learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Christine Davies
more detail, and subsequently ways of removing these barriers were devised that were tailored to the
constituencies of academic staff that we observed.
2.1 Identifying barriers
Butler and Sellbom (2002) observed that barriers to engagement with educational technology
included inadequate or unreliable hardware; a belief that technology cannot make any difference; and
lack of time to learn new techniques. We felt that these might also apply to the University of
Glamorgan, but we believed it was important to ask more searching questions about the technologies
in use and how they were viewed in the context of University policies and procedures, and individuals’
teaching and/or research roles. A survey was therefore developed to ask about academics’ existing
experience and perceptions of technology for learning, teaching and assessment which was sent out
to academic staff in several faculties. We also had the intention of utilizing survey responses (with
permission) as a pool of contact information to allow follow up of individuals for more detailed
investigation.
The survey response rate was disappointing at approximately 10%, but nonetheless included
respondents from a wide range of disciplines and roles showing varying levels of experience of the
use of technology. Responses indicated that technology was generally deemed to be important in
education, but the questions that asked for specific examples of useful technologies were often left
blank, as were suggestions for technologies that were perceived as desirable. Further answers
showed that there was a good understanding of the institutional Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
and its capabilities, though a limited awareness of other learning technologies, especially ‘Web 2.0’
and social media. There was also little experience of the many high-quality online Open Educational
Resources (OER) available in virtually all subjects.
Answers relating to training needs indicated that approximately 50% of respondents identified a need
for training, and also showed a preference for one-to-one approaches. A question specifically asking
for reasons for non-engagement was largely left unanswered, but follow-up interviews discovered that
several of the anticipated barriers were involved, particularly lack of time, and issues such as
imminent retirement, temporary posts, and worries about copyright were also raised. Another barrier
identified was the noticeable lack of awareness of what technology could achieve.
2.2 Raising awareness
Given the results of the survey, we felt it was important to embark on a campaign of raising
awareness, highlighting a wide variety of technologies that could be incorporated into the curriculum.
This was implemented in several ways:
2.2.1 Promotional campaign
A colourful postcard was designed in-house to make lecturers and academics more aware of
technologies that could benefit their students, and this was distributed to all academic staff. The card
also notified them about forthcoming in-Faculty drop-in sessions
2.2.2 In-faculty drop-in sessions
Members of the Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) team at CELT visited each Faculty in turn for a
three-hour period over lunchtime to enable academic staff to approach them for ideas, information
and help relevant to their subject teaching. Though the proportion of the staff population who
interacted at these events was quite low, in each Faculty several staff discussed issues affecting their
courses, and subsequently further interviews and projects were arranged in several cases
2.2.3 Accessible OER
The survey indicated that few lecturers were making use of the many high-quality OER that are
current available online. A key initiative within the JISC Building Capacity Project was therefore to
produce templates for use on the institutional VLE to provide important information about key
resources such as iTunesU and Openlearn to make them more accessible for academic staff.
153