RG2 Analysis

Pages: 1 2

LinkedIn & ResearchGate Analysis

Quote collation and allocation to suitable groups, then re-aligned with themes and further matched to PBH (Problems and Benefits Hierarchy). Ad hoc allocation of comments was done, from topics most often mentioned. The actual discussions are available online to all members of these social network groups. This work is referred to as Research Group 2.


Response Categories Allocation

Response categories were devised mainly using the LinkedIn responses as reference, as there was sufficient data to carry out this required task. These were then aligned with Literature themes.

Response Category relationship to Literature Themes

(from LinkedIn) Topic Categories Themes developed from Literature                                          
WHATS IN IT FOR ME & perceived advantage TIME AND CONVENIENCE
TOP DOWN, BOTTOM UP INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
BY EXAMPLE, PEER PRESSURE, SHOW AND TELL, OTHERS EXPERIENCES
TRAINING: BY DISCIPLINE
ICT SUPPORT
ELEARNING SUPPORT
PEDAGOGY & LEARNING DESIGN
TRAINING: GENERIC STAFF MOTIVATION
OWN EXPERIENCE STAFF MOTIVATION
INCLUSIVITY & DEMOGRAPHICS COMPLIANCE
DIGITAL DIVIDE
EFFECTIVENESS LEARNING QUALITY
STUDENT INPUT & EXPECTATION STUDENT CENTERED
SOCIETAL CHANGES
PROBLEM SOLVING LEARNING QUALITY
STAFF MOTIVATION
TIME & CONVENIENCE
ASSUMPTIONS ASSUMPTIONS 
Table 1: showing Response Category relationship to Literature Themes

LinkedIn

NB A PDF of all responses can be made available on request, however is not available publicly as the HE LinkedIn group is a member only group.

Around 40 comments were made in a discussion instigated by this research, in the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education LinkedIn member only (private) group. All participants appear to be academic or PSD staff in higher education. Many appeared to be directly involved with TEL, either as practitioner  lecturers, or support staff.

Q1 What makes the most impact on encouraging staff to use technology in their learning and teaching? I’d love to hear what people think.

Key Quotes:

“I would also want to know more about the impetus for encouraging faculty to use technology? Is it just for the sake of using technology? Is it to help reach a diverse student population? Is it to provide opportunities that weren’t available before? And, what systems are in place to support that integration?”

“It proves very challenging to spread an innovation even to different departments in one school, beyond the small group which has already signed up to the project. In addition, if just one or two staff who were particular enthusiasts move on, then even in that initial department, the support for the approach can quickly die…”

“The most common stumbling block was the notion that using technology meant more work for no more pay…”

Table 2: showing LinkedIn responses allocation to response categories

 

Theme/Category Frequency Ratio

RG2-chart1

Fig 1: Showing percentage of responses per category

There is noticeable similarity with this table and the table of themes in literature for frequency of topics.

ResearchGate

NB A PDF of all responses can be made available on request, however is not available publicly as the ResearchGate social network is a member only group.

Two short online discussions were referred to for data analysis, both instigated by the author. One discussion was instigated for this research project (Q1), the other was for another academic paper (Q2), which in small part looked at the technical ICT efficacy of teaching staff, and this was also considered relevant for this research.

Q1 What are the key influencers that drive the increase of use(s) of technology in learning and teaching? Why are staff often so reluctant to use it? 

 Key Quote:

“I’ve seen a distinct pattern regarding “who is reluctant to use new technologies and who isn’t”. Teachers who are younger and some of those older folks who still do practical work and have businesses are more open to using and implementing new technologies in their classes. Those who gave up “learning” and are teaching old and out-dated things (but are still teaching because they are respected and/or influential) tend to be reluctant to learn about new technologies and therefore, because they don’t understand/know, they just stick with the old pen-and paper equivalent… Whenever new teaching or testing techniques become mandatory in teaching and student evaluation, by institution policy or other equivalent directive, there are those who resist it, but in the end new and good things get implemented and teaching becomes easy, students see benefits and studying quality increases.”

Q2 How skilled are academics in ICT? Does it vary across the disciplines?

Key Quote:

“… it is very important that lecturers/teachers have a minimal level of competence with ICT and perhaps there should be continual training in this regard. Otherwise students will miss out on possible learning tools if their teacher is behind the curve.”

Table 3: showing ResearchGate responses allocation to response categories

 


To read more from this section, please use the page navigation below

Warning: Use of undefined constant php - assumed 'php' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/2/d108111940/htdocs/A614/wp-content/themes/path-jr-wt/index.php on line 75