1 / 21

Mapping e-Learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology

Mapping e-Learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology. Andrew Whitworth & Angela Benson. Introduction. Theme: “Next generation of providers” Paper describes research project Funders: WUN, British Academy

sydnee-case
Download Presentation

Mapping e-Learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mapping e-Learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology Andrew Whitworth & Angela Benson Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  2. Introduction • Theme: “Next generation of providers” • Paper describes research project • Funders: WUN, British Academy • Area of interest: e-learning as organised human activity in a workplace context • How will the next generation of providers absorb and develop these technologies? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  3. Are technologies like this? • Emerging from nowhere • Always looking the same? • (though it’s fair enough to • say they are bigger on the • inside than the outside!) Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  4. The social shaping of technology • Technologies are shaped… built from the available resources and in particular (organisational) contexts • They also shape organisations and practices: acting as affordances for everyday working lives • This relationship is co-evolutionary (Andrews & Haythornthwaite 2007) TECH: ORG: and so on… Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  5. The context • What is an organisation? • people? infrastructure? working practices? knowledge? external constraints? customer demands? • E-learning researchers must appreciate organisation studies and theory • Any organisation fragmented… HE especially so? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  6. Technology at the planning table • Different stakeholders… different practices, assumptions, values, knowledge bases… • multiple forces shaping products (technologies, programs…) • Who shapes the sociotechnical configuration of online programs? & does it make a difference? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  7. Research design • via Cervero & Wilson • and Benson (2002) • Both projects looked at negotiations in educational planning… • Attend to role of e-learning tech itself in constituting a framing factor • Qualitative case studies Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  8. Case studies Locations: 1 US and 1 UK case study for each CMS type Time: Data for 4 col- lected summer 2005 3 more summer 2006 1 to complete • CMS types: • commercial • open source • home-grown • “Lone Ranger” • Different develop- ment communities in each case… • Not establishing if one is “better” but whether and how these different design methodologies are compatible with existing organisational structures Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  9. Validity of data • Why important? (especially in this project) • Multiple stakeholders, perspectives – contradiction in the data set is inevitable? • Validity becomes a matter of trustworthiness of data? • Two case studies used to illustrate this… • …and how establishing validity itself brought insight Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  10. Identifying interactions • Should not take “formal” structure as read – do perceptions of this structure match? • “Named” v. “unnamed” interactions • First visualisation – a crude count (full table is in the proceedings) • Reduce then to a second visualisation: cognitive social structure – reciprocal recognition of ties between parties Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  11. Visualising organisational structure Developers Instructors Planners TAs This is only one way of interpreting the data, but it does suggest that this team has a centralised structure Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  12. Mining the transcripts • Triangulation… • KATHRYN: I think that if I didn’t have a funnel… of Bryan having everything come through him, it would be very difficult to keep up. If I had to spend more time responding to individuals and less time on tasks. And at the same time, what’s even more confusing than just the response time is how do I prioritize this? Is this something Bryan wants me to do, or is this something that is just kind of an off-hand request from somebody else? • INTERVIEWER: Does Bryan stop you having to get involved with that kind of politics…? • KATHRYN: Yeah, he definitely does do that and makes those decisions, which is good…. not that I avoid talking to people or anything, but I think in a situation like that…it lets me be the programmer. Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  13. Adding the “unnamed” interactions A different visualisation: a second form of triangulation Each visualisation alone has limitations: but they reinforce each other – and help establish the validity of the “picture” of each case study Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  14. Summary of “ERD” • Relatively strong core of planners, who mediate much of the interaction with the developers • Instructors have strong links with TAs, but not with other instructors nor developers Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  15. Comparisons with E-TECH …E-TECH ERD… A more distributed “cognitive social structure”? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  16. Comparisons with E-TECH ERD… …E-TECH • E-TECH – a more integrated development team, and a more inclusive • development process • Planners have less of a “gatekeeping” role • Still a lack of instructor – instructor interaction though… Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  17. Why might this matter? • Co-evolution of organisation & system… procedures, etc. • Compatibility of CMS with organisational structure • Who shapes? (E-TECH more inclusive…) • Note also strain that E-TECH might come under – if mandated to use particular CMS? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  18. Close relatives! Something I haven’t mentioned yet… Both programs are hosted at the same university – indeed in the same building! Could a “campus-wide” solution be imposed here? Would either program find it easy to change? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  19. Conclusion • No generalisation from case study… • but “thick” descriptions…? • Understanding the complexities of the technology – organisation relationship is crucial for the effective implementation of e-L in everyday working contexts in all their different configurations Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  20. Moving on • Limitations acknowledged… • but lessons were learnt about how to research the other cases • 7 out of 8 cases, data collection now complete • Further developments: longitudinal? Develop techniques for assessing other contexts? Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

  21. Contact us… • Drew: • andrew.whitworth@manchester.ac.uk • Angela: • abenson@bamaed.au.edu • We would particularly like to talk to anyone working with, or with contacts at, the Open University. Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

More Related