Contribution to knowledge

Having considered this study’s implications from the perspectives of theory and practice, I now summarise its original contribution in these two respects. I highlight firstly the originality of my combined conceptual framework and, as a result,

secondly, the mapping process of disciplinary digital capabilities derived from this framework, which can be used by educational practitioners.

7.4.1 Theoretical contribution: combined conceptual framework

Shulman’s signature pedagogiesand JISC’s DigiCap-Framework enabled me to build a picture of disciplinary digital practices. I reflected on and critiqued both Shulman’s concept on signature pedagogies and the more practice-oriented DigiCap-

framework. But, it was the appropriateness of the combined nature of my conceptual framework that I wanted to explore in this study, i.e. whether this combination was suited to identify and explore digital capabilities in two particular disciplines.

It was the combination of these two elements which brought insights. I

demonstrated in Chapters 5 and 6 how these two lenses (signature pedagogies and the DigiCap-Framework) could be used in a way that help highlight what disciplinary digital practices are foregrounded and practised in engineering and management. For instance, applying the DigiCap-framework on its own could offer description as to different digital practices in different disciplines, but it was mapping these against its signature pedagogies which yielded the insight into the nature of prioritisation of certain digital capabilities (how and why). I showed that this combined framework could be used both in a HE curricular and a workplace context. As a result of this combined conceptual framework, the interview process that I developed to help me identify and describe digital capabilities within engineering and management, can be transferred and applied into other disciplinary contexts (which I detail next).

7.4.2 Contribution to practice: mapping process of disciplinary digital capabilities

The research process itself is an outcome of this study. From the outset, knowing that the study would be limited to two subjects, I paid careful attention to the process and its potential transferability to other disciplines. I now outline the stages of this process and offer some ideas on when and why practitioners might use it.

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 179 The process is based on what I found to be the most useful interview questions derived from my combined conceptual framework (for the interview guide, see Appendix A), which led to insights about the disciplinary conceptualisations of digital capabilities. Practitioners – lecturers, curriculum designers, learning technologists, or anyone embarking on reviewing existing or designing new curricula from a digital capability perspective – might undertake a mapping process in collaboration with academic, student and professional participants as follows:

1. Elicit the signature pedagogies of the discipline (implicit, deep and surface) – e.g. ask questions such as:

What are the characteristics of a good X (where X= a discipline) student? What do you think are distinct teaching methods in X (which you might not see anywhere else on campus)?

2. Explore the way digital technologies have transformed or disrupted the discipline (and/or interdisciplinary aspects), e.g. ask questions such as:

Can you recall any significant digital development that has transformed or disrupted the field of X in recent years?

What are your discipline’s threshold concepts from a digital perspective?

These questions are particularly useful in providing an understanding of evolving digital practices (the former question was added on the basis of Sinclair, 2013; the latter question was added as a result of my findings).

3. Elicit characteristics of a ‘digitally capable professional in [X]’, where X is the discipline, as well as general approaches to digital capability development, e.g. ask questions such as:

Can you describe a digitally capable professional in X?

4. Analyse module outcomes, skills, assessments (criteria) and learning/teaching tasks using JISC’s DigiCap-Framework together with the associated

programme and subject benchmarks. Identify progression and vertical links, e.g. ask questions such as:

What tasks or activities have digital aspects in this module/programme? E.g. critical use of information and data, online collaboration,

communication, research online, use of digital tools, resources for learning, positive digital identity management, etc.

Assessment: Do the module’s/programme’s (formative, summative) assessments contain any digital aspects? Any digital artefacts produced?

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 180 Learning outcomes and perceptions of student learning: Do the

module’s/programme’s learning outcomes contain or relate to any digital aspects? Whether explicitly/implicitly?

5. Identify overlaps (horizontal links between DigiCap-elements), gaps and unarticulated capabilities, and where students may be recognising, reflecting on and articulating capabilities developed, e.g. ask questions such as:

Which digital capabilities do students of your discipline need to acquire for the workplace/as engineering or management professionals? Is there a difference in the above elements between the HE and the workplace setting?

What digital capabilities are actually being developed by students (expected and unexpected learning outcomes)?

How (and where) do students recognise and reflect on their digital capabilities developed?

How do your students’ digital capabilities develop progressively (e.g.

from first to final year)?

6. Identify emerging and existing signature digital capabilities, e.g. ask questions such as:

As a result of significant digital developments that have transformed or disrupted your field of X in recent years, what emerging/new digital capabilities you think your students need to develop? And why/how might these be important in your field?

Naturally, the above steps might be adapted according to context. I have used aspects of this process in a number of staff workshops. Further testing and refining this process, building up disciplinary examples as stimulus material as well as using toolkits, such as radar diagrams (e.g. as in Osborne, Dunne, & Farrand, 2013) which help the mapping process could be the subject of further research and development.