For example, it will, in
effect, attempt to answer the question ‘are there forces pushing universities
towards e-Learning and, if so, what are they?’ An example of such a driver could
be perceived saving in teaching time, which, if the case, may act as a driver to
encourage staff to participate in university e-Learning initiatives. Objective 1
will also reflect on impediments to e-Learning preparation: an example of a
barrier might be perceived threats to job security for academic staff, thus
impacting on staff motivation to become involved in e-Learning. Objective 2 –
on structured approaches to help staff and universities tackle e-Learning – is of
obvious relevance to e-Learning preparation. And objective 3 – on stakeholder
views – provides an opportunity to gain meaningful insight into the views of
academic staff, and management, on what would encourage them to become
involved in e-Learning (drivers), what would discourage them (barriers) and
how are they actually preparing for e-Learning as well as their views on their
institution’s approach. Finally, objective 4 – formulating recommendations –
will, as a result of both a review of literature and the collection and discussion
of empirical data, make recommendations. The objectives are not to be seen
as independent of each other, but rather as all linked to issues surrounding
e-Learning preparation in higher education.
This research work will contribute to the development to the discipline of
e-Learning in a number of important ways: firstly, by providing a critical
review of issues pertinent to the implementation of e-Learning (what is driving
e-Learning and what can act as a barrier); secondly, by critically examining
existing models and frameworks to support academic staff; thirdly, by obtain-
ing the views of a variety of staff stakeholders on existing practices in e-Learning
a rich picture of e-Learning can emerge, allowing a meaningful comparison
between theory and practice, from which an improved understanding of
e-Learning issues in higher education can be derived, particularly with regard
to academic staff training and support in preparing for e-Learning.
The next chapter – Issues and review of related literature – examines
literature pertinent to the objectives of this research, beginning with an
investigation of what is meant by the term e-Learning.
