ARE ICTS MODIFYING THE ORGANISATION OF TEACHNING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

ARE ICTS MODIFYING THE ORGANISATION OF TEACHNING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION? KIMBIMBI Franklin Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium Franklin.Kimbimbi@ulb.ac.be Abstract This article analyses the relationship between ICTs and the organisation of teaching and learning in higher education. From an empirical analysis of a Course Management System (CMS) in a university setting, the author aims to bring into question the technological determinism model that ICTs have revived. Keywords ICTs, E-learning, organisational change, technological determinism, social determinism, Virtual Learning Environment. Course Management System 1. INTRODUCTION Publications on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have multiplied which announce a revolution in modes of work and forms of organisations [MUHLMANN 1]. These publications, which consider ICTs as a vector of organisational change, appear to be a resurgence of crude technological determinism. For example, in 2005 the Horizontal E-learning Integrated Observation System, HELIOS [2] research project resulted in a thematic report on the role of ICTs and e-learning in particular, in supporting organisational change. The two-fold focus of the research project was: the organisational changes that e-learning fosters, the organisational changes that are seen as necessary to release the potential of ICTs. The resurgence of technological determinism in research related to ICTs, raises renewed interest in the relation between technology and organisation. 2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Determining the effects, if any, of ICTs on the organisation of teaching and learning in one higher education institution. 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Traditionally one distinguishes two models of analysis regarding the relation between technology and organization, the first one called technological determinism and the second one called social determinism [O SULLIVAN 3] [MUHLMANN 1] [CORNFORD & POLLOCK 4]. According to the technological determinism model, technology determines positive or negative effects on social organization [VALENDUC 5] [O SULLIVAN 3]. More precisely, technology represents an independent entity which imposes itself on human social dynamics and thus structures it positively or negatively. Proceedings of INTED2009 Conference. 9-11 March 2009, Valencia, Spain. 002424 ISBN:978-84-612-7578-6

According to the technological determinism model, the structuring power of technology on human social dynamics means that when technology diffuses into an organisation, it creates uses [RORIVE 6]. These are not determined by technologies users, but are imposed by technologies. The technological determinism model is contrasted with the social determinism model. According to the social determinism model, people s way of using a technology is more important than its impact on human social dynamics [O SULLIVAN 3]. Rather than the technological determinism model which considers that technology drives organisational change, the social determinism model considers that technologies are human creation for human uses [O SULLIVAN 3]. In other words, people develop technologies to solve the problems they face and make decisions about how to use these technologies [O SULLIVAN 3]. In this respect, O SULLIVAN [3] writes: Understanding people s motivations and goals, rather than the characteristics of a technology, will lead to reliable predications about the consequences of technology uses (p. 55) 4. RESEARCH QUESTION Are ICTs modifying the organisation of teaching and learning in higher education? 5. OPERATIONAL HYPOTHESES ICTs by themselves do not determine changes of the organisation of teaching and learning in higher education. The use of ICTs by faculty determines the organisation of teaching and learning in higher education. 6. METHOD The Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) has used a Course Management System (CMS) called WebCT since 1998 [UYTTEBROUCK et al. 7]. This CMS consists of five course tools (Table 1) that faculty can select in order to build their course. These are: organisational tools (e.g. calendar), communication tools (e.g. mail, chat ), student learning activities (e.g. assessments, assignments ), content tools (e. g. web links, media library ) and student tools (e.g. grades). Faculty can select tools they need which are automatically added to their courses. However, the selection of a tool does not mean that it is used by faculty or students. Faculty members who use a CMS have pedagogical goals which strictly speaking do encompass functional uses of CMS tools. At the University of Laval in Canada, VACHON [8] distinguishes five pedagogical reasons for faculty using a CMS. These are: transmitting documents to students, improving faculty-student communication, supplementing student with Internet resources, developing formative evaluation and communicating students grades. In the case of WebCT, some pedagogical goals such as improving faculty-student communication are attained using mails or chat but there are some of them which do not need course tools. For example, communicating students grades can be done without using the grades tool. This last point is noteworthy because it introduces a distinction made by MORGAN [9] between a CMS functional use and a CMS pedagogical use. The CMS functional use describes how faculty members use CMS tools while the CMS pedagogical use describes how faculty members use a CMS in their teaching, in other words, what kinds of pedagogical goals they are trying to achieve when they use a CMS [MORGAN 9. p.63]. In order to test the two operational hypotheses, two samples were used. The first one consists of all the 43 courses created during the academic year 2004-2005 in WebCT and which are registered in 002425

the Université Libre de Bruxelles Course Program. The second one consists of all the 128 courses created during the academic year 2007-2008 and which are also registered in the Université Libre de Bruxelles Course Program. For each of these samples, we opened and checked each course. For each of these samples, course tools selected by faculty members were analysed in order to distinguish between course tools both selected and used by faculty members and course tools only selected but not used by them. For each course, the CMS pedagogical use made by faculty members was also determined. 7. RESULTS Most of the course tools available on WebCT are not selected by faculty members during the academic year 2007-2008. (Table 2). Per tool, non-selection frequency is on average 71% and selection frequency is 28% which encompass used and non used tools. Among course tools selected by faculty members during the academic year 2007-2008, the proportion of those which are used is very low (Table 2). For example, the tool Announce which is the most used tool, is only used in 1 out of 10 courses. Per tool, only 3 % are used on average. Most of the course tools available on WebCT were not selected by faculty members during the academic year 2004-2005 (Table 3). Per tool, non-selection frequency is on average 85% and selection frequency is 15% which encompass used and non used tools. Among course tools selected by faculty members during the academic year 2004-2005, the proportion of those which are used is very low as in 2007-2008 (Table 3). Per tool, 8 % are used on average. During the academic years 2007-2008 and 2004-2005, the CMS pedagogical use was pre-eminently dedicated to transmission of documents to students (Table 4 and 5). In 2007-2008, the pedagogical use frequency was dedicated to the transmission of documents to students was 85% while in 2004-2005 this frequency was 97%. 8. CONCLUSION This research tends to demonstrate that ICTs by themselves do not determine a change in the organisation of teaching and learning at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). Indeed, results of the CMS functional uses in 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 show conclusively that most courses tools are neither selected by faculty members nor used by them. Clearly, these results indicate that these course tools can hardly make any impact on the organisation of teaching and leaning at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. They dismiss any tendency to the technological determinism model. In addition, results of the CMS pedagogical uses in 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 indicate the preeminence of one use: the transmission of documents. This result tends to show that this CMS pedagogical use determines the organisation of teaching and leaning at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. More precisely, in our view, this CMS pedagogical use contributes to reinforce an organisation of teaching and learning which occurs basically in a face-to-face mode. In this scenario, ICTs are mainly used to support on-campus students. Zentel et al. [10] called Alma Mater Multimedialis such a scenario where some online components may be add-ons to traditional lectures and seminars, offering some kind of reinforcement, or part of a mixed mode course model with oncampus and Internet components (p. 238). According to Zentel et al. [10] this scenario is now the most common form of virtual structure and will remain so in the future (p 238). The problem of this scenario is that it makes use of an innovative technology i. e. ICTs, for serving a very traditional way of lecturing students. In our view, changing the way teaching and learning is organized at the university will be based on evolving progress made by faculty members regarding pedagogical uses they made of ICTs. However progress is slow. An international survey published in 2002 by Collis and van der Wende [11] pointed 002426

out that rich pedagogical uses of ICTs are still under development in many higher education institutions throughout the world. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] MUHLMANN, David. «Des nouvelles technologies à l image de vieilles organisations». Sociologie du Travail, 43(2001), 327-347 [2] HORIZONTAL E-LEARNING INTEGRATED OBSERVATION SYSTEM, HELIOS. Is e-learning Contributing to Organisational Change? 5 th Helios thematic report. 2005 http://www.educationobservatories.org/helios/reports/heliosthematicreport.doc [3] O SULLIVAN, Patrick B. Communication Technologies in Educational Environment : Lessons from a Historical Perspective. In COLE Robert. A. (Edited by). Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy. A Critical Primer. Westport: The Greenwood Educators Reference Collection. Greenwood Press, 2000, pp. 49-64 [4] CORNFORD James et POLLOCK Neil. Putting the University Online: Information Technology and Organisational Change. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press, 2003. [5] VALENDUC, Gérard. La technologie, un jeu de société : au-delà du déterminisme technologique et du constructivisme social. Louvain-La-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant, 2005. [6] RORIVE, Brigitte. E-projets: la conduite du changement par traduction. Editions ANACT. Décembre 2003. http://www.anact.fr/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/30421.pdf [7] UYTTEBROUCK, Eric et al. L'expérience de l'université virtuelle à l'université Libre de Bruxelles: état des lieux. Congrès international francophone «Apprendre et enseigner dans l enseignement supérieur». Université Paris X - Nanterre (France). 10-13 April 2000. [8] VACHON, Serge. WebCT à l Université de Laval. Un portrait de l évolution des utilisateurs enseignants et étudiants. 2003 http://www.profetic.org/file/captic2003-sv.ppt. [9] MORGAN, Glenda. Faculty Use of Course Management Systems Key Findings. Vol. 2. Educause Center for Applied Research. 2003 http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0302/rs/ers0302w.pdf [10] ZENTEL, Peter et al. A change process at German university Innovation through information and communication technologies? Electronic Journal of E-Learning, December 2004, vol. 2, issue 2, 237-246 http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue1/vol2-issue2-papers.htm [11] COLLIS, Betty et van der WENDE M (Eds). Models of Technology and Change in Higher Education. An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in Higher Education. Enschede: Center For Higher Education and Policy Studies (CHEPS). University of Twente, December 2002. 002427

http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport.pdf [12] CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. Course Tools. Academic Technology Services. http://courses.csusm.edu/resources/webct/webct6/pdf/tools.pdf Acknowledgements My thanks to Eric Uyttebrouck (Center for Educational Technology - Université Libre de Bruxelles) for his comments. 002428

ANNEXES Table 1: WebCT Course Tools and their purposes [12] Organizational Tools Calendar Syllabus Search Communication Tools Announcements Chat Mail Discussion Who s Online Enter important events and deadlines and allow students to enter their own events Student Learning Activities Assessments Assignments Content Tools Media Library Local Content Web Links Learning Modules Scorm Student Tools My Grades My Progress Notes Provide course requirements, objectives, and policies Search for content in the course Post important information in a central location Chat with other users in the course in real time, or use the Whiteboard to display images Send messages to other users Post and respond to messages on specific topics Chat with other users who are logged in to WebCT Create quizzes, self tests, and surveys Create assignments for students to submit online. Students can work independently or in groups Create a glossary or image collection Allows students to easily access large files from a portable medium, such as CD-ROM, instead of downloading the files from WebCT Create links to Internet resources Organize and present content and activities to students Import SCORM-compliant packages, or modules, to be used as course content. SCORM modules can be added to the Course Content Home, other folders, and learning modules Allow students to store their own files Allow students to check their grades Allow students to take notes 002429

Table 2: Tools selected/used/non used by faculty members during the academic year 2007-2008 Non selected Tools Selected and non used Tools Selected and used Tools Organizational Tools Calendar 82 (64,1) 41(32) 5(3,9) Syllabus 86( 67,2) 41(32) 1(0, 8) Search 82(64,1) 45(35,2) 1(0,8) Communication Tools Announcements 73 (57) 41(32) 14(10,9) Chat 101(78,9) 27(21) 0 Mail 88 (68,8) 40(31,2) 0 Discussion 93 (72,7) 29 (22,7) 6 (4,7) Who s Online 97 (75,8) 30 (23,4) 1 (0,8) Student Learning Activities Assessments 99 (77,3) 27 (21,1) 2 (1,6) Assignments 96 (75) 29 (22,7) 3 (2,3) Content Tools Media Library 92 (71,9) 30 (23,4) 6 (4,7) Local Content 99 (77,3) 28 (21,9) 1 (0,8) Web links 85 (66,4) 32 (25) 11 (8,6) Learning Modules 83 (64,8) 37 (28,9) 8 (6,2) Scorm 103 (80,5) 25 (19,5) 0 Student Tools My Grades 97 (75,8) (*) (*) My Progress 101 (78,9) 27 (21,1) 0 Notes 100 (78,1) (*) (*)- (*) This tool is not used by faculty members but only by students. 002430

Table 3: Tools selected/used/non used by faculty members during the academic year 2004-2005 Non selected Tools Selected and non used Tools Selected and used Tools Organizational Tools Calendar 29 ( 67,4) 8 (18,6) 6 (14) Syllabus 43 (100) 0 0 Search 34 (79,1) 9 (20,9) 0 Communication Tools Announcements 40 (93) 1 (2,3) 2 (4,7) Chat 41 (95,3) 2 (4,7) 0 Mails 33 (76,7) 10 (23,3) 0 Discussion 36 (83,7) 7 (16,3) 0 Who s Online 43 (100) 0 0 Student Learning Activities Assessments 35 (81,4) 2 (4,7) 6 (14) Assignments 37 (86) 2 (4,7) 4 (4,7) Content Tools Media Library 35 (81,4) 3 (7) 5 (11,6) Local Content 43 (100) 0 0 Web Links 26 (60,5) 6 (14) 11 (25,6) Learning Modules 23 (53,5) 2 (4,7) 18 (41,9) Scorm 43 (100) 0 0 Student Tools My Grade 38 (88,4) (*) (*) My Progress 43 (100) 0 0 Notes 43 (100) (*) (*) (*) This tool is not used by faculty members but only by students. 002431

Table 4 : CMS pedagogigal uses by faculty members during the academic year 2007-2008 Used ot used Transmitting documents to students 109 (85,2) 19 (14,8) Improving faculty-student communication 22 (17,2) 106 (82,8) Developing formative evaluation 5 (3,9) 123 (96,1) Supplementing student with Internet resources 11 (8,6) 117 (91,4) Communicating students grades 2 (1,6) 126 (98,4) Table 5 : CMS pedagogigal use by faculty members during the academic year 2004-2005 Used ot used Transmitting documents to students 42(97,7) 1(2,3) Improving faculty-student communication 7(16,3) 36(83,7) Developing formative evaluation 9(20,9) 34(79,1) Supplementing student with Internet resources 10(23,3) 33(76,7) Communicating students grades 3(7) 40(93) 002432