In their paper, Barriers to Innovation in Online Pedagogy, Christie and Jurado (2009) have made a great attempt at examining the underlying issues that possibly play a role in hindering the transformation of traditional courses into an online environment. Their research was focused on assessing the utilization of tools within Learning Management System (WebCT) employed by instructors at the School of Engineering at the University College of Borås (Sweden). By combining literature review and a very well organized systematic observation of 22 lecturers they have determined that “the extent to which teachers employed all features was low” (Christie & Jurado, 2009, p.273). They then analyzed the reasons for such limited use of pedagogical tools through combining observed data with a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess instructor’s general attitudes towards the use of LMS. This analysis was performed in the hope that the results will create a better understanding of what would be required for all involved (including administration and students) in order to draw benefits from the use of LMS for teaching and learning. In the questionnaire, the instructors were assessed in three categories: least experienced, intermediate, and most experience, which I think is an important distinction as the level of competence might determine a different response.
One of the most significant findings in the process of the research was the distribution of the tools used by instructors. The study clearly showed that instructors regardless of their competence level with the LMS favor content management and integration tools (over 60%) over activity-based tools like discussions (12% to 23%), quizzes and assignments (13% to 20%). I find it true in my own experience when working with the instructors, especially with new to technology instructors. New to online teaching instructors tend to get excited about the ability to offset the time spent printing and distributing course materials in class with loading digital copies into LMS and where they are available to students at any time. A possible reason could be that when it comes to integrating a tool allowing students to submit something to the instructor, the timetable gets reversed. It not only takes more time upfront to create the activities but also grades them and give feedback. Christie and Jurado (2009) found that only 21% of the courses made use assignment tool. It was reassuring to see that my own experience was not just a fluke as the quantitative data combined with attitudinal survey led to one of the research’s conclusion that “teachers do not have the time or motivation to become experts in how to use LMS” as well (Christie & Jurado, 2009, p 276).
It is important to mention that Christie and Judago built their research (especially the questionnaire they used in their analysis) on previously published paper by Jurado and Paterson, Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: a Swedish case study. One of the aims of the research was to test “whether lecturer hesitation about adopting new technology” was due to “fear of complexity” of the new software (Garrote Jurado, Pettersson, & Aktinson, 2007, p. 331). The result was surprising. Their study revealed that “the fear of the complexity” is not the case. Instead, they found that “the initial amount of work compared with expected benefits” was the primary cause for concern (Garrote Jurado, Pettersson, & Aktinson, 2007, p. 327).
This finding played an important part in questionnaire design and the resulting analysis of Christie and Jurado (2009) as it has eliminated one of the most commonly assumed reasons for instructor’s reluctance of adopting technology — that technology is just too complicated to figure out and to use effectively. Thus, perhaps creating slightly different conclusions and as a result distributing the burden of responsibility for effective integration of LMS into teaching and learning on a much wider scope including the university leaders and administrators. This is the real strength of this paper. There is not that much research out there that successfully shows the need for the commitment from the administration. “But if the more widespread change is to occur, it is the leaders at a university who must be prepared to commit time and money to see that it happens” they concluded. (Christie & Jurado, 2009, p.278).
All in all, even though the research is a bit older and I am not the biggest proponent of the LMSes in general, I found this article to be useful. I have seen similar undertakings, and one of the major hurdles is the reluctance of the administration to invest time and money into support infrastructure (i.e., expanding human help resources, opportunities for professional development or work release for faculty who would like to transform courses for blended or online learning). Faculty who are reluctant are then put in the camp labeled “the ones who are afraid of technology, ” and it becomes their fault rather than the lack of support resources and time. That’s why Jurado and Paterson’s findings resonated strongly with me and why I appreciated conclusions of Christie and Jurado research.
References:
Christie, M., & Jurado, R. G. (2009). Barriers to innovation in online pedagogy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(3), 273–279. http://doi.org/10.1080/03043790903038841
Garrote Jurado, R., Pettersson, T., & Aktinson, R. (2007). Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: [Elektronisk resurs] : A Swedish case study. Lecturers’ Attitudes about the Use of Learning Management Systems in Engineering Education: A Swedish Case Study, 23:3, s. 3(3), 327–349.