The pleasures of age: a mid-term report on the nature of innovations and innovators

David Grantham (Coventry University) was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2001. In this article from the Autumn 2003 issue of Directions David reflects on progress on his project, aimed at developing the theory and practice of Web-based learning in UK law schools.

This article is a shorter version of David’s paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in London on 19 June 2003.

When my research began my main interest was in the principles of learning and teaching in relation to e-learning, however I have become more and more interested in what it is that drives colleagues to work in the field of electronic learning environments. I found myself wanting to know more about what motivated them, how they were supported, if at all, and the impact they may be having on other colleagues working around them. Thus, this article is a tale about both the nature of the ICT innovations I have found and the innovators themselves.

One of the chief factors directing my research was a growing understanding that it wasn’t so much the design of the learning that provided the student with a positive and valuable learning experience but rather the way in which that student was integrated into e-learning and supported, encouraged and inspired to learn. In turn, this experience depended heavily on the attitude, cast of mind, fortitude and sometimes the position of the innovator in the field. My travels have taken me to no less than 28 institutions spread across the United Kingdom, United States, South Africa and Australia.

The search for ‘pedaware’

The argument that pedagogic developments need to be grounded in pedagogic research was part of the reason for my work, and I wanted to find out what theories were being employed in the field. With the exception of seven institutions (one first rank and six ‘newer’ universities) the electronic environments evaluated turned out to be what has been described as ‘shovelware’, ie mostly lecture notes and other resources such as links to recent case law, shovelled into websites like coals onto a fire. Little or no evidence of learning and teaching principles could be detected, and in terms of an educational encounter these electronic environments were somewhat impoverished.

Searching for what I want to call ‘pedaware’ became something of a treasure hunt, with a number of false trails and the occasional valuable find. Instances of false trails included websites with graphics or other iconography that appeared to have been selected at random rather than being deployed strategically and symbolically to assist in the learning process.

Valuable finds where there were interesting pedagogical underpinnings to the design of e-learning included the following examples:

• constructivist learning through a specially designed problem-based program (Australia)
• interactive problems with a voiceover aimed at a typical Socratic exchange – students also get feedback in pop-up windows (USA)
• use of symbolic graphics to help the student remember a concept, argument or principle (UK, South Africa and Australia)

Where there was evidence of a successful programme, measured by pass or retention rates as well as by the overall look and feel of the e-learning context, there appeared to be a strong correlation between the learning and the degree and kind of support offered to students. Evidence of this support can be found in the setting up of student support groups, detailed and timely feedback, choices of questions and online availability of tutors.

Successful courses also exhibited other features of a supporting kind, particularly in what might be called the ‘softer’ side of e-learning. By this is meant the attitudes of the tutors themselves, especially when communicating with students online. This relatively new skill is a crucial one when operating a discussion forum or responding to student questions via e-mail. A skilled tutor can encourage and motivate a student by the use of appropriate language.

The innovators

By far the most interesting aspect of the research for me was the revealing of the backgrounds, positions, attitudes and behaviours of the innovators and online tutors themselves. These were sometimes the same person combining both roles, often successfully. All of them, including the author himself, were in some way ‘odd’! Perhaps you have to be a little unconventional to be working at the forefront of educational practice in a conservative discipline like law, but, without exception, all of these pioneers were in some way out of the normal mainstream of the personnel normally inhabiting law schools.

They tended either to be working on special projects financed by the winning of prizes for e-learning design, including the author, or were working for themselves and had incorporated companies for online learning. One was not a legal academic at all, but was a higher education developer who had been assigned to assist the lawyers with their electronic environments. Another characteristic shared by all but two of these frontiersmen, for they were all men, was that they were rather elderly.

Other patterns emerged. All had been involved in the design of e-learning from an early stage and all but one had experience of face-to-face teaching and learning in universities. Except in the case of two practitioners who had set up their own e-learning business, they all had positioned themselves so that they operated independently in the law school, at least when they were in e-learning mode.

From the descriptions and demonstrations of their work it was clear that these practitioners were very concerned that their students had a meaningful learning experience. They wanted to motivate their students to really get into the subject and had designed their online learning to achieve this end. Evidence abounded of the concern they showed for the struggles of the student with difficult issues in the subject and a keen desire to help them without imposing their own views upon them.

Given the impending escape into retirement of these ancient innovators there is a concern about who will pick up the baton and push on with further developments in the e-learning field. Where are the younger men and women? The question of providing a climate for innovation in learning and teaching, in face-to-face or electronic settings, is critical.

Hopefully new blood will emerge in the near future and will join with others established in the field to exchange ideas on the pedagogy (andragogy) of e-learning. I would like to conclude with a proverb heard in South Africa:

To move forward the tortoise needs to stick its neck out.

There is now a pressing need to talk to other ‘tortoises’, hopefully across disciplines, to arrive at a clearer picture of the issues so far emerging from this research and to keep the initial e-learning impetus on the move.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010