The term ‘technology-enhanced learning’ (TEL) has emerged through suggestions that its predecessor ‘e-Learning’ was too narrow for the variety of uses of technology in learning and teaching (HEFCE 2009). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) identifies three levels where technology could enhance learning and teaching: Efficiency, Enhancement and Transformation (HEFCE 2009). This suggests that technology can make existing processes more effective in relation to cost, time, scalability or sustainability; improve or enhance existing processes/outcomes; or radically transform existing processes.

Kregor, Breslin, and Fountain (2012) suggest that the need to remain competitive in the HE marketplace means universities no longer have a choice with regards to implementing e-Learning strategies. Further to this, students are expecting and demanding effective use of technology to support and enhance their studies, as evidenced in a recent report produced by the student union in the institution under study (Bee 2013), and such expectations are impacting on National Student Survey (NSS) data (Reed and Watmough In press).

It is with such drivers in mind that universities are investing in TEL infrastructure and assessing its impact on learning, teaching and assessment. In a systematic review conducted by Kirkwood and Price (2013), almost 20% of TEL interventions were used to replace existing teaching, 50% were supplementary activities and around 30% were associated with structural changes in teaching and learning. The authors go on to suggest the term ‘TEL’ is used too often and in an unconsidered manner, suggesting a real need to strategically consider not only the use of the term but also implementations related to the use of technology in learning and teaching. Strategies are seldom solutions in themselves, however, as Kregor, Breslin, and Fountain (2012) suggest:

The success of a university's e-learning strategy is ultimately in the hands of the users of the technologies implemented to achieve its goals: how deeply they embrace a suite of technologies will determine the impact it has. It is essential then, to understand these users and their relationship with technology in implementing a successful strategy. (p. 1382)

Furthermore, there are suggestions that the strong disciplinary focus amongst academics can ‘inhibit acceptance of change’ (Salmon, Jones, and Armellini 2008), and the most common barriers within the literature to engaging or innovating with technology is related to both time (Newton 2003; Reed 2012) and lack of reward structures in place for innovators (Attwell and Pumilia 2007; Charlesworth et al. 2007; Seonghee and Boryung 2008).

Salmon (2005) suggests the imperative on research outputs leaves few benefits for academics to innovate in teaching; a problem likely spiralled in research-intensive Russell Group Universities.

For others, a lack of skills/literacies can be a significant barrier. Kregor, Breslin, and Fountain (2012) report 32% of respondents in their research were less than confident with the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in learning and teaching. To this end, it is important to consider the support in place for these users to overcome barriers of time, skillsets and confidence in order for successful implementation. Potentially of equal importance are clear advantages to learning, teaching and assessment, as well as the significance they have in the ‘grander scheme’ rather than ‘using technology for its own sake’ (Kregor, Breslin, and Fountain 2012; Salmon 2005).

Of particular note in Kregor, Breslin, and Fountain (2012) was a difference between staff and student perception of the use of technology, whereby ‘time saving and flexibility gains for students may inversely require additional workload or skill demands for some staff’ (p. 1397). The authors suggest the contrasting views could be related to the differing roles, for example, academic staff as creators/developers/producers, and students as users/consumers. Reed and Watmough (In press) also suggest this could be related to a misunderstanding of the importance of some aspects to students. These discussions provide an interesting paradox for this study.

This research aimed to determine the attitudes of academic staff within one Faculty of Health and Life Sciences towards particular developments related to the use of technology in learning, teaching and assessment, as well as identify existing skill sets in order to appropriately plan for any implementation. The context for this study is largely driven through institutional strategy, which in itself is informed directly from the student voice. In particular, this research focused on: Introduction of minimum standards for all module areas within the virtual learning environment (VLE); Introduction of online submission of coursework (as well as electronic marking and feedback); and the recording of lectures. Each area of focus aligns to at least one of the recommendations from HEFCE for the use of technology to improve efficiency or to enhance or transform teaching and learning.

Amidst the plethora of innovation taking place across the higher education sector, introducing minimum standards for VLE areas might appear ‘low-tech’, but the inconsistent experience between module presence in the VLE is a ‘significant factor for their [students] dissatisfaction’ (Bee 2013), and such reports of disparity from the ‘student voice’ are not uncommon across higher education (Ahmed and Morley 2010). Students come to expect consistent information across their VLE areas, and to be able to access course/module material in a consistent manner. Information such as contact details for module leaders, assessment requirements and reading lists appear to be obvious elements that should be made available to learners within any module. Reed and Watmough (In press) relate the introduction of minimum standards to student satisfaction through hygiene factors, and suggest implementing many of these factors can reduce dissatisfaction.

Ellis and Calvo (2007) suggest the introduction of minimum standards relies heavily on strong leadership and policy, and without such, ‘one cannot realistically expect enduring and influential growth and change’ (p. 63).

Despite increasing NSS satisfaction across the board, ‘Assessment and Feedback’ consistently reports lower levels of satisfaction than other aspects of the higher education experience (2011=68% satisfaction; 2012=70% satisfaction) (HEFCE 2012). Focusing on issues to enhance the student experience of assessment and feedback is therefore an obvious aim, with recurring themes being raised such as cost of printing, timeliness and legibility of feedback and flexibility of assignment submission.

Whilst it is recognised the re-engineering of assessment-feedback processes is a challenging task, existing systems can be used to support such changes (standard VLE tools and third-party plugins such as Turnitin/Grademark). A number of authors cite feedback from academic staff in the use of such systems. For example, Buckley and Cowap (2013) emphasise the suitability of Turnitin/Grademark for plagiarism detection and electronic marking but also highlight the surrounding technical difficulties. Other authors cite positive feedback in relation to reduced amounts of plagiarism, higher quality of work produced and reduced time/workload as a result of useful QuickMark features (Johnson, Nádas, and Bell 2010; Rolfe 2012). Furthermore, an area of increasing interest in this regard is the introduction of assessment analytics (Ellis 2013), which might enable academics greater insight into staff and student performance on written assignments.

A number of researchers suggest positive impacts related to the implementation of lecture capture systems (Barokas et al. 2010; Deal 2007; Folley 2010; Toppin 2010), as it enables:

Students to review content at their own pace.

Issues of ‘ownership’ (or IPR) are raised by Barokas et al. (2010) as PowerPoint presentations often include images where copyright is unclear, for example, images/diagrams taken from publications or Google Images.

The three areas discussed form the focus of this research and provide useful data to inform the implementation of any strategic decisions, some of which are naturally easier to achieve than others.

This paper presents a ‘snapshot’ case study (Jensen and Rodgers 2001) which establishes a detailed, objective study of one research entity at a single point in time, with the aim of identifying the experience and attitudes of teaching staff towards a range of TEL activities and initiatives detailed earlier. The project takes an exploratory focus to gain insight into staff attitudes and experience in distinct aspects of TEL that are of current interest to the wider higher education community, and of particular interest to the TEL strategy in the institution under study. It takes the view that staff attitudes and experience in these specific aspects are critical for the successful implementation of the strategy. Whilst these areas are of relevance across the sector more generally, this research provides a view of just one Russell Group University in the United Kingdom. As such, any results are representative of the point in time at which the research was conducted, and may be subjected to change as a result of further initiatives. As a result of this, along with very nature of the fast changing TEL landscape and the unique nature of teaching departments and research institutes, it will be difficult to generalise results from this research to other faculties and institutions. However, it might provide a reference point for future research across the sector in relation to the specific areas under investigation.

An online questionnaire was developed and distributed via e-mail to all staff within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, to be completed by anyone with teaching responsibilities. This covers the Institute of Learning and Teaching, the six academic schools (Medicine; Health Science; Veterinary Science; Life Science; Dentistry; and Psychology) and the five research institutes (Ageing and Chronic Disease; Infection and Global Health; Integrative Biology; Psychology, Health and Society; and Translational Medicine).

Given the complex structure of the Faculty, an initial email was sent on 26 July 2013 to school administrators and research institute managers for dissemination in their respective areas. A follow up email was sent to these same people on 14 August 2013, requesting a repeat dissemination in an attempt to boost survey responses. Due to this distribution method, an accurate response rate is difficult to ascertain.

The survey was split into three sections: general TEL/VLE; online submission, marking and feedback; and lecture capture/recordings (key themes taken from the previous SU report and those forming strategic agenda). It contained a mixture of open and closed questions, as well as questions with standard Likert scales. It was anticipated that the variety of question types would enable a broad range of feedback to be obtained, and all questions were optional resulting in a range of completed questions throughout the questionnaire.

Although ethics approval was not sought for this research, the British Educational Research Association's revised guidelines were considered, and particularly the concept of ‘Voluntary Informed Consent’ (BERA 2011). The questionnaire was also distributed for comment and approval to the Faculty TEL Steering Group.

The questionnaire has been included in Appendix.

The response rate (n) across questions varies, as they were all optional. The questionnaire software used shows that the questionnaire was viewed 156 times, but the highest response rate to any question was 100.

Respondents had the opportunity to leave additional comments at the end of each section, as well as general comments at the end of the questionnaire. A total of 67 comments were received and are summarised alongside the data from the corresponding section.

This research was driven by institutional strategy and set out to investigate staff attitudes and experiences towards using TEL in a range of ways. The data obtained has been presented to Faculty management and will be of interest to those across the wider sector interested in or benchmarking against staff attitudes and experience to TEL.

Evidently there is great interest across the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences in various aspects of TEL, ranging from everyday use of the VLE; through to online submission, marking, and feedback; and the provision of recorded materials for learners.

The topics covered in the staff questionnaire relate to HEFCE's levels of efficiency, enhancement and transformation (HEFCE 2009). Based on the quantitative and qualitative data collected in this study, staff align mostly with the level of efficiency (cost, time, scalability, sustainability). In particular, staff were concerned with the impact of TEL initiatives on their time – specific mention of automation of minimum standards and the recording of lectures to save, or free up time for other activities. ‘Lack of time’ was also cited as a barrier to engagement (evident in each section of the questionnaire), as well as some suggestions of the need for more technical staff to carry out TEL activities on behalf of academics.

Although Efficiency was a key aspect for the introduction of technology, respondents still aligned with activities related to enhancing and transforming practices, particularly through online submission and the recording of lectures.

Despite the interest in various TEL initiatives, there are still a number of challenges that the staff face, including competing demands for time (as mentioned above), a lack of skills/literacy and a need for more support and training, all of which resonate with the barriers presented in the literature. Furthermore, clear explanation emphasising the pedagogic value of initiatives is important to teaching staff, as are systems that are intuitive and easy to use.

A key message throughout the data is the need for more support, and as reinforced through the Kregor et al. (2012) quote earlier, the success of any strategy will ultimately rest on those implementing it. Therefore, support should take many forms, for example, accessible guidance materials, regular training/workshops and technical support for more difficult activities.

This case study provides a snapshot of attitudes and experience in relation to TEL, and is unique in many ways, for example, nature of HEI (research intensive/Russell Group), specific subject areas (Health and Life Sciences) and, obviously, taken from a particular point in time. It is very likely that the data obtained would be dramatically different if the study were to be repeated post-implementations and may be different to other higher education institutions.

As a result of the data obtained in this study, a number of high-level recommendations for managers and TEL support teams appear apparent, including:

Clarifying position on the importance of learning and teaching, and the responsibilities/expectations of academic staff in respect to this.

On the whole, the data provide a somewhat mixed response to Kregor et al.'s (2012) suggestion of a ‘disconnect’ between the staff and the student perspectives. While there remains caution to some innovative uses of technology, most academic staff are positive about the role of technology to enhance learning and recognise their need to engage with it more.