logo

Articles

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

Engineering academics and technology enhanced learning; A phenomenographic approach to establish conceptions of scholarly interactions with theory

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/yve7n211
Submitted
27 July 2026
Published
01-06-2020

Abstract

Discussions and debates of theory in technology enhanced learning (TEL) within higher education (HE) are often characterised by instrumentalist motives, where theory is either juxtaposed somehow with reality or is used in expedited attempts to order, predict and monitor directly business-driven outcomes. The current paper instead examines and interprets scholars’ experiences of their activities at a nexus of their research and practice; specifically, how participants conceive of their own scholarly interactions with theory in TEL. The paper summarises an interpretive study conducted in mid-2019 with teaching-focused lecturers at the Royal School of Military Engineering, a school providing HE in infrastructure engineering for defence personnel. The paper first describes problematic notions of scholarship, theory and TEL then analyses the related existing literature, to illustrate a dearth of studies which examine experiences, perceptions and conceptions of scholarly interactions with theory in TEL. A phenomenographic study is presented, with outcomes disclosing four parsimonious conceptions ranging in successive inclusivity and complexity. Participants conceive that scholarly interactions with theory in TEL enable them to: understand their own competence; exhibit their own competence; critique the change endeavours of others; and undertake their own change endeavours. The categories of description and dimensions of variation show how, to the study’s participants, the status of theory in TEL is very much thriving and informs sociocultural perspectives of TEL’s enhancement. The findings also expose important contradictory social conditions, which are beyond the scope of phenomenography and are lucrative for further research of an interventionist nature.

References

  1. Aidman, E. V., & Leontiev, D. A. (1991). From being motivated to motivating oneself: A Vygotskian perspective. Studies in Soviet Thought, 42(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00818841
  2. Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 56–62). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
  3. Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 45–74). Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.
  4. Antonenko, P. D. (2014). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
  5. Ashwin, P. (2006). Variation in academics’ accounts of tutorials. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 651–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004234
  6. Ashwin, P. (2012). Analysing Teaching–Learning Interactions in Higher Education: Accounting for Structure and Agency. London: Continuum Publishers.
  7. Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the ‘World’ of Phenomenography? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383980420407
  8. Bates, T., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
  10. Beetham, H, & Sharpe, R. (2013). An Introduction to Rethinking Pedagogy. In Helen Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning (pp. 1–10). Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961681
  11. Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory : The missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17108
  12. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: Research-Intervention Using Activity Theory. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research: Volume 1 (pp. 141–169). London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220150000001007
  13. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
  14. Boyer, E. (1990). Enlarging the Perspective. In A Special Report. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (pp. 15–25). New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/84.6.571
  15. Brookfield, S. (2018). Pedagogical Peculiarities. In Emma Medland, R. Watermeyer, A. Hosein, I. M. Kinchin, & S. Lygo-Baker (Eds.), Pedagogical Peculiarities: Conversations at the Edge of University Teaching and Learning (pp. 1–17). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512541
  16. Calhoun, C. (2002). Theory. In Dictionary of the Social Sciences (pp. 480–482). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001
  17. Christensen, S. H., Didier, C., Jamison, A., Meganck, M., Mitcham, C., & Newberry, B. (2015). General Introduction: the Engineering-Context Nexus a Perennial Discourse. In S. H. Christensen, C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, & B. Newberry (Eds.), Philosophy of Engineering and Technology; volume 21. Engineering identities, epistemologies and values: Engineering education and practice in context (pp. xix–xxxiv). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16172-3
  18. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE Publications.
  20. Crook, C., & Bligh, B. (2016). Technology and the dis-placing of learning in educational futures. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.001
  21. Crook, C., & Sutherland, R. (2017). Technology and Theories of Learning. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Themes (pp. 11–29). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_2
  22. Drumm, L. (2019). Folk pedagogies and pseudo-theories: How lecturers rationalise their digital teaching. Research in Learning Technology, 27(2094), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2094
  23. Ekeblad, E. (1997). On the Surface of Phenomenography: A Response to Graham Webb. Higher Education, 33(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1002991417611
  24. Elken, M., & Wollscheid, S. (2016). The Relationship Between Research and Education: Typologies and Indicators. Oslo: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2386141
  25. Ellis, V. (2011). Reenergising Professional Creativity from a CHAT Perspective: Seeing Knowledge and History in Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2010.493595
  26. Engeström, R. (2014). New Forms of Transformative Agency. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Professional Learning: Processes, Practices and Tools (pp. 59–70). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203745052
  27. Flavin, M. (2017). Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning: the Use and Misuse of Digital Technologies in Higher Education. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57284-4
  28. Gray, J. (2010). Probing the Limits of Systemic Reform: The English Case. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Springer International Handbooks of Education, Volume 23. Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 293–308). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_17
  29. Gunn, C., & Steel, C. (2012). Linking theory to practice in learning technology research: a review of learning technology research articles. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2012), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16148
  30. Hall, R., & Stahl, B. (2016). Against Commodification: The University, Cognitive Capitalism and Emergent Technologies. In C. Fuchs & V. Mosco (Eds.), Marx and the Political Economy of the Media (pp. 65–98). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004291416_005
  31. Hallett, F. (2014). The dilemma of methodological idolatry in higher education: The case of phenomenography. In M. Tight & J. Huisman (Eds.), International Perspectives on Higher Education Research 2, Volume 10 (pp. 203–215). London: Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3628(2014)0000010016
  32. Halverson, C. (2002). Activity Theory and Distribuuted Cognition: Or what does CSCW Need to Do with Theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015298005381
  33. Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12770
  34. Jarvis, P. (2002). Practice-based and problem-based learning. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Teaching (pp. 123–131). London: Kogan Page. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203016442
  35. Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2011). Editorial. Theory in learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17107
  36. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
  37. la Velle, L. (2019). The theory–practice nexus in teacher education: new evidence for effective approaches. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(4), 369–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1639267
  38. Laurillard, D. (2008). Digital technologies and their role in achieving our ambitions for education. London: Institute of Education.
  39. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083
  40. Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G., Masterman, E., Pujadas, R., Whitley, E. and Whittlestone, K. (2013). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00458.x
  41. Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12697
  42. Mardis, M. A., Hoffman, E. S., & Rich, P. J. (2014). Trends and Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. In M. J. B. (eds): M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 173–195). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
  43. Marshall, S., & Pennington, G. (2009). Teaching excellence as a vehicle for career progression. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice (Third, pp. 485–498). Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891414
  44. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516
  45. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053690
  46. Marton, F., & Pong, W. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284706
  47. Mosco, V. (2009). The Political Economy of Communication (Second). London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.mmj.3
  48. Mulford, B. (2010). Recent Developments in the Field of Educational Leadership: The Challenge of Complexity. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Springer International Handbooks of Education, Volume 23. Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 187–209). London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6
  49. Murphy, T. (2016). The future of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) is in the hands of the anonymous, grey non-descript mid-level professional manager. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v2i1.14
  50. Passey, D. (2013). Inclusive technology enhanced learning : overcoming cognitive, physical, emotional, and geographic challenges. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203073742
  51. Passey, D. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning: Rethinking the term, the concept and its theoretical background. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12783
  52. Reed, B. (2006). Phenomenography as a way to research the understanding by students of technical concepts. Nucleo de Pesquisa Em Technologia Da Arquiterura e Urbanismo (NUTAU): Technological Innovation and Sustainability, 1–11.
  53. Sayer, A. (1992). Introducing Critical Realism: Realism and Social Science. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218730
  54. Shaw, I., & Crompton, A. (2003). Theory, Like Mist on Spectacles, Obscures Vision. Evaluation, 9(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003009002005
  55. Sin, S. (2010). Considerations of Quality in Phenomenographic Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(4), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900401
  56. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical Foundations of Phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436970160204
  57. Thomas, G. (1997). What’s the use of theory? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.1.1x807532771w5u48
  58. Tight, M. (2012). Researching Higher Education (Second). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International and the Open University Press.
  59. Tight, M. (2016a). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2016.1224674
  60. Tight, M. (2016b). Phenomenography: the development and application of an innovative research design in higher education research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1010284
  61. Tight, M. (2019). Higher education research: The developing field. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  62. Timothy, J., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.013
  63. Toulmin, S., & Gustavsen, B. (1996). Beyond theory: Changing organizations through participation, dialogues on work and innovation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dowi.2
  64. Trowler, P. (2012). Wicked issues in situating theory in close up research. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.631515
  65. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (2009). Enhancement theories. In V. Bamber, P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & P. Knight (Eds.), Enhancing learning, teaching, assessment and curriculum in higher education: Theory, cases, practices (1st ed., pp. 7–17). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International and the Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2011.00728.x
  66. van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change: Different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 895–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.002
  67. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activities / @ctivités, 3(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1850
  68. Watermeyer, R., & Tomlinson, M. (2018). The Marketization of Pedagogy and the Problem of “Competitive Accountability.” In E. Medland, R. Watermeyer, A. Hosein, I. M. Kinchin, & S. Lygo-Baker (Eds.), Pedagogical peculiarities: Conversations at the edge of university teaching and learning (pp. 87–98). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512541
  69. Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002905027633
  70. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849666275
  71. Yates, C., Partridge, H., & Bruce, C. (2012). Exploring information experiences through phenomenography. Library and Information Research, 36(112), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg496