Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1
Academic Compass Learning Environments Survey Key Findings
August 2016
Prepared by the Division of Student Learning: Adaptive Learning and Teaching Services,
Learning Technologies Unit
Ian Holder, Adaptive Learning and Teaching Analyst Simon Welsh, Manager Adaptive Learning and Teaching Services
Page 2
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Participant Profile .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Key Themes ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
CSU’s Learning and Teaching Spaces ............................................................................................................. 9
Staff Attitudes towards Technology ............................................................................................................ 19
Use and Views on Learning Technologies ................................................................................................... 23
Support and Professional Development for Educational Technologies ...................................................... 40
Page 3
Executive Summary
From July 4 to August 3 2016, an online survey of academic staff across CSU was conducted to explore
perceptions and expectations around CSU’s learning environments – both physical and online. This survey
follows on from the 2014 Learning Environments Survey as we monitor the capacity of our learning and
teaching spaces and the online learning environment to support teaching and quality learning for our
students.
125 academics completed the survey, including:
23 staff from the Faculty of Arts and Education;
25 staff from the Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences; and
51 staff from the Faculty of Science.
These figures indicate there is an over-representation of the Faculty of Science which should be considered
when drawing conclusions from this survey.
Physical Learning Spaces
It is encouraging to note that the majority of respondents (58%) agreed they had seen an improvement in
learning spaces on their campus in the past 2 years. However, there still appears to be some inconsistency
in the quality and effectiveness of our learning spaces. 50% of staff surveyed see our learning spaces as a
“mixed bag” when it comes to supporting quality student learning – a result consistent across faculties. In
spite of this, when we examine our academics’ perceptions of the learning spaces that they report are
relevant to their teaching, we see generally a positive pattern of results … with some notable exceptions (as
summarised in Table ES.1). That is, academics were asked to rate the learning spaces relevant to them on
four features, as listed in Table ES.1. While our studio/performance spaces rarely receive positive ratings
on any feature, all other spaces show features where they receive a majority (sometimes a strong majority)
of positive ratings. Furthermore, in cases where positive responses on a feature may be in the minority,
this is usually due to a high proportion of neutral ratings, not necessarily a preponderance of negative
ratings.
These results suggest that we are making progress with our learning spaces and the overarching challenge
still lays in continuing to improve the consistency in quality across spaces.
Page 4
Table ES.1 – Perceptions of Learning Spaces Among those Academic who report them as Relevant to their
Teaching
In terms of how our learning spaces can be improved in the short-term, there is a call for:
1. better IT and communications equipment that works properly/consistently, has improved
availability, is up-to-date and works with the latest educational technologies; and
2. more control over room temperature.
Detailed data on the ratings/comments on the best and worst spaces on each campus has been shared with
DFM.
Online Learning Environments
The 2014 Learning Environments Survey provided a model for understanding academic’s perceptions and
needs of learning technologies. As outlined in Figure ES.1, the model posits that there are three critical
aspects of the functionality of any learning technology for academics:
• its availability or reliability – does it work as it should and when it should?
• its user-friendliness and intuitiveness – does it work in a way that is easy to understand, obvious to
engage with and easy to explore?
• its pedagogical affordances and ability to support quality learning & teaching – does it do the things
I want/need it to do as a teacher?
However, these three factors are not equal in the assessment of a technology – they exist along a spectrum
from being a “dissatisfier” to be a “satisfier”. Furthermore, the professional development and technical
support around these systems is just as critical as these functionality factors and is a foundation of the
experience of the technology.
Page 5
The 2016 survey reveals a number of issues in our foundation of professional development (PD) and
support for learning technologies. We see that 37% of staff survey feel that we have not provided
adequate training and support for Interact2, while a further 25% are uncertain about the adequacy of
training/support provided. When asked how our online learning environment might best be improved, the
most commonly cited improvements (by some margin) related to support and training.
It is suggested that these issues in our foundation of PD/support may be contributing to the critical
assessment by academics of their experiences with Interact2. This is perhaps to be expected: if many staff
believe they have not been provided with adequate support/training, then it is unlikely that they will have
positive experiences of Interact2. Yet, many of our specific technologies/tools (including those within
Interact2) do rate well in terms of the functional factors in the model in Figure ES.1. Again, this reinforces
that, in terms of academics experiences, the issue may not be the technologies per se but the
support/training (or the perceptions thereof) around them.
To improve our foundation of PD/support, the survey results suggest we can:
• improve the timeliness and accessibility of support/assistance around learning technologies, including
clarification of support options/channels in the context of changes to the operating model in the DSL
Learning Design Unit;
• provide more just-in-time training, particularly to address:
o creation of interactive learning resources;
o using technologies for collaborative learning;
o general awareness of the technologies available at CSU;
o enhancing Interact2 subject sites; and
o using technologies for assessment.
Page 6
Participant Profile
Role at CSU
The highest proportion of respondents to the survey were Lecturers (41%), followed somewhat
distantly by Senior Lecturers (18%) and Casual/Sessional Academics (14%). Staff from other roles
include Professor, Associate Professor, leadership/administration (e.g. Head of School, Dean) and
Associate Lecturer. No Workplace Learning Co-ordinators completed the survey [see Figure 1.1].
Throughout this report cross-tabulations are provided of responses by academics’ current
role/position. For these analyses the individual roles have been combined into four groups as follows:
o Lecturers
o Senior Lecturers
o Associate/Sessional Lecturers
o Senior Faculty Staff (Associate Professors, Professors and Leadership/Administration)
Faculty
Respondents were asked what their primary faculty was [see Figure 1.2]. Key points from this question
are:
o 43% of respondents came from the Faculty of Science, which is more than double the next
highest-faculty (Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences at 21%) – Science was also over-
represented in the 2014 survey; and
o respondents from the Faculty of Arts and Education comprised 19% of respondents.
Campus
Respondents came from a variety of campuses with the major campuses reported by respondents
being Wagga Wagga (31%), Bathurst (22%) and Albury-Wodonga (14%) [see Figure 1.3].
Page 7
1.1 – Current role
1.2 – Faculty
Page 8
1.3 – Campus
Page 9
Key Themes
Comparisons of 2010, 2014 and 2016 data will be provided where relevant/available – this commentary is
highlighted in red.
Throughout this report a range of cross-tabulations are provided to explore differences in responses by role
and faculty. For brevity, only those explorations that yielded meaningful or interesting differences have
been included.
CSU’s Learning and Teaching Spaces
Effectiveness in supporting quality student learning
Respondents were asked, based on their experiences, to rate the effectiveness of CSU’s learning and
teaching spaces in supporting quality student learning [see Figure 2.1a]. Key findings were:
o 50% of respondents rated CSU’s learning and teaching spaces as a “mixed bag”;
o 33% said most spaces were effective, while a further 3% said all spaces were highly effective;
and
o only 6% of respondents said most spaces were not effective in supporting quality student
learning or a total overhaul was required.
These results reflect those from the 2014 survey where a similar proportion of respondents rated CSU’s
learning and teaching spaces as a “mixed bag” and a similar proportion rated the spaces as effective.
By role, Lecturers are more likely to see CSU’s learning and teaching spaces as a mixed bag and less
likely than other roles to rate the spaces as effective [see Figure 2.1b]. No respondents from the
Faculty of Arts and Education rated the spaces as highly effective [see Figure 2.1c].
Improvement in spaces over the past 2 years
Of those who could respond to the question on whether they have seen an improvement in learning
and teaching spaces over the past 2 years [see Figure 2.2a]:
o 58% of respondents agreed they had seen an improvement in learning and teaching spaces on
their campus in the past 2 years;
o 23% of respondents disagreed; and
o 19% were uncertain.
Lecturers and Senior Lecturers were most likely to agree they have seen an improvement in learning
and teaching spaces, while Senior Faculty Staff were most likely to disagree [see Figure 2.2b].
Respondents from the faculties of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences, and Science were more
likely to disagree that they have seen an improvement compared to those from the Faculty of Arts and
Education [see Figure 2.2c].
Rating aspects of learning and teaching spaces
Staff were asked a series of questions on learning and teaching spaces with regard to their a) relevance,
b) quality of computing and communication equipment, c) quality of environment, d) availability and e)
flexibility to teaching approaches.
Page 10
Staff typically indicated that multiple learning space types are relevant to their teaching. The spaces
most-widely considered relevant by respondents (i.e. where relevance was rated as “high” or
“medium”) were flat-floor teaching spaces (73%), lecture theatres (63%) and meeting rooms (44%). 5%
considered studio/performance spaces relevant to their teaching, 31% responded computer labs were
relevant and 38% labelled specialist labs as relevant [see Figure 2.3a].
Looking at the results by faculty [see Figure 2.3b]:
o the relevance of lecture theatres was high and consistently so across faculties. Meeting rooms
also showed a reasonable level of consistency across faculties, albeit with a lower level of
relevance than lecture theatres;
o flat-floor teaching spaces were seen to be relevant across all three faculties, but there was
more variation between faculties than with lecture theatres. For example, 83% of respondents
from Science rated flat-floor teaching spaces as relevant, while only 56% of respondents from
Arts and Education rated these spaces as relevant;
o computer labs were most likely to be seen as relevant by respondents from Business, Justice
and Behavioural Sciences (45%);
o specialist labs were most likely to be seen as relevant by respondents from Science (66%); and
o studio/performance spaces were seen to have a low relevance across all faculties.
Staff were then asked about the quality of a number of features in these learning spaces:1
o considering the quality of computing and communication equipment [see Figure 2.3c], the
spaces were rated best to worst as:
lecture theatres (74% positive ratings – being responses of very good or good);
flat-floor teaching spaces (71% positive);
computer labs (66% positive);
specialist labs (56% positive) ;
meeting rooms (47% positive); and
studio/performance areas (0% positive, with 44% rating the equipment poor);
o with regard to the quality of the environment in learning and teaching spaces (e.g. lighting,
heating and cooling, seating, amenity) [see Figure 2.3d], the spaces rated best to worst are:
specialist labs (68% positive);
lecture theatres (67% positive);
flat-floor teaching areas and computer labs (62% positive);
meeting rooms (57% positive); and
studio/performance areas (13% positive);
o turning to the availability of learning and teaching spaces [see Figure 2.3e], the spaces were
rated best to worst as:
specialist labs (65% positive);
flat-floor teaching areas (58% positive);
computer labs (53% positive);
lecture theatres (49% positive);
1 Respondents self-selected and generally did not provide ratings for spaces they had rated as irrelevant to their teaching. The proportion of positive responses reported here, therefore, is a percentage of the staff for whom that type of space is relevant to their teaching.
Page 11
meeting rooms (31% positive); and
studio/performance labs (0% positive, with 86% neutral);
o considering the flexibility to teaching approaches in the learning and teaching spaces [see
Figure 2.3f], the spaces rated best to worst are:
flat-floor teaching spaces and specialist labs (61% positive);
meeting rooms (44% positive);
lecture theatres and computer labs (38% positive, but note 39% of respondents rated
lecture theatres poor or very poor for flexibility to teaching approaches); and
studio performance/areas (14% positive).
Most important immediate developments/improvements
The two main themes arising from responses to the question asking for the most important immediate
developments/improvements for learning and teaching spaces generally were: 1) IT and
Communications and 2) temperature control. Within the regards to IT and Communications, staff
expressed frustration at equipment not working properly or consistently, equipment being unavailable
or equipment being out of date and not working with the latest educational technologies in use. On
temperature control, staff expressed a desire to be able to control the temperature in learning spaces
themselves, stating that rooms were often too hot or too cold.
Other themes raised by staff included allowing more flexibility of the space for different teaching styles,
having rooms with appropriate capacity (particularly for larger cohorts), better timetabling of rooms,
more whiteboards and whiteboards not hidden by projector screens, and a large lecture theatre for
Port Macquarie for 150 students [see Figure 2.4].
IT systems, temperature control and flexibility of space were also some of the key themes for improving
learning spaces in the 2014 survey.
Page 12
2.1a – Effectiveness in Supporting Quality Student Learning
2.1b – Effectiveness in Supporting Quality Student Learning – by Role
Page 13
2.1c – Effectiveness in Supporting Quality Student Learning – by Faculty
2.2a – Improvement in Learning and Teaching Spaces
Page 14
2.2b – Improvement in Learning and Teaching Spaces – By Role
2.2c – Improvement in Learning and Teaching Spaces – By Faculty
5%
11%
17%
7%
57%
50%
39%
47%
14%
28%
33%
7%
22%
11%
11%
27% 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Lecturers (n=37)
Senior Lecturers (n=18)
Associate/Sessional Lecturers (n=18)
Senior Faculty Staff (n=15)
I have seen an improvement in learning and teaching spaces on my campus over the past 2 years.
(N/As removed)
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
Page 15
2.3a – Relevance to Teaching of Learning and Teaching Spaces
2.3b – Relevance to Teaching of Learning and Teaching Spaces – By Faculty
Page 16
2.3c – Quality of Computing and Communication Equipment in Learning and Teaching Spaces
2.3d – Quality of Environment in Learning and Teaching Spaces
Page 17
2.3e – Availability of Learning and Teaching Spaces
2.3f – Flexibility to Teaching Approaches of Learning and Teaching Spaces
Page 18
2.4 – Most Important Immediate Developments/Improvements for Learning and Teaching Spaces
Theme Responses
IT and Communications 22
Temperature control 19
Flexibility of space 10
Appropriate capacity 7
Timetabling 5
Whiteboards 4
Large Port Macquarie Lecture Theatre 4
Page 19
Staff Attitudes towards Technology
Disposition towards technology
60% of academic staff surveyed report being early adopters of new technology (one of the first to use
them), with 6% of respondents being late adopters (sceptical or one of the last to use new
technologies) [see Figure 3.1a].
This result is consistent with findings from the 2014 Learning Environments survey where 60% of staff
were early adopters and 7% late adopters. In 2010 only 40% of respondents were considered early
adopters.
Looking at disposition towards technology by role, Senior Faculty Staff have the highest rate of early
adopters (75%). Associate/Sessional Lecturers also show a strong disposition toward technology, with
68% being categorised as early adopters as do Lecturers (63%). Senior Lecturers had the lowest rate of
early adopters (48%) [see Figure 3.1b].
By faculty, Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences had the highest rate of early adopters (68%),
while Science was only slightly lower at 65%. Arts and Education had the highest proportion of late
adopters (52%) [see Figure 3.1c].
Single most important benefit of educational technology in subjects
Staff were asked to select from a range of options the single most important benefit for them of using
educational technology in their subjects. The largest response was “improving the quality of my
teaching” selected by 41% of respondents, followed by “making it easier for my students to get access”
with 34% [see Figure 3.2a].
This continues the trend seen in the 2014 and 2010 results where “improving the quality of my
teaching” and “making it easier for students to get access” were the two most important benefits
overall.
Looking at the results by role, Associate/Sessional Lecturers place less emphasis on “making it easier for
my students to get access” than other roles, with only 18% seeing it as a primary benefit of learning
technologies. Interestingly, the converse is true for Lecturers, with 42% reporting that “making it easier
for students to get access” was the most important benefit to them. “Communication with students
and co-teachers” was seen to be of importance by some Senior Lecturers (10%) and Associate/Sessional
Academics (9%), compared with only 4% of Lecturers and 0% of Senior Faculty Staff [see Figure 3.2b].
Examining the results by faculty, while we again see the focus on the “big two” benefits (improving
teaching quality and student access) there are some differences in the detail. Within Business, Justice
and Behavioural Sciences, 12% of respondents rated “communication with students and co-teachers”
as the most important benefit, while another 12% rated “personal management” as their most
important benefit. 9% of respondents from Arts and Education responded there was no benefit to
educational technologies, compared with 4% in Science and 0% in Business, Justice and Behavioural
Sciences [see Figure 3.2c].
Page 20
3.1a – Disposition towards Technology
3.1b – Disposition towards Technology – By Role
Page 21
3.1c – Disposition towards Technology – By Faculty
3.2a – Single most important benefit of educational technology in subjects
41%
34%
8%6% 5% 4% 3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Improving thequality of my
teaching
Making it easierfor my students
to get access
Other Communicationwith students and
co-teachers
No benefits To better preparemy students forthe workplace
Personalmanagement
The single most important benefit for me of using educational technology in my subjects is...
(n=125)
Page 22
3.2b – Single most important benefit of educational technology in subjects – By Role
3.2c – Single most important benefit of educational technology in subjects – By Faculty
Page 23
Use and Views on Learning Technologies
General Experiences with Interact2
Overall, 74% of respondents agreed their experience of the availability of Interact2 was positive, 53%
were positive about their experience of the functionality of Interact2 and 52% were positive about their
experience of the overall use of Interact2 [see Figure 4.1].
In 2014, just over 70% of respondents agreed their experience of availability of Interact was positive,
with 57% agreeing functionality was positive and 60% agreeing that overall use of Interact was positive.
The declines observed here in staff ratings of functionality and overall use from Interact to Interact2
may be influenced (at least in part) by the nature of support provided around Interact2. Only 33% of
staff agreed that there are adequate opportunities for training and/or support in using Interact2, with
16% strongly disagreeing to this question [see Figure 4.1]. If many staff believe they have not been
provided with adequate support/training, then it is unlikely that they will have positive experiences of
Interact2.
Despite this, 66% of staff surveyed agreed they felt confident using Interact2 in their teaching,
suggesting perhaps that most staff have at least achieved a reasonable level of proficiency with the
new system [see Figure 4.1].
Only 24% of staff are satisfied with the access to Interact2 via mobile devices, with 36% indicating
dissatisfaction (while 40% were uncertain) [see Figure 4.1].
Looking at the results by role, we see availability of Interact2 and confidence in using Interact2 rating
most positive across all roles with access to Interact2 via mobile devices rating least positive across all
roles. Lecturers were also least positive about their being adequate opportunities for training and
support (27%) [see Figures 4.2a-f].
By faculty, Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences was most positive of all faculties on all six areas
of Interact2 surveyed: functionality, availability, overall use, adequate opportunities for training and
support, confidence in using Interact2 in teaching and access to Interact2 via mobile devices. The
relative negativity around training and support and access to Interact2 via mobile devices compared to
the other factors is consistent across all faculties [see Figures 4.3a-f].
Perceptions of CSU Learning Technologies
Among those who could rate the tools, standard Interact2 tools – communication, content
management, assessment, discussion forums and adaptive release – were typically rated positively by
respondents in meeting teaching needs and approaches (all with above 70% of respondents rating
them positively). EASTS was also rated highly in meeting teaching needs and approaches with 88% of
respondents rating it positively. Online Meeting had 72% of respondents rating it positively, Norfolk
with 65% and CSU Replay with 63%. However, ePortfolio (PebblePad) was rated poor or very poor by
52% of respondents in meeting teaching needs and approaches [see Figure 4.4a].
Page 24
With regard to tools’ usability, communication tools in Interact2 rated positively by 77% of respondents
as was EASTS (70%). ePortfolio (PebblePad) was rated poor or very poor by 52% of respondents in ease
of use, with analytics/reports tools in Interact2 being rated poor by 38% and CSU Replay by 37% [see
Figure 4.4b].
On the availability of tools, standard Interact2 tools – communication, content management, discussion
forums, assessment – rated positively (all with above 70% of respondents rating their availability
positively). EASTS’ availability was rated positively by 84% of respondents, and Norfolk 76%.
ePortfolio’s (PebblePad) availability was rated poor or very poor by 32% of respondents, with CSU
Replay rated poorly by 27% [see Figure 4.4c].
Social media
23% of respondents have used social media in their teaching [see Figure 4.5a].
Staff in the Faculty of Science are less likely to use social media in their teaching than those in other
faculties, with staff in the faculties of Arts and Education, and Business, Justice and Behavioural
Sciences having a similar likelihood of using social media in their teaching [see Figure 4.5b].
External Learning Technologies
31% of respondents have used external learning technologies (technology not centrally supported by
DSL or DIT, and not integrated into Interact2) in their teaching [see Figure 4.6a]. The main external
learning technologies respondents employed were online resources/textbooks from publishers,
Socrative and Peerwise [see Figure 4.6b]. A broad range of technologies were specified with most
being used by only 1 respondent.
By role, Associate/Sessional Lecturers most likely to use external learning technologies in their
teaching, with Senior Lecturers least likely to use external learning technologies in their teaching.
Lecturers and Senior Faculty Staff were equally likely to use external learning technologies in their
teaching [see Figure 4.6c]
Staff in the Faculty of Science are least likely to use external learning technologies in their teaching,
with staff in the faculties of Arts and Education, and Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences having a
similar likelihood of using them [see Figure 4.6d].
New Learning Technologies
When asked for suggestions of new learning technologies that CSU should adopt, a broad range of
technologies were mentioned and there were no technologies raised by more than 4 respondents.
Suggestions by more than 1 person included using the current ones effectively first (4 respondents),
replacing Blackboard with Moodle (3), bringing back UCROO (2), implementing a better Online Meeting
tool (2), implementing better video-conferencing in rooms (2) and improving CSU Replay (2) [see Figure
4.7].
Page 25
Improvements to the Online Learning Environment
Improving the support available was the theme with the largest number of responses (13) when staff
were asked how to improve the online environment to better support teaching. Other themes
mentioned were improved training (7), specific support for Interact2 site design (6), and making the
online environment both more user-friendly and more flexible in what can be achieved (4) [see Figure
4.8]. Again, a broad range of suggestions were specified by respondents.
Page 26
4.1 – Experiences with Interact2
Page 27
4.2a – Functionality of Interact2 – By Role
4.2b – Availability of Interact2 – By Role
Page 28
4.2c – Overall Use of Interact2 – By Role
4.2d – Adequate Opportunities for Training and Support – By Role
Page 29
4.2e – Confidence using Interact2 – By Role
4.2f – Satisfaction with Mobile Device access to Interact2 – By Role
Page 30
4.3a – Functionality of Interact2 – By Faculty
4.3b – Availability of Interact2 – By Faculty
Page 31
4.3c – Overall Use of Interact2 – By Faculty
4.3d – Adequate Opportunities for Training and Support – By Faculty
Page 32
4.3e – Confidence using Interact2 – By Faculty
4.3f – Satisfaction with Mobile Device access to Interact2 – By Faculty
Page 33
4.4a – Learning Technologies - how well they meet teaching needs and approaches
Page 34
4.4b – Learning Technologies - how easy/intuitive they are to use
Page 35
4.4c – Learning Technologies – reliability in being available when needed
Page 36
4.5a– Use of Social Media
4.5b– Use of Social Media – By Faculty
Page 37
4.6a– Use of External Learning Technologies
4.6b– Main External Learning Technologies Used
Learning Technology Responses
Resources from Publishers 5
Socrative 5
Peerwise 3
WordPress 2
Twitter 2
Thinkspace 2
Kahoot 2
Vimeo 2
OWL 2
YouTube 2
Padlet 2
Captivate 2
Page 38
4.6c– Use of External Learning Technologies – By Role
4.6d– Use of External Learning Technologies – By Faculty
Page 39
4.7– New Learning Technologies CSU should adopt
Learning Technology Responses
Use current ones effectively 4
Moodle [rather than Blackboard] 3
UCROO 2
Better Online Meeting tool 2
Better video-conferencing 2
Improve CSU Replay 2
4.8– Improvements to the Online Learning Environment to Better Support Teaching
Learning Technology Responses
Improved support 13
Training 7
Interact2 Site Design Support 6
Make more user-friendly 4
Make more flexible 3
Page 40
Support and Professional Development for Educational Technologies
Seeking Support
64% of respondents go to Educational Designers or Educational Support Co-ordinators for support on
learning technologies. This is followed closely by seeking help from other academics (62% of
respondents), DIT service desk (57%) and going to the Interact2 Help pages (49%) (NB - respondents
could select multiple options). Only 26% of respondents report using the DSL Service Desk, while 18%
go direct to Learning Technologies Unit staff. For the Other option provided, staff mentioned using a
web search or web site for assistance more than any other option [see Figure 5.1].
Improving Support
Key themes to emerge when respondents were asked to provide ideas on how support for academics
with regard to learning technologies could be improved were:
o more timely and available support/assistance (29 respondents);
o just-in-time training (17); and
o improved access to Educational Designers and Educational Support Co-ordinators (11) [see
Figure 5.2
Other themes raised by staff included providing centralised resources, ensuring our learning
technologies were robust and not prone to failure, and providing exemplars of good practice and good
use of learning technologies.
Professional Development
Using technologies to create interactive learning resources was the most popular topic for professional
development around learning technologies with 68% of respondents indicating this area would be of
interest. This is followed by using technologies for collaborative learning (58%), general awareness of
the technologies available at CSU (55%), enhancing Interact2 subject sites (55%) and using technologies
for assessment (53%) (respondents could select multiple options) [see Figure 5.3].
Page 41
5.1 – Source of Support for Learning Technologies
5.2 – Improving Support
Theme Responses
Improved Support 29
Training 17
Improved access to EDs/ESCs 11
Centralised Resources 4
Robust technologies 3
Exemplars of good practice 3
Page 42
5.3 – Professional Development Topics
