A review of staff engagement with digital technologies

on an undergraduate language programme

Benoît Guilbaud

b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk

@benguilbaud

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a

copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc-sa/3.0/

Benoît Guilbaud, 2012

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

#LLASconf2012

Picture by Pete Lambert via flickr.com

Picture by Partick Havens via flickr.com

Picture by One Laptop per Child via flickr.com

Picture by National Museum of American History via flickr.com

© Warner Bros. 1999

Making technology work

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Relevance

Cost

Policy

Assessment

Employability

Time

Usefulness

Curriculum

Context

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Spanish, French, Italian & German

Undergraduate language programme

Linguistics,EFL & TEFL

Face-to-face & blended learning

Approx. 500BA students

30 academic members of staff

The study

Review staff usage and perceptions of three technological tools

Highlight barriers to uptake, limitations and incentives

Evaluate perceived usefulness (Judson, 2006)

Suggest strategies to improve future provision

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Methodology

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Section*1*–*Interactive*whiteboards*(IWB)#

NB:#For#the#purpose#of#this#study,#only#activities#involving#the#use#of#the#wireless#ActivPen#to#interact#with#the#touchscreen#of#the#IWB#are#taken#into#consideration.Using#a#computer#and#data#projector#to#display#or#edit#information#without#the#use#of#the#wireless#ActivPen#does#not#qualify#as#using#an#IWB.

# To#what#extent#do#you#agree#with#the#following#statements?#Please#tick#one#box#per#line.

1. Awareness

$

# StatementsStrongly$agree

Somewhat$agree

Somewhat$disagree

Strongly$disagree

Don’t$know$N/A

1.1I$consider$myself$familiar$with$the$capabilities$of$IWB

17% 50% 10% 20% 3%

1.2 I$am$aware$of$some$of$the$basic$functions$of$IWB 33% 50% 10% 3% 3%

1.3I$am$aware$of$some$advanced$functions$of$IWB

10% 23% 30% 30% 7%

1.4I$consider$myself$an$advanced$IWB$user

10% 7% 20% 57% 2%

2.*Training

# Statement Yes No I$can’t$remember

2.1I$have$attended$IWB$training$provided$by$my$institution

43% 50% 7%

# StatementsStrongly$agree

Somewhat$agree

Somewhat$disagree

Strongly$disagree

Don’t$know$N/A

2.2IWB$training$provided$by$my$institution$was$sufRicient$for$my$needs

27% 13% 13% 10% 37%

2.3 Complementary$IWB$training$should$be$offered 37% 40% 10% 3% 10%

2.4The$times$and$dates$of$IWB$training$were$convenient 17% 20% 3% 13% 47%

2.5I$was$interested$in$attending$IWB$training

50% 17% 23% 7% 3%

A$review$of$staff$engagement$with$digital$technologies$on$an$undergraduate$language$programmeParticipant$questionnaire$V$Benoît$Guilbaud$V$June$2012

Page$2$of$12

Part 1

May-June 2012

Quantitative questionnaire

(Bernard, 2000)

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Part 2

July-September 2012

Semi-structured interviews

(Gall, Gall & Borg, 1996)

Picture by Kamujp via flickr.com

Tools reviewed

#1. One that seems to work - Virtual Learning Environment

#2. One that doesn’t seem to work - Interactive Whiteboards

#3. One that seems worth developing - Social Media

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Findings

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

#1. VLE (Moodle)

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Skills & training

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

Basic use 100 %

Advanced use 90 %

Training attended 93 %

Interest in training 84 %

Satisfaction with training 81 %

% of total number of participants

Institutional requirements

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

Good awareness of requirements 76 %

Requirements are reasonable 63 %

Requirements are not enough 53 %

Feel supported by institution 67 %

Driving innovation 70 %

Communication

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

Tutor

Student

Student

Open / closed

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

Moodle unit

Unit tutor

Unit students

Outsideworld

Other students

Other tutors

Institution

Other considerations

Beneficial to students’ learning

Large amounts of content can discourage attendance

Content should be a satisfactory replacement for classes

Saves time

Useful overall & should be developed further

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

✓

✓

✗

✗

✓

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

#2. Interactive Whiteboards

(IWB)

Picture by Pablog61 via flickr.com

Equipment

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

IWB

36% of teaching rooms equipped

Estimated initial cost: £50,000

Basic use

Writing

Drawing

Advanced use

Annotating screen

Interactive activities

Student engagement

Saving contents

Skills & training

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

IWB

Basic use 83 %

Advanced use 33 %

Training attended 50 %

Interest in training 67 %

Amount of training sufficient 40 %

Institutional requirements& recommendations

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

IWB

Error 404Slide not found

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

UseIWB

Never use it

“IWB are (or can be) useful for teaching and learning”

Use it 2 to 3 times per year or less

37%

83%

60%

Use

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

IWB

Writing 53 %

Drawing 30 %

Interactive activities 23 %

Annotating desktop / video 13 %

Engaging students 40 %

Other considerations

I feel encouraged by my institution to use IWB

I have sufficient time to use / prepare classes with an IWB

Using an IWB saves me time

IWB are usually available in the rooms where I teach

If more widely available, I would use IWB more

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

IWB

✗

✗

✗

✗

✓

#3. Social Media

SocialSharing

Transparency

Digital literacy

Open learning

Personal LearningNetwork

Digital identity

Participation

Awareness

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Social Media

23%

% of don’t know answers

Skills & training

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Basic use 57%

Advanced use 35%

Training attended 33%

Interest in training 72%

Amount of training sufficient 42%

Social Media

% of opinions expressed

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Use

Never use it

“Social Media can be usefulto my students’ learning”

Use it 2 to 3 times per year or less

60%

77%

74%

Social Media

Communication

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Tutor

Student

Student

Social Media

Open learning

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

VLE

Tutor

Student

Outsideworld

Social Media

Privacy

Personal Learning Network

Open education

Awareness

Training

Time

Resources

(Couros, 2011)

Conclusions

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Picture by toolstop via flickr.com

Tool selection

Select technology to address an issue or encourage innovation

Critically evaluate technological tools

(Chappelle, 2010)

Deeper integration prevents “bluetak” effect

Curriculum integration

Picture by Gingher via flickr.com

Adequately factor training in staff workload

Allocate no more than 1/3 of buget to hardware + software

Ensure consistency & availability

Picture by ehpien via flickr.com

Over-reliance on hardware

(Morino Institute, 2001)

Raise awareness of applications and benefits of OL

Promote participation

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Develop Digital Literacies

Open learning

(Jenkins, 2006)

(Belshaw, 2011)

Belshaw, D., 2011. What is digital literacy? A Pragmatic investigation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at http://neverendingthesis.com and http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/cgi/latest [accessed 28th March 2012].

Chapelle, C., 2010. Evaluating computer technology for language learning. Contact: Teachers of English as a Second Language of Ontario, 36(2), pp.56-67.

Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Chajut, E., 2010. You Can Teach Old Dogs New Tricks: The Factors That Affect Changes over Time in Digital Literacy. In: Journal of Information Technology Education, vol. 9.

Judson, E., 2006. How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning - Is There a Connection? In: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), pp.581-597.

Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: developmental scenery. In: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), pp.233-263.

Morino Institute (The), 2001. From access to outcomes: raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income communities. [Online] The Morino Institute. Available at: http://www.morino.org/divides/report.pdf [accessed 4 July 2012].

Wheeler, S., 2012. Digital Pedagogy: Content is a Tyrant, Context is King. In: NAACE 2012 Annual Conference, 9 March 2012, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

Any questions?

Benoît Guilbaud

b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk

@benguilbaud

Beno

ît G

uilb

aud,

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity (

UK)

, 201

2

#LLASconf2012