others are comparatively more orientated towards enabling learning (Ellis et al., 2009). Although I have not analysed in depth the discussion threads of the first case study, these indicated that certain approaches to teaching with technologies make more of the affordances of the technologies, such as enabling communication about task objectives and provide new ways of experiencing learning by encouraging students to take more responsibility for their learning. In the first case study there was a clear intention to move in this direction, even though alerting students on assessment requirements ultimately dominated the lecturer’s pedagogical agenda. Similar approaches generally tend to be situated in dialogue with the face-to-face experience, are often aligned to the programme outcomes, and are aimed at developing an applied understanding (Ellis et al., 2009). This approach was more amply manifested in the fourth case study through the design of additional resources aiming at the enhancement of students’ research skills. In contrast, other approaches to teaching design are orientated towards information delivery, and tend to be associated with approaches to design that do not display an awareness of how to integrate them to support student learning (Ellis et al., 2009), as evidenced in the third case study.
9.2 The effect of disciplinary differences on the use of learning technologies
In principle, the thesis acknowledged that disciplinary differences affect how learning technologies may be used in the teaching and learning process, and disciplinary differences were briefly discussed in this thesis. Earlier studies unveiled the epistemological beliefs and the knowledge structures of disciplinary areas (Kolb, 1981; Becher, 1994; Neumann et al., 2002) and these studies can partially assist in terms of appraising the usefulness and effectiveness of learning technologies across various disciplinary areas. In this study, the core learning technology was an institutional online learning environment (the VLE) and a
number of digital resources, which were made available in various ways across the four case studies. The way the lecturers chose to use the online environment pointed towards some level of divergence, which appeared to affect the use of the technology within the disciplines and the effectiveness of the VLE itself.
The four disciplines examined in this cross-case study analysis were viewed under the prism of Becher’s (1994) taxonomy of knowledge and four disciplinary groups: pure sciences (‘hard pure’), humanities (‘soft pure’), technologies (‘hard applied’) and social sciences (‘soft applied’). The nature of knowledge in the first module was purposive and pragmatic, detailing the know- how of information systems methodologies; it was concerned with the mastery of knowledge resulting in certain techniques of developing information systems. On the other end, the fourth module in Education was typical of applied social sciences (‘soft applied’) and the nature of the knowledge was functional, directly aiming at the enhancement of professional practice and resulting in protocols of professional conduct. The Marketing and Management modules can be located somewhere between these two ends of the Information Systems and the Education module. Both of these subjects (Marketing and Management), however, were more concerned with functional knowledge, so they are categorised closely with the ‘soft applied’ end of Becher’s spectrum.
There were links between the online pedagogy, the design of the online spaces, the use of digital resources and how the four subject topics were taught and how disciplinary knowledge was created and shared. There were also varying levels of success in terms of how well these factors (online pedagogy, online design and digital resources) supported the disciplinary knowledge and their associated professional practices. I deemed this the most significant criterion with regards to assessing how well the technology was employed in the modules. Students in Education were directed toward journals, e-journals and links containing information presented by relevant professional bodies; the lecturer allocated a special section for this purpose and therefore the design of the online space successfully underpinned the objective of creating utilitarian professional knowledge. Mixed success was observed in the Information systems and Management modules. The modeling of thinking processes required for the understanding of Information System methodologies was not fully supported online, although the lecturer was more efficient in the lecture hall. Components of successful teaching in the lecture hall were the enthusiasm of
the lecturer, the modeling of thinking through metaphors and abstractions, and the frequent dialogue with the students, which aimed to challenge their existing conceptions of the disciplinary knowledge. None of these were discerningly visible in the online environment; the VLE imposed certain pedagogical constraints and the lecturer did not manage to overcome these to bridge the gap between online and face-to-face settings. The nature of knowledge in Management was more functional and presented a challenge in terms of how the design of the VLE would support the sharing of applied practice in business settings. Whilst the lecturer made available a range of ‘real world’ resources, such as case studies, these were presented as static learning objects within the environment rather than engaging, interactive resources. Equally, the presence of ‘rich pictures’, a key pedagogical tool in Management, was prominent in the online setting, yet these were not explicitly aligned to the learning outcomes and the teaching activities in the face-to-face and online context.
The study set out without any preconceived notions about the appropriateness of technology enhanced learning for specific disciplines. Evidence arising from these four cases does not support any claims that technology can be particularly beneficial for some disciplines, while it may be proved less helpful for others. It is, I argue, the design of the online learning environment and the active choices that the teacher makes within the environment, that determine how creatively and effectively the creation and sharing of disciplinary knowledge is supported. Limited, yet not insignificant, discipline and task differentiation seems to be transferred in the arena of online interactions (Kemp & Jones, 2007). This is not surprising, considering that each discipline has its own epistemological and cultural form, and has certain established ways of engagement with academic knowledge (Beecher & Trowler, 2001). It is the role of technology enhanced learning to recognise the salient mechanisms of creating and sharing knowledge in each discipline and accommodate for their seamless operation.
9.3 Approaches to learning in blended learning environments: