Implications for theory

The major theoretical contribution of this study has been to offer a way to explore digital capabilities in disciplinary contexts. Other studies have either applied the DigiCap-Framework (Anagnostopoulou, 2013) or signature pedagogies. An original feature of this study is its combination of these two perspectives. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, literature at the intersecting domains of curriculum design, professional education, signature pedagogies, and digital capabilities is minimal. Whilst the

DigiCap-Framework was able to illuminate digital learning activities in particular domains of practice, it is the combined conceptual framework which helped identify the distinct or signature digital capabilities in engineering and management. A further contribution of this study has been the identification of an overarching signature pedagogy of management, CAIC (collect-analyse-interpret-communicate), which, apart from in its sub-discipline accounting (Wilkerson, 2010), has not been accomplished previously.

7.3.1 Signature pedagogies

I would like to underline five implications arising from applying the concept of signature pedagogies to digital capabilities in curriculum design.

Firstly, it has been demonstrated that even within a span of 10-15 years, both engineering and marketing’s signature pedagogies have undergone significant changes. This study concurs with Shulman (2005b), who posits that as technologies are constantly transforming professional practice, programme and curriculum design teams need to constantly revisit signature pedagogies.

Secondly, another theoretical implication concerns the need to extend signature pedagogies to ‘signature assessments’. Assessment tasks and criteria are identified as better indicators for curriculum mapping, which, according to Kahn (2003),

provide a more fine-grained approach. Thirdly, the notion of ‘signature assessments’ leads to the identification of a thus-far unobserved link between signature

pedagogies and authentic assessments, as discussed in sub-section 6.2.2.1. Maton (2009) has similarly observed that authentic learning can support learning in

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 176 professional education. Articulating this link between signature digital capabilities and authentic assessments is a further theoretical contribution of this study. Fourthly, the study’s conceptual framework offers advantages over another relatively widespread model applied in technology-enhanced learning, the TPACK model. TPACK actually originates from Shulman’s (1986) ideas about combining disciplinary content-knowledge and pedagogical-knowledge in teacher education programmes (PCK as pedagogical-content-knowledge), which led to his ideas on signature pedagogies. Mishra and Koehler (2006) extended Shulman’s PCK-model with the knowledge domain of technology, resulting in TPACK (Technological- Pedagogical-And-Content-Knowledge). Whereas TPACK articulates the skills needed for curriculum design/ers in a digital environment in a non-discipline-specific

context, the conceptual framework adopted in this thesis is intended to explore disciplinary practices in depth.

Fifthly, I highlight one concern in using Shulman’s theory. It was at times difficult to distinguish between the three levels of signature pedagogies (implicit, deep or surface) when categorising digital practices. For instance, commercial awareness can be either seen as an implicit value of management professionals, or as a deep- structural element. This difficulty could either occur because Shulman’s theory is not granular enough, or because the vertical alignment between these levels was too strong.

7.3.2 The Digital Capability Framework

As for the other lens of my conceptual framework, I found working with JISC’s Digital Capability Framework straightforward, thereby confirming the usefulness of its six articulated elements for teasing out the range of participants’ disciplinary digital practices. However, taking a cue from Higgins’ (2016) critique in relation to the Professional Capabilities Framework, which explores whether the framework used in social work curriculum redesign has managed to transform social work practice or not, the same question could be posed as to what extent the Digital Capability Framework could drive curriculum transformation and change?

One restriction of the DigiCap-Framework concerned the way it perceives professions’ relationship with technology. As discussed in sub-section 3.3.4, the Framework suited Warren’s (2011) ‘consumer’ and‘producer’ categories, but it was not able to easily accommodate my findings insofar as engineers are not just

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 177 from a human capabilities perspective, since “new technology has huge potential to transform our lives for the better” (Hardoon, 2017, p.8), which Passey et al. (2018) explore in the wider context of digital agency. I would argue that creators of technology have a role in paying attention to its humane aspects, contributing to reducing inequality and promoting wellbeing, just as Bali (2017) highlights the lack of humane aspects in the computer science curriculum. Could the Framework articulate and visually represent this extra dimension?

Staying with the theme of visual representation, my study highlights a tension, one which is perhaps inherent in other visualisations. On the one hand, representing theoretical frameworks diagrammatically has the advantage of communicating complex concepts succinctly. My findings confirm that the DigiCap-Framework’s diagrammatic representation as intersecting circles is appropriate in this context: it communicates the overlap between its six elements. On the other hand, such representations are naturally a simplification, which might yield unintended interpretations (see in sub-section 2.3.1, and also Lemov, 2017), which could

“inadvertently deskill educators from critically reading some of the deeper forces at work” (Brown 2017c, n.p.). For instance, the DigiCap-Framework suggests that the elements are of equal importance, which was shown not to be the case (see Figure 6.4). The implication of this is that when adopting a framework, one needs to critique its visualisation (if present) as part of the process of constructing one’s own version of it.

7.3.3 Curriculum design

The purpose of using this study’s conceptual framework was to explore effective curriculum design in order to develop digital capabilities. As highlighted in Chapter 3, constructive alignment was used to analyse digital capability development in

modules, programmes and subject benchmarks. In Chapter 6, I highlighted the tension between mapping digital capabilities and constructive alignment as a curriculum design principle. Firstly, if digital capabilities are implied/unarticulated in outcomes, it becomes difficult to ensure constructive alignment with activities and assessment criteria. Secondly, as Remneland-Wikhamn (2017) warns, pre-

determining every intended learning outcome might hinder “creativity, curiousity, individual initiatives and the serendipity of learning from emerging moments” (p.10). This particularly resonates with digital capabilities. Future research could explore, similar to Ferreira and Mendelowitz (2009), if, from a digital capability perspective, extended models of constructive alignment might be more appropriate or whether a different curriculum design approach might be needed altogether.

Lancaster University, PhD in TEL and e-Research, 2018 178