Figure 1: Typical OLT site design
Naomi Waldron, Learning Designer, Teaching and Learning Support Services[HREF1], Queensland University of Technology[HREF2], Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove Qld 4059, Email: n.waldron@qut.edu.au.
Shane Dawson, Doctoral Student, Centre for Learning Innovation [HREF3], Queensland University of Technology[HREF2], Email: sp.dawson@qut.edu.au.
Dr Bruce Burnett, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education [HREF4], Queensland University of Technology[HREF2], Email: b.burnett@qut.edu.au.
The use of technologies in universities for administration, research, and teaching and learning has rapidly increased in the last 10 years, with goals of enhancing efficiency and effectiveness across core business. Within the learning and teaching domain, the proliferation of online technologies for delivery and collaboration for educational outcomes, have been noted to be driven more by the perceived possibilities afforded by the technologies rather than the pedagogy (Ehrmann, 2002, [HREF9]). The current challenge for the education sector is to redirect the emphasis towards the pedagogy in relation to educational technology (Oliver & Herrington, 2003, [HREF18]).
In August 2004, the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, funded a project to generate a novel mechanism for staff to engage with the online teaching environment, with the aim to encourage innovation accross the Faculty in both online pedagogies and mainstream good practice. The Innovation, Technology and Pedagogy (ITP) project aimed to advocate new learning and teaching approaches by redirecting conversations about online learning away from a focus on technology towards applications of pedagogy.
This paper outlines the impetus for the use of technologies in learning and teaching within Australian higher education organisations, and describes an academic staff development project developed in response. In reviewing the outcomes of the project, it offers recommendations for other organisations wanting to put pedagogy back into online learning and teaching.
As a result of external government and industry pressures, educational institutions have adopted a business-oriented model of operation. This enables them to function within reduced fiscal constraints and attract new student cohorts while complying with government auditing and accountability demands (Gallagher, 2000, [HREF12]). This reduction in financial funding has resulted in universities seeking additional operational income via the development of fee paying courses, industry partnerships and alumni (McNaught et al, 1999, [HREF16]). The introduction of distributed modes of education have primarily targeted full fee paying international cohorts (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999, [HREF5]). In the "Higher Education Report for the 2004 to 2006 Triennium" the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr. Brendon Nelson, notes that the value of Australia’s education exports exceeded $5.7 Billion in 2003 [HREF17]. The report also notes that coinciding with the fiscal benefits emanating from the international education market are more socially derived benefits such as cultural appreciation and development of good will. This expansion of the distributed education market has seen a shift from education confined to a local and national context, towards a global marketplace. Global telecommunications have enabled universities to expand their potential student cohorts in such a manner that many institutions now compete for similar resources within the same market (Smith et al 2004 p4). An artefact of this expansion has been the enrolment of an increasingly diverse student cohort often requiring flexibility in attendance and assessment, and the introduction of bridging subjects to provide a common educative foundation among students.
In an attempt to cater to these extrinsic pressures, universities have invested in information technologies, particularly in respect to online teaching and learning (Dawson et al, 2004). These include the physical infrastructure (such as increased computer laboratories and media enhanced lecture theatres) as well as the virtual infrastructure (eg learning management systems) (McInness et al. 2000; Bell et al. 2002, [HREF6]). Queensland University of Technology has responded in a similar fashion by investing significant resources into the ongoing development and maintenance of its proprietary learning management system - "Online Learning and Teaching", more commonly known as OLT.
Academics at the chalk-face have had their traditional modes of engaging with students overturned by technology and pedagogical models of social constructivism. Using Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory (1995), staff can be roughly grouped into categories according to their rate of adoption of technology for online learning. Wilson and Stacey (2004, [HREF19]) describe the typical attitudes of academic staff that fall into these categories. The first to adopt technology are a very small group of ‘early adopters’ or ‘enthusiastic experimenters’, who enthusiastically push for ‘bleeding edge’ technology to be included in the online teaching and learning menu. The last to adopt technology are a group of so-called ‘laggards’, who resist technology at all costs. The majority of staff sit somewhere between these two extremes, and seek proven applications of the use of technology in teaching (Wilson and Stacey).
Encouraged via centralised government and University Council directives that promote the adoption and integration of 'new technologies' within teaching and learning, the small group of techno-savvy early adopters have made breakthroughs in the usage of technology in education which have had a somewhat limited dissemination in many cases due to:
Despite these constraints, as enthusiastic and innovative users of technology, this cluster of staff have clearly been the most obvious group to lead the institutional drive to implement innovative online teaching and learning technologies (Ellis et al, 1998, [HREF10]; Ellis & Phelps, 1999, [HREF11]). Although this group of academics have been leaders in the development of online teaching and learning, they have left few working exemplars for staff attempting to engage with the medium for the first time. What we continue to observe appears to be a widening gap between early adopters who may currently be experimenting with Audience Response Systems or distributing unit content to mobile devices, and first-time users struggling to incorporate basic student collaboration tools such as discussion forums (Wilson & Stacey).
The introduction of this project did not attempt to demean the groundbreaking work techno-savvy staff have produced as a result of constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible online. Rather, the focus of the project was to raise the techno-pedagogy understandings of all Faculty staff and to encourage ongoing innovation. In addition, the project aimed to disentangle administrators, staff and students from the ‘spell’ of technologies and to refocus attention on the fundamentals of sound online pedagogy.
The Faculty of Education established the Innovation, Technology and Pedagogy (ITP) project in order to:
Figure 1: Typical OLT site design
Recommendations from the 2003 University-wide online teaching strategic review gave further impetus to the project. The report suggested that at a policy and quality assurance level, the University should support the move towards supplementing traditional teaching practices with online technology (University publication, 2003). Thus, the ITP project aimed to foster a "community of practice" amongst Education Faculty staff that would facilitate the adoption of OLT technologies amongst those staff not currently engaging with the medium. It was argued that by refocusing attention on pedagogy rather than merely the technologies, the ITP project would serve as a platform through which staff could scaffold their use of the online teaching and learning environment.
A project proposal was drafted with the aim to develop a template/toolkit model of disseminating innovative teaching practices across the Faculty. The Faculty showed a clear commitment to investigating and implementing innovation in online teaching and learning by providing appropriate funding for a team of academic staff to be involved in the project.
The project commenced with expressions of interest being sought from staff to participate in the ITP working party. The working party would be required to participate in the project’s development, as well as support the dissemination of the final product amongst the four Schools within the Faculty. A team of eleven staff were selected based on the following criteria:
These criteria were chosen in order to enhance the credibility, marketing, adoption and overall future sustainability of the project within the Faculty. Additional expertise and guidance was provided by a Learning and Teaching Consultant (LTC) for the Faculty from Teaching and Learning Support Services Department (TALSS). The LTC’s primary role was to guide and assist staff in theoretical aspects relating to online pedagogy and to aid in the development of working prototypes. Later in the project, a Learning Designer from TALSS was employed to assist with the final stages of the project and to implement marketing, promotion and integration plans for adoption within the Faculty.
At the inaugural meeting, the working party established a common understanding of scope of the project and outlined the roles and responsibilities of all participants. An initial OLT site was formed to facilitate group communication, ongoing development and the monitoring and progression of the ITP project.
After considerable discussion the working party identified four main areas of concern for academic staff in the adoption of technologies and integrated modes of teaching. These concerns were addressed and revisited throughout the life of the design stage of the project to ensure evolving prototypes remained pertinent and focused. Issues identified as inhibitors to the adoption of online technologies included:
The working party proposed various design solutions in order to address these concerns, and after a number of discussions, the whole group endorsed a design that addressed these issues.
The site was designed as a stand-alone learning resource so that the teaching staff could explore ideas for online teaching and learning at their own leisure or when required. The navigation was designed for rapid and easy access to specific areas of information and exemplars.
A teaching practices theme was developed as the main navigational process, as a means of demonstrating how specific OLT tools can be integrated into teaching and teaching and learning strategies. The final design was represented visually with a series of thematically-based circles. (Figure 2: ITP site design incorporating circular navigational design).
Through the integration of a graphical interface that is distinctly different to the hypertext navigation embedded in the majority of OLT sites (See Figure 1: Typical OLT site design) the entry screen acted as a “signpost” for exploration. The circular nature ensured that users did not prioritise any subsection over another as was often the case when presenting navigational lists. The circular design also reflected constructivist learning theory (Bruner, 1966) in that a sequential or linear pathway to learning was replaced with a non-linear pathway determined by the diversity of skills and prior experiences held by the target audience. Initial user testing has confirmed the exploratory nature of the site, and users do indeed explore according to their specific area of need and interest. Users have an opportunity to actively create knowledge and meaning through exploration, practice and collaboration.
For each facet of learning presented through the circles, a range of OLT tools are suggested as ways to enhance that aspect of learning. For example, a journal-style resource is suggested as a way to enhance student reflection. The working party developed short video-clips to further explain the pedagogical rationale behind the suggested use of these tools, with the added benefit of modelling the use of video as an alternative to text-based content.
Furthermore, pedagogically-sound templates were created that reflect contemporary pedagogy in the overall learning design. The purpose of the templates was to reduce both the overall level of technical competency and development time required for academic staff to get started with using technology effectively in their teaching. The templates included inbuilt instructions for students and suggestions for staff on how to customise the templates for their own unit. Staff could request specific templates to be added to individual OLT sites allowing for further customisation. The templates examples include:
This combination of pedagogy-driven access to information regarding the integration of OLT tools in teaching, demonstration of relevant exemplars modelling the effective use of technology to promote learning, and templates that staff can adopt and adapt, was designed specifically in an attempt to address inherent scepticism about the learning benefits of technology. In short, it was argued by the design team that by focussing on pedagogy first, staff would be able to see areas where technology could be of benefit in their own units.
To enable the site to be more rapidly disseminated throughout the Faculty and integrated into methodologies already in use, a Learning Designer from Teaching and Learning Support Services was employed for six months. Academic staff in the Faculty of Education already possessed extensive knowledge and experience in the provision of rich and engaging learning experiences for students in a face-to-face context, with staff incorporating a range of methodologies in their teaching practice. The Learning Designer acted as link for staff to connect their current teaching methods with new possibilities afforded by OLT, as outlined through the ITP website. The Learning Designer acted as an interpreter, suggesting new ways of ‘translating’ the existing knowledge and experience of staff into an online modality. In doing so, staff learnt the process of examining their teaching practices to inform the choice of OLT tools; a process which they could then apply themselves for their own exploration of the ITP site.
To promote the use of the ITP designed site among the Education Faculty, the Learning Designer implemented a targeted staff development program incorporating both one-to-one consultations and broader group workshops. During these sessions the staff members and Learning Designer discussed established and preferred teaching practices currently incorporated within the face-to-face environment. These conversations typically centred on engaging students in learning activities through the integration of collaborative work, assessment, and reflection. Using the exemplars provided in the ITP site, the Learning Designer then demonstrated examples of how these best-practice teaching strategies could be achieved in an online environment through the use of selected OLT tools. The staff member and Learning Designer decided on an approach to incorporate the identified technologies into the specific unit curriculum. This decision-making process considered
The appointment and workshop structure was intentionally aligned with the ‘pedagogy first’ approach of the ITP site, so that staff would not have an ongoing reliance on the expertise of the Learning Designer but would be able to access the collective knowledge available through the ITP site. Academic staff have an ongoing opportunity to return to the ITP site and further reflect on their own teaching requirements and how ITP can facilitate the adoption of appropriate technical tools to enhance selected pedagogies.
Although a formal evaluation of the project is still to be conducted, initial feedback on the project from staff has indicated that the stated aims and outcomes of the project have been met. One of the primary goals of the project was to redirect conversations towards an online pedagogy divorced of technical specificities. Conversations with faculty indicate that the project has been successful in fostering a pedagogical dialogue concerned more with the development of learning activities than the specific integration of online tools.
Informal feedback concerning the organisational and operational aspects of the ITP project and staff perceptions regarding the achievement of stated aims and outcomes were garnered by the Learning Designer from members of the project working party and participants in workshops and appointments. Working party members noted that their individual participation and contributions in the project collective was of value both professionally via discussions concerning contemporary pedagogies, shared experiences and understandings with group members and in the finalisation and completion of the project site. Group members expressed the value of operating in a small “community of practice” where similar online teaching experiences and issues were shared from multiple perspectives to formulate a more cohesive and encompassing final product. Workshop participants completed a standard questionnaire at the session conclusion, with all participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that the workshop motivated them to incorporate workshop content into their own professional practice. Participants commonly commented on the importance of the Learning Designer being able to respond to the lecturer’s specific needs.
The ITP project aimed to refocus discussions concerning educational technologies towards pedagogy, rather than the common technical viewpoint. As a result of the ITP project emphasising pedagogical approaches in contrast to specific technical tools, Education staff appeared to be more engaged and willing to participate in staff development activities. Anecdotal evidence from appointments has been very positive, with some lecturers making large improvements in the quality of their unit OLT site, and others seeking further funding for teaching innovations using online technology that they would like to explore further. These lecturers are not the early-adopters of technology normally associated with innovations in online learning, but have seen the benefit of using technology in the context of their own teaching. The emphasis on pedagogy draws on the Education lecturer's existing expertise and provides a level of confidence that is rare when discussing the specific technical tools. Furthermore, the ITP site design and ensuing promotional activities served to demystify the OLT technology. It was put back into the place of being a tool for teaching and learning to be used and adapted as required, just like other ‘technologies’ such as blackboards, overhead projectors and televisions. One lecturer in Educational Counselling had previously avoided the use of online technology because she felt that online learning was a poor substitute for intensive face to face tutorials. However, as a result of participating in the ITP working party, she identified a way of using online video vignettes to model counselling methods for external students. Initial feedback from this student cohort has indicated that the vignettes are effective in engaging students in the unit readings as a way to solve the counselling situation outlined in the videos. Thus, it appears that by refocussing discussions about educational technologies onto the familiar domain of pedagogy, the level of staff’s scepticism about the benefits of online technologies has been reduced.
The exemplars provided in the ITP site seem to be more valuable to staff than context-free demonstrations, because they illustrate the effective combination of sound teaching practices with technology. For example, it emerged through the course of the project that many staff had previously used the OLT Discussion Forum tool on their website but had been previously discouraged as a result of low participation rates among the student cohort. The exemplars embedded within the ITP site illustrate current active discussion forums, and modelled ways for the lecturer to use questioning and scaffolding techniques to encourage student engagement in unit content. An indication of the success and academic endorsement of the project has been in the number of contributions made by academic staff demonstrating additional novel approaches addressing the integration of various OLT tools to enhance student learning. These new exemplars have been recently incorporated into the ITP site, further ensuring the sustainability and relevance of the project in meeting faculty staff development requirements.
Involvement of academic staff in determining the focus on content of the ITP site was imperative to the project, and has proven beneficial to both the staff involved and to achieving the goals of the project. The working party’s commitment to the project helped to ensure that the content of the site was relevant to academic staff. The working party also reported positive personal benefits from being involved in the program; they had the opportunity to reflect on their teaching practice and use of technology, and to experiment and explore innovative approaches to online pedagogy.
Bringing together the working party created a group of experts in the Faculty who could advocate for the effective use of technology from a pedagogical point of view. While this aspect of their role is still developing, discussions are already emerging from the Faculty of Education about how the OLT system can be improved to better facilitate innovating approaches to teaching and learning. Rather than training staff to use OLT tools and teach within what the system has to offer, the effect of the pedagogy-first approach has been that staff have are now informing the further development of the system itself. It is hoped that this will result in technology that allows staff to facilitate better learning outcomes for students across the University.
Successful aspects of the project have since been adopted by the broader Teaching and Learning Support Services (TALSS) staff development program as a way to better respond to the needs of academic staff across the University. For example, the traditional facilitator-led workshop has been replaced with ‘drop-in sessions’ that encourage staff to talk about the needs of their own units, and Learning Designers will be situated in each faculty across the University to facilitate more informal conversations about online learning and teaching. These changes have been implemented to specifically address the “just in time” requirements of the current academic culture in relation to accessing assistance in teaching and learning.
At this stage, the impact of the ITP project is being felt amongst staff in the Faculty. It is still too early to judge the impact of the project on student online learning experiences. The next step of the project will be to assess the extent to which staff’s participation in the ITP project translates to improved student outcomes through online learning and teaching.
The project team’s experiences have resulted in recommendations for others embarking on an academic staff development program for online learning and teaching.
Any academic staff development program concerning online learning and teaching should approach the issue from the principles of good teaching first. The tools used to achieve effective learning experiences are arbitrary, and not as important as the reasons behind their use. Littlejohn (2002, [HREF14]) supports this recommendation adding that particularly for staff from non-education faculties, a practical introduction to contemporary learning theories is central to positive outcomes in student learning.
Involving staff in the planning and implementation of a staff development program has positive benefits for the project and the staff involved. Developing a community of practice among interested staff gives academics a sense of ownership, helping to ensure long-term impacts for the project. It also provides a valuable support network that builds confidence and expertise for staff involved.
Through the development and implementation phase of ITP project it was observed that there is a minimum level of technical competence (eg the ability to operate standard web browsers) required of staff before they are able to move beyond technical frustrations to consider the underlying pedagogical issues associated with technology. Very novice computer users (i.e. those who were not competent in basic Internet skills) required more intensive support from the Learning Designer before being able to confidently use the OLT system. The Learning Designer provided intensive support to novice users, and encouraged more experienced computer users to access the ITP site for ongoing support (see Figure 3: Support provisions). Organisations considering similar staff development programs may consider allocating specific resources to provide intensive training to bring novices up to an acceptable level of technical skills.
The Innovation, Technology, Pedagogy project has been successful in bringing notions of pedagogy into discussions about online teaching and learning. The Faculty of Education has taken a bold step towards leading the Queensland University of Technology in online pedagogy. It is hoped that the ITP project will have a ‘ripple’ effect that will continue long after the end of the project. As academic staff become more confident of their ability to use technology as a tool to support teaching, they will begin to explore innovative new ways to use technology. In turn, these will be disseminated to others via the ITP site, university channels and through academic publications. As conversations about online teaching spread further afield, academic staff in the Faculty of Education will play a greater role as experts and advocates for quality in online teaching across the University.
The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Education for their support and financial assistance for the project, and Teaching and Learning Support Services for assistance with project administration and development of the ITP site.
Shane Dawson would like to personally thank Liz Heathcote for her review of the paper and ongoing overall support.
Bartolic-Zlomislic, S. & Bates, A. (1999). Investing in Online Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24(3). Available online [HREF5].
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: A survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra, Occasional Paper Series, Higher Education Group, Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Available online [HREF6].
Brabazon, T. (2002). Digital hemlock: Internet education and the poisoning of teaching. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Brennan, R. (2004). One size doesn’t fit all: Pedagogy in the online environment – Volume I.Kensington Park: NCVER. Available online [HREF7].
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
L Burr, & Morton-Allen, M. (2001) Inventing a Better Mouth Trap: The Development and Implementation of Forum Software at Charles Sturt University. Ausweb01 Conference Proceedings. 2001. Available online [HREF8].
Dawson, S., Winslett, G. & Burr L. (2004). Toward a Quantitative Analysis of Online Communities. Online Learning and teaching Conference Proceedings, November 2004, Brisbane, Australia.
Ehrmann, S. (2002). Improving the outcomes of education: Learning from past mistakes. Educause Review, 37(1), 54-55. Available online [HREF9].
Ellis, A., O’Reilly & Debreceny, R. (1998) Staff development responses to the demand for online teaching and learning. Proceedings of the 1998 ASCILITE Conference, Wooloongong, 14-16 December 1998, Wooloongong, ASCILITE. Available online [HREF10].
Ellis, A. & Phelps, R. (1999) Staff development for online delivery: a collaborative team-based action learning model. Proceedings of the 1999 ASCILITE Conference, Brisbane, 5-8 December 1999, Brisbane: ASCILITE. Available online [HREF11].
Gallagher, M. (2000) The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Public Universities in Australia, Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD, Paris, September 2000. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division, Commonwealth of Austalia. Available online [HREF12].
Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000) Students' distress with a web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experiences, Information, Communication & Society 3(4), 557-579. Available online [HREF13].
Jacobsen, M. (2000). Excellent teaching and early adopters of instructional technology. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2000: World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia & Educational Telecommunication, 26 June-1 July. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Littlejohn, A.H. (2002). Improving continual professional development in the use of ICTs, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), p166. Available online [HREF14].
McInnis, C., James, R. & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in the First Year Experience in Australian Universities. A commissioned project for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, EIP Commonwealth of Australia. Available online [HREF15].
McNaught, C., Kenny, J., Kennedy, P. & Lord, R. (1999). Developing and Evaluating a University-wide Online Distributed Learning System: The Experience at RMIT University, Educational Technology & Society 2(4). Available online [HREF16].
Nelson, B. (2005). Higher Education Report for the 2004 to 2006 Triennium. Available online [HREF17].
Oliver, R. & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126. Available online [HREF18].
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.) New York: The Free Press.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, B., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. Josey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Wilson, G., & Stacey, E., (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33-48. Available online [HREF19].