D2.2.2

=Technical design and development support is formally scheduled during e-learning design and development. =

Teaching staff are generally more familiar with traditional approaches than with those enabled by e-learning technology and thus need training and support if they are to be effective with new technologies and the associated pedagogies (Buckley, 2002). Experience has shown that old approaches rarely make good use of technology - as demonstrated, for example, by the initially poor results from the use of classroom feedback systems without changes in classroom practice (Judson and Sawada, 2002).

Laurillard (2002) argues that teachers are responsible for generating the learning environment and students are responsible for taking advantage of it. However, the institutional environment is a very complex system that controls learning, thus, teachers’ responsibilities are ‘commensurate with the degree of control [they] exert over the learners’ (p. 1). Laurillard’s view is that e-learning involves rethinking ‘teaching and the use of learning technology that is informed by a more elaborated understanding of what students do when they learn’ (p. 7). However, thinking differently about acting differently is not enough: ‘we must also be enabled to act differently. The institutional context must afford and encourage the actions we need’ (p. 7). Under the heading ‘academic management’, Laurillard identifies several factors for development and support, including an induction programme for staff with the objectives of: ‘raising awareness of current teaching practice and use of new technology in their field; elaborating their understanding of how students learn through different media; developing their expectations of, and critical approach to, new technology; developing formative evaluation skills for improving learning design; increasing the likelihood that they will make their own contribution to the field’ (p. 226).

In a comprehensive report on improving teachers use of ICT, Scrimshaw (2004) refers to professional development approaches ‘fall[ing] along a spectrum from informal mutual support to the use of formal training courses’ (p. 21). He discusses several approaches and concludes that the question is ‘less which specific approach is best, but which combination of methods are needed to suit the level of progress staff individually and as a whole have already reached’ (p. 22).

Leem & Lim (2007) found that only 40% of the universities reported that they provided tutors, assistants or digital libraries. Only a third had separate evaluation systems for e-learning classes and evaluation and quality assurance were poor. And very few universities provided training or seminars for learners on e-learning. There was also a serious shortage of personnel for e-learning, with overall disinterest from the faculty. Resolution of these problems requires systematic support at an institutional level, including the creation of specialized organizations to support e-learning.

Resources
North Carolina State University have documented a transition bringing faculty to online teaching (Covington et al. 2005). They used a triangulated approach involving administrative support, peer support, and professional development. A significant part of the transition was an intensive ‘summer institute’ where staff e-learning needs were assessed and a variety of training options regarding technology and online pedagogy were provided. By sharing experiences between early adopters, holding presentations, mentoring via peer-to-peer workshops, and a website of shared material the transition was successful. This scheduled, team learning experience, was particularly appreciated by participants.