ÌÇÐÄVlog

Staff say the barrier to using IT in teaching is imagination, not practice. Olga Wojtas reports on the results of an Edinburgh University survey

In the first half of this decade, the funding councils invested Pounds 11 million in the teaching and learning technology programme, which aimed to harness modern technology for the benefit of teaching.

A common view in higher education is that the scheme has had little impact because academics are reluctant to use technology, and have scant interest in it.

But Edinburgh University researchers have found that much more TLTP material is being used than was thought and that many academics strongly support it.

Their study, to be published next month by the ÌÇÐÄVlog Funding Council for England, found that staff are also using a lot of other communication and information technology and many want this expanded to boost learning and teaching.

In the largest survey of its kind, the learning technology research group in Edinburgh's department of higher and further education contacted staff responsible for learning technology in all medium and large institutions.

It also solicited replies from more than 900 university departments and schools.

Of those responding, 28 per cent were using material from one or more TLTP projects, and two-thirds of them were using the material for a range of courses or modules. There was a much higher use of technology in general, including word processors, email, and web browsers.

Very few academics thought their subject lent itself to only minimal use of technology.

But despite the enthusiasm, the Edinburgh team warns that there are still barriers. Project leader Jeff Haywood, Edinburgh's director of flexible learning, says: "People's attitudes and views about the value of technology were positive, but for some the barriers were too great for them to do anything.'' Contrary to popular belief, the staff surveyed did not see these barriers so much as technological than as administrative.

Technological difficulties undoubtedly exist, says Dr Haywood, given that some institutions, and disciplines within institutions, are better equipped. But "they don't see it as a problem, because they see it as fixable''.

There is often better provision for students than for staff because equipment for students tends to be organised centrally, while devolved departmental budgeting means technology may lose out to competing priorities.

But the staff responding to the questionnaires felt much more strongly about their need for help in integrating new material into their courses and helping students learn through the media.

A number of institutions have appointed teaching and learning technology officers, who have often already been involved in TLTP and similar initiatives.

The best way to use the material has to vary according to the course, Dr Haywood says. There can be no universal blueprint, and it is up to staff to decide whether their course would benefit from teaching and learning technology as a voluntary option, integrated sessions, or even a complete replacement for traditional teaching. "What people were reporting was that getting the balance right was tricky,'' says team member Ray Land.

"Some said students were happy with technology, but if they lost too much face-to-face teaching, they became quite anxious.'' The survey also prompted complaints about the lack of recognition or rewards for teaching innovation. Some staff felt it was not seen as a legitimate activity. If academics feel their colleagues do not value what they are doing, they are less likely to spend time on it, Dr Haywood says.

Teaching quality assessment has been hailed as redressing the balance towards teaching from the pressures of the research assessment exercise. But on the basis of another Edinburgh research project, Dr Haywood has seen no sign of the TQA reinforcing the funding councils' intention to boost the use of technology.

"It was clear that there was no consistency within review teams of looking for innovative activities,'' he says.

Land says there are also barriers to the use of technology that may not be immediately obvious.

"One thing that was unexpected was finding barriers even where there were positive at-titudes and available equipment - things like timetabling and actually getting a class into a lab,'' he says. "They were quite mundane things, but they became so frustrating that people wondered whether it was worth doing. It wasn't a technical or pedagogical problem, but administrative.'' But Kate Day says the survey's findings are fundamentally encouraging. They have clearly revealed a shift from a narrow focus on the technology itself to staff asking how it can best be used to help student learning.

The projects that seemed to be the most successful and popular were those in which individual tutors found they could customise the material to fit round their own teaching.

Staff are now more realistic and no longer see technology as a quick fix, she says. "The people who are trying to incorporate this type of material have got more sophisticated in seeing how time-consuming it is.'' The Edinburgh research found a link between the use of TLTP material and subject area, with most use being made in the physical sciences and business studies, and least use in the visual and performing arts and the caring professions.

This largely reflects the availability of subject-specific TLTP material, the report says.

But Dr Haywood stresses that there is remarkably consistent use of technology across higher education, and believes that the United Kingdom compares well with the United States.

"Running alongside the idea that nothing is going on here is the idea that the US is decades ahead of us,'' he says. "When you look at the US, the heterogeneity is enormous. You always have trouble if you look at the leading edge, comparing yourself to Stanford or Michigan. But if you compare a small institution in Britain to the US, by and large the UK academics are better off, and more similar to the top. The width of band in the UK is much narrower.'' Further details on the learning technology research group's reports can be found at