A study of the role of a technology-enhanced learning implementation group in mediating an institutional VLE minimum standards policy

Recent years have seen a focus on responding to student expectations in higher education. As a result, a number of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) policies have stipulated a requirement for a minimum virtual learning environment (VLE) standard to provide a consistent student experience. This paper offers insight into an under-researched area of such a VLE standard policy development using a case study of one university. With reference to the implementation staircase model, this study takes cue from the view that an institutional VLE template can affect lower levels directly, sidestepping the chain in the implementation staircase. The Group's activity whose remit is to design and develop a VLE template, therefore, becomes significant. The study, drawing on activity theory, explores the mediating role of such a Group. Factors of success and sources of tension are analysed to understand the interaction between the individuals and the collective agency of Group members. The paper identifies implications to practice for similar TEL development projects. Success factors identified demonstrated the importance of good project management principles, establishing clear rules and division of labour for TEL development groups. One key finding is that Group members are needed to draw on both different and shared mediating artefacts, supporting the conclusion that the nature of the group's composition and the situated expertise of its members are crucial for project success. The paper's theoretical contribution is an enhanced representation of a TEL policy implementation staircase.

Shaping the future of learning using the student voice: we’re listening but are we hearing clearly?

Student voice data is a key factor as Manchester Metropolitan University strives to continually improve institutional technology enhanced learning (TEL) infrastructure. A bi-annual Institutional Student Survey enables students to communicate their experience of learning, teaching and assessment on programmes and specific units studied. Each cycle of the survey contains approximately 40–50,000 free text comments from students pertaining to what they appreciate and what they would like to see improved. A detailed thematic analysis of this data has identified 18 themes, arranged into six categories relating to the ‘Best’ aspects of courses, and 25 themes, arranged in seven categories in relation to aspects of courses considered to be ‘in need of improvement’. This student data was then used as a basis for semi-structured interviews with staff. Anecdotally, evidence suggested that student expectations and staff expectations around TEL and the virtual learning environment (VLE) differed. On-going evaluation of this work has highlighted a disconnect. In significant instances, academic colleagues seemingly misinterpret the student voice analysis and consequently struggle to respond effectively. In response to the analysis, the learning technologist's role has been to re-interpret the analysis and redevelop TEL staff development and training activities. The changes implemented have focused on: contextualising resources in VLE; making lectures more interactive; enriching the curriculum with audio–visual resources; and setting expectations around communications.