Conceptualising the Digital University

The Intersection of Policy, Pedagogy and Practice

Bill Johnston, Sheila MacNeill, Keith Smyth

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783319991597
• eBook ISBN: 9783319991603
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Despite the increasing ubiquity of the term, the concept of the digital university remains diffuse and indeterminate. This book examines what the term 'digital university' should encapsulate and the resulting challenges, possibilities and implications that digital technology and practice brings to higher education. Critiquing the current state of definition of the digital university construct, the authors propose a more holistic, integrated account that acknowledges the inherent diffuseness of the concept. The authors also question the extent to which digital technologies and practices can allow us to re-think the location of universities and curricula; and how they can extend higher education as a public good within the current wider political context. Framed inside a critical pedagogy perspective, this volume debates the role of the university in fostering the learning environments, skills and capabilities needed for critical engagement, active open participation and reflection in the digital age. This pioneering volume will be of interest and value to students and scholars of digital education, as well as policy makers and practitioners.

Section IIDeconstructing the Digital University

© The Author(s) 2018

Bill Johnston, Sheila MacNeill and Keith SmythConceptualising the Digital UniversityDigital Education and Learninghttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99160-3_4

Begin Abstract

4. The Myth of Digital Transformation

Bill Johnston¹ , Sheila MacNeill² and Keith Smyth³

(1)

School of Psychological Science and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

(2)

Academic Quality and Development, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

(3)

Learning and Teaching Academy, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK

Bill Johnston (Corresponding author)

Sheila MacNeill

End Abstract

Introduction

In Chap. 2, we characterised the actual relationship between universities and the digital as more transactional than transformational. However, the myth of digital transformation is a powerful force driving change, and in this chapter we critique this transformation narrative in detail. We will (i) explore the cultural and social context which supports the notion of revolutionary transformation in higher education, (ii) challenge the concept of transformation in relation to the introduction of the digital to university practice, (iii) examine the evidence for transformation, and (iv) consider the emerging possibilities for genuinely transformative change in relation to digitally enabled education and more democratic educational practices.

The early twenty-first century has been arguably one of the most challenging times for the established culture of the higher education sector. The traditional Ivory Tower is no longer safe from changing political and funding structures. Universities are increasingly being seen as businesses and are having to adapt their policies and environments to reflect changing expectations and ‘market’ pressures, which are themselves reflections of the state of the political economy (Molesworth et al. 2011; Mason 2015). In the UK the introduction of student fees in England and Wales has brought about a different perception of students to that of consumers, even customers. The student journey is no longer centred on personal academic knowledge exploration and development, rather it is increasingly perceived and positioned as a series of administrative steps and business interactions. Within individual universities, and across the sector as a whole, the marketisation of higher education has been further compounded by (and is indeed increasingly a product of) public metrics, frameworks, and league tables that purport to reflect the quality and status of higher education institutions and the educational experience that they offer.

These developments sit in stark contrast to, but alongside, educational narratives and practices concerning higher education as a public good, within which democratising access to higher education and harnessing higher education as a means to develop and improve society and the human condition are pivotal values (Collini 2012, 2017; Giroux 2014).

The tension between these two positions extends to how the digital is positioned in relation to higher education, our educational institutions, and the learning and teaching that occurs within them. On the one hand, there exists the arguably dominant, business- and techno-centric narrative that concerns the range of ways in which digital technology can position universities as global providers of education, and how it can bring greater efficiencies in managing the student experience (both on campus and online) in key operational areas of marketing and recruitment, accessing services and resources, the delivery of teaching and assessment, and alumni relations. If there is a digital ‘transformation’ to be found here, it is bound in the terms and practices of the neoliberal education project, which yokes the digital to its purposes. On the other hand, from an educational and societal perspective, we can look towards what digital technology can offer us by way of enhancing learning and teaching, enriching knowledge including through connecting learners across rich and varied cultural and geographic boundaries, enabling our learners to develop their digital skills and capabilities, widening participation in formal higher education, and improving access to informal, non-credit bearing learning opportunities for those who could benefit from them.

Regardless of whichever perspective dominates or informs the respective outlooks we may hold, in recent years there has been a rapid rise in claims, and in the number of proposed solutions, that will seemingly transform higher education with and through digital technology and digital educational practices, and which will solve the Silicon Valley “education is broken” narrative (Weller 2014). Most recently the main focus has been on open education, including the potential of large-scale open online courses to widen access to higher education. This is a promise which remains largely unfulfilled, and is perhaps symptomatic of a key challenge of seeking to change or advance education through the use of digital technology, and which lies in the technology itself rarely being the key to sustainable long-term transformation in what we do or how we do it. This and other key challenges that limit the potential to improve higher education with and through digital technologies, and digitally supported practices, are what we will now turn our attention to in this chapter.

Alternative Views of Transformation: The Social Context for Change in Higher Education and What a University Is for

There is a wider societal context and rationale for change in higher education, and within which the potential place of digital technology as a change force in education can be framed. In the very broadest sense, and central to this context, is the relationship between higher education and the wider communities within which our universities sit and should arguably exist to support.

Dewey (1916) was perhaps the first to discuss the complex nature of this relationship and the dual need for educational systems to support the development of the individual while also sustaining the dominant practices, beliefs, industries, and expectations of the ‘nation state’. In our post-industrial knowledge economy, within an increasingly networked and globalised society, we might recognise a pragmatic need for higher education to develop in relation to a different and rapidly evolving set of economic and employment demands and opportunities, an increasing number of which are digital in focus and also transnational in nature. For today’s learner, living within an increasingly networked and global society, there are challenges related to being able to contend with rapidly developing bodies of knowledge, proliferation of information and data, and being able to harness digital tools and spaces to communicate and collaborate and to curate, create, and share knowledge. There are more fundamental human needs and challenges too, within the wider context outlined above, which are to do with education and educational systems that value and respect difference, engender individual and collective resilience, and support participation in democratic processes, and which are committed to digital participation and inclusion for those who would otherwise be disadvantaged, disenfranchised, or marginalised within education and broader society.

There have been examples of systemic change in higher education in order to respond to societal needs and to widen access to higher education itself. In the UK, this included the initial expansion of higher education resulting from the publication of the Robbins Report in 1963 and which has, in the last three decades in particular, been followed by a further period of growth that has seen the number of UK higher education institutions rise from around 60 in the mid-1980s to approaching 170 today. The government policy that has driven the expansion of UK higher education, including the widening access agenda and the principle of fair access, has to date resulted in a more educated workforce and increased equality in the opportunity to benefit from higher education (while also leading to the heightened competition between higher education institutions and increased adoption of market mechanisms alluded to earlier). Governmental policies and initiatives continue to support the widening of access to higher education globally while also increasingly recognising the need for digital technology and digital engagement to be more effectively embedded in education in order to meet the needs of our learners, economy, and society. In Scotland, relevant policy in this area includes “Realising Scotland’s full potential in a digital world: a digital strategy for Scotland” (Scottish Government 2017), while in the USA, the ‘National Educational Technology Plan’ outlines a commitment for “all involved in American education to ensure equity of access to transformational learning experiences enabled by technology” (US Department of Education 2017).

The obvious question to ask, in the context of such policy and the claims that might be made for how the digital can be harnessed in educational change, is ‘what do we mean by transformation?’, and by extension ‘what is it that is to be transformed, why, and for whom?’

Central to this book is the contention that digital technologies and practices have the potential not only to enhance learning and teaching, but to democratise engagement in education, extend outreach, and reposition and extend higher education and higher education institutions for the public good. However we argue that transformation as a concept, and the boundaries and barriers to change that are to be found within the higher education sector and the university, severely limits and inhibits what is possible.

Transformation as a Troublesome Concept

The ideal or aspiration of transformation has been an increasingly prevalent one in higher education, central to sectoral and institutional policy, and programmes and initiatives for change at national, cross-institutional, and institutional level. Within the USA, notable national-level initiatives focused on technology and change have included the Program in Course Redesign funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and supported 30 universities and colleges “in their efforts to redesign instruction using technology to achieve quality enhancements as well as cost savings” (Twigg 2003, p. 30). Within the UK, the Transforming Curriculum Design and Curriculum Delivery through Technology programme managed by Jisc between 2008 and 2010 engaged 15 institutions in exploring how technology could support more flexible and creative curriculum models, with a focus on areas of practice including assessment, personalisation, accessibility of learning experiences, retention, and employment. Similarly, the Higher Education Academy’s e-Learning Benchmarking and Pathfinder Programme (Mayes et al. 2009) supported over 70 institutions in establishing where they were in regard to embedding e-learning, before working with selected institutions to devise, implement, and evaluate “different approaches to the embedding of technology-enhanced learning in ways that result in positive institutional change” (Jisc/HEA 2008, p. 2).

As the former examples suggest, the decade of 2000–2010 saw significant investment in sector-wide digital ‘transformation’ initiatives within UK and US further and higher education, and within the middle of this same time period, the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) for further and higher education ran their e-Learning Transformation Programme. This programme saw six cross-institutional projects funded to the combined total of £6M to undertake projects that would promote transformational change in learning and teaching supported by, and through, current and emerging technologies. The SFC defined “transformational change” as requiring “a conscious and deliberate decision made by one or more institutions to do something differently in a systematic way across the whole institution, on a defined timescale of two or more years” (in Nicol and Draper 2009). The projects undertaken included the Re-engineering Assessment Practices (REAP) project (Nicol and Draper 2009), which sought to bring about strategic change in technology-enabled assessment practices across three universities, and the Transforming and Enhancing the Student Experience through Pedagogy (TESEP) project (Comrie et al. 2009). TESEP focused on redesigning current courses across the lead university and two further education partner colleges to place an increasing emphasis on online-supported collaborative learning, and an increase in student autonomy to create and co-create key aspects of their learning experience including harnessing read/write technologies to create digital resources to support and evidence their learning.

Within each of the aforementioned initiatives, and other comparable projects and programmes, there is generally good evidence of change having occurred at the micro level of learning and teaching practice, and with respect to improving curriculum design and delivery, and often there is also evidence of an enrichment or expansion of practice at the meso level of the institution (at least with respect to an increase in the number of courses or programmes that can exemplify or role model different ways of harnessing digital technology to enhance some aspect, or aspects, of the educational experience).

However in returning to the question of what we mean by transformation, and transformation of what and for whom, it becomes apparent that what we see in the majority of change initiatives in the higher education sector that have sought to harness digital technology and digitally enhanced practice in ‘transformational’, including the initiatives above, have been focused primarily on improvement (in engagement, in efficiency, in perceived quality, in the outcomes of learning) within and to current practice and provision. They are focused in the main on the enhancement of existing processes and pedagogies, or the enhancement and expansion of curricula, rather than challenging and disrupting those processes, or identifying and developing additional or alternative practices that can enrich and evolve higher education, and extend higher education as a wider public good. While we do not challenge the value of or need for enhancement-focused initiatives that will improve learning and t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Section I. Visioning the Digital University
• Section II. Deconstructing the Digital University
• Section III. Reimagining the Digital University
• Back Matter