This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]On: 19 December 2014, At: 09:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and TeachingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Educational Technology in Learningand Teaching: The Perceptions andExperiences of Teaching StaffJohn Steel a & Alison Hudsona Sheffield Hallam University , UKPublished online: 10 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: John Steel & Alison Hudson (2001) Educational Technology in Learning andTeaching: The Perceptions and Experiences of Teaching Staff, Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 38:2, 103-111, DOI: 10.1080/13558000010030158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13558000010030158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTRODUCTION

Buzz-words in learning and teaching today include‘� exibility’, ‘independence’, ‘student-centred,’ ‘life-long learning’ and ‘technology’ to name but a few. The philosophical dynamic that underpins thesewords, is representative of a shift of emphasis, at leastintellectually, on the way students learn and teachersteach. Flexibility and independence, the role of thestudent, the university teacher and their interaction witheducational technology is ever more prominent in theminds of educationalists. With the rapid pace ofdevelopment in educational technologies, coupled withinnovations in teaching and learning, utilizing tech-nology is high on the list of priorities of educationalmanagers, administrators and operatives, as Sandholtzet al. point out: ‘Now that technology is becomingmore common, its potential for enhancing teaching and learning is being recognised. Technologies aredescribed as essential tools of the teaching trade’(Sandholtz et al., 1997). In terms of research into thesedevelopments, issues concerning technological literacy(Gabriner and Mery, 1998), interface design (Wild andStoney, 1998), software adaptability (Stahl et al.,1995), professional development (Schrum, 1995) andcost effectiveness of educational technology (Bacsichand Ash, 2000) are abundant and well represented.

Furthermore, work that focuses on pedagogicprocesses and the interactive processes with a view to uncovering the social, cultural and institutionalfactors of using educational technologies is alsostarting to emerge in the field. (Hart et al., 1999;Littlejohn and Cameron, 1999; Lynch, 1999) However,there have been relatively few studies that have soughta qualitative account of lecturers’ perceptions andexperiences of educational technology which look at everyday re� ective accounts of educational technol-ogy which is combined with an insight into broaderpolitical, social, cultural and institutional factors whichalso impact on the learning environment and theirexperiences as educators. Novek (1999) is a notableexception.

This paper is an attempt to make inroads to achievingsome meaningful understanding of such contexts andprocesses, as we provide an outline of our research andintroduce the substantive � ndings of the � rst stages ofthe research.

Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching: ThePerceptions and Experiences of Teaching StaffJohn Steel and Alison Hudson, Shef� eld Hallam University, UK

SUMMARY

Given the rapid pace of development and innovation in educational technologies , coupled with newperspectives on learning and teaching and new challenges that modern universities now have to face,utilizing educational technology in learning and teaching is high on the list of educational managers,administrators and operatives. This paper examines the perceptions and experiences of educationaltechnology from the perspective of university teachers’ at Shef� eld Hallam University. An analysis ofthe � ndings herein highlight pedagogic and technical as well as social and cultural factors impactingsigni� cantly on lecturers’experience of educational technology. Such factors are explored within thispaper and suggest the need for increased levels of communication across university institutions aroundthe implementation and development of educational technologies – communication that involvesacademic staff, university administrators and managers, and students.

Innovations in Education and Teaching Internationa lISSN 1470-3297 print ISSN 1470-3300 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/1355800001003015 8

103 IETI 38,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

RESEARCH PROJECT BACKGROUND

The findings presented in this paper represent the result of the first phase of a research project under-taken by the Learning and Teaching Institute (LTI) at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) in the UK in late 1998, early 1999. The initial research project was intended to explore the experiences of students at SHU with educational technologies within theirlearning experiences. The intention was to gain somequalitative insight into the perceptions, experiences,subjective values and thoughts of students using suchtechnologies. It is hoped that the information elicitedwould inform pedagogical processes, technologicaldevelopments and policy around teaching and learningat SHU. However, it was considered that to gain such insight into the learning experiences of studentsusing educational technology, some insight into theperceptions and experiences from teaching staff at theuniversity was necessary, as of course, staff are anequally important component of the learning experi-ence of students. The � ndings represented here formpart of a larger research project.

METHOD

Interviews were carried out with 11 members of the full-time teaching staff at SHU, four of which were known to the LTI and the others were selectedrandomly across the range of schools from the facultylist. Teaching staff of all grades, from lecturer to headof department, were interviewed. The interview pro-cess lasted approximately one hour, with the interviewtape recorded and then transcribed by one of theauthors. Initially a small number of pilot interviewswith staff were carried out with the intention ofhighlighting some general issues which could befurther explored in the main interview process. Fromthese pilot interviews emerged specific themes andissues which were then incorporated into an interviewschedule. However, a free and open-ended discussionwas encouraged (see Light and Light, 1999).

As noted, the focus of the interviews was to elicit, asfar as is possible, descriptions of the perceptions andexperiences of educational technology within thecontext of their own teaching and learning experience,both past, present and possibly the future. As such thequotations were grouped by the authors and ordered soas to provide a relatively fluid account of the issuesraised.

A note on de� nition

The phrase ‘educational technology’ is used throughoutthis paper as it was used in the interviews themselves.In preparing for the research we considered that wewould not de� ne the phrase to the participants, ratherlet them talk about what the term means to them. As weare interested in the participants’ social and culturalexperiences and perceptions, it was considered that weshould let them speak for themselves and not provideany rigid definitions. The result does have somedrawbacks, as it is not clear on occasions what sort ofeducational technology participants are discussing at aparticular time. However, as we will see, the Internetwas by far the major type of educational technologyalluded to by the participants; whether they werediscussing Web-based learning, email conferencing or using the Internet as a resource for learners andteachers. This of course says much about lecturers’perception of educational technology at SheffieldHallam University, as the Internet is the dominantallegory for the range of educational technologiesavailable.

FINDINGS

What follows are examples and illustrations ofdialogue that highlight the main emerging themes and issues. The thematic analysis of the interviewsrevealed six main themes: experience with educationaltechnology; notions of value or bene� t of educationaltechnology; teacher and students’ roles and relation-ships; the perceived drawbacks of using educationaltechnology and perception of social, cultural andinstitutional forces. These themes will be described inturn and selected quotes from the interviews will beused to illustrate staffs’ perceptions and experiences;limitations of space has meant that not all of the quoteshave been used. However, the authors’ have sought touse quotes that are most descriptive of the perceptionsand experience of the participants taking part in theresearch.

Experience with educational technology; current,prior and the motivation

A number of staff talked initially about educationaltechnology as part of their everyday work experience.In this sense technology is identi� ed as an unremarkedpart of the lecturer’s everyday working life: ‘I researchon the Internet a lot and I mostly correspond throughe-mail’; ‘I have started to . . . certainly I do all my workon the PC, and make my own overheads, and that kind

104 IETI 38,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

of thing’. So educational technology here is not onlytaken to be understood as sophisticated web technologyor multimedia, but general tools of the trade of anacademic – word processing, presentation packagesand so on, which do not intrinsically have a directeducational purpose.

In terms of educational technology more speci� callydirected to learning and teaching, a number of staffnoted that they had ‘dabbled’ in some media: ‘I’ve got into things like CD-ROMs and the Internet’; ‘I’vebeen keen to try and build those into courses that I’m responsible for in order to develop my expertise’;‘I use it in the lecture theatre for doing presentations,doing the slides and I’ve used other bits of TLTP(Teaching and Learning Technology Programme)material, but none of it has been particularly relevantor of the right quality, so I’ve only really toyed withthat’. Interestingly, a sense of tentativeness is evidenthere, as if those who are using technology, even ‘in anumber of different ways’ often viewed themselves asdoing ‘nothing very sophisticated’. Such sentimentsmay suggest a level of wider cultural pressure toengage further with educational technology, even whenone is, in their own terms ‘doing their bit’.

Notions of value or bene� t of educational technology in teaching and learning

The staff interviewed were keen to offer theirperceptions of the value or bene� t of using educationaltechnology, initially in terms of any subsidiary aspectsof day-to-day teaching: ‘you could make a lot of the routine stuff, the routine aspects of teaching, much more ef� cient in one sense’; ‘There’s all sorts of routine stuff that you put on, which at the momentyou can’t distribute on paper year after year, so why not put it on the web, why not make it accessi-ble?’ Clearly there is the perception that there is much time and labour-saving potential provided byeducational technology. ‘I need the time myself, I needthe time’. The staff often then went on to talk about themore specific learning and teaching benefits, seeingtechnology as enriching students’ learning experience:‘It made the units come alive, it made them moremeaningful’; ‘it’s more interesting to learn from a computer, because the computer can give you arendition of the poem, it can give you exercises to do,it doesn’t laugh at you when you make a mistake, youcan take your time, you can � ip back and reverse, it’smuch more interesting to learn the crafts’. Sometimeseducational technology was perceived as actually abetter learning and teaching medium than so called‘traditional’ face-to-face: ‘there are certain things that

can be done through technology, in a more effectiveway than can be done with other means of commu-nication’; ‘I see it as being used as a way of addingvalue and perhaps injecting certain immediacy whichit is difficult to provide, however a gifted lecturer you might be’. This notion of ‘value’ is also expressedin terms of the cumulative potential of informationgathering and storing possibilities of various tech-nologies: ‘this notion of sort of building up a web site with packages of resources, so I don’t have to rediscover that every year’; ‘I can keep adding to it, building up the archive; it’s a lot more interesting’;‘as you go along you can actually build in moreenrichment, more variety of materials and providesome sort of links to other learning experiences’.Another perceived valuable contribution that educa-tional technology engendered emerged around notionsof � exibility, and the fact that educational technologyenables a multiplicity of forms of communication. Inthis sense, technology contributes to notions of � exiblelearning, as ‘they can actually manage the learningprocess in their own ways’. For some educationaltechnology ‘would provide the � exibility so that theydidn’t have to be there on that day. By using technologyand by linking it all together, they will get all of theinformation they need. And it will be a lot moreinteresting than listening to me stood up in front ofthem as well’. Such notions of flexibility were alsoperceived to be an empowering component of thelearning process, for the lecturer and the student: ‘it’sbreaking down that dependence of having to do theattendance, so that there is more flexibility, so thathopefully they get a better quality from me, andhopefully the flexibility to go to the material whenthey’re ready, rather than when I’m ready’. It was evennoted that: ‘the best students always use the Internet,or make some attempt to actually use technology in some way’. Clearly the perceived bene� cial aspectsare wide-ranging, however, the awareness that thechanging landscape of higher education can be used to the advantage of students especially in terms ofenhanced communication: ‘One of the things that’sobvious over the last � ve or ten years is that studentsget less contact with the lecturers, but maybe if you usetechnology sensibly, it restores some of the notions of contact’; ‘If somebody wants to come and see me,they could always knock on my door which might bea daunting experience. If you do it through email, thenyou have a chance to work out exactly what you wantto say, you don’t have to think on the � y. So it couldbe that that form of contact, if it’s well-managed,actually provides a more useful form of contact withstudents than previously’.

Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching 105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Teacher, student role and relationships

As noted in the introduction, the notion of educationaltechnology providing a means to more ‘student-centred’ learning is well represented in the literature.In terms of educational technology impacting onlearning styles, the perception of teacher as guide ormediator of knowledge emerges from educationaltechnology use in the lecturers’ perceptions: ‘I guidethem through a body of material, taking them throughthe basic concepts’; ‘I’m spending more time workingwith them and less time just standing in front of them’. Thus, the changing role of the lecturer, even iftechnology is not explicitly mentioned, is perceived tobe associated with the increasing emphasis on more‘student-centred’ or ‘student-focused’ approaches tolearning: ‘I won’t be standing up and doing what wasa very traditional role, I’ll be doing the facilitating,guiding and hopefully enabling understanding’. Evenlecturers’ perceptions of student expectations enter thedialogue: ‘I think what they seek now is, is different. Iwon’t be standing up and doing what was a verytraditional role of you know, writing out the equationon the blackboard. I’ll be doing the facilitating, guidingand hopefully enabling an understanding’.

Drawbacks of educational technology

In addition to highlighted perceived benefits ofeducational technology, staff also talked about thedrawbacks; whether these were manifested in actualexperience or perceived as a possibility. The mostprominent drawback, unsurprisingly was the fragilityof technology and its negative impact on the learningand teaching process: ‘The robustness of the technologyjust doesn’t seem to be there, it’s changing so much. As soon as you make an improvement, immediatelythe traf� c builds up because people start using it evenmore, it’s a vicious circle in terms of its use. The betterit is the more you use it the more strain you place uponit’. Evident here is also the awareness of, and unease at,the fast rate of technological innovation. Such aware-ness of the rate of change coupled with pressure to stayabreast of new innovations, suggests broader culturaland commercial pressure on individuals to yield tocommercial pressure to buy into the latest softwareversion or the latest technological innovation, suchthemes will be explored below.

Even though staff spoke of enhancing communicationin a changing educational landscape, the notion thattechnology could in fact threaten meaningful face-to-face interaction which is perceived as crucial insome learning contexts emerged in the interviews: ‘The

worst case scenario that I envisage is some maniac willthink that a computer can teach poetry; there will be notutor’. Even if technology is being used appropriately,staff saw that there may be a temptation to lose touchwith students and ‘leave them to it’: ‘What I don’t wanteducational technology to become is the old go awayand � nd out, you can’t cast them adrift . . . the supportsomewhere along the line has to be face-to-face’. Thus,the notion that technology has ‘disconnecting’ features,as well as those that enhance levels of communication,is strong. The temptation to degrade the student experi-ence in this way with inappropriate use of technologyhighlights the disempowering feature of educationaltechnology where a sense of loss of control over widerforces is evident. This sense of dislocation from thestudent experience is important within this study as the context of learning shifts, staff are now beginningto recognize that they have to reflect on their ownpractices, which is clearly a dif� cult thing for some todo. Moreover, without the appropriate guidance andsupport, this loss of control is magni� ed, in terms ofcontrol over the students’ learning activities: ‘There isa danger of sending them off into this black hole andnever seeing them again’; ‘all it will be is studentsreading stuff off the web, that’s where I worry that youlose control’.

The notion of ‘dislocation’ emerged again when staffdescribed their experiences and perceptions ofeducational technology in terms of its impact on theirprofession: ‘we’ve got to catch up, we’ve got torecognize that society’s changing, the kids are comingin more expert than the teachers’; ‘Certainly from mypoint of view, I’ve got to � nd ways of being able toteach because obviously I have a very full timetable.I’m aware in a week where I have twenty hours, not allare of a high quality’. This pressure is manifested evenmore starkly as one member of staff asks the question:‘if I put myself on the web, does that mean I’m doingmyself out of a job?’ Protocol also emerges re� ectingagain, notions of uncertainty: ‘What happens if anindividual member of staff starts producing materialacross the web that is considered inappropriate in someway, offensive, racist?’

Perceptions of social, cultural and institutionalforces

Clearly, the sentiments highlighted above hint at widersocial and cultural forces at play. Indeed within thetranscripts are explicit references to such forces, andthese re� ect a sense of unease at some recent develop-ments within higher education. These can be identi� edin terms of institutional pressure and wider social force.

106 IETI 38,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Institutional pressure is often reflected in staff’sperception that there is a cost saving motivation inuniversity management’s policy of using educationaltechnology. One staff member speaks re� ecting theirperception of senior management sentiment: ‘if onlywe could stick our first year students in front of the machine, that would resolve all the problems interms of staf� ng, money and economies’; ‘They (seniormanagement) are taking policy decisions at a macrolevel and then expecting them to be implemented, but it’s being driven by technology, it’s being driven by economics’. Also, there is the perception that the implementation of educational innovation needsgreater support if staff are expected to rethink theiruniversity teaching: ‘The problem is my time, nothaving any time to develop it, I am running a full time-table to develop supported open learning materials andit isn’t a trivial job. There’s a whole underestimation of the time that’s required to produce very good qualityteaching materials’. Such perceived managementinstrumentalism around cost saving is also linked hereto educational discourses around independent learningand the way it is being used to justify cutting costs: ‘Ithink that the rhetoric is that there’s this independentlearning and teacher as facilitator, and actually I thinkthat that’s just rhetoric. I don’t think it’s being thoughtthrough and I don’t think that the policy makers havethought it through’.

The wider cultural force of educational technology isalso re� ected in a number of different ways, from anawareness of the increasingly competitive nature of theHigher Education sector, to the fear that education isbecoming increasingly commodi� ed:

Well I think the nightmare scenario would be a situationin which there was no interpersonal contact at all, thatthere was a notion that everything, all knowledge andunderstanding could be delivered through a technolog-ically sophisticated medium, and that all we had to do is be on the receiving end; this idea that it’s simplycommodity, which you bought of as much of as youwanted.

What will happen when I advertise my course and theDisney corporation advertise a similar course, which alsohappens to have a lecture on CD-ROM from all theleading authorities in the � eld? Now at what point are wein competition?

Although the tension is evident around contempo-rary shifts in the Higher Education sector, there is arecognition by some staff that change has to come fromsomewhere, things simply must change with the mainemphasis being on enhancing and enriching the student

experience: ‘the big motivational factor for me is thequality of the student experience and a belief that wecan’t carry on with the traditional way’.

DISCUSSION

It is clear that educational technology is impacting on the staff’s working experience in a number ofsignificant ways. From the interview transcripts we can perceive a duality of understanding. On the onehand, the value of educational technologies, both intheir indirect subsidiary form, or in a direct way, doadd value in pedagogic terms, to appropriate learning and teaching contexts. Conversely, however, the notionthat there exists wider institutional or social pressure to engage with educational technology, clearly hasimplications for staff who see no appropriate way ofintegrating educational technology into their teachingwithout demeaning the learning experience of theirstudents. The notion that educational technology isoften perceived as a quick � x solution, still, its seemspervades.

Are we experienced?

Given the differences of how educational technologyis perceived, experience was considered as havingsome idea of the type of educational technology that had been employed and in what context. Thisbackground information was important in that somesense of a feel for educational technology came to light,i.e. what was understood by the phrase ‘educationaltechnology’? What did this encompass and what did itexclude? Also, it was considered that prior experiencesof using educational technology, or indeed its lack of use, could impact on perceptions of technology atthe present time and in the future, in that clearlyperceptions are shaped by past experience. Thus, ingaining some insight into the overall perceptions ofteaching staff on educational technology some insightinto prior experience with such technologies waselicited. In terms of the range of responses, two themesemerged: the � rst being lecturers using technology aspart of their every day working life, email, wordprocessing etc. – not using educational technology in their teaching and learning as such. And secondly,that of lecturers being engaged in technology as acomponent of their teaching and learning, for instanceusing some form of technology as part of the way theydeliver a course or courses.

Moreover, from this introductory information a notionof the lecturers’ perception of their own use of

Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching 107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

educational technology, within the context where suchtechnology is encouraged, emerged in a number ofinstances. For example it was clear that one lecturerwas using educational technology in a number ofinnovative ways in his teaching approach, but to him,this was perceived as not enough again hinting at somebroader cultural pressure.

Value

From the introductory ‘background information’ oneducational technology use, a notion of the advantagesof educational technology use was elicited. The notionof ‘value’ was perceived mainly within four contexts:the � rst being what we will term subsidiary teaching,that being that which involves the production of ‘mun-dane’ materials, i.e. timetables, past exam questions,reference material, book lists etc. Notions of value inthis context were mainly understood as a way of savingvaluable resources of the lecturer, principally time.This subsidiary role was considered the main initialvalue of educational technology; in some senses onethat takes the least amount of input from the lecturer butone in which the rewards in terms of time managementare seen to be great.

The second most notable value was that of educationaltechnology being perceived as enriching the teachingand learning experience. The use of the World WideWeb or multimedia tools being applied to demonstratea concept or clarify a subject or topic. The possibilityof enriching teaching and learning by utilizing edu-cational technology in this way was considered topotentially yield the most bene� ts for the students, anddue to technological innovation, it could be achievedin a multitude of ways. For example, creating enrichedlearning situations arising from CD-ROM technol-ogy, which is used to elucidate problematic abstractconcepts, is one instance where the perceived value oftechnology is strong. In this instance, motivation stemsfrom a desire to colour the subject with interactivecomponents that bring the issues in question to life. Ofcourse some discussion of the actual applicationsreferred to, may be useful to colour the above com-ments, however, it is enough to say at this stage, thatthere is the perception that the introduction oftechnology into the learning process can be a quality-enhancing act.

The third most obvious value that staff perceived isrepresented in the notion of flexibility. Flexibility in terms of where the learning and teaching takes place and when the learner wishes to engage with thematerial. Thus the perception held by many lecturers

interviewed was that � exibility contributes to a student-centred learning experience. The notion of � exibilitywas most commonly described as the students beingable to learn at their own pace and in their own time.The notion of � exibility to a large degree was given in many of the interviews, without explicit reference to flexibility – activities that encapsulated a flexibleapproach to learning were alluded to in a number of instances. Finally, communication was perceived as being enhanced by increased use of educationaltechnology. With the overall perception that oppor-tunities for student and lecturer contact diminishingover the last few years, educational technology washighlighted in some statements as being a key com-ponent in restoring some level of communication;indeed in some instances, the quality of interactionthrough such communication was perceived as beingenhanced in that some of the issues relating to studentfears and concerns about talking in class, were allayedby use of other means of communication such aselectronic mail.

Roles and relationships

In terms of the roles and relationships between teachersand students, the incorporation of educational tech-nology was perceived as potentially having a numberof discernible effects. Three particular contexts emergefrom this area of discussion, however, the three con-texts are by no means separate entities but inter-link indifferent ways and to different degrees depending onthe emphasis the lecturer places on the educationaltechnology. Prominent in this area of discussion is the notion of student-centred learning being directedby the lecturer rather than provider of information and knowledge. Words such as ‘guide’, ‘facilitate’,‘consultant’ and ‘supporter’ surfaced throughout manyof the discourses. The notion that technology enableda greater emphasis on a ‘student-centred’ approach wasa common theme in many of the dialogues. It was alsoclear that notions of student ‘centredness’ were oftencredited as arising directly out of the incorporation oftechnology into a specific course or unit and notexplicitly as a result of ‘rethinking’ the way coursesare run.

Worst case scenarios

In this section of the interview schedule, we were keennot only to elicit some normative operational worriesbut also notions of ‘a nightmare scenario’ or a visionof the future, in other words, the notion of educationaltechnology as a sort of potential Pandora’s box waspursued. As above, the section on nightmare scenarios

108 IETI 38,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

and fears is divided into categories. The � rst concernstechnological failure and the problems, associated withthat, whether perceived or lived, imagined or actual.Even if the technology has never failed for example, thefear is that it could.

The second key area of concern is over the effect the technology has on the teaching and learning in therelationship between teaching staff and the students.There was a clear perception that technology could beused to short-change students in their learning by beingused to replace some interaction and contact. Althoughseemingly in contradiction to the perceived values of educational technology noted above, the idea thatstudents learning can be limited to some degree only ifthe development and application of that technology isnot suf� ciently thought through.

Thirdly there was a perception in some instances, that a perceived lack of control over technology was a problem. This factor was particularly evident in the temptation to ‘fob off’ students with technologygiven the pressures that exist for most lecturers today.This lack of control was also expressed in terms of‘keeping tabs’ on the learning process of students, i.e.ensuring that the students were actually doing whatthey were supposed to be doing and not getting lost inthe vast amounts of electronic material available.Closely linked to notions of control over educationaltechnology are issues surrounding ownership and useof materials. For example, in some instances, thereseemed to be confusion over whether material shouldhave a corporate identity and � t into a SHU templatesuch as the Virtual Campus, or was it the responsibilityof the lecturer to design and implement materials ontheir own. Also, issues of plagiarism, the fact that alecturer’s material could be copied, by students and/orother academics raised concerns.

The cultural force of technology

The cultural force of technology was perceived withinthree main contexts, institutional, social and economic.Of course these three factors are interrelated, however,lecturers’ descriptions of the sources of ‘a culture of technology’ was distinguished within these threeparameters. Communication between lecturers andsenior management over the implementation of edu-cational technology was perceived to be de� cient. Thefeeling that management was somehow unclear ormisguided in terms of the key issues for lecturers wasa strong current in this section of the discourses. Highexpectations in terms of what management thought wasachievable and the reality of actually developing and

delivering materials was noted as problematic for manyof the lecturing staff. This is linked to the idea thatincreasing demands being placed upon teaching staffis not taken into account when staff are encouraged to develop materials or train to use such technology. An exemplar of this factor is represented in the notionof lack of ‘space’ principally in terms of time and was perceived as not being acknowledged by seniormanagement.

There was also the notion of cultural pressure, be it interms of social expectations of the lecturers’ techno-logical competency, or the feeling that somehow therewas some wider currency or value in technologicalliteracy as a university lecturer. Anxiety over theexpectations of students in terms of their needs wasalso noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the experiences and perceptions of teaching staff at SHU specifically concerningeducational technology can only contribute to a betterunderstanding of the role of technology in learning andteaching, and the place within the pedagogic processthat educational technology has. This paper has soughttherefore to stimulate discussion around educationaltechnology from varying perspectives of teaching staffat SHU, as part of broader research into educationaltechnology and learning and teaching. Clearly thispaper is about the perceptions and experiences of teaching staff only, the authors recognize that themanagerial/institutional perspective is not considered.However, such an investigation into the institutionalperception would be the logical next step for this work. Also, given the relatively limited number ofparticipants in the research, the work represented hereshould be seen in the context of a developing dialoguerather than a final statement of findings. However, the work cited here is also complementary to similarliterature on staff and student experiences both in termsof how it reflects similar sentiment and also how its findings diverge. For example, on a substantive note, this research has shown that far from being antitechnology, the overwhelming majority of staff inter-viewed were in favour of educational technologybecoming a part of their own teaching and learningstrategies, both in terms of the perceived added valuethat technology brings to their teaching and in terms ofthe bene� ts to their students – � exibility, vocational,resource opportunities and the enrichment of learningthrough various media. Daugherty and Funke (1998)also report that the added value perceived by faculty

Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching 109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

is directed at the outcomes of student interaction with educational technology, in their case web-basedinstruction. The main area of complaint was centredaround the fragility of technology and appropriatesupport for the development of educational technolo-gies. Again Daugherty and Funke expressed similarconcerns in their work as did Parker (1997) who notesthat in her research that faculty ‘appeared to be willingto increase their use of technology in preparation andin teaching provided that upgraded equipment, supportpersonnel, and training were available’ (p. 111). Interms of non-technical issues, some measure of cautionwas expressed around certain key areas, the mostprominent of which concerns the fear of devaluatingthe student experience, brought about by a supplan-tation of real interaction with the ‘virtual’. ‘Real life’contact with students was noted by lecturers as the most crucial element in pedagogic processes, whichwas potentially under some threat by a perceivedincreased emphasis on educational technology. We saypotentially, as a feature of many of the dialoguesconcerned an appreciation of the need to controltechnology coupled with the desire to exercise ameasure of in� uence on the forces that contribute toincreased emphasis on technology in education, costeffectiveness, � nancial viability, etc. Again this ties into literature concerning the shifting � nancial emphasisof university strategies. For example where universitylife is increasingly being perceived as a commodi� edexperience (Berman, 1998) and market motivations areincreasingly apparent (Apple, 1998).

In terms of the application of technology and peda-gogy, it is interesting to note a signi� cant variation inthe lecturer’s perceptions of ‘student centredness’ inrelation to educational technology. It is clear that somelecturers were happy with a more traditional approachto their teaching, whether this involved technology or not. In the instances that it did involve some use of educational technology, this was usually perceivedmore with reference to supplementary teaching, asreferred to above, i.e. communication of mundaneformalities, etc. Conversely in some instances, theinjection of technology into teaching practices, wasseen as engendering a ‘student-centred’ approach in itself, irrespective of the kind of technology used,and how this was applied and combined with othermodes of teaching – traditional lecturers, seminars, etc.In this sense, a notion of ‘student-centred’ learning wasperceived to be attainable purely by the introductionof educational technology. There were, however,instances in which � exible approaches to ‘delivering’courses, which encompassed a wide range of teachingmethods, and that were inclusive of some use of

technology were in operation by some staff, albeit aminority. Clearly some clari� cation of ‘student-centredlearning’ needs to occur if technology is to have ameaningful role in learning and teaching for the future.

It should be clear from the above two paragraphs that communication at all levels of higher education,should be paramount in learning and teaching inno-vation and development. The perceived pressures on staff to deliver a greater range of courses, to anincreased student body cannot be ignored, and althoughtechnology can provide a means of dealing with theseissues, it should not be seen as the sole solution. If educational technology is to be adopted as a con-tribution to innovative and effective learning forstudents, university management should recognize that resources need to be made available in terms ofstaff ‘space’ to develop such innovation. The conceptof ‘space’ is important so that sufficient planning and development can occur and an appropriate com-bination of teaching and learning scenarios can emerge to enhance the student experience. Also, staffthemselves should recognize that serious reflectionneeds to occur if technology is to be utilized in theirteaching practices. Simply placing students ‘in front’of technology and letting them ‘get on with it’ can onlydegrade the student experience. That said, consideredand appropriate technologies can enhance studentlearning and provide the lecturer with much needed‘space’ to devote to quality human interaction withtheir students. This is being helped in part within SHUvia the Learning and Teaching Institute, but if staff areto feel more in control of their responsibilities, a greateremphasis has to be placed upon dialogue between thoseagents that can affect such developments – greaterstress on the quality of the learning experience has tooccur. Finally, realistic notions of what educationaltechnology can bring to learning and teaching need tobe made more apparent to all, management, teachingstaff and students; a process that this research intendsto inform and promote.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Peter Ashworth andDavid Mowthorpe for their helpful comments andsuggestions, also referees’ comments on earlier draftsof this paper. They also acknowledge the participantsof this study for their co-operation. Earlier versions ofthis paper were presented to the Euro Education 2000conference, Allborg, Denmark, in February 2000 andthe CSALT Annual workshop on Networked Learning,Higham House Cumbria, UK, in November 1999.

110 IETI 38,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFERENCES

Apple, M W (1998) Selling our children: channel one andthe politics of education. In McChesney, R W, Meiksins-Wood, E and Bellamy Foster, J (eds) Capitalism and theInformation Age, The Political Economy of the GlobalCommunication Revolution, Monthly Review Press,New York.

Bacsich, P and Ash, C (2000) Costing the lifecycle ofnetworked learning: documenting the costs from concep-tion to evaluation, Association of Learning TechnologyJournal, 8, 1, 92–102.

Berman, E H (1998) The entrepreneurial university, macroand micro perspectives from the United States. In Curry,J and Newson, J (eds) Universities and Globalisation,Critical Perspectives, Sage Publications, California.

Daugherty, M and Funke, B L (1998) University facultyand student perceptions of web-based instruction,Journal of Distance Education, 13, 1, 21–39.

Gabriner, R and Mery, P (1998) Technology Survey:Faculty Computer Expertise and Use of InstructionalTechnology, research report, City College of SanFrancisco Of� ce of Research, Planning and Grants.

Hart, G, Ryan, Y and Bagdon, K (1999) Supportingorganisational change: fostering a more � exibleapproach to course delivery, Association of LearningTechnology Journal, 7, 1, 46–53.

Hudson, B (1999) A Social Perspective on Learning in theContext of Computer Mediated Communication inEducation, Journal of Information Technology inTeacher Education, 8, 3, 349–360.

Light, P and Light, V (1999) Analysing asynchronouslearning interactions. In Littlejohn, K, and Light, P (eds)Learning with Computers, Analysing ProductiveInteraction, Routledge, London.

Littlejohn, A and Cameron, S (1999) Supporting strategiccultural change: the strathclyde learning technologyinitiative as a model, Association of LearningTechnology Journal, 7, 3, 64–74.

Lynch, K (1999) The social impact of online learning,Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers inLearning In Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) ’99Conference, Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane, Australia, pp. 199–206.

Novek, E (1999) Do professors dream of electronicstudents? Faculty anxiety and the new informationtechnologies, paper presented to the EasternCommunication Association Annual Meeting,Charleston West Virginia, 29 April – 2 May.

Parker, D R (1997) Increasing faculty use of technology inteaching and teacher education, Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 5, 2/3, 105–115.

Sandholtz, J H, Ringstaff, C and Dwyer, D C (1997)Teaching with Technology – Creating Student CentredClassrooms, Teachers College Press, New York.

Schrum, L (1995) Educators and the Internet: a case studyof professional development, Computers and Education,24, 3, 221–228.

Stahl, G, Sumner, T and Owen, R (1995) Share globally,adapt locally: software assistance to locate and taylor

curriculum posted to the Internet, Computers andEducation, 24, 3, 237–246.

Tait, W (1997) Constructivist Internet-based learning,Active Learning, 7, 3–8.

Wild, M and Stoney, S (1998) Motivation and interfacedesign: maximising learning opportunities, Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 14, 1, 40–50.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Alison Hudson is a Senior Lecturer and Head of theCentre for Multimedia in Education in the Learningand Teaching Institute at Shef� eld Hallam University,UK. She co-ordinates a number of National andEuropean projects focusing on producing multimediaproducts for Higher Education and Industry. Herresearch interests include Factors Affecting theImplementation of Computer-Based Learning and theEffective Exploitation of Information Services andResources by Academic Staff.

John Steel is a researcher in the Learning and TeachingInstitute at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He iscurrently � nalizing his Doctoral Thesis which focuseson Political Theory and Freedom of Speech, at theUniversity of Shef� eld, UK.

Address for correspondence: John Steel and AlisonHudson, Learning and Teaching Institute, SheffieldHallam University, Adsetts Centre, Howard Street,Shef� eld, S1 1WB.Tel: 44 (0)114 225 4743;Fax: 44 (0)114 225 4755;e-mail: j.a.steel@shu.ac.uk

Educational Technology in Learning and Teaching 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

16 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014