C-SAP scoping survey on the use of e-learning: Perspectives from

Transcription

1 C-SAP scoping survey on the use of e-learning: Perspectives from social science practitioners Darren Marsh, C-SAP Richard Pountney, Sheffield Hallam University Abstract This paper summarises the findings from an e-learning scoping survey carried out between October 2007 and spring The survey was funded as part of the Higher Education Academy/JISC Distributed e-learning Programme and was co-ordinated by C-SAP. This paper describes in brief the methodology used and principal findings from the research. Notably, use of e-learning was predicated on the VLE (virtual learning environment) or other institutional system, and in most cases this was supported locally within institutions. There was an awareness of other web tools that could be employed for pedagogical use, but only modest interest in using such tools. Factors influencing the creation and sharing of digital learning materials were centred on copyright, incentive and reward. In general, academic staff were keen to make resources available for re-use; however, concerns were expressed about the level of quality needed in order to offer materials openly, and the difficulties of repurposing bespoke work. Attitudes to curriculum development and pedagogy suggested that the use of e-learning could offer significant advantages when working with groups of students. The survey also elicited views on the nature of personalisation and assumptions about the expectations of students as learners. 1

2 Key words e-learning, VLE, Web 2.0, pedagogy and curriculum, staff development, support structures Introduction This paper provides a condensed and modestly revised version of the C-SAP e-learning scoping survey (Marsh et al., 2008), aiming to highlight common themes, give an overview of trends of e-learning use, and discuss some of the challenges and issues raised from the scoping exercise. We hope that the findings from the survey inform and show linkages with survey work previously carried out in the social sciences (Lightfoot, 2004; Blair, 2006). In addition, the research encapsulates the diverse engagement with e-learning that has been characterised in previous C-SAP-funded mini-projects and other JISC-supported activity (JISC InfoNet, 2008). In essence, our scoping survey was an opportunity to consult with our academic communities in order to try to elicit more information on a range of questions: how were people using e-learning in their day-to-day teaching?; what problems and opportunities did it present?; how were staff supported?; what recognition was given for the development and use of e-learning material?; what were the responses from students to the use of e-learning?; were staff sharing resources?; if they were creating e-learning material, how was this achieved? 2

3 Methodology In seeking to answer these questions, we adopted a survey methodology comprising a) an online questionnaire, b) a series of follow-up telephone interviews and c) at least one focus group. Phase 1 of the survey used an online questionnaire, open from 11 October 2007 to 13 January The survey had six sections, 34 questions in total, with a mixture of mandatory and optional questions. The sections were: 1. Questions on role 2. Questions on the use of electronic learning resources 3. Sharing electronic resources 4. Use of VLEs and tools outside the VLE 5. Pedagogical aspects of e-learning 6. Use of C-SAP electronic resources and support for e-learning The survey information was disseminated across the range of C-SAP s academic and departmental contacts, and there were 78 responses which could be analysed from this phase of the survey. Of these, 85 per cent were from higher education institutions (HEIs) in England, 7.5 per cent were from Scotland, 4.5 per cent were from Wales and 3 per cent were from Northern Ireland. The spread of representation across the C-SAP disciplines is shown in Table 1. 3

4 Table 1 In which subject areas do you teach/support learning? Sociology 40% Anthropology 12% Politics 32% Criminology 10% Cultural studies 8% Social science 27% Other 21% In the context of the population of UK social science teaching staff, this response rate was relatively small and we would of course qualify any findings from the research with this in mind. Moreover, in the spirit of this research, we simply wanted to begin a series of conversations with academic staff on their use of e-learning and to provide an overview of practice in departments which would inform the shared interests of staff in developing pedagogical practice through the use of e-learning tools. Almost 75 per cent of the sample described their role as that of lecturer/senior lecturer/professor; other categories included researcher, learning technologist, student and administrator. At the start of the research we were anticipating that there would be differences in the perception of e-learning which might be accounted for by subject differences. As these are cognate areas, we would not expect extremes in the responses, and, indeed, this was the case in most of the survey questions and in the interviews. However, it is interesting to note that the notion of disciplinary differences has figured highly in approaches to funding and research in the use of e-learning (JISC, 2006). Kemp and Jones, in their longitudinal research with staff at one institution, note: The use of digital resources is significantly related to the subject and discipline area being taught. However the picture is complex and seems to be affected by a number of cross cutting pressures (Kemp and Jones, 2007: 55). 4

5 Certainly, as Kemp and Jones suggest, for social science, e-learning might mean an emphasis on web-based materials rather than specialist software, though making distinctions between complex web datasets and specialist software becomes problematic. At the very least, broad disciplinary patterns in the use of technology might be related to the types of knowledge to which students are being introduced (2007: 55). Phase 2 of the survey comprised a number of follow-up telephone interviews. Respondents in phase 1 were asked whether they would be willing to participate in an interview. Forty-five respondents (58 per cent) indicated yes. After arranging suitable times, the final number of interviewees was 17. Interviews took place during April and May 2008, with the average length of each interview being about 25 minutes. We used a semi-structured format of ten questions, three of which being compound questions. These questions expanded further on the role of respondents: the opportunities available to them to create e-learning resources; their use/adaptation of existing materials; what they needed to know to create, share and find good quality resources; their perception of recognition and reward for teaching with e- learning, and for innovation in teaching more widely; and their perception of the benefits for students. In responding to the questions, interviewees were encouraged to draw on examples from their own experience and to critique any problematic notions, such as personalisation of learning. Phase 3, in May 2008, comprised a focus group. Members of the focus group had participated in at least one of the previous phases of the survey. The main areas of topic for discussion were: a) the use of electronic resources (creating, sharing and finding); b) pedagogy and approaches to learning; and c) the role of C-SAP in responding appropriately to subject needs. 5

6 Analysis We analysed the responses both quantitatively (phase 1) and qualitatively (phases 2 and 3), and in the findings we adopted a thematic approach, clustering responses under four key areas: 1. The learning environment (use of the VLE; use of new technologies outside the VLE) 2. Resource creation and re-use (locating materials, creating, sharing) 3. Perception of benefits, pedagogy and curriculum development 4. Reward and incentive, staff development Areas 1-3 were primarily identified by the researchers during the first phase of the survey, and during the follow-up interviews, area 4 emerged strongly through a loosely grounded analysis. The learning environment: the use and support of the VLE Use of the VLE was a factor in almost 90 per cent of survey respondents in phase 1. In the main, when asked which VLE their institution was using, the response was Blackboard or WebCT; however, there was also a notable use of Open Source systems such as Moodle or Sakai. In phase 1 we also asked how use of the VLE was supported. In general, there was an even spread of responses across department/school/faculty and institutional levels of support such as a learning technologist shared across a faculty or school. In the follow-up telephone interviews a few respondents noted that, as part of their role in the department, they were tasked with helping to map out the needs of their colleagues in preparation for a new system. This was sometimes described as part of the role of a VLE champion, which also involved peer support to other staff in the department and offering opportunities for focused activity in support of the VLE. Most people who were involved in supporting the VLE 6

7 within their department were working with platforms that had been in place for at least four or five years. We explored further the issue of role in the follow-up interviews; as already noted, a few respondents had described themselves as VLE champions, which involved support for colleagues and sometimes a brokering role with other technical staff. A couple of the interviewees noted that, in line with the institutional learning and teaching strategy, their role had become that of a learning and teaching fellow (in conjunction with their existing academic role). This split role offered a formal recognition of contribution to e-learning and allowed for designated time within the calendar for working with colleagues on their teaching practice. This was perceived as being structurally more useful than having the additional role of VLE champion, as it implied a wider focus on learning and teaching than the VLE alone and gave staff more opportunity to talk with their peers on wider learning and teaching issues, perhaps through activities such as internal workshops. I ve just ed around my colleagues to ask if they need support on using WebCT over the summer. I ve already had ten replies from colleagues wanting help. I think a lot of staff value this way of supporting e-learning through peers. (Interview participant) We were also interested in understanding more about the kinds of teaching activities that were supported through use of the VLE, in order to explore the notion that these systems are mainly used as a means of delivery for lecture materials and slides to students 7

8 (LittleJohn et al 2007: p.136). We structured the question to try to elicit information about a range of pedagogical approaches to using the VLE. The results are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Range of teaching activities within the VLE (approx frequency) Frequent Infrequent Never Delivering learning resources 83% 11% 6% Assessment 33% 40% 27% Communicating with students 71% 26% 3% Supporting discussion 32% 48% 20% Tracking progress 31% 38% 31% The findings here support the view that, at least for delivering learning materials, which could be as simple as hosting lecture notes or other support materials, most respondents were engaging with use of the VLE (though in many cases the comment was made that this was an institutional requirement). This was also the case for communicating with students and despite some other comments about the difficulty of controlling traffic within the VLE, on the whole, most respondents felt confident in using the VLE for communication and as feedback, at some level, to students. Activities for which scores were less frequent, such as assessment and supporting discussion, may present more challenges to staff in terms of developing practice within the VLE: how to create engaging discussions for students; how to create assessment which is appropriate to the subject and topic. As Lightfoot (2004) noted in his review of the implementation of a VLE to support a politics tutorial module, often the initial introduction of such systems is predicated on an emphasis on diagnosing problems in student learning at an early stage in their university career (p. 175). This offers a basis for developing formative assessment strategies delivered through the VLE, although, as Table 2 shows, only 33 per cent of respondents were using the VLE to deliver frequent assessment. 8

9 In the follow-up interviews and focus group, a number of respondents indicated unease about multiple choice questions, and whether this form of assessment was suited to the kinds of knowledge and learning sought in the social sciences. As LittleJohn and Cook note (Conole and Oliver, 2007: p.136), few practitioners use VLEs to support active forms of learning, citing three main reasons, which centre on the inflexible design of VLEs (and the educational models used), the difficulty of transferring materials between systems, and the problems of transferring activities associated with course content. This sense of VLEs creating locked down approaches to learning was brought out in our focus group discussion, with one group member commenting that there are many barriers to simply seeing what other people are doing. In phase 1 we also asked to what extent e-learning was perceived to be integral to a department s learning and teaching strategy. Overall, most responses were towards the midpoint, between no integration and full integration (see Table 3). These responses were based on perception; we did not set any criteria identifying what would constitute a fully integral learning and teaching strategy. This was an interesting question as it elicited many further comments. These indicated a certain baseline of integration in terms of posting lecture notes and communicating with students as a requirement for most modules, with a consensus that extra activity or development of the learning environment was at the discretion of staff. Most comments indicated a positive attitude towards using the VLE and other opportunities for developing e-learning. However, whilst the approach to using the VLE was seen as at least partially integral, there was still concern about the demands on staff time and some questioning of the pedagogical purpose. The comments which presented a negative view of the VLE were wary of seeing technical fixes applied to issues of learning and teaching. Some comments were also concerned about passive use of e-learning as a support tool. 9

10 Table 3 To what extent has e-learning become integral to your departmental teaching? (1 is not at all, 5 is highly integral) Score 1 12% 2 33% 3 22% 4 25% 5 8% The learning environment: use of new technologies outside the VLE With the rise of web 2.0 applications, RSS, user-generated content, blogs, wikis and mashups, we were interested to gauge the level of use of these tools within teaching. We would expect teaching frameworks and pedagogies to support such tools to be emergent, and therefore that established and long-term use of technology outside the VLE would be limited. As Beer and Burrows (2007) note, care must be exercised when using the term web 2.0. As they comment, behind the rhetoric of technology futurists resides the complex, ambivalent, dynamic nature of these online cultures, laden with tensions and subversions (pp. 1,3). Indeed, when questioned on the subject of using web 2.0 tools to support learning in higher education, the majority of respondents to our survey did not engage with such technology, although podcasting and YouTube had the highest individual use rate (approximately 30 per cent each). Those respondents that did use some of the tools mentioned tended to see their use as having only modest value for teaching, with approximately 75 per cent of respondents to each question answering between 1 and 3, with 1 signifying that the tool was of no value and 5 indicating that the tool was of high value. Again, podcasting and YouTube were weighted slightly higher in terms of their applied value for teaching. The pattern of overall responses was reflected when the same questions were broken down by subject area. Approximately 25 per cent of respondents said they had used a wiki in teaching, with a modest overall value for teaching. 10

11 Most students are clued up in Facebook some of them try to move their discussions out of Moodle and into Facebook, but I try to discourage it. If you are dealing with students who want to take control of the tools you need to lay down some ground rules. (Interview and focus group participant) There may be a number of reasons why use of such web 2.0 tools was reported to be low. Typical of many web technologies, they are of course tools developed for other purposes which have been incorporated into frameworks for teaching. There is therefore relatively little known about good practice (or examples of good practice), and often little motivation to experiment within departments. And, as discussed above, most learning and teaching strategies focus on the VLE in terms of e-learning integration, not on external tools. (In the context of this research we posited tools outside the VLE as web 2.0 services, such as blogs, wikis, YouTube and podcasting. However, we should note that most VLE systems now incorporate such tools as part of the software. While advantageous in terms of integrating directly with the VLE, the notion of web 2.0 technologies as external is predicated within this paper as augmentations or alternatives to institutionally driven e- learning platforms.) Interestingly, we also asked if any web 2.0 tools had been used alongside, or in conjunction with, the existing VLE. Surprisingly, given the indicated low response to each type of web 2.0 tool, 40 per cent of the survey sample had tried or attempted to use one of these tools alongside the VLE. Of these, the majority reported that this had been a difficult or timeconsuming process, again indicating that without a clear pedagogical objective or need there 11

12 was little incentive to use such tools beyond the context of what the department/institution could supply. As Beer and Burrows note, a more informed understanding of practices within web 2.0 for teaching and research will have further benefits for negotiating identity within these new online cultures: Not only does [web 2.0 ] create for us new opportunities for research, and maybe teaching, but these applications are already being used to say things about us, about the concepts and writers that we use, about our teaching, and about our institutions. Beer and Burrows (2007) Resource creation and re-use: finding resources In phase 1 we asked respondents to select from a list of options in relation to search strategies for locating digital materials for use as resources within teaching. The responses are given in Table 4. Table 4 How do you find electronic resources for use in teaching? Search method/tool Response count General web searching (e.g. Google) 68 Subject gateways (e.g. INTUTE) 36 Subject centre websites 35 JISC collections and repositories 17 Recommendations from colleagues 47 Recommendations from librarians 20 12

13 There is an interesting split here in the most frequent methods used one based on serendipitous searching online, the other on trusted recommendations. We followed up this question in the interviews by asking: What do you need to know in order to locate good quality digital materials? Most interviewees responded along the lines of the methods outlined above, with references to particular resources for their teaching area such as links into parliament websites, or specific datasets. There was a keen awareness of JISC digital resources (and the JORUM repository for learning objects). However, little use was made of these on the whole. Whilst they were regarded as potentially very valuable, again the usefulness of the resource would be dependent on an individual s teaching needs. Interestingly, although the responses indicated a mixed approach to sourcing digital materials, in the interviews a number of comments returned to the issue of recommendations from colleagues or peers. These comments touched on the need for more ways of filtering out useful online content, possibly by some form of review process carried out by peers (reiterating the issue of trust). Alongside such a review mechanism of resources could be a form of evaluation in practice, which in turn would contribute to the building of expertise about how to appraise and evaluate digital resources and tools. Resource creation and re-use: creating resources In general, the majority of respondents in phase 1 tended to create teaching resources themselves, with approximately a third utilising resources created in conjunction with other staff from within their own institution/faculty. In the follow-up interviews, we also asked about the support offered within departments for creating resources. In many cases this was tied in with support for the institutional VLE and other principal tools. In some cases a more bespoke form of support was offered (as mentioned under the heading The learning environment: the use and support of the VLE ). Generally, according to our modest interview 13

14 sample, resource creation was predicated on the VLE as the final hosting platform; however, there was also a noticeable interest in alternative forms of hosting resources (YouTube, wikis such as pbwiki, personal web pages). Of course, using such tools beyond the supported VLE platform may require additional support to ensure robust curriculum design, and thus the incentive to experiment beyond the VLE is often constrained. Very few respondents (less than 10 per cent) created resources in conjunction with staff from other institutions. We asked if people were aware of the term reusable learning object (RLO); 38 per cent said yes, and, of these, only a minority claimed to use them in teaching. We also asked in phase 1 if there were particular areas of study which might be enhanced by such reusable learning objects; of the responses to this, the most frequent suggestions were research methods and study skills. ( Re-usable learning object simply describes a selfcontained set of digital materials, usually having a linear structure which the student might often encounter as supplementary of self-directed study another way to think about this is as a collection of raw media files structured within a pedagogic framework.) This response seems to indicate that practitioners tend to view such objects as better suited to generic support material, recognising the complexity needed to support very specific learning objects, and then the further problem of the re-use and adaptation of such detailed electronic resources. As Jane Seale and Tom Boyle (2007) note: Highly analytic subjects such as programming would appear to lend themselves well to the creation and use of self-contained, decontextualised resources for learning. On the other hand, highly synthetic subject such as the social sciences may be less hospitable domains for the deployment of such resources. Conole and Oliver, 2007:130 14

15 This reiterates the issue of disciplinary differences outlined earlier by Kemp and Jones (2007), and the importance of situating use of digital resources with reference to disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical frameworks. We explored further the issue of resource creation in the interviews by asking: What do you need to know in order to create good quality digital materials? There were some interesting variations in the responses regarding the level of support needed. Some respondents were keen to see much more technical support available within, or for, departments. For example, if creating a video resource, the time/expertise needed to effectively edit the material would be useful. Most respondents were not creating their own video material, but certainly many were creating resources for students which incorporated online video. The issue of copyright was unanimously agreed as being key to having confidence in creating and using digital resources. Many interviewees indicated that some form of copyright help or guidance existed within their institution, often through their institutional library. However, there was generally a lack of good quality information on specific issues such as downloading and using podcasts in lectures, linking into YouTube from lectures, or downloading and embedding video clips directly. As a general rule most people would instinctively seek permission from the owner of a particular resource. However, this is not always practical a few interviewees were wary of copyright to the extent that they simply avoid the problem by adopting a policy of providing links to materials without embedding or re-using directly. Resource creation and re-use: sharing digital resources Although most staff indicated in phase 1 that they were willing to share resources created by themselves (83 per cent), those who were not willing cited copyright ownership and the training needed to develop good quality resources as factors that might encourage them to 15

16 share in the future. The need for more guidance on sharing from departments was also a factor, although less so than the need for more training to develop confidence in using online tools. Some respondents also commented that they wouldn t necessarily consider sharing resources owing to the bespoke nature of their modules. The perception of the individualised nature of teaching in higher education is an important issue when thinking about trends and practices relating to curriculum design. Interestingly, the issue of re-using or repurposing electronic teaching resources has been a factor in approaches to national e-learning development (JISC, 2006). (In case the reader is not familiar with the terminology, repurposing simply refers to the process of taking existing learning content and adapting it for use by other teaching staff or for other pedagogic purposes). In our survey, 84 per cent of respondents indicated that if they used a resource created by someone else, they would have to spend time adapting it to their own teaching needs. Whilst desirable, the complexity involved in having to unpack resources can often be detrimental to sharing. Table 5 gives a number of indications from the survey. Table 5 If using digital materials created by someone else, why would you adapt these resources? Reason to adapt Response count To suit my own teaching style 37 To learning preferences of students 41 To unpack the level of content 29 As one of the interviewees noted, An RLO [re-usable learning object] might have two hours of teaching time, but only a small part might be useful for my lecture. In fact, methods of describing learning objects with metadata and machine-readable vocabularies have been in development for some time in the field of learning technology (Conole and Oliver, 2007: p.136) with the intention of being able to separate out the component parts of, for example, a 16

17 complex learning object into constituent media files (mostly for use between different systems and web platforms). However, unless one is familiar with these terminologies, most teaching practitioners will hold on to a simpler approach to disaggregating materials, or simply prefer to use other material. Owing to the emergent nature of the area of learning technology itself as a field of study the academic practitioner is most likely to be relatively new to technology enhanced learning. Perception of benefits, pedagogy and curriculum development Alongside the recording of the use of tools, whether they are VLEs, web 2.0 or other, we were interested to get a sense of how people viewed the benefits, if any, of e-learning on pedagogy and curriculum enhancement. In phase 1 we asked, in the context of respondents own experience, if e-learning had facilitated notable benefits under four broad areas: individual student learning; student group learning; overall student achievement; and curriculum enhancement. The responses are given in Table 6. Table 6 Perception of benefits for student learning and curriculum development Significant impact Modest impact No impact Individual student learning 83% 11% 6% Group student learning 33% 40% 27% Overall student achievement 71% 26% 3% Curriculum enhancement 32% 48% 20% It is perhaps important to emphasise that these results are based on personal perception and judgment from a respondent s own experience. The slightly higher figures for individual student learning perhaps reflect the earlier comments regarding the greater degree of difficulty in organising group work and supporting activities within (or outside) the VLE. Further comments in response to this question in phase 1 emphasised the benefit of having 17

18 access to online materials as baseline e-learning provision, although other comments suggested that this only extended a content-driven approach to teaching. Even so, the high figures for significant impact on individual learning and overall student achievement are encouraging. These kinds of figures are difficult to generalise widely from, and are not tied to any one specific tool or approach to using e-learning. However, they do capture the increasing interest in exploring the affordances for enhancing student learning through use of technology. The more ambivalent response to the issue of curriculum design is interesting. In the phase 2 interviews we asked about curriculum planning in terms of periods of activity in the academic year. While times might vary over the year when staff are planning modules and courses, the notion of building some level of e-learning into curricula was a factor in all phase 2 interviews. Further comments indicated that, even for those who were more critical of e-learning as a technical fix, it was seen as offering an opportunity to think about the process of learning and the ways in which students engage with course material. We followed this up in the focus group, where participants commented on the value of a sound and developed pedagogical underpinning or learning design, although the difficulty was often in exteriorising the pedagogy. E-learning might help facilitate these processes, but was not in itself a solution which could be separated from the conditions of particular local context. The grand theories of social constructivism don t always engage colleagues perhaps we should ask How can this technology help me to understand what a particular pedagogy offers? (Focus group participant) 18

19 Reward, incentive and staff development A specific issue that emerged strongly across all phases of the survey was recognition for time and effort spent in developing and using e-learning. This seems to be a critical factor in the success of establishing innovative practice with e-learning and is equally important in maintaining momentum once new practices within curricula are in place. Interestingly, the perceived need for reward and recognition can be contextualised by the general absence of specific recognition noted in phase 1. We asked respondents if their department offered some form of reward or incentive for creating or sharing electronic resources. Of the sample, 90 per cent said no, only 8 per cent said yes and 2 per cent were unsure. Clearly, this is an issue that is not only located in social science subjects. However, it presents a challenge to all involved in course delivery and returns to a problem which many of the interviewees noted in passing: the assumption that e-learning is posited as providing the answer to many of the issues of teaching within higher education (time management, student numbers) without the necessary support to produce high quality materials or thorough evaluations of effective practice. We need to recognise the enormous amount of time that is needed to learn new technology, then prepare materials using this technology there needs to be some recognition of the labour-intensive nature of implementing e- learning. (Interview participant) 19

20 Final thoughts This scoping survey presents the beginnings of a longer-term conversation with social science academic staff on the question of where they are currently located with e-learning in terms of their teaching practice. It has also explored issues related to what they would like to know more about when working with or developing e-learning. One further issue we were keen to explore in the interviews was the notion of technology and the personalisation of learning. This produced some divisions of opinion. We invited phase 2 interview respondents to critique the term personalisation, which is foregrounded in the HEFCE e-learning Strategy, Many critiqued the assumptions behind the term and some wondered whether individualisation was more apt. In fact, the difference of opinion expressed is perhaps best explained by the ambiguity of the word personalisation. Most interview participants felt, to some extent, that e-learning offered more flexibility in the means of delivery. Therefore, if you were a part-time student or distance learner, the learning might appear to be more personal. However, adapting course material to the needs of campusbased and remote-based students is only one part of the spectrum of e-learning approaches. Some interview respondents also commented on misunderstandings regarding technical solutions to different learning styles. In fact, the notion of students having learning styles which can be accommodated through personalised e-learning was critiqued by some of the interview respondents and also within the focus group. One focus group member suggested: Learning styles don t suddenly appear to students, they are things they take up given the circumstances. Further, it was also noted here that the tendency to treat higher education as a product rather than a service might obscure the true level of engagement needed by students in order to commit to learning. 'Porting' classes into Facebook, for example, might be novel but does not guarantee increased engagement with learning on the part of students unless it is built into a planned (and visible) curriculum. Even then, many other factors, such 20

21 as the perceived invasion of student personal space, might intervene to compromise the learning outcomes. Alongside this notion of personalisation is the issue of student expectations. In several of the interview responses to the question on personalisation the comment was made that students are often the ones driving the changes in teaching and learning methods and that staff should have the confidence to let the students decide what works for them. This does not of course mean abandoning existing practice, but rather giving students more opportunity to contribute towards the process of their learning, perhaps through evaluation. One of the focus group participants noted that a recent evaluation process in their department had involved year 3 students evaluating e-learning materials for first year students. The result was that many of these materials were revised and the assumptions about learning styles, which had been built into the materials, were unpicked and simplified. Although this scoping survey was partly an exercise to gain a snapshot of the use of e- learning across social science departments, we hope that C-SAP can respond to some of the issues and needs which emerged from the survey in future work. One such response might emerge in 2009 as part of a new JISC/HEA initiative to pilot the release of digital learning material under open content licences. Moreover, as courses and curricula in higher education are increasingly delivered and mediated through the use of technology, this leads us to constantly review our practices and understanding of the conditions of modern higher education. As Martin Oliver (2009) described in his keynote speech for the C-SAP Virtual University? conference, whilst the continually changing landscape of educational technology might create a sense of constant re-invention, this in itself might not be all bad, so long as we review and develop our pedagogical frameworks within which to understand the 21

22 implications of each new technology, and set these within the needs of practitioners working in subject areas with their own cultures of learning and teaching. Note The original survey report, Marsh, Pountney, and Prigg (2008) is available from the C-SAP website at the address given below. We welcome a continued discussion on the findings and outcomes of this survey. If you would like to comment, please do so using the available functions in ELiSS, or Darren Marsh (darren.marsh@c-sap.bham.ac.uk). C-SAP would like to thank the JISC and the HEA for supporting this research as part of the second phase of DEL funding. Thanks to Eddie Gulc and the team at the HEA for their support. References Beer, D., Burrows, R. (2007) Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: some initial considerations, Sociological Research Online, 12 (5). Available at: (accessed 30 January 2009). Blair, A. (2006) Teaching politics in UK universities: a survey of the profession, LATISS, 3 (2), Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds.) (2007) Contemporary Perspectives in e-learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice, London: Routledge. Fletcher, S. and France, D. (2007) E-learning in the UK: perspectives from GEES practitioners, Planet, 18 (June), pp JISC (2004) Effective Practice with e-learning: A Good Practice Guide in Designing for Learning, Higher Education Funding Council for England. 22

23 JISC (2006) Distributed e-learning Programme. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Available at: (accessed 28 January 2009). JISC InfoNet (2008) Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-learning: Does Investment Yield Interest? JISC. Available at: (last accessed 28 January, 2009) Kemp, B. and Jones, C. (2007) Academic use of digital resources: disciplinary differences and the issue of progression revisited, Educational Technology & Society, 10 (1), pp Littlejohn, A., Cook, J. Campbell, L., Sclater, N., Currier, S. And Davis., H. (2007), Managing educational resources, in Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds.) (2007) Contemporary Perspectives in e-learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice, London: Routledge Lightfoot, S. (2004) Can Blackboard help support politics students?, LATISS, 1 (3), pp Marsh, D., Pountney, R. P. and Prigg, R. (2008) C-SAP Scoping Survey on the Use of e- Learning in the Social Sciences, C-SAP, Higher Education Academy. Available at: Oliver, M. (2009) Keynote presentation at C-SAP Virtual University? conference, 16 January. Available at: (accessed 28 January 2009). 23

24 The authors Darren joined C-SAP in 2004, after completing a PhD in English Literature at the University of Birmingham. As well as developing and maintaining the C-SAP website and other web resources, Darren supports e-learning projects and initiatives within the C-SAP subject community. This involves supporting and working with academic staff on C-SAP annual projects, and other work funded through the Higher Education Academy and JISC. Richard is a principal lecturer and Teaching Fellow for Curriculum Development in the Faculty of Development and Society at Sheffield Hallam University. He has worked as an e- learning consultant with C-SAP from 2007, contributing to a number of projects including an E-learning Scoping Survey, and co-directing the C-SAP Virtual University? conference in January His role at SHU includes curriculum planning and course design, and his research interests include pedagogical frameworks for supporting open access course design. 24