Implications for practice

The study was borne out of my motivation to investigate disciplinary practices in detail so that I would be in a better position to support staff with respect to the digital capabilities required of future professionals. A particular aim was to identify effective strategies for supporting staff in their curriculum (re)design. The next section offers such recommendations; first within the two disciplines, then more generally for anyone involved in curriculum design, including programme teams and central staff, such as educational developers and learning technologists.

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 172

7.2.1 Programme teams in engineering and management

Earlier, I summarised a few potential gaps in HE curricula based on a comparison between curricular provision and professionals’ digital practices. In engineering, this includes failure-mode effect analysis, skills in data manipulation, programming and process control plans. In management, these include spreadsheet, hands-on digital marketing and creative media production skills.

In both disciplines, information literacy is a vital capability to develop during university study, which is evident from the explored modules’ learning/teaching activities and assessments. In management, there could be more scope for utilising simulations and sophisticated data tools. The general expectation of professionals and academics appears to focus on developing lifelong learners who are able to analyse problems, search for solutions and learn skills independently. Enquiry-based learning tasks are particular “sweet-spots” for developing digital capabilities, as suggested by Bruce and Casey (2012).

Media literacy is perhaps the least-developed capability, which could be enhanced through authentic assessment (see e.g. James & Casidy, 2018) via students critiquing and/or producing digital artefacts to communicate their solutions. The nature of ‘media’ seems relative to the discipline. Engineers routinely work with diagrams and 3D-models, whereas managers do less so. In either case, media literacy involves communicating findings effectively to a range of audiences in different forms. Students displayed a variety of digital preferences and practices. Academics and the curriculum have an influence when it comes to students using digital learning tools. This implies that university staff could pay attention to pointing students to

particular digital tools and techniques for their independent study, thereby

increasing their repertoire and critical attitude. Alternatively, academics could model digital study practices, e.g. from essay-planning through to referencing professional communications by utilising digital tools.

As for digital identity and wellbeing, social media use was little in evidence, mainly in certain sub-disciplines and in co-curricular activities. Further research could explore the importance of social media in automotive engineering in contrast to other engineering sub-disciplines. For instance, are there other areas of engineering where digital identity may be more/less important? And to what extent does recruitment drive social media use in HE? With regards to engineering practice, it would be worth exploring younger engineers’ social media use, and to what extent their use blurs professional/personal boundaries.

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 173

7.2.2 General considerations for curriculum design

This study has confirmed that students’ digital capability development is most evident in authentic learning tasks in digitally-mediated contexts (Littlejohn, Beetham, & McGill, 2012). This is when students focus on subject-specific tasks, motivated by their enthusiasm for their subject. Digital tools can either act as a means to an end or serve as epistemological sites for solving challenges. My study has also shown that embedding digital capabilities in programmes needs to be continually re-evaluated to keep up with changing disciplinary practices. A further implication for curriculum design concerns the importance of critical reflection. Some students demonstrate sophisticated and critical uses of technology, but may not themselves be aware of it, or vice versa. This suggests that supporting students to articulate and reflect on their capabilities is as important as developing them, which in turn, also contributes to enhancing their digital confidence and critical use of technology.

One tension for curriculum design lies in the question as to whether to offer

students a choice of which technology they should use for a particular task. The right balance needs to be decided on: (1) should students be pushed towards a particular technology, so that even the risk-averse expand their repertoire; or, (2) should students be allowed to choose according to their preferences so that they develop the ability to critically evaluate and decide on the most appropriate one for the given task? In either scenario, it seems more important that students are given

opportunities to critically reflect on and articulate their own digital capabilities as well as support in order to develop their confidence and disciplinary know-how (Anyangwe [n.d.], quoting Beetham, 2012).

This study has found that digital capabilities are rarely identified explicitly in learning outcomes (Beetham et al., 2009); thus, I concur with Hughes and Barrie (2010) who argue that the strongest graduate attribute, achievement, can be ensured by

embedding these explicitly in assessments. Therefore, incorporating digital capability development in assessment criteria with opportunities for critical reflection appears to be an effective combination. Fielding et al. (2017), for instance, suggest that institutions develop the use of HEAR (Higher Education Achievement Report, a report that all UK students can receive on their curricular and co-/extra-curricular achievements upon graduation) to build digital capability outcomes into the curriculum, thereby recording and recognising student attainment.

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 174 Another curriculum design approach follows Gilster’s (1997) principle of “mastering ideas, not keystrokes”. This means that rather than teaching students hands-on skills (keystrokes), the role of the university should be to embed digital activities in

subject-specific tasks (mastering ideas). In addition, the university’s additional role is to instil adaptability and self-reliance in students, so when faced with unfamiliar digital applications, they are able to recognise their shortcomings, plan accordingly, and use their own initiative to learn independently. This is coupled with the

recognition that disciplinary knowledge is constantly changing as a result of the field’s digital transformations.

Wang (2015) sees curriculum mapping rhizomatically, which is an apt and eloquent visual metaphor for digital capabilities. As opposed to a map which guides someone to an unfamiliar (but fixed) destination, a rhizomatic map

…has multiple entryways, but no fixed terminal. Instead of being reached or at somewhere, its value is revealed in being able to connect, from any existing position. This is a map that goes along with adventure in self- exploration. (Wang, 2015, p.1556)

Finally, many of the innovations observed during this study occurred as a result of interdisciplinary collaborations (Calhoun, 2006; McNair, Davitt, & Batten, 2015). For the HE curriculum, this means that interdisciplinary learning opportunities are likely to be, to use Bruce and Casey’s (2012) term again, “pedagogical sweet-spots” for digital capability development. Further research could explore the way digital capabilities are developed in interdisciplinary contexts at the intersection of two or more disciplines.

7.2.3 Policy-makers

This thesis’s findings point to the potential need for updating professional frameworks and subject benchmarks from a digital capability perspective. The analysis has shown that, with some exceptions, digital capabilities tend to be

implied, rather than explicitly articulated in competencies and outcomes. This seems appropriate in most cases, although also resulting in a potential tension regarding constructive alignment (discussed later in sub-section 7.3.3). The areas in which digital capabilities could be further identified concern media literacy, digital problem-solving and digital identity/wellbeing. It is in these areas that digital

technologies have impacted on epistemological practices of the disciplines. It may be useful to re-consider if such digital practices are covered in the current professional frameworks, or whether there are any which need to be explicitly articulated. Another option could be for the competency frameworks and benchmarks to offer a

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 175 mapping against the DigiCap-Framework model by way of articulating the discipline’s digital capabilities. Examples of this certainly exist in other areas, such as in nursing (NHS Health Education England, 2017).