Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
Higher Education Research & Development
ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Teaching with technology in higher education:
understanding conceptual change and
development in practice
Claire Englund, Anders D. Olofsson & Linda Price
To cite this article: Claire Englund, Anders D. Olofsson & Linda Price (2017) Teaching with
technology in higher education: understanding conceptual change and development in practice,
Higher Education Research & Development, 36:1, 73-87, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300
Published online: 12 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6597
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 59 View citing articles
Teaching with technology in higher education: understanding
conceptual change and development in practice
Claire Englund
a
, Anders D. Olofsson
a
and Linda Price
b
a
Department of Education, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;
b
Centre for Higher Education Research and
Practice (CHERP), Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, London, UK
ABSTRACT
Research indicates that teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to
teaching with technology are central for the successful imple-
mentation of educational technologies in higher education. This
study advances this premise. We present a 10-year longitudinal
study examining teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to
teaching and learning with technology. Nine teachers on an
online Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy and a Master of Pharmacy
programme at a Swedish university were studied using a
phenomenographic approach. Results showed clear differences
between novice and experienced teachers. Although novice
teachers initially held more teacher-focused conceptions, they
demonstrated greater and more rapid change than experienced
colleagues. Experienced teachers tended to exhibit little to no
change in conceptions. Supporting conceptual change should,
therefore, be a central component of professional development
activities if a more effective use of educational technology is to be
achieved.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 December 2015
Accepted 15 March 2016
KEYWORDS
Conceptual change;
conceptions of and
approaches to teaching;
educational technology;
higher education; teaching
with technology
Introduction
Over the last 25 years, educational technology (Edtech)
1
in Higher Education (HE) has
been promoted as having the potential to transform teaching and learning (Conole,
2014; Laurillard, 2008). Even so, there is little evidence of the long promised revolution
in HE facilitated by Edtech (Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2008; Kirkwood & Price,
2013; Olofsson & Lindberg, 2014; Price & Kirkwood, 2014b; Selwyn, 2010). There is a
growing need for educational research to account for the distinct ‘digital disconnect’
between the enthusiastic rhetoric and rather uninspiring reality of university Edtech use
(Selwyn, 2007) and to develop strategies to facilitate the implementation of Edtech in
HE to enhance student learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010).
A critical factor in the successful implementation of Edtech in HE has been identified as
the competence of teachers to know why, when and how best to implement educational
technologies (Krumsvik, 2014; Laurillard & Masterman, 2009; Lindberg & Olofsson,
2012; Schneckenberg, 2009, 2010). The adoption of Edtech by teachers is, however, a
© 2016 HERDSA
CONTACT Claire Englund claire.englund@umu.se
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2017
VOL. 36, NO. 1, 73–87
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300
complex process influenced by many factors both extrinsic and intrinsic (Drent & Meelis-
sen, 2008; Errington, 2004; Price, 2014; Somekh, 2008). How teachers use technology is the
focus of much research; however, consideration of more fundamental questions such as
teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to teaching and learning with Edtech is
missing (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Kirkwood, 2009; Kirkwood &
Price, 2006; Price, 2014; Somekh, 2008).
There is a need to research change and development in teachers’ conceptions of and
approaches to the use of Edtech over time if the relatively ineffectual implementation of
Edtech is to be remedied. This paper presents a 10-year longitudinal study (2004–2014)
with the objective of revealing variations and changes in conceptions and approaches to
teaching with technology of teachers in HE over time. Nine teachers working on an
online Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy and Master of Pharmacy programmes at a
Swedish university are studied, using a phenomenographic approach to analyse the inter-
view data (Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994).
Conceptions of and approaches to teaching and learning
The use of the terms ‘conceptions’ and ‘approaches’ to teaching in this study follows
Kember’s(1997)definition:
.
Conceptions of teaching are defined as the individual’s beliefs about teaching and
learning.
.
Approaches to teaching and learning are defined as the strategies teachers adopt for
their teaching practice.
Although conceptions and approaches are defined by Kember as separate aspects of
teaching, these two concepts are theoretically closely aligned (Norton, Richardson,
Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes, 2005). Trigwell and Prosser (1996) argue that teachers’
approaches to teaching correspond to their conceptions of teaching, which in turn
relate to their conceptions of learning. In this study, the more discernible changes in
approach are seen as indicative of a corresponding change in conceptions of teaching
with Edtech.
Approaches to using Edtech in teaching and learning have been found to be under-
pinned by conceptions of technology use in education, conceptions of teaching and learn-
ing and perceptions of the technological teaching context (Kim et al., 2013; Kirkwood &
Price, 2012; Song & Looi, 2012). Thus, how teachers conceptualise Edtech and the role of
teaching has a significant impact on how they utilise technology in their teaching practice
(Kirkwood & Price, 2012; Price & Kirkwood, 2014a).
The concept of a ‘teaching approach’ is used varyingly with some researchers seeing it
as relatively stable (Kember & Kwan, 2000), while others agree that context affects teach-
ing approaches (Fanghanel & Trowler, 2008; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). A student-centred
approach is consistently viewed as more sophisticated than a teacher-centred approach
(Kember & Gow, 1994), and is considered to be necessary for the successful integration
of Edtech (Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Somekh, 2008). Trigwell and colleagues (1994) ident-
ified five qualitatively different approaches to teaching (A to E) that are structurally related
74 C. ENGLUND ET AL.
in a hierarchy of inclusiveness, ranging from information transmission to facilitating
learning through conceptual change.
The consequences of these differing approaches lie in the manner in which they influ-
ence how technology is used to facilitate learning. Content-focused teaching is likely to
manifest itself in technology use for the presentation of information. Comparatively, a
learning-focused use of technology allows students to demonstrate their understanding
of a topic (Kirkwood & Price, 2013). It is important for teachers to perceive and use tech-
nology as an integral part of a student-centred approach to teaching if enhanced learning
outcomes are to be achieved (Åkerlind, 2003; Cope & Ward, 2002 ; Glassett & Schrum,
2009; Kim et al., 2013; Kreber & Kanuka, 2013).
There are an increasing number of studies that examine teachers’ approaches to teach-
ing and their conceptions of teaching in HE (Biggs, 1999; Kember & Kwan, 2000;
Kirkwood & Price, 2012). Few studies, however, have sought to understand changes in
HE teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to teaching and learning with technology
over time (Orlando, 2014; Scott, 2016).
Methods
A mixed-method approach (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) was adopted collecting
quantitative and qualitative data. The advantages include increased confidence in research
findings and data triangulation through understanding the issues from a range of perspec-
tives (Cohen et al., 2011; Creswell, 2002; Thurmond, 2001). Contextual and personal
factors may also contribute to changes in conceptions over time; therefore, qualitative
data such as teacher interviews were combined with quantitative data from student evalu-
ations of teaching. Table 1 illustrates the contribution of the different sources of data used
in the mixed-methods research design.
Context
This 10-year longitudinal study (2004–2014) encompassed data from a Bachelor of
Science in Pharmacy (BPharm) and from 2010 onwards also from a Master in Pharmacy
(MPharm) programme at a Swedish university. The programmes were delivered almost
entirely online and teachers frequently acted as tutors on both programmes. For the deliv-
ery of digital course materials and administration, a virtual learning environment (VLE)
2
Table 1. Mixed-methods research design.
Method Sampling regime Rational Sample size
Interviews with
teachers
Purposive sampling. Teachers with
10 years’ experience of the
programmes
To investigate the conceptions of and
approaches to teaching & teaching with
technology over time
2004: 7
teachers
2008: 6
teachers
2011: 7
teachers
2014: 9
teachers
Course evaluations
by students
Selected questions from course
evaluations 2004, 2008, 2011 and
2014
Student satisfaction with teaching over time.
Triangulation of information from teacher
interviews
See Table 6
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 75
was used. Students were allocated to study groups and assigned an experienced pharmacist
as their tutor. Lectures, seminars and tutorials as well as teacher–student communication
and student–student communication were facilitated by means of the VLE, Adobe
Connect
®,
3
e-mail and discussion forums. From 2008 Wikis and podcasts were included
and from 2011 a virtual immersive 3-D environment, OpenSim
®,
4
was also implemented.
The use of technology on the programme was blended with personal meetings with local
tutors and laboratory work. More than thirty teachers were involved in the development
and implementation of the programme, although only approximately one-third have been
engaged with the programme for the entire 10-year period studied. Table 2 illustrates
student and teaching staff numbers for the programmes.
Respondents
Lecturers and students participated in interviews and completed questionnaires at four
points over the 10-year period. To facilitate the longitudinal design, purposive sampling
of the teachers was necessary to select participants within the time span (Cohen et al.,
2011). Four experienced teachers, and five novice teachers were chosen, four males and
five females. Online course evaluation questionnaires for each course were completed
by students. There is a complete data set for nine teachers.
The four male respondents were lecturers in the fields of chemistry, pharmacology,
biology and statistics. The five female teachers work in the fields of pharmacy and clinical
pharmacology. Table 3 shows the pseudonyms of the participants, programmme taught on
and subject. Also listed is their prior teaching experience with and without Edtech and
teacher professional development education.
Table 2. Number of teachers and students on the programme.
2004 2008 2011 2014
Number of teachers 30 30 36 36
Number of students 110 BPharm 88 BPharm 53 BPharm
20 MPharm
43 BPharm
20 MPharm
20 BPharm & MA
Table 3. Respondents, subject taught, teaching experience and professional development.
Pseudo-
nym Gender
Programme
taught on Subject area
Teaching experience:
no. yrs on campus
2004
Teaching
experience: no. yrs
online 2004
Teacher professional
development 2004
Larry M BSc Pharm Chemistry 30 0 None
Harriet F BSc Pharm Pharmacy 0.6 0 None
James M BSc Pharm
MPharm
Chemistry 0.2 0 4 weeks
Rolf M BSc Pharm Biology/
Physiology
33 10 6 weeks
Martha F BSc Pharm Pharmacology 0 0 None
Susan F BSc Pharm
MPharm
Pharmacology 0 0 None
Steven M BSc Pharm Pharmacology 9 0 6 weeks
Paul M BSc Pharm Statistics 20 0 6 weeks
Maggie F BSc Pharm
MPharm
Clinical
Pharmacy
0 0 None
76 C. ENGLUND ET AL.
