Barriers to Student Engagement in Technology Enhanced
Learning
STEPHEN WOODWARD University of Glamorgan
HAYDN BLACKEY University of Glamorgan
Abstract
This paper aims to highlight perceived barriers to engagement
in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) by students. It
provides an intriguing counterpoint to what is increasingly
accepted as conventional knowledge: that the impact of
learning technologies on the student learning experience is
predominantly positive and TEL effectively engages students in
active, collaborative learning processes. The literature
addressing the efficacy of TEL is similarly positive and yet
emerging student perceptions focus more on the negative
rather than the beneficial aspects. In October 2007 the
University of Glamorgan conducted an institution-wide Student
Expectations Project (SEP) to determine what students
(undergraduate, postgraduate and overseas) expect from
university life. The drivers behind this were varied but included
student views on the impact of HE sector technological
innovations. A mixed methodology including both quantitative
and qualitative methods was used. Over 2000 students were
involved in the primary research which used 14 focus groups
and individual questionnaires. While the data was exceptionally
rich, key points emerged addressing the role of technology in
the areas of collaboration and contact. Students do not expect
technology to encroach on what they see as the core benefits of
university – interaction and learning (two of the key areas in
which the deployment of social software in education seeks to
achieve a powerful impact). Undergraduate students in
particular worry that technology will create a barrier to
accessing lecturing staff. The data indicates that students do
not strongly associate technology with the direct enhancement
of their learning experience. The evidence from such a large
scale institutional survey presents challenges for those of us
charged with deploying TEL as a means of engaging students
in active learning environments. Such perceptions of barriers to
TEL invite us to reconsider how we manage student
engagement with learning technologies.
Introduction
Much of the literature around Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) 1 concurs
that, in general, it is a good thing. It has also been noted, however, that there
are relatively few studies taking into account how students feel about TEL and
the use of technologies in learning, teaching and assessment (the student
voice). The Student Expectation Project (SEP) outcomes raise some
intriguing questions about student perceptions of technology enhanced
learning echoed in the JISC LXP e-learning pedagogy report that highlights
a…”scarcity of studies focusing on the learner voice (beyond that of simple
course evaluations), far more emphasis seems to have been given to the
practitioner perspective and to course design.” (p.8)
The purpose of this paper is to outline data from the project that specifically
focuses on student perceptions of Technology Enhanced Learning, followed
by an analysis and discussion of the implications of the data, and the
University’s response, both in terms of work already being done to address
anticipated expectations, and plans for dealing with those expectations that
were perhaps less predictable.
Literature Review
Currently, there is an increasing number of studies on TEL focusing on its
effectiveness and overall beneficial impact on the contemporary higher
educational learning and teaching landscape (Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Garrett,
R., 2007; Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., 2006;
Graham, C.R., Allen, S., Ure, D., 2003; Littlejohn, A., Pegler.,C 2007), and
how it promotes innovative dialogues and practices within the learning
environment (Smith, C., 2006; Barker, T., 2006).
Graham (2006) states that the current technology enhanced learning trends
seen in higher education focus on: (1) enabling access and flexibility, (2)
enhancing current teaching and learning practices, and (3) transforming the
way individuals learn. The access and flexibility of learning content and
context is the basic requirement as well as benefit of blended learning. In her
e-moderating model, Salmon (1999, 2002) emphasises the changing role of
the tutor in supporting students, particularly in their effective use of online
communications. Blended learning incorporates the strengths of online
learning which are easy and flexible access at anytime, from anywhere using
the internet and mobile technologies. It also enhances current teaching and
learning practices with the aid of technology through collaborative learning
and curriculum design (Andrews, T., Powell, D., 2007). The emergence of
social software applications such as wikis (Doolan, M., A, 2006), and blogging
(Rodger, H., 2006) are often claimed to have transformed the way individuals
learn in a traditional classroom environment, encouraging communication,
collaboration, participation and sharing. Concerns over the continued validity
of the institutional VLE (Stiles, 2007) and its often inconsistent use (Dyson et
al., 2006) are well documented and the University of Glamorgan has
recognised such issues.
Sharpe, Benfield, Lessner & DeCicco (2005), affirm “that the learner
perspective on elearning (has) been largely overlooked, but that knowledge of
how learners use and experience elearning/technology in their learning
activities (is) crucial for the development of tools, pedagogy and teaching
practices.” Conole et al (2006), reporting on the LXP project – students’
experience of e-learning (JISC, 2006) found that students are using
technologies for peer-to-peer communication and support as an integral
element in their learning strategy, but were less engaged with institutionally
provided technologies. They go on to acknowledge the importance of
recognising the student voice when attempting to integrate learning
technologies into the curriculum: “Technology is constantly re-invented to
support learning activities and there is a complex co-evolution of tools and
their use. This has resulted in significant changes in the way that students are
learning, which we need to take account of in the way we support learning
and the institutional environments we provide.”
Methodology
In undertaking this research it was clear that a mixed methodology approach
using both quantitative and qualitative methods would be appropriate. This
approach sits within the phenomenological tradition of exploring the context
from a wide variety of different perspectives so as to achieve the widest
possible understanding of actions and intention.
Having agreed the approach the research team identified that in addition to a
secondary review of the existing data from other institutions on student
experience it would need to undertake its own research to ensure it
understood the context for its own students.
The methodology adopted was to divide the project into three sections to
consider separately the expectations of three types of student; undergraduate
home, postgraduate home, and EU and Overseas. To this end three task
groups were established, each comprising of members of staff from across all
Faculties and all Corporate Departments, this meant the involvement of 70
members of staff.
In all, 2277 students took part in the primary research (2008 Glamorgan
students and 269 potential students (6th formers etc)).
The primary research involved a paper based student questionnaire, an online
questionnaire, 15 focus groups and one to one interviews. 760 students
completed the questionnaire. 1337 took part in the online questionnaire, with
the focus groups including 180 students. One to one follow-up interviews also
took place.
Each task group produced a report of the expectations of their specific cohort
of students and subsequently developed recommendations to address these.
Data
The data shows that in a general sense, students do not expect technology to
encroach on what they see as the key benefits from university – interaction
and learning. They expect to be taught face-to-face by teachers. This is the
most visible sign of a university’s value for money, and is what they believe
they are paying for. They worry that technology will create a barrier to
students being able to access lecturers. “I expect to be taught in lectures or
classes with smaller groups – not just read notes and listen to lectures on my
computer.” (Undergraduate student).
A number of other key themes emerge from the student expectations of
technology data. There is some evidence to show that students want constant
access to technology but for social interaction and information rather than for
academic purposes.
There are a number of expectations voiced with reference to the institutional
VLE (Blackboard). Students of all categories expect “good and consistent use
of the virtual learning environment”, so that “all lecturers use it in the same
way”. They also expect notes on Blackboard to remain accessible and “not to
be excessively time constrained”. All university materials should be provided
online, with “lecture notes to be available on the web prior to lectures”, and “to
be able to submit assignments and receive exam/assignment marks online”.
There is an expectation of an “online backup for lectures, course notes and
other resources.” This is a prime function of a VLE as it is currently used.
There are strongly voiced expectations regarding assessment and feedback,
particularly with regard to receiving timely feedback that is both detailed and
effective as a means of helping students to improve their performance in
future assessments. Other data indicates a desire for the online provision of
transparent assessment requirements, and ‘model’ examples showing the
nature of assessments and the required standards.
Students do not want to engage in online collaborative exercises and feel
threatened by the prospect of their work being made public: “Many students I
know would not be happy submitting course notes or work (online) for public
scrutiny.” (Undergraduate student).
Students (particularly undergraduates) voiced an expectation for “their
teachers to be more technologically advanced than them.”
Discussion
Having outlined what was discovered through the research we will now look at
its implications. As Conole et al (2006) reported in the literature review,
examples of student engagement with (often their own) technologies in studyrelated situations include students communicating via Instant Messaging (IM),
social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace, etc), SMS texting on mobile
phones, personal email accounts, personal websites, using their own laptops,
desktops or hand-held devices (iPhones, Blackberries, PDAs). Through these
means information and resources can be shared and disseminated; peer-topeer support is achieved informally in an ad hoc manner or via organised
study groups with a focus on resource sharing, peer checking "Have I
understood this ... am I on the right track here ..?" etc.
In the data, Student Voice Representatives (SVRs) at the University of
Glamorgan express the strong view that social networking/ Facebook groups
(or similar) are by far the most effective means for disseminating important
initiatives in TEL among large numbers of fellow students. However, the same
SVRs later expressed some irritation at fellow students use of social
networking sites in timetabled labs, preventing other students from accessing
course-related (often specialised) software. One SVR even went so far as to
say that access to social networking sites should be banned across all
campuses! Of course, it is true that students could be engaged with the
discipline-related software whilst also keeping Facebook or IM minimised, but
it does emphasise the ambivalent attitude that students have towards the use
of social networking software in an institutional setting.
There is a strong perception expressed in the data that constant access to
technology for social interaction and information rather than for academic
purposes is what is expected by students. However, there is a growing body
of evidence (as indicated in the literature review) showing that students are
using their own technologies to support learning and learning-related social
activity in largely informal settings, and that enlightened and innovative tutors
are also beginning to engage in such activity. An example from the University
of Glamorgan involves a tutor engaged in frequent field study activity making
use of a well-known social networking site that is extremely popular among
students, along with Instant Messaging Services, as a communication and
support mechanism for students. His use of such online services at least in
part replicates the ‘Office Hours’ accessibility that, due to the nature of much
of the outdoors work he is engaged in, is often denied students on campus
The reported enthusiasm among the bulk of his learners for this initiative
clearly demonstrates how social software that is very widely used among the
student population can greatly enhance the degree of student access to tutors
(with implied beneficial effects on retention, motivation and performance.
However, at present such cases appear to be very much in the minority.
There is a widespread suspicion of such technologies among academic and
management staff in HE. To counter such perceptions, at the UoG the CELT
TEL team are actively engaged in promoting the use of Social Software tools
in a range of activity related to learning, teaching and assessment
A corollary to the above is the question of whether institutions should be in the
business of providing social networking/ Web 2.0 tools for students? Are
students who are already using such tools with their own personal
technologies going to want to use institutional versions (the argument over
whether students using Facebook or MySpace are not going to respond to the
sight of a VLE such as Blackboard? Students may perceive a VLE to be dull
and have limited capacity for personalisation and customisation; may be
frustrated by a perceived lack of functionality, etc.
This tension between personal (and personally owned) and institutionally
provided technologies leads us to consider more specifically the perceived
barriers that prevent many students from effectively engaging with the
institutional VLE. It is evident from the data that students expect good and
consistent use of Blackboard, so that all lecturers use it in the same way.
They also expect course notes on blackboard to remain accessible and not to
be unreasonably time constrained. There are further expectations that “all
university materials should be provided online, for lecturer notes to be
available on the web prior to lectures, and for students to be to submit
assignments and receive exam/assignment marks online.”
Concerns over the (in)consistent use of VLEs are well documented and the
University of Glamorgan has recognised such issues. In September 2008, in
response to student concerns, the University implemented a new Blackboard
Template initiative, seeking to provide core consistency for students as they
navigate within and between a range of modules. This involved identifying a
core set of navigation buttons to cover key course elements (Learning
Materials, Assessment, Resources, etc), and a standardised Module
Overview tool. However, despite efforts to garner a consensus of opinion
among academic staff from across the various faculties, this has proved to be
a delicate operation. Achieving the balance between giving students
consistency and recognising the flexibility demanded by academics,
(especially those academic staff who consider themselves to be active and
engaged Bb users or early adopters) is proving to be an enduring challenge.
There is still evidence of significant variation in navigation paths through
online modules (academics doing “what is best for my students”) without
addressing the potential confusion among learners that this creates.
In the data there is a desire for:
“lecturers to engage with students beyond power point slides
and provide expert input and opportunities for case study
discussions and student debate”
(Postgraduate student)
At present, while there is increasing e-focused activity, there remains a
general lack of academic staff engagement with technology beyond the
straight uploading of lecture and /or tutorial material onto the institutional VLE.
Taking into account the evidence relating to students use of social software
services for study-related activity, the University has recently invested in a set
of Blackboard-based social software tools (Campus Pack by Learning
Objects) that can play a role in easing less confident and/ or less engaged
staff and students into a more interactive and collaborative, student-centred
VLE. For the first time, we are introducing institutionally provided technologies
that allow students to add, develop and manage their own content within the
VLE. Social software tools are also being used to meet the desire for ‘lecture
notes to be available on the web prior to lectures.’ However, rather than
simply putting lecture notes on the VLE verbatim, lecturers are being
encouraged to consider preview and review lecture materials to enhance and
enrich students’ experience of lectures (and tutorials) without merely
reproducing them. In the data one expectation is that students express some
anxiety about engaging in online collaborative exercises and feel threatened
by the prospect of their work being made public. This is where the introduction
of institutional social software tools i.e. within the ‘walled garden’ of the VLE
can help to ease the concerns of both students and staff, and promote
collaboration and sharing, often with small groups of learners engaged in
project or research-based (knowledge construction) activity.
Students (particularly undergraduates) voiced an expectation for “their
teachers to be more technologically advanced than them.” This is a staff
development issue – offering opportunities for staff to learn more about the
pedagogic benefits of collaborative learning tools, and develop their
confidence in engaging effectively with such technologies. This is an ongoing
challenge for the CELT TEL team at Glamorgan, as well as for champions of
TEL across the faculties.
The most widely-held and strongly-expressed expectations across all student
groups were in relation to Assessment and Feedback coupled with a desire to
be able to submit assignments online and receive online grades and quality
feedback in a timely manner. Students expect the University to provide clear
guidelines on how each assignment they undertake is going to be marked
before they begin work on it. They then anticipate being given clear and
detailed feedback within 20 working days (as set out in the University’s
Student Charter), or at the very least before they begin their next piece of
coursework. It is undoubtedly true that TEL can provide some very effective
solutions to the problems identified with assessment and feedback in the
research. It is UoG policy to promote the use of the electronic submission of
assignments across all faculties. Staff (and student) training is being provided
in the use of TurnitinUK through Blackboard, the Blackboard Assignment
Manager tool, the Blackboard Grade Centre, among others. For feedback
purposes the same tools are being used along with the GradeMark online
grading and feedback tool available within TurnitinUK. As with the Campus
pack initiative, it is currently a case of ‘watch this space’ as the rollout is in its
early stages.
Conclusion
The evidence from such a large scale institutional survey presents challenges
for those of us charged with deploying TEL as a means of engaging students
(and staff across the institution) in active learning environments. There is no
doubt that such perceptions of barriers to TEL have led the University to focus
more acutely (and in some cases reconsider) how we manage student
engagement with learning technologies.
However, although the data highlights some key student concerns, when
analysed, a wide and increasing range of transformational technologies are
already available and being used, but the connection with the ways in which
such technologies can enhance and transform learning, teaching and
assessment is often not being made by students and academic staff.
Students are increasingly engaged collaboratively in learning and study
through social software, but mostly in informal situations with peers. Students
continue to perceive TEL as a threat, particularly in terms of reducing face-toface teaching time and their access to staff for tutorials and feedback, yet
there are growing instances where technology can complement and enhance
f2f activity.
The challenge for those of us who provide support for TEL in Higher
Education is to respond to the emerging expectations of the students while
providing staff with support and development to engage in using social
software in learning and teaching. While we make these strides forward, we
will need to continually monitor the student’s expectations, so the learning,
teaching and assessment mediated by technology is truly learner-centric.
To achieve this we identify the need to continue to promote and enhance the
research agenda in learners experience not only in TEL but across learning,
teaching and assessment.
References
Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R., (2007) Blending in: the extent and promise of
blended education in the United States, Needham (Mass.): Sloan Consortium
Andrews, T., & Powell, D. (2007) Creating innovative learning spaces: Does the reality
meet the expectation? In Proceedings of the Second International Blended Learning
Conference. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press
Barker, T. (2006) Attending to Individual Students: How student modelling can be
used in designing personalised Blended Learning objects. Journal for the
Enhancement of Learning and Teaching 3(2) pp. 38-48. Hatfield: University of
Hertfordshire Press
Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2005). The Handbook of Blended Learning:
Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons.
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., Darby, J. (2006) JISC LXP Student experiences of
technologies
Final
report
Available:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lxpprojectfinal
reportdec06.pdf (Accessed 12 May 2009)
Doolan, M.A. (2006) Effective Strategies for Building a Learning Community Online
using a Wiki. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Blended Learning Conference 2006, 15
June, University of Hertfordshire
Dyson, M.C., Dos Santos Lonsdale, M., & Papaefthimiou, M. (2006) Student
Perspectives on a Virtual Learning Environment: Lessons for Instructors. In
Proceedings of the 1st Annual Blended Learning Conference, 15 June, University of
Hertfordshire
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg , S. (2006) Blended learning
enters the mainstream In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.).The Handbook of Blended
Learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Graham, Charles R. (2006). “Blended Learning Systems”: Definition, Current Trends,
and
Future
Directions. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.).The Handbook of Blended Learning:
Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Graham, C.R., Allen,S.,& Ure, D. (2003) Blended learning environments: A review of
the research literature. Unpublished manuscript, Provo, UT
Littlejohn, A. & Pegler, C. (2007) Preparing for blended e-learning(connecting with elearning series) London: Routledge,
Rodger, H. (2006) Blogging for Reflective Learning, In Proceedings of the 1st Annual
Blended Learning Conference. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press
Salmon, G. (1999) E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, London:
Kogan Page
Salmon, G. (2002) e-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning, London: Kogan Page
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Lessner, E., & DeCicco, E. (2005). Final report: Scoping
study for the pedagogy strand of the JISC learning programme. Unpublished internal
report 4(1) JISC.
Smith, C et Al. (2006)’A rich media prototype approach to developing student online
resources’, In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Blended Learning Conference. Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press
Stiles M. (2007) "Death of the VLE? A challenge to a new orthodoxy", Serials, the
Journal for the International Serials Community 20, 1: 31-36.
Endnotes
The University of Glamorgan has moved from the use of the term ‘Blended Learning’ in favour
of ‘Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL)’ in response to the decision by the Higher Education
Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) to use that terminology in their strategy document.
1
Biographies:
Stephen Woodward
Stephen is the Curriculum Advice Officer for Technology Enhanced Learning at the
University of Glamorgan’s Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. His
research interests include the pedagogy of technology enhanced learning, particularly
the uses of Social Software and Personal Learning Environments in HE.
swoodwar@glam.ac.uk
Haydn Blackey
Haydn is Head of Innovations in Learning and Teaching and Deputy Head of the
University of Glamorgan’s Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching.
Haydn manages the work of the Technology Enhanced Learning at the University of
Glamorgan.
Haydn is currently abstracts editor for the Association of Learning Technology (ALT)
and a member of the ALT Membership Services Committee.
hblackey@glam.ac.uk
http://celt.glam.ac.uk