logo

Articles

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

Getting to grips with technology enhanced learning literature: Wading out of murky waters

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/gpy55d89
Submitted
31 July 2026
Published
25-06-2020

Abstract

Gathering data on campus-based research-intensive university teachers’ thinking and use of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) theory is a challenge and under researched. This article will report on the first stage of a research project involving university teachers and their TEL literature thinking and use whilst studying an optional blended learning design module of a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) course at a UK research intensive university. The findings of the first stage of the research will help refine the research approach for the second stage of the project and aims to minimise any bias or assumptions about university teachers’ thinking and use of TEL theory. A descriptive and content analysis of the bibliographic citations of 32 design and development reports provides an insight into how university teachers approach TEL literature and which types of literature they find useful. It concludes that, whilst university teachers engaged with a wide range of published academic literature from four distinct fields, there is variance in the type of literature they found to be the most useful. These research findings provide a robust foundation for the second stage of the project which will explore the thinking behind how university teachers go about making their literature choices and why. The analysis presented in this paper illustrates the beginnings of an encouraging picture where it is possible for TEL theory to be in a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with TEL practice.

References

  1. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
  2. Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Armellini, A., Moseley, A., Hayes, N., Sweeney, D., Beard, J., Padilla Rodriguez, B.C., and Conole, G. (2012). A review of current VLE use by staff and students at the University of Leicester. A confrontation with reality, ALT-C Annual Conference. Manchester, UK.
  4. Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Keane, E., Krause, K-L., Leibowitz, B., MacLaren, I., McArthur, J., McCune, V., and Tooher, M. (2015). Reflective Teaching in Higher Education. London & New York: Bloomsbury.
  5. Bain, J. D. (1999). Introduction to special issue on learning-centred evaluation of innovation in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), pp. 165-172.
  6. Beetham, H. and Sharpe R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
  7. Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 8, pp. 7-25.
  8. Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. Brown, S. and McIntyre, D. (1993). Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  10. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
  11. Carter, H., Meek, J., and Warren, V. (2011) Changing practice: Does the LMS matter?. In Williams, G. P. Statham, P. Brown, N. and Cleland, B. (Eds.). Changing demands, changing directions (pp. 205-209). Proceedings ASCILITE Hobart 2011.
  12. Collis, B. and Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: experiences and expectations. London and New York: Routledge.
  13. Conole, G. (2004). E-learning: The hype and the reality. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Retrieved from https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2004-12/
  14. Conole, G. (2016). Chapter 6: The 7Cs of learning design. In J. Dalziel (Ed.). Learning design: Conceptualizing a framework for teaching and learning online, (pp. 139-170). New York and London: Routledge.
  15. Cooper, P. and McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective teaching and learning, teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  16. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative; and mixed method approaches. Thousand Islands, CA: Sage Publications.
  17. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
  18. Ellis, R. and Goodyear, P. (2010). Students' experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York and London: Routledge.
  19. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case Study. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.), (pp. 301-317). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  20. Garrison, R. D. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century, A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice. (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
  21. Gibbs G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit Oxford Polytechnic.
  22. Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
  23. González, C. (2010).What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching?. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 61-78.
  24. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., and Steeples, C. (2005). Networked learning in higher education: Students’ expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50(3), 473-508.
  25. Hativa, N. and Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  26. Higher Education Academy (2011) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. UK: The Higher Education Academy, Guild HE, Universities UK. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/ukpsf_2011_english.pdf
  27. Jones, C., Asensio, M., and Goodyear, P. (2000). Networked learning in higher education: Practitioners perspectives. Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 8, 18-28.
  28. Kennedy, G., Jones, D., Chambers, D., and Peacock, J. (2011). Understanding the reasons academics use – and don‘t use –endorsed and unendorsed learning technologies. In Williams, G., Statham, P., Brown, N., Cleland, B. (Eds. pp. 688-701). Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ASCILITE Hobart 2011, Retrieved from:https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/ProceedingsV3.pdf
  29. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
  30. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  31. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
  32. Laurillard, D. (2007). Forward. In Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (Eds.). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.
  33. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. USA: Sage Publications.
  34. Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  35. McLean, M. and Ashwin, P. (2016). Chapter 4: The quality of learning, teaching and curriculum. In Scott, P. Gallacher, J. and Parry, G. (Eds.). New languages and landscapes of higher education (pp. 84-102). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  36. McLean, M. and Trigwell, K. (2006). Diversity and difference? Focusing on similarity through ‘approaches to learning’. Oxford: Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, University of Oxford. Retrieved at: www2.wlv.ac.uk/webteam/confs/socdiv/sdd_trigwell_mclean1105.doc
  37. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK and Philadelphia, USA: Multilingual Matters.
  38. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.
  39. Nicol, D. J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
  40. Pask, G. (1976). Conversational techniques in the study and practice of education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1) pp.12-25.
  41. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., and Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating E-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York and London: Routledge.
  42. Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
  43. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
  44. Reeves, T. C. and Reeves, P. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In B. Khan (Ed.). Web-based instruction (pp. 59-66). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
  45. Richardson, J.T.E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
  46. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd ed.). Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons.
  47. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
  48. Selwyn, N. (2011). Technology, media and education: Telling the whole story. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 211-213.
  49. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
  50. Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., and Wong, L.H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5, Milton Keynes: The Open University.
  51. Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness of qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
  52. Silverman, B.G. (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Computers & Education, 25(3), 81-91.
  53. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). Great Britain: Sage Publications.
  54. Smith, R.D. (2016). Metamorphosis and the management of change. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(1), 8-19.
  55. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
  56. Sweeney, D. (2019). University teacher and student educational technology use: drawing on professional craft knowledge. Radical Electric Teaching Conference, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
  57. Sweeney, D., Hawker, I., Justice, S., & Byrne, N. (2019). Reflection in practice: The what and the how. A study of how university teachers use reflective practice in their university teaching and professional contexts. University of Nottingham Teaching and Learning Conference, Nottingham, May 2019.
  58. Sweeney, D. (2017). How university teachers and students use educational technology in university classroom contexts to optimise learning: a study of purposes, principles, processes and perspectives. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Leicester. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.733727
  59. Thomas, G. (2016). How to do your case study (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
  60. Trigwell, K. Martin, E. Benjamin, J. and Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: a model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 155-168.
  61. Tripp, D. (2011). Critical incidents in teaching, developing professional judgement. New York and London: Routledge.
  62. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  63. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society, the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
  64. Walker, S. and Kerrigan, M.J.P. (2017). Chapter 4: Learning design in the new digital age. In J. Dalziel (Ed.). Learning design: Conceptualizing a framework for teaching and learning online, (pp. 96-117) New York and London: Routledge.
  65. Walker, R. Voce, J. Swift, E. Ahmed, J. Jenkins, M. and Vincent, P. (2016). UCISA Report, 2016 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA).
  66. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
  67. Wertsch, J.V. and Tulviste, P. (1998). Chapter 1: L.S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. In Faulkner, D. Littleton, K. and Woodhead, M. (Eds.). Learning Relationships in the classroom, (pp. 13-31). London and USA: Routledge in association with the Open University.
  68. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
  69. Yin, R.K. (2015). Case studies. In James D. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 194-201). Bethesda, MD, USA: Elsevier.