logo

Commentaries

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2020): Debating the status of 'theory' in technology enhanced learning research

Phenomenography and the representation of conceptual uncertainty: A comment on Moffitt

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/hsy3rn69
Submitted
31 July 2026
Published
12-08-2020

Abstract

Earlier on I accepted the invitation by the journal editors of Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning (STEL) to review Philip Moffitt’s paper “Engineering academics and technology enhanced learning; A phenomenographic approach to establish conceptions of scholarly interactions with theory”. My interest in this paper is multi-faceted. Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in Higher Education (HE) is an area of specialisation I have long been interested in, and now increasingly so because of my new work remit in that direction. Further to this, I am attracted to phenomenography as a research approach.  In this commentary, I would like to make a few comments about representation of concepts, dealing with uncertainty, and the relevance of those topics for academic development.

References

  1. Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing Developmental Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
  2. Cutajar, M. (2014). Qualitative differences in post-compulsory pre-university Maltese students’ accounts of their networked learning experiences. (Ph.D), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Retrieved from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/72904/
  3. Cutajar, M. (2018). Higher Education Teachers' Experiences of Networked Technologies for Teaching. Msida, Malta: Malta University Publishing.
  4. Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2018). Student Engagement in the Digital University. New York, US and Oxon, UK: Routledge.
  5. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, a. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
  6. Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893-899. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000
  7. Johnston, B., Macniell, S., & Smyth, K. (2018). Conceptualising the digital university. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
  8. Marton, F. (2014). Necessary conditions of learning: Routledge.
  9. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The Space of Learning. In F. Marton & A. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. New York and London: Routledge.
  11. McNiff, J. (2002). Action Research: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). Oxon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
  12. Moffitt, P. (2020). Engineering academics and technology enhanced learning; A phenomenographic approach to establish conceptions of scholarly interactions with theory. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.3aaef24b
  13. Ó Súilleabháin, G. (2003). Principles, Structure and Framework in E-learning. Retrieved from http://learning.ericsson.net/socrates/doc/cork.doc
  14. Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Retrieved from http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf