Perspectives on academic staff involvement in the acquisition and implementation of educational technologies

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study using both quantitative and qualitative data to uncover the extent and nature of the involvement of academic staff in the processes of acquisition and implementation of educational technologies. Actor-network theory (ANT) is used to inform the design of the study and the analysis of the data. Three main areas of investigation are: 1) issues of institutional policy and overall purpose of technology, 2) issues of staff involvement in various activities related to acquisition and use of technology, and 3) issues related to the existence of arenas for dialogue and discussions of technological needs and requirements across organisational boundaries. The analysis focuses on the diffuseness of the role of academic staff in processes of development of institutional policies and technology acquisition. The article concludes with suggestions for organizational policy in higher education contexts, and possible directions for new research.

Understanding academics' adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review

“…The relative ineffectiveness of large institutions in facilitating adoption may be further explained by the central-peripheral tension (Clegg, 2003), which depicts the power relationships between the higher education institution and its departments. The literature confirms that academics tend to define their work based on their disciplines (Schneckenberg, 2009) and neglect central institutional policies (Habib & Johannesen, 2014). This suggests centrally-led implementation of learning technologies may be relatively ineffective within disciplines (Hardaker & Singh, 2011).…”

“…The high priority of research and the low priority of teaching make the time and effort required for adoption a threat to research productivity, which may lead to negative responses (D. R. Johnson, 2013). For instance, Habib and Johannesen (2014) found that implemented learning technologies were viewed as authorised administrative procedures: they were rhetorically encouraged but rarely mentioned in performance reviews. The literature further suggests that although rewards and incentives have limited impact on enthusiastic early adopters (Birch & Burnett, 2009), they tend to drive emerging academics towards research and away from teaching (Schneckenberg, 2009).…”

“…However, participation and collaboration needs to reach beyond formal channels such as committees, which are seen as an important indicator of staff involvement by senior management but seen as having minimal impact by academics outside these committees (Habib & Johannesen, 2014;Singh & Hardaker, 2017). Studies have demonstrated that adoption is facilitated by communication through informal networks by using champions (Owen & Demb, 2004) or initiating mentoring schemes (Keppell, O'Dwyer, Lyon, & Childs, 2010).…”

Academic staff perspectives on technology for assessment (TfA) in higher education: A systematic literature review

“…Despite a growing number of studies into technological adoption within teaching and learning in higher education (Habib & Johannesen, ; King & Boyatt, ; Paiva, Morais, Costa, & Pinheiro, ) there is a need for studies that explicitly consider technology and assessment utilisation of academic staff (Bennett et al , ; Deeley, ). Studies which focus on student’s perspectives of technology and assessment prevail including a critical emphasis on the student voice within digital technology use (Manca, Grion, Armellini, & Devecchi, ).…”

New technology, changing pedagogies? Exploring the concept of remote teaching placement supervision

“…This appeared to be timely, considering growing evidence of the widespread use of a diverse range of technology across the HE landscape, whether this be to engage learners by means of blogging to support learning activities (Duarte, 2015), to capture lessons to enable play back for learners (Ford, Burns, Mitch, & Gomez, 2012), use of mobile devices (Dale & Pymm, 2009) to social media (Nkhoma et al, 2015). Whilst the structures of HE institutions do not automatically lend themselves to the implementation of such educational technologies (Habib & Johannesen, 2014), modern-day learners have been described as 'digital natives' (Prensky, 2001) describing their ability to use and adapt to technology. The links between pedagogy and technology have similarly been noted, and the idea that not only will some forms of technology be useful to meet learner and institutional need but also the idea that Pedagogy will evolve to fit with the capabilities of the new technologies (Burgess & Mayes, 2003, p. 301).…”