A review of staff engagement with digital technologies on an undergraduate language programme
1. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
A review of staff engagement with digital technologies
on an undergraduate language programme
Benoît Guilbaud
b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk
@benguilbaud
2. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/3.0/
Benoît Guilbaud, 2012
9. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Usefulness Cost
Relevance
Making technology work
Time
Assessment
Curriculum
Employability Policy
10. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Context
Undergraduate Spanish, French, Linguistics,
language programme Italian & German EFL & TEFL
30 academic Approx. 500 Face-to-face &
members of staff BA students blended learning
11. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
The study
Review staff usage and perceptions of three technological tools
Highlight barriers to uptake, limitations and incentives
Evaluate perceived usefulness (Judson, 2006)
Suggest strategies to improve future provision
14. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Part 2
July-September 2012
Semi-structured interviews
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 1996)
Picture by Kamujp via flickr.com
15. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Tools reviewed
#1. One that seems to work - Virtual Learning Environment
#2. One that doesn’t seem to work - Interactive Whiteboards
#3. One that seems worth developing - Social Media
19. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
VLE
Skills & training
Basic use 100 %
Advanced use 90 %
Training attended 93 %
Interest in training 84 %
Satisfaction with training 81 %
% of total number of participants
20. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
VLE
Institutional requirements
Good awareness of requirements 76 %
Requirements are reasonable 63 %
Requirements are not enough 53 %
Feel supported by institution 67 %
Driving innovation 70 %
21. VLE
Tutor
Communication
Student
Student
Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
22. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
VLE
Open / closed
Other
Unit tutor
tutors
Other Outside
Moodle unit
students world
Institution Unit students
23. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
VLE
Other considerations
Beneficial to students’ learning ✓
Large amounts of content can discourage attendance ✓
Content should be a satisfactory replacement for classes ✗
Saves time ✗
Useful overall & should be developed further ✓
24. (IWB)
#2. Interactive Whiteboards
Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
26. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Equipment
Basic use Advanced use
36% of teaching
rooms equipped
Writing Annotating screen
Drawing Interactive activities
Estimated initial Student engagement
cost: £50,000
Saving contents
27. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Skills & training
Basic use 83 %
Advanced use 33 %
Training attended 50 %
Interest in training 67 %
Amount of training sufficient 40 %
28. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Institutional requirements
& recommendations
Error 404
Slide not found
29. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Use
“IWB are (or can be) useful
83%
for teaching and learning”
Use it 2 to 3 times
per year or less 60%
Never use it 37%
30. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Use
Writing 53 %
Drawing 30 %
Interactive activities 23 %
Annotating desktop / video 13 %
Engaging students 40 %
31. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
IWB
Other considerations
I feel encouraged by my institution to use IWB ✗
I have sufficient time to use / prepare classes with an IWB ✗
Using an IWB saves me time ✗
IWB are usually available in the rooms where I teach ✗
If more widely available, I would use IWB more ✓
33. Open learning Digital identity
Digital literacy
Participation
Sharing
Social
Personal Learning Transparency
Network
34. Social Media
% of don’t know answers
23%
Awareness
Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
35. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Social Media
Skills & training
Basic use 57%
Advanced use 35%
Training attended 33%
Interest in training 72%
Amount of training sufficient 42%
% of opinions expressed
36. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Social Media
Use
“Social Media can be useful
77%
to my students’ learning”
Use it 2 to 3 times
per year or less 74%
Never use it 60%
37. Social Media
Tutor
Communication
Student
Student
Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
38. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Social Media
Open learning (Couros, 2011)
Privacy Outside
Tutor world
Awareness
Personal
VLE Training Learning
Network
Time
Open
Student Resources education
40. Tool selection
Select technology to address an issue or encourage innovation
Critically evaluate technological tools
(Chappelle, 2010)
Picture by toolstop via flickr.com
42. Over-reliance
on hardware
Allocate no more than 1/3 of buget to hardware + software
(Morino Institute, 2001)
Ensure consistency & availability
Picture by ehpien via flickr.com
43. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Open learning
Raise awareness of applications and benefits of OL
Develop Digital Literacies
(Belshaw, 2011)
Promote participation
(Jenkins, 2006)
44. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Belshaw, D., 2011. What is digital literacy? A Pragmatic investigation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at http://
neverendingthesis.com and http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/cgi/latest [accessed 28th March 2012].
Chapelle, C., 2010. Evaluating computer technology for language learning. Contact: Teachers of English as a Second
Language of Ontario, 36(2), pp.56-67.
Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th International
Conference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Chajut, E., 2010. You Can Teach Old Dogs New Tricks: The Factors That Affect Changes over Time in
Digital Literacy. In: Journal of Information Technology Education, vol. 9.
Judson, E., 2006. How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning - Is There a Connection? In: Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), pp.581-597.
Levin, T. & Wadmany, R., 2008. Teachers’ view on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the
classroom: developmental scenery. In: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), pp.233-263.
Morino Institute (The), 2001. From access to outcomes: raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income
communities. [Online] The Morino Institute. Available at: http://www.morino.org/divides/report.pdf [accessed 4 July 2012].
Wheeler, S., 2012. Digital Pedagogy: Content is a Tyrant, Context is King. In: NAACE 2012 Annual Conference, 9 March
2012, Leicester, United Kingdom.
45. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012
Any questions?
#LLASconf2012
Benoît Guilbaud
b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk
@benguilbaud