Group Admins
Description
Kirkwood and Price (2013) observed difficulty in attributing learning gain to TEL innovation when the local context (e.g. social and technological practices) are variable. Furthermore, a student’s experience and learning environment can also influence successful outcomes (Biggs and Tang, 2011) suggesting that it is difficult to know when TEL innovation has been effective and how it might be scaled, in order to derive maximum value for learners.
Preliminary analysis on the design of 157 online/distance modules found that assimilative and assessment activities accounted for a higher proportion of student workload but initial findings suggest a negative correlation with student completion rates (Toetenal and Rienties, forthcoming 2016). This research did not find positive correlation between other activity types (i.e. finding and information handling, communication, production, experiential and interactive/adaptive) and student outcomes. This indicates that TEL innovation is complex, encompassing development of pedagogies, technologies and practices and is sensitive to context.
The session will explain the phases of the HCD process, i.e. inspiration, ideation and implementation, and draw on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation to reflect on questions including ‘how open and participatory is current TEL practice?’, ‘Is there benefit in affording students greater agency?’ and ‘Can student engagement activities, such as Hack Days, be scaled and are they, in themselves, representative and sustainable?’
The session will highlight how a HCD approach can enable practitioners to develop a deep empathetic understanding of real-world student experiences. By providing students with greater agency in setting TEL research priorities, we can more easily translate the outputs into teaching and learning practice, extracting maximum value from TEL innovation.
References
Arnstein S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, pp. 216–224.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kirkwood, A. and Price, L. (2013) Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology. DOI 10.1080/17439884.2013
Toetenal, L. and Rienties, B. (forthcoming, 2016) ‘Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision making’, British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12423
