mapping e-learning: visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology

Mapping e-Learning Whitworth & Benson ALT-C 2006

Mapping e-Learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of

educational technology

Andrew Whitworth &Angela Benson


Introduction

• Theme: “Next generation of providers”• Paper describes research project• Funders: WUN, British Academy• Area of interest: e-learning as organised

human activity in a workplace context• How will the next generation of

providers absorb and develop these technologies?


Are technologies like this?

• Emerging from nowhere

• Always looking the same?

• (though it’s fair enough to say they are bigger on the inside than the outside!)


The social shaping of technology• Technologies are shaped… built from the available

resources and in particular (organisational) contexts• They also shape organisations and practices: acting as

affordances for everyday working lives

• This relationship is co-evolutionary (Andrews & Haythornthwaite 2007)

TECH:

ORG:

and so on…


The context

• What is an organisation?– people? infrastructure? working

practices? knowledge? external constraints? customer demands?

• E-learning researchers must appreciate organisation studies and theory

• Any organisation fragmented… HE especially so?


Technology at the planning table

• Different stakeholders… different practices, assumptions, values, knowledge bases…

• multiple forces shaping products (technologies, programs…)

• Who shapes the sociotechnical configuration of online programs? & does it make a difference?


Research design

• via Cervero & Wilson • and Benson (2002)• Both projects looked at negotiations

in educational planning…• Attend to role of e-learning tech

itself in constituting a framing factor• Qualitative case studies


Case studies

• Not establishing if one is “better” but whether and how these different design methodologies are

compatible with existing organisational structures

CMS types:

• commercial• open source• home-grown• “Lone Ranger”

Different development communities in each case…

Locations:

1 US and 1 UKcase study foreach CMS type

Time:

Data for 4 col-lected summer2005

3 more summer2006

1 to complete


Validity of data

• Why important? (especially in this project)• Multiple stakeholders, perspectives –

contradiction in the data set is inevitable?• Validity becomes a matter of

trustworthiness of data?• Two case studies used to illustrate this…• …and how establishing validity itself

brought insight


Identifying interactions

• Should not take “formal” structure as read – do perceptions of this structure match?

• “Named” v. “unnamed” interactions• First visualisation – a crude count (full

table is in the proceedings)• Reduce then to a second visualisation:

cognitive social structure – reciprocal recognition of ties between parties


Visualising organisational structure

Kathryn

Bryan

Roxanne

Steve

Vernon

Charles

David Eva

Fay

Graham

Hans

Philip

Max

AliceDevelopers

Planners

Instructors

TAs

This is only one way of interpreting the data, but it does suggest thatthis team has a centralised structure


Mining the transcripts

• Triangulation…– KATHRYN: I think that if I didn’t have a funnel… of

Bryan having everything come through him, it would be very difficult to keep up. If I had to spend more time responding to individuals and less time on tasks. And at the same time, what’s even more confusing than just the response time is how do I prioritize this? Is this something Bryan wants me to do, or is this something that is just kind of an off-hand request from somebody else?

– INTERVIEWER: Does Bryan stop you having to get involved with that kind of politics…?

– KATHRYN: Yeah, he definitely does do that and makes those decisions, which is good…. not that I avoid talking to people or anything, but I think in a situation like that…it lets me be the programmer.


Adding the “unnamed” interactions

Developer Instructor Planner TA/DA

N U Tot N U Tot N U Tot N U Tot

Total 11 21 32 15 5469 106 22 128 16 44 60

mentioned by developers 4 6 26 9

mentioned by instructors 4 7 24 26

mentioned by planners 18 32 51 13

mentioned by TA/DAs 6 24 27 12

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

by developers

by instructors

by planners

by TA/DAs

Developers

Instructors

Planners

TA/DAs

A different visualisation: a second form of triangulation

Each visualisation alone has limitations: but they reinforce each other – and help establish the validity of the “picture” of each case study


Summary of “ERD”

• Relatively strong core of planners, who mediate much of the interaction with the developers

• Instructors have strong links with TAs, but not with other instructors nor developers


Comparisons with E-TECH

Irina

Janet

Luis

Niall

Quentin

Terry

William

Yvonne

Vernon

Olivia

Kathryn

Bryan

Roxanne

Steve

Vernon

Charles

David Eva

Fay

Graham

Hans

Philip

Max

Alice

A more distributed “cognitive social structure”?

ERD… …E-TECH


Comparisons with E-TECH

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

by developers

by instructors

by planners

by TA/DAs

Developers

Instructors

Planners

TA/DAs

ERD…

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

by developers

by instructors

by planners

by TA/DAs

Developers

Instructors

Planners

TA/DA

…E-TECH

• E-TECH – a more integrated development team, and a more inclusive development process• Planners have less of a “gatekeeping” role• Still a lack of instructor – instructor interaction though…


Why might this matter?

• Co-evolution of organisation & system… procedures, etc.

• Compatibility of CMS with organisational structure

• Who shapes? (E-TECH more inclusive…)

• Note also strain that E-TECH might come under – if mandated to use particular CMS?


Close relatives!

Both programs are hosted at the same university – indeed inthe same building!

Could a “campus-wide” solution be imposed here? Would either program find it easy to change?

Something I haven’t mentioned yet…


Conclusion

• No generalisation from case study…• but “thick” descriptions…?• Understanding the complexities of

the technology – organisation relationship is crucial for the effective implementation of e-L in everyday working contexts in all their different configurations


Moving on

• Limitations acknowledged… • but lessons were learnt about how to

research the other cases• 7 out of 8 cases, data collection now

complete• Further developments: longitudinal?

Develop techniques for assessing other contexts?


Contact us…

• Drew:– [email protected]

• Angela:– [email protected]

• We would particularly like to talk to anyone working with, or with contacts at, the Open University.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mapping e-learning: visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology

Documents