Are We There Yet? Mapping The Digital Journey

Author(s):

Breda Mc Taggart(submitting)Aine Doherty(presenting)Cillian O`Murchu(presenting)Collery Suzanne

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 04 E, Learning and Instruction: New perspectives

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-F106

Chair:

Sofia Lurdes Rosas Silva

Contribution

Context and questions

Higher education exists in a constantly changing environment. Globalisation of learning, digitalisation of learning and teaching are part of this change. While digitalisation will not cause the disappearance of campus-based teaching and learning, it is acknowledged that it alters the way education is delivered and supported (Fahey, 2014).For many this move to digitisation of learning is a decision, a choice, for others it is a requirement, as part of changing pedagogy and plan within an organisation, and where some feel it is imposed upon them.

This research study explores this change in pedagogy and practice, and for some professional identity, with four academics that have moved from a traditional class based lecturing methodology, to one where synchronous delivery is a requirement for programmes they deliver, asking the question

What changes in practice, pedagogy and professional identity occur when transitioning to a digitalised learning environment?

The objectives of the study are to:

Explore knowledge of, and attitude towards, digitalisation of learning within higher education
Identify barriers to successful digitalisation of learning within higher education learning environments
To understand the digital journey from the educators perspective
Put forward recommendations to support this transition space for those who will become part of this journey
Contribute to the body of knowledge on digitalisation of learning and the more limited body of knowledge on perceived impact on the academic self.

In doing so the researchers explore existing teaching practices and pedagogies and perceptions of the academic self, and what and how this evolves within a shifting higher education landscape.

Academic identity understood not as a fixed property, but as part of the lived complexity of a person and their way of being in those sites e.g. higher education institutes, classrooms, which are constituted as being part of the academic (Clegg, 2006 p.329). While much of this identity is informed by personal and professional knowledge and expertise, commonalties in values and beliefs are believed to exist on what it is to be an academic (Whitechurch and Gordon, 2010; McTaggart, 2015). The introduction of any new change challenges and redefines some or all of these values: freedom, autonomy, and transmission of culture entangled with concerns over the dilution of the professional role of educating students (Hussey and Smith, 2010).

Technology and digitalisation of learning may be considered one such challenge, impacting on an individual’s symbolic order, understood as “the form that the various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate” (Bourdieu, 1989, p.17). This order allows academics to recognise themselves in, or identify with, the image presented in the ideology and behave accordingly to who they are and how they behave within a given context (Zizek, 1989 pp. 43-44).

Using a constructivist approach the study will examine these views, values, beliefs, feelings, assumptions, and ideologies of individuals during, and party to, this change (Creswell, 2014). Addressing concerns on the lack of sufficient case studies to facilitate the understanding about the conditions and experiences about those working within higher education (Rhoades, 2007).

Method

As this project wished to explore the lived changes and identity shifts with and within the educator, it was necessary to find a methodology and method to support collection of this data type. Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) define teacher research as ‘systematic intentional inquiry by teachers about their own school and classroom work’ (pp. 23-24). Which on this occasion requires the participants, as the researcher, to reflect on their practice, pedagogy and their own identity, to be actively aware of themselves before during and after the move to digitisation of their learning. There are several approaches that can be used to investigate active living experiences including self-study (Hubball and Clarke, 2010). This form of practitioner research allows participants to focus on the nature and development of personal, practical knowledge through examining, in situ, their own learning beliefs, practices, processes, contexts, and relationships (Berry and Hamilton, 2013). Positioning self-study within notions of reflection and a traditions of action research where the educator is the researcher (Russell, 2004). A methodology for studying professional practice settings, within the genre of interpretive and qualitative research (Pinnegar and Hamilton, 2009), making it fit for purpose. To collect data and examine the self during this change process, all participants maintained individual diaries. This method involved repeated self-reports that aimed to capture events, feelings and emotions (Tang, 2002). As this was a new method of data collection for participants it was decided that a prescribed diary format would be utilised, providing participations with three prompts, 1) to provide an overview of activity, event, or general information, 2) their personal observations and reflections on digitisation of learning delivery and 3) anything that they believed might support an effective transition to this space. Entries were participants led, i.e. when they felt it was appropriate to complete. This resulted in most entries’ occurring pre or post-delivery of live lectures. Data was analysed using content analysis, which involved reading the entries, identifying and coding the data, identifying relationships between these data sets, and searching for common sequences and themes amongst them (Alaszewski, 2006). Data was gathered over one academic semester. Participants were self-nominated from different subject areas including drama, social sciences, maths and marketing, with acknowledged different levels of computer literacy, with a commonality of not having engaged in previous synchronous delivery. Three were female, one male. Three had not actively selected to use this delivery method, one had.

Expected Outcomes

Early results indicate that participants are cornered and anxious with the practical aspects of this change, the actual delivering of the programme and how to do this in the best way possible to support a quality learning experience for the student, but equally about themselves as part of this change. While a number of practical steps can be made to support successful transition to an alternative pedagogy and practice for the educator e.g. training, equipment mentoring, other transitory experiences may take longer time to evolve. Specifically, participants, whilst struggling with technology and how it worked, also asked questions on what is the impact to education, teaching and learning profession , why do I have to change, and how will it change me. In tandem with acknowledgment that in some ways it was “future proofing” them for the changing educational space. This positive was set against a perceived cost for some to their professional legitimacy and understanding of themselves as a lecturer. Whilst this concern over identity abated as the participant became more confident in their ability to be an effective lecturer in this space, it did not disappear. Consequently this narrative should not be underestimated, where anything that challenges self-legitimacy may prevent or make a change unsuccessful. At the very least it compels those delivering programmes to confront existing assumptions of teaching and learning in higher education, ideally before they commence this process (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). This will provide academics with the opportunity to contribute to a their own new identity formation, whether through training which builds confidence in oneself within a different learning space or through recognising the educational legitimacy of new learning spaces.

References

Alaszewski, A. (2006). Using Diaries for Social Research. London: Sage Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, Vol. 7.No 1, pp.14-24. Clegg, S. (2008). Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal Vol.3 4, No. 3, June2 008, p p. 329-345. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/Outside: teacher research and knowledge New York: Teachers College Press. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed., p. 304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fahey, S. (2014). Higher Education - Looking Forward An Educator’s Perspective: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change. 21st Century Universities: Performance and Sustainability IUA Symposium, Dublin 29th September 2014. Garrison, R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering it transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, Vol.7, No. 2, pp95-105. Hubball, H. and Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse Methodological Approaches and Considerations for SoTL in Higher Education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2 Hussey, T., and Smith, P. (2010). The trouble with higher education: A critical examination of our universities. New York and London: Routledge. McTaggart, B. (2015). Moving in time to a digital tune: A crisis in our identity? International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age NUIM. October 26th 2015 Conference Proceedings pp.195-201. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Russell, T. (2004). Tracing the development of self-study in teacher education research and practice. In International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Edited by John Loughran, Mary Lynn Hamilton, Vicki Kubler LaBoskey, and Tom Russell, 1191–1210. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Rhoades, G. (2007). The study of the academic profession. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education. Contributions and their contexts (pp. 113–146). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tang, C. (2002). Reflective diaries as a means of facilitating and assessing reflection. In Quality conversations: Proceedings of the 29th HERDSA Annual Conference Perth, 7-10 July. Whitechurch, C. and Gordon, G. (2010). Diversifying academic and professional identities in higher education: Some management challenges. Tertiary education and management, Vol.16, No.2, pp129-144.DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3 Zizek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Pp 43-44: London: Verso

Author Information

Breda Mc Taggart (submitting)

Institute of Technology Sligo

Sligo

Aine Doherty (presenting)

IT Sligo

Marketing, Tourism & Sport

Sligo

Cillian O`Murchu (presenting)

Institute of Technology Sligo, Ireland

Collery Suzanne