Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Beryl Hesketh
Maree Gosper
John Andrews
Mark Sabaz
Macquarie University
September 1996
96/11
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra
© Commonwealth of Australia 1996
ISBN 0 644 47330 4
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the manager, Commonwealth Information Services, Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 48, Canberra ACT 2601.
This report is funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
[next chapter] [contents]
The issues examined as part of this project have not remained static over its duration. The rapidity with which the available technology changes, and the somewhat uneven progress in its uptake within universities, as well as the uncertain climate in a changing political context, render some aspects of the data collected already dated. Nevertheless, the face to face and email consultation with a wide range of knowledgable experts and users of technology in university contexts has provided the research team with the basis for arriving at informed judgements. The research report includes both the data as collected as well as the picture that we see emerging from these data within the changing information technology context in which universities operate.
The research in this report differs from earlier reports (e.g. Cochrane et al. 1993; Moran 1995) in that it provides a snapshot of the predictions of usage from people involved in applying information technology in their teaching; it provides insight into policy in action, while also providing a stronger basis from which to infer the effectiveness of future policy.
The combination of discussions with experts and the data collected through electronic questionnaire have made us realise that, if approached passively, information technology will not be used in teaching except in an erratic, low key and patchy sense. Yet to approach the introduction of new technologies into teaching actively will require financial and skill resources beyond those currently available and unlikely to be forthcoming in the current climate of budget austerity. The overriding concern is that if Australian universities do not actively grasp the opportunities provided through various forms of electronic communication in teaching, other overseas universities will make substantive inroads into the Australian and international student markets. This is a major cause for concern, and one that we hope this report highlights.
[next chapter] [previous chapter] [contents]
This project aimed to:
Opinions were sought from university staff about likely future developments to provide a realistic informed projection of the penetration of electronic communications technology into university teaching within the next 3-5 years. Following initial interviews and focus group discussions, an email questionnaire was developed and sent to 245 university staff with interests and expertise in technology and computer-mediated communication in teaching, of whom 198 responded (75%). The second phase, based on a modification of the Delphi Technique, involved returning results of the first questionnaire to participants for comment. Although not claiming that the respondents are representative of all university staff, the participants came from almost all universities and represented a wide range of teaching areas and methodologies.
Academics saw as most likely to be incorporated over the next 3-5 years those technologies with which they were most familiar. Staff are familiar with computer-based presentation techniques (e.g. Powerpoint) and Internet applications such as email. Although not all staff have used full Internet capabilities such as file transfer (FTP), remote access (Telnet) and the World Wide Web (WWW), discussion in universities and in the media have given this form of communication and information access a high priority. These technologies were seen as most likely to be incorporated into teaching in the next 3-5 years. On the other hand, only a few academics have experience of video conferencing and interactive TV services, applications that were seen as least likely.
There is considerable willingness in the system to collaborate on how best to transform teaching, structures and culture to accommodate Information Technologies (Moran 1995). This was not considered likely by the respondents as the current system of Government funding, based on a short cycle and dependent on competition for student numbers, does not encourage easy collaboration among universities.
Three specific recommendations arise out of the responses and comments in relation to teaching applications.
Overall, the results in the section assessing attitudes to the outcomes of computer-mediated communications in teaching indicated that advantages were seen in terms of improved interaction between students and staff and among students. There were, however, some respondents who disagreed strongly with this sentiment, pointing to a reduction rather than an increase in the quality of communication arising from CMC.
Although focus group discussions and interviews had suggested that the changes to teaching were more likely to occur with postgraduate than undergraduate courses, and off-campus rather than on-campus the responses of the wider group of experts saw both undergraduate and postgraduate courses and on- and off- campus students as equally likely to be influenced, presumably because all students now prefer flexibility to fit in with lifestyles.
Three research related recommendations arise out of this section.
The barriers included in the questionnaire were originally identified by those staff we interviewed and by the focus groups during discussion. No barriers were given low ratings which indicates that the larger expert group of respondents agreed with the barriers identified.
Interestingly, the 'threat to job security' was not seen as a strong barrier; it had the lowest rank overall. Rather, the most important barriers perceived by staff were lack of technical skills and technical support, costs, time and workload arising from new technology. They also expressed concern that an increased attention to technology and teaching would not be rewarded adequately within a university system where research is often the major yardstick for promotion. The capital cost of ensuring an adequate technological infrastructure to facilitate computer-mediated communication and other forms of technology in teaching was also rated strongly as a barrier.
The scepticism among academics about the benefits of CMC is healthy, but may also be of concern if one accepts the scenario that a failure to accommodate computer-mediated communication in teaching is likely to lead to a loss of international competitiveness in higher education.
Recommendations arising from this section include:
a) all staff become aware of the potential of information technology;
b) each area of study is examined to determine whether new technologies could enhance teaching;
c) a rotational basis is used to ensure that staff are given time and resources to introduce information technology into their teaching. For example, for staff in particular need of technical updating, such skill acquisition could be made a required component of sabbatical leave; and
d) that staff are rewarded for innovations in information technology and teaching.
The major forces for change were seen as student demand for flexible delivery to fit in with life-style requirements and the strong competition among the universities to attract students and maintain a competitive edge. Globalisation of education was not viewed as a force for change by the large majority of academics responding.
The recommendations arising from this section include:
Females and older staff tended to be more conservative with respect to information technology and teaching. With respect to questions relating to barriers, women rated the potential barriers more strongly across all items, and significantly so on 11 of the 25 items. Women endorse barriers relating to the demands that the technology will place on academics and the skill level required more strongly than did males.
The major recommendation arising from this section of the report is:
On average those who responded from a university wide perspective gave a stronger endorsement to the likelihood of technology having an impact on teaching than did those who responded from a more local department or school perspective. Those responding from a local perspective have to bear the brunt of the increased workload in introducing technology, while those responding from a broader perspective are perhaps more aware of the range of options available.
Although both groups agree on the barriers, it is clear that the respondents with a broader, university wide perspective see greater forces for change. This pattern of data together with more conservative estimates of the timing of information technology introduction among staff with a 'local' perspective, present a picture of potential resistance from among those most directly involved in the front line of teaching. These data point to the enormity of the change required among academic staff if information technology is to be implemented in university education.
The recommendation arising from this section is:
On average, strategic plans are further ahead with respect to information technology generally than they are for information technology in teaching.
Universities do have plans for upgrading technical and computer facilities and for improving bandwidth. Other policy and planning issues, such as student ownership of computers and payment for access to the Internet, are not as easily solved. Equity concerns and perceived resistance from students to the introduction of additional costs may account for the lack of planning in these areas.
Although predicted connectivity among staff and students on-campus is high, access off-campus is seen as less likely to occur quickly for both groups.
Early interview and focus group discussions saw a role for private providers, particularly in providing and servicing off-campus connectivity. This was not endorsed by the wider group.
We found it difficult to make any specific recommendations in relation to the resources section of the study, probably reflecting the same difficulty that universities are facing making resource related information technology decisions in an uncertain and changing climate. Nevertheless, we suggest that:
Consideration should be given to the cost effectiveness of using private providers and other forms of outsourcing to facilitate student and staff connectivity for educational purposes.
There are examples throughout Australia of creative and interesting ways in which technology has been used in teaching. There is little evidence, however, of a consistent move toward an informed use of new technologies for teaching, with most developments being related to individual enthusiasts or small groups with expertise. The results of the survey suggest that there is no groundswell of movement toward the use of technology; only patches of enthusiasm.
The responses to the electronic questionnaire and discussions with experts leaves an impression that universities are waiting for information technology to infiltrate their teaching; there is a degree of passivity expecting that the inevitable will happen. We see this as unfortunate, as Australian universities may miss out on opportunities unless a more active approach is taken.
The discussion in the report covers areas such as teaching methodologies, intellectual copyright, cost, skill development, private providers and the future role of universities in terms of satisfying students' social needs, research and credentialing.