AbstractIn 2020, Higher Education institutions were pressed to swiftly implement online-based teaching. Among many challenges associated with this, lecturers in Higher Education needed to promptly and flexibly adapt their teaching to these circumstances. This investigation adopts a resilience framing in order to shed light on which specific challenges were associated with this sudden switch and what helped an international sample of Higher Education lecturers (N = 102) in coping with these challenges. Results suggest that Emergency Remote Teaching was indeed challenging and quality of teaching was impeded but these effects are more nuanced than expected. Lecturers displayed instructional resilience by maintaining teaching quality despite difficulties of Emergency Remote Teaching and our exploration of predictors shows that personality factors as well as prior experience may have supported them in this. Our findings may contribute to the emerging literature surrounding Emergency Remote Teaching and contributes a unique resilience perspective to the experiences of Higher Education lecturers.
AbstractUnderstanding the process of initiation, design, implementation and embedding of educational innovations in higher education is necessary to develop better strategies for sustainable, large-scale educational innovation. Often early initiated educational innovation projects are not evaluated well enough, making it hard to identify lessons learned. The aim of this study is to investigate how project leaders of innovation projects in Dutch higher education institutions are coping with organizational challenges. To address this we analysed qualitative focus group data with innovators that run projects at Dutch higher education institutions through the lens of contextual coping theory. Results show that the innovators identified challenges (primary appraisal), proposed possible solutions (secondary appraisal) and also were able to take concrete steps (coping efforts) to overcome challenges to design and implement open online educational innovations. From these findings it can be concluded that bottom-up initiatives can create awareness and are capable of finding local resources to establish support for embedding innovations locally, yet, appropriate, synchronized and timely top-down action is needed in order to create a sustainable and institution wide support system for experimentation and embedding of educational innovations. These findings will contribute towards developing better strategies to develop innovative educational practices and quality education.
AbstractThis article contributes to the debate on the growing number of interdisciplinary study programs in learning and technology, and aims to understand the diversity of programs as well as curricula structure in an international landscape. Scientific fields share their knowledge and recruit young researchers by offering discipline-specific study programs. Thus, study programs are a reflection of the fields they represent. As technology-enhanced learning is considered to be particularly interdisciplinary and heterogenous, it is important to better understand the landscape of study programs that represents the field. This article presents an analysis of master programs in technology-enhanced learning. A systematic review and analysis of master programs offered in English has been conducted and further used as input for hierarchical cluster analysis. The study identified general characteristics, curricula structure, and organization of topics of these programs. Hierarchical cluster analysis and qualitative content analysis helped us to identify the major types of curricular structures and typical topics covered by the courses. Results show that most study programs rely on interdisciplinary subjects in technology-enhanced learning with a considerable number of subjects from education, learning and psychology. Subjects related to technology, information and computer science appear in such programs less frequently.
In: Al Lily , A E , Foland , J , Stoloff , D , Gogus , A , Erguvan , I D , Awshar , M T , Tondeur , J , Hammond , M , Venter , I M , Jerry , P , Vlachopoulos , D , Oni , A , Liu , Y , Badosek , R , Cristina Lopez de la Madrid , M , Mazzoni , E , Lee , H , Kinley , K , Kalz , M , Sambuu , U , Bushnaq , T , Pinkwart , N , Adedokun-Shittu , N A , Zander , M , Oliver , K , Teixeira Pombo , L M , Sali , J B , Gregory , S , Tobgay , S , Joy , M , Elen , J , Jwaifell , M O H , Said , M N H M , Al-Saggaf , Y , Naaji , A , White , J , Jordan , K , Gerstein , J , Yapici , I U , Sanga , C , Nleya , P T , Sbihi , B , Lucas , M R , Mbarika , V , Reiners , T , Schoen , S , Sujo-Montes , L , Santally , M , Hakkinen , P , Al Saif , A , Gegenfurtner , A , Schatz , S , Vigil , V P , Tannahill , C , Partida , S P , Zhang , Z , Charalambous , K , Moreira , A , Coto , M , Laxman , K , Farley , H S , Gumbo , M T , Simsek , A , Ramganesh , E , Birzina , R , Player-Koro , C , Dumbraveanu , R , Ziphorah , M , Mohamudally , N , Thomas , S , Romero , M , Nirmala , M , Cifuentes , L , Osaily , R Z K , Omoogun , A C , Seferoglu , S , Elci , A , Edyburn , D , Moudgalya , K , Ebner , M , Bottino , R , Khoo , E , Pedro , L , Buarki , H , Roman-Odio , C , Qureshi , I A , Khan , M A , Thornthwaite , C , Kerimkulova , S , Downes , T , Malmi , L , Bardakci , S , Itmazi , J , Rogers , J , Rughooputh , S D D V , Akour , M A , Henderson , J B , de Freitas , S & Schrader , P G 2017 , ' Academic domains as political battlegrounds : A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology ' , Information Development , vol. 33 , no. 3 , pp. 270-288 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916646415
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
Academic cognition and intelligence are 'socially distributed'; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called 'crowd-authoring', enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century. ; peerReviewed
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.