Brett Lucas is the
Website Developer and
Learning Technologist
at the English Subject
C entre.
Why do some English lecturers embrace teaching with new technologies while others view it with scorn and dread? Two years ago I reported on the English Subject Centre’s E-Advocates project, which was all about embedding and facilitating effective support for e-learning in English courses (see Newsletter 11). This article provides an update on the outcomes of that project as it reaches the end of its second highly successful year reaching across nine English departments. The results provide useful insights into how departments can provide more effective support for individual academics wishing to incorporate new teaching and learning tools into their classroom practice. The key, we’ve learned, is to consider subject-based support solutions to complement existing institutional or faculty-based e-learning support.
Background
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) and other e-learning tools have become ubiquitous throughout higher education in the past few years. However, research carried out by the English Subject Centre has shown that their actual use in delivering enhanced teaching in blended learning environments is patchy to say the least. In a national survey of English departments we carried out in 2005, we confirmed that two of the principal barriers to the development of effective e-learning practice among English academics were lack of time and insufficient or inappropriate support. In the same year as our study, the UK government’s own 5-year e-learning strategy, ‘Harnessing Technology: transforming learning and children’s services’, echoed our findings: one of the government’s six key priorities for reform was ‘good-quality ICT training and support’. Unfortunately, even though we now have national and institutional strategies and drivers for the embedding of e-learning, there is a frustrating mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality in a typical university English department.
On the one hand we hear that new technologies are radically changing what and how we teach, while simultaneously enhancing the way our students learn; on the other hand we find, in many English departments, such things as:
- Staff too busy with the day-to-day demands of ‘being an academic’ to either familiarise themselves with the potential for new technologies to transform their teaching practice or gain the necessary skills to achieve this.
- Students finding the delivery of blended learning to be patchy across years and modules (eg all modules in the first year involving some blended learning while just a few in the second and third do).
- Archaic hardware on academics’ desks eg PCs with low memory and poor multimedia support.
- Inadequate IT infrastructure in allocated teaching spaces
- No department-wide strategy for ICT skills development/literacy for either staff or students.
Not surprisingly, the persistence of strong cultural resistance to anything ‘digital’ is exacerbating these support issues. Ironically, many of the messages that the wider e-learning community and the national support agencies may have hoped were getting through to individual English academics, are not.
Local support for academics usually means they have access to some combination of the following:
- One-to-one or group meetings with a departmental, school or faculty e-learning rep/learning technologist.
- Centrally run generic training workshops/induction programmes (eg ‘How to use WebCT’) which may or may not be divided into levels.
- Co-ordinated professional development programmes.
- Institutional e-learning seminars (which may or may not be subject specific).
- Internal or external e-learning or teaching funds for e-learning projects.
- Staff rewards for e-learning work (eg e-learning champions).
- Attending national e-learning conferences, events etc.
- Online help and advic,e either on the intranet or Internet.
- Help manuals, e-learning books or academic journals.
While the support mechanisms detailed above aim to support the embedding of e-learning, in practice they are not proving effective enough. Other research shows how, all too often, staff are unclear as to the relevance of e-learning courses to their practice or even aware that courses are available and struggle to develop courses themselves (Quinsee & Simpson, 2005). Sound familiar?
So what is going wrong?
Have we created expectations of support that just cannot be met?
Do academics feel more comfortable hearing about new teaching ideas, whether using technology or otherwise, from their subject peers rather than ‘outsiders’?
Would it be more effective to embed the support within the department rather than rely on external mechanisms/drivers to draw academics in?
To find answers to these questions, the E-Advocate project (funded by the JISC Distributed e-learning (DEL) programme) is exploring a different support model. The project involves the appointment of a self-selected ‘e-learning advocate’, supported by their Head of Department, who gets a day a week buyout for an academic year to work with their colleagues on e-learning-related initiatives.
Institution
Stage 1 - 2006/7 Academic Year
University of Wolverhampton (W)
Birmingham City University (BCU)
University of Lancaster (L)
Bishop Grosseteste University College (BG)*
University of Hull (H)
University of Northampton (N)
Stage 2 - 2007/8 Academic Year
Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU)
University of Plymouth (P)*
University of Aberystwyth (A)
University of Wolverhampton (W)
* E-Learning Advocates and their institutions over the 2-year project period (*=HOD)
Approach
E-learning advocates: (from Top left): Stuart Robertson, BCU; Lesley Coote, Hull;
Will Slocombe & Louise Marshall, Aberystwyth; Rosie Miles, Wolverhampton;
Chris Ringrose, Northampton; Jesse Edwards, Manchester Metropolitan;
Peter Hinds, Plymouth; Lee Horsley, Lancaster; Matthew Day, Bishop Grosseteste
In the two stages of the project (2006–2007 and 2007–2008), English departments across the UK were invited to submit proposals indicating how they would embed e-learning in their departments given the support of a nominated e-learning advocate for one day a week. The advocate would act as both a catalyst for change within the department and a source of practical help and advice for those wishing to make greater use of e-learning. Interested departments submitted innovative ideas which reached across their departments (and in one case region) and involved design, development and refiguring of e-learning materials, integration of new teaching tools, like blogs and podcasts, and new assessment methods. Applicants also had to demonstrate how the support model proposed would integrate with existing institution-based strategies, initiatives or support structures.
In the first year six advocates were chosen. In the second year we were able to fund three more advocate roles, one of which was shared between two academics. We also created a new role of ‘e-learning consultant’ whose function was to act as a roving ambassador of e-learning among all the participants and to assist the project manager in an evaluative role (see list above).
The academics chosen comprise a mix of experience levels from a range of higher education institutional contexts, all of whom share an enthusiasm for what e-learning can bring to the student learning experience. All six advocates from stage 1 have written reports on their work, which are available from the English Subject Centre website.
Results to date
‘The e-advocacy award … not only freed a little time for additional work on these projects, but (more importantly, I think) gave a demonstration of external support that was enormously useful in negotiating both at department and faculty level. In an atmosphere in which it’s very hard (still) to secure time for pursuing e-learning developments..’ (Horsley, 2007)
The project is now reaching the end of its second and final year, and some of the many achievements are profiled below:
I Pedagogical development
All nine advocates have developed, extended and improved both their own as well as many of their colleagues’ online courses.
Examples
At Bishop Grosseteste (BG), the advocate has increased the breadth and depth of e-learning use in the department. The freeing up of time allowed the department to incorporate aspects of e-learning into all the courses offered through the VLE for the first time. At Wolverhampton and Lancaster discussion forum activities were introduced, extended and, in some cases, assessed. Plymouth introduced a wiki-based activity where students created annotated texts collaboratively. Aberystwyth has been working with the Computer Science department in the development of a computer game that could facilitate deeper textual engagement among literature students.
II Shaping policy
Having an English academic on an institutional committee has enabled the shaping of school, faculty and university learning and teaching strategies from a Humanities perspective.
Examples
At Birmingham City University (BCU), e-learning has been put at the forefront of school and faculty plans, through the influence of the e-learning advocate who has been influential in determining priorities. At Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), the advocate has mediated in complex infrastructural issues that were threatening to undermine the distance teaching programme within the department.
III Sharing of best practice
Every advocate had a different way of doing this, but all agreed that it was of primary importance when working with colleagues.
Examples
Putting together a series of staff development workshops proved popular, encouraging staff to share what they were doing with each other, bouncing ideas off outside guest speakers (from other English departments) or networking with other local e-learning support staff. At Lancaster instruction sessions were provided to postgraduate and inexperienced lecturers first, as these groups proved more receptive to new ideas. At Northampton, working with individuals, or groups of two or three on specific issues and tools, with a particular end in view (such as how to set the ‘tone’ of academic discourse in a blog) proved more practical and productive than formal staff development sessions.
IV Personal development and recognition
One of the most fascinating results of the project has been the way in which winning external project money has ‘shone a light’ on the advocate, and this has often resulted in both an increased recognition of English needs and requirements (see II), as well as more funding becoming available.
Examples
At Hull £7,500 was made available for a mini-lab, and at BCU resources were made available to refurbish derelict teaching space, and several advocates had their ‘antique’ computer hardware upgraded.
V Building the departmental skills base
Departments showed a diversity of approaches to the development of e-learning skills.
Examples
At BCU, the advocate realised that what staff wanted was not examples of what they might do, but help in developing what they were already doing. At Hull personalised training courses were developed for staff in the use of the Interactive Whiteboard. Aberystwyth carried out a skills audit at the beginning of their advocacy and subsequently ran a workshop on how to use writeboards (shareable web-based documents that enable collaboration), because that was where staff interest was concentrated. The workshop was then posted to the staff Blackboard site.
VI Updating spaces
21st-century flexible and well-equipped learning spaces can be a catalyst for educational change. Some advocates were able to take advantage of opportunities in their institutions.
Examples
Refurbishment work in the arts building at Northampton resulted in significant equipment upgrade in all the teaching rooms partly encouraged by the project. Similarly, an interactive whiteboard lab was built at Hull, and most teaching spaces at BG acquired Interactive Whiteboards.
‘… the project has begun a movement, at first small- then large-scale, towards improving facilities and inspiring staff and students to add variety to their learning and teaching experiences – not least by also inspiring people at the head of the faculty’s teaching and administration. The university has just demanded JISC-style flexible learning spaces, and we already have one! The project has resulted in ‘kudos gain’ for the faculty within the university.’ (Coote, 2007)
VII Better understanding of the student experience
Involving students in the departments’ e-learning initiatives was highlighted as crucial by many of the advocates.
Examples
Aberystwyth carried out a comprehensive survey of all under- and postgraduate students, expectations and experiences of e-learning at the start of their advocacy. BCU ran focus groups with student volunteers, where they were encouraged to articulate their experiences and expectations, informing decisions about the kinds of activities likely to be successful.
VIII Breaking down disciplinary barriers
Could virtual space assist in the breaking down of barriers between English subjects and cognate subjects?
Examples
At Lancaster the advocate worked hard to extend the already successful e-learning approaches used in the Creative Writing programmes over to the teaching of literature. At Hull colleagues from English, American Studies, Film Studies and Creative Writing shared ideas about using interactive whiteboard software in joint workshops.
IX Effective use of e-learning tools and resources
New e-learning tools were incorporated into many courses across the nine institutions involved in the project.
Examples
Of particular note would be the successful incorporation of wikis (for annotating texts and supporting seminars) into courses at Plymouth and MMU. Northampton developed the use of blogs for summative assessment and student reflection throughout a module, and the advocate noted that it was in this area that the most progress was made and where there was the greatest impact on student work. Podcasting too was introduced to staff and incorporated into several modules.
Issues
While the results are impressive, some of the advocates have experienced challenges when working with colleagues as an ‘advocate’ of a particular educational orthodoxy. The resistance, mentioned previously, may take longer than a year to break down. Several advocates had to trim back their original project plans as the year proceeded, as they were simply attempting to do too much over too many courses or attempting to ‘win over’ every colleague in the department.
There was a growing appreciation among all the advocates that the work they were undertaking is ongoing and that one academic year was not enough to register substantial change. Colleagues need time to integrate new teaching ideas into courses and much of the advocates’ work would bear fruit in subsequent years.
Ironically, another issue identified was that change often outstrips the support that is available. This was particularly true in relation to podcasting (is there a streaming server available?) and wikis (I’m not allowed to use an externally hosted service). Technology itself is still a huge barrier, with problems such as unreliability of provision, insufficient bandwidth, old kit or disorganised server upgrades.
Conclusions
The context in which most higher education practitioners work today does not facilitate the experimentation and play necessary for exploration of effective e-learning pedagogy. This project has been a source of stimulation and productivity for all nine departments involved because it has given nine academics that opportunity. It has connected lecturers from different universities in new kinds of communities, yet each person has focused on innovation within a particular curriculum and a particular institution. It has also added an element of persistence to staff development projects and personalised the issue of e-learning within a host department (Ringrose, 2007). In all the departments involved, the groundwork has been laid from which significant benefits may be reaped in future years.
For similar opportunities to be available to the wider community, more resource will need to be made available to departments to establish advocacy programmes. I would urge Heads of English Departments to consider making funding available or apply for internal funding for this kind of initiative.
Continuing the achievements of existing advocates will need further energy and efforts to be applied to achievements made to date. While delivering blended learning can save time in the medium term, online courses still require care, attention, nurturing, refreshing and even overhaul!
If we, as Humanities practitioners, want to join the educational technology revolution that is occurring around us, we need to step back and look at the wider picture. More digitisation, more electronic resources, more e-books, more e-literate students more features in the VLE are all a given. But only if we have a departmental skills base that is able to discuss the pros and cons of all these teaching tools/resources from a common knowledgeable starting point will we, as a community, be able to shape this pedagogy. Having an e-learning advocate down the corridor might just be the best way to achieve this.
19 tips for embedding e-learning in your departments
1. Maintain a supply of exemplars of good practice to stimulate the imagination of colleagues; develop sample courses with practical exercises that have worked, design templates that colleagues can re-use, share student feedback from successful modules with sceptical colleagues, point to work at other universities (e.g. Subject Centre case studies) can all help to overcome the ‘I can’t see how it can be of any use to me’ refrain.
2. Link e-learning to summative assessment where possible. This can be done through assessed blogs, wikis and discussion board contributions, or through essay-based work which draws upon 'learning objects' or on-line research tasks. Design on-line assessments that combine specific 'prompts' with freedom for students to invent their own forms of engagement with texts.
3. Involve students in your e-learning developments e.g. setting up a focus group to feedback on innovations, involving them in development of content and generally asking students, often, what would improve their e-learning experiences. Perhaps use a separate discussion board for this process.
4. Work on a broad front and try a number of different approaches so that your e-learning has variety. Don't worry if some ideas don't work out.
5. Be really clear about why you want to use or do e-anything. Are you sure it is an improvement on what went before or is it just different (and therefore by definition just time-consuming)? Are you sure you are getting a benefit and can you
i) articulate it,
ii) measure it (qualitatively or quantitatively)?
6. Understand that embedding e-learning takes time (perhaps even several years to effect an embedded and worked through change in a course, so it is likely to be the same if not more in terms of an entire programme) so you may not achieve miracles in one year; however, you may well lay the foundations on which further developments can be built.
7. Work with small groups of staff and involve them by targeting aspects of their students' learning that they would like to improve (e.g. reflection on material outside the seminar; additional reading; use of sound research methods).
8. Encourage staff to apply for external e-learning funding. This funding can raise the profile of the individual and the department and often open up opportunities for additional internal funding opportunities.
9. Accustom staff to online tools by develop a useful set of staff intranet pages within the VLE where they can find admin docs, departmental procedures, key contacts around campus..tips advice and guidance perhaps using a wiki, HOD blog etc. Virtual space can make a major contribution to furthering collaboration and understanding between the different sub-disciplines within a department.
10. Colleagues often want and intend to be involved but need to create a mental space and mental time in which to do so. Those breathing spaces in the academic year such as assessment weeks, the last week of term and perhaps first week of vacation when people are still around constitute good times for people to turn their attention to something new such as e-learning;
11. Try and be an e-learning advocate by example rather than persuasion not everyone will ever be persuaded. Better to work with those who are open to the possibilities of e-learning than spend a lot of time and effort trying to persuade those who probably never will be.
12. Include a question on e-learning as standard in the student feedback surveys. Then hope that this does not backfire.
13. Focus on what you are enthusiastic about.
14. Give feedback to e-learners little and often.
15. Individual staff meetings often proved more effective than group sessions.
16. Get departmental representation on institution wide committees; estates, library services, ICT infrastructure etc English as a subject needs to make its needs heard!
17. Demonstration meetings can be more worthwhile than ‘meetings to talk about e-learning’.
18. Refits or refurbishment of rooms can be a useful catalyst..making tutors aware of the potential for using equipment such as whiteboards, visualisers, voting systems etc
19. Perhaps as a model e-advocacy needs to be developed through longer term, larger scale projects which involve subject departments in developing their teaching and support for learning, demonstrating within their local circumstances what can be achieved when subject specialists and learning technologists work together. This kind of longer term project is of course more difficult to manage and maintain, risking achieving only interference with existing structures rather than positive change. The gain would be that e-learning would be driven from the ‘bottom-up’, by those teaching, rather than driven only by technology providers and budget holders.
References
Coote, L. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/6dg245
Day, M. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/6pgn8w
Department for Education and Skills. Harnessing Technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/ [last accessed June 08]
Horsley, H. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/5876g4
Miles, R. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/64b8b6
Quinsee, S. & Simpson, V. (2005) Engaging Staff in Organizational Change for e-Learning. Paper from the 7th Annual WebCT User Conference, San Francisco USA.
Ringrose, C. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/6678f4
Robertson, S. (2007). Embedding E-learning using E-learning Advocates – Project report.
http://tinyurl.com/6glfe6
