Embrace the new era: integrating ICT enhanced learning

into curricula
Please cite as: Owen, H. (2008). Embrace the new era: Integrating ICT enhanced learning into curricula. In
Student Success; A New Era in Ways of Learning (pp. 1-15). Hawke's Bay, New Zealand: EIT.

Hazel Owen
Unitec New Zealand
howen@unitec.ac.nz

Abstract:

The potential of information communication technology (ICT) to enhance learning is under-

utilised even though there are numerous process models and frameworks have been
developed to assist in the design and / or adaptation of curricula. Issues with many existing
models are complex and range from the pragmatic, such as resource requirements, skills and
‘ownership’ of a project, to models being mechanical, inflexible, hierarchical and / or
impenetrable.

This paper starts by discussing what learning and teaching value ICT can add to curricula, and
then describes a process model and framework adapted from existing examples. The
accessible, scaffolded approach described is appropriate for very small teams or individuals
working with few resources. The pedagogical underpinnings of a design process are outlined,
in which practitioners identify a teaching and learning problem and assess whether ICT could
enhance learners’ experience of new or existing programmes, modules, units, sessions, or
learning objects. Guiding questions are posed to help support the process, and an iterative
practice is encouraged whereby a design is developed, piloted, evaluated, revisited, modified
and re-evaluated over time, with recognition that the practitioner’s experience, skills and
attitudes are likely to shift. The practical application of the model and framework is
illustrated through an example that formed the basis of a research project conducted at Dubai
Men’s College (DMC) in the UAE.

The model and framework have yet to be piloted in New Zealand, and the EIT conference
will offer a hands-on opportunity for participants to experiment and evaluate them in the
presentation session.

Introduction

There are numerous process models and frameworks (for example Conole & Fill, 2005;
Laurillard, 2002; Merrill, 2007) developed to scaffold the process of designing and / or
adapting curricula to exploit the under-utilised potential of information communication
technology (ICT) (Conole, 2005). A few models are based on instructional design (ISD)
principles developed from behaviourist perspectives, while other underpinning theories
include cognitive constructivism, based on Piagetian notions, and socio-cultural
constructivism, which has its foundations in a Vygotskian approach (Mayes & de Freitas,
2004). However, for an academic practitioner, complex issues exist with some models
ranging from the pragmatic (including lack of resources, skills, experience and ‘ownership’ of
a project), to models being mechanical, inflexible, hierarchical and / or impenetrable
(Andrews & Goodson, 1980).

This paper outlines a process model and framework, adapted from existing examples, that was
developed to help answer the question “Where do I start?” The scaffolded approach is
appropriate for very small teams or individuals working with limited resources, and who are
experienced and skilled in the design of learning and teaching activties, but not necessarily in
adapting resources to make best use of the affordances offered by ICT. The model and
framework can be used with new and/or existing programmes, modules, units, sessions, or
learning objects (from this point on referred to as ‘candidates’), but initially practitioners are
encouraged to trial the process on a small scale so that they are more likely to be successful.

The aim was to equip practitioners with an accessible set of tools to guide them through the
design process. Questions are used to assist the preliminary identification of an ineffective
candidate, as well as with the assessment as to whether ICT could enhance learners’
experience by helping address problem(s) with the selected candidate. An iterative cycle is
encouraged, whereby an adapted design is piloted, evaluated, refined and re-evaluated over
time, with recognition that the practitioner’s experience, skills and attitudes are likely to alter
too. The practical application of the design tool is demonstrated by working through an
example that formed the basis of a research project based at Dubai Men’s College (DMC) in
the UAE.

Why use ICT?

Several meta-analyses of ICT research projects have been conducted to consider the efficacy
of ICT enhanced learning; for example, Waxman, Lin, and Michko (2003) carried out a meta-
analysis of recent projects, and established that there were “no significant differences across
the contextual categories of study quality, teaching and technology characteristics [so the]
results can be generalised across a wide variety of conditions…as well as across student,
school and study characteristics” (Waxman et al., 2003, p. 13). Their findings established that
“teaching and learning with technology has a small, positive significant… effect on student
outcomes [including cognitive and affective outcomes] when compared to traditional
instruction” (p. 14). In light of studies such as this it is being argued that, when used
creatively and flexibly, ICT has the potential to reshape learning and teaching through an
“increasingly fluent use of media and communications methods and novel distributions of
collaborative activity and relationships” (Goodyear, 2005, p. 83).

Learners currently entering education are often already sophisticated users of technology
(Conole, Oliver, Falconer, Littlejohn, & Harvey, 2007). The expectation, therefore, is that
curricula will include some form of online or blended sessions which encourage formal and
informal collaboration in discovery-orientated tasks (Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003).
However, “there is often a gap between teachers' hopes and educational outcomes…[resulting
in] teacher disappointment and/or student frustration” (Goodyear, 2005, p. 83) which has been
identified as, in part, a variation in the quality of practitioners’ designs (Goodyear, 2002;
Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). Design quality varies partly because design skills and
experience for ICT enhanced learning are not yet widespread (Armitage & O’Leary, 2003),
and partly because there is still a tendency for technology to be the driving focus as opposed
to pedagogy (Salmon, 2002).
Theories for design

It is worth bearing in mind the fundamental axiom “what the students do is actually more
important in determining what is learned than what the teacher does” (Schuell, 1986, p. 429).
However, the design of curricula and learning and teaching activities will always be
underpinned by influential factors including educators’ 1) beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and how learning takes place; 2) approaches to teaching and learning based on
pedagogical assumptions; and 3) objectives, resources, and time restrictions.

Three main perspectives have been identified as informing existing models and frameworks
for ICT enhanced learning design - associationist/empiricist, cognitive, and situative (Mayes
& de Freitas, 2004). The associationist (developed from behaviourist perspectives) is
focussed on task analysis and the production of a set of learning competencies, which learners
meet by completing structured activities and receiving feedback. Success is assessed through
overt demonstration of knowledge or skill components. From a cognitive perspective, design
stresses individual conceptual development within a discipline domain with learning
outcomes couched in meta-cognitive requirements such as self-directed learning. Interactive
activities are important for a learner’s construction of their own knowledge through
experimentation and reflection, and assessment emphasises broad understanding of concepts,
often assessed over time. The situative perspective emphasises learning outcomes that are
directly linked to a discipline’s discourse and authentic practices. Collaborative learning
communities undertake scaffolded activities, and formulate and solve real-world problems.
As such, assessment includes elements of participation and peer assessment (Mayes & de
Freitas, 2004).

Opinions as to which perspective is most prevalent in implementing ICT enhanced learning in

higher and further education vary. Conole (2005) states that the didactic behaviourist mode,
with a focus on the transmission of knowledge, is most influential, whereas Mayes and de
Freitas (2004) assert that, although the early 1990s saw a boom of technology initiatives
based around traditional instructivist approaches, the majority currently include “blended
elements that emphasise all three [perspectives]” (Mayes & de Freitas, 2004, p. 11). Writers
and researchers in educational design have tended to concentrate on either pedagogical
perspectives (for example McConnell, 2000) or on specific pedagogical approaches (for
example Salmon, 2002). Goodyear (2005), argues that pedagogical perspectives and
approaches need to be aligned, and indicates that, as yet, the demand for accessible,
customisable forms of guidance for ICT enhanced learning design is largely unmet.

A flexible framework for design

The next section explores the process model and associated framework developed by Owen
(2008) to guide design for ICT enhanced learning, and works through an example of the
framework in use.

The process model (see Figure 1) provides an accessible approach for adapting curricula
and/or resources that does not require academic practitioners to alter their current practices
(Goodyear, 2005). It has an iterative structure that remains flexible enough for practitioners to
blend approaches of their choice, while also encouraging the alignment of pedagogical
perspectives and practice. The guided questions and scaffolding are designed to form a basis
for collaborative discussion of design choices, ICT tool selection, and the complexity of
incorporating a range of pedagogical approaches with a variety of tools (Conole, 2008) to
achieve the goal of designing “spaces…[that] allow new things to happen, new networks to
form, new ideas to emerge, new activities to be entered into and new values to be formed”
(Barnett & Coate, 2005, p. 168).

The complementary framework (see Table 1) guides practitioners through the initial steps of
the design process with a series of questions (not all of which need to be answered). A
worked example is also provided (see Table 2) to relate the abstract to the concrete
(Goodyear, 2005) and to demystify the decision making process. Practitioners are encouraged
to select a candidate for adaptation that has the best chance of success (whether this is
measured in completion, learners’ attitudes, improved achievement of learning outcomes, or
‘lessons learned’). It is assumed there will be access to either experienced peers and/or an
education technologist, as well as to the necessary ICT tools.
Figure 1: Process model for designing for ICT enhanced learning (to be used in conjunction
with Table 1 & Table 2)
Which theory exemplifies my •
beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and learning?
What are key aspects of that •
theory?
•

What central problems are •

learners facing?
•

What issue(s) is / are there with •

the programme / unit / activity /
learning object(s)?
•

Can ICT enhance the learning • Yes / No (underline one)

process? How? •

• Which ICT tool(s) fits with 1)

your pedagogical philosophy /
approach?
• What activities do you want
2)
learners to participate in?
• What pedagogical strategies
(support) do you want to
include? 3)
• What pedagogical approaches
(e.g. collaborative) do you
want to use?
4)

What existing resources do you •

want to adapt?
•

How do you want to measure the •

achievement of LOs?
•

• What is the estimated time / •

effort required?
• What support / training is •
required?
• What are key deadlines?
Table 1: Guided design framework for ICT enhanced learning
Which theory exemplifies my
beliefs about the nature of
knowledge and learning?
What are key aspects of that
theory?
What central problems are
learners facing?
What issue(s) is / are there with
the programme / unit / activity /
learning object(s)?
Can ICT enhance the learning
process? How?
• Which ICT tool(s) fits with
your pedagogical philosophy /
approach?
• What activities do you want
learners to participate in?
• What pedagogical strategies
(support) do you want to
include?
• What pedagogical approaches
(e.g. collaborative) do you
want to use?
• Sociocultural theory
• Recognition of existence of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
• Scaffolding provides models, examples, & support for development
of thinking skills/guided discovery
• Context & cognition are inseparable
• Learners construct knowledge through active engagement with
learning activities that are part of real or simulated situations
including problems, scenarios
• To achieve understanding, more advanced peers/teacher provide
guidance & initially structure interaction
• Learners’ prior knowledge underpins & structures learning, which
is cumulative, self-regulated & goal-focussed
• Awareness raised of tools/interactions involved in authentic
activities
• As learners move toward greater competence - direct their own
learning
(Adapted from Vygotsky, 1986)
• Students at DMC face problems with their writing (accuracy,
appropriacy, originality) / are not achieving Learning Outcomes /
not graduating from the programme
• Students identified three problematic areas: ideas; structuring an
essay; accuracy
• Lot of paper-based, text rich support (doesn’t allow for range of
learning preferences/styles)
• Little authentic production (essays written – often by hand - for
teacher)
• Topics not of interest to students
• Metaskills often not ‘noticed’/understood
• Peer critique often superficial/not valued by learners
• Few models/examples
• Rubrics impenetrable to learners
• Vocabulary often learned as relatively contextless list
• Feedback often delayed
• Yes / No (underline one)
• Potential for providing support through multimedia (easier to
provide models and examples for a variety of learning styles /
preferences)
• Synchronous communication can speed up feedback
• Asynchronous forums can increase opportunities for reflection
/development of metaskills/peer critique)
• Easier to share/review/edit/publish (production for reason & wide,
possibly global audience)
• Simple to preserve versions (focus on process & progression)
• Easy to brainstorm ideas in synchronous format & preserve
discussions for collation & redistribution
1) IM (MSN chat) to collaboratively brainstorm ideas for writing –
share/build meaning from previous authentic experiences; produce
target vocab for authentic purpose. Requires model/discussion of
chat etiquette & raising awareness of metaskills/purpose. Also, IM
enables immediate feedback & support from peers/teacher.
2) Smartboard activities/online dictionaries/self-check, non-assessed
quizzes to introduce target vocabulary – learner individually/in
groups assesses progress over time.
3) “How to” examples/models produced as audio & videos in
Camtasia & made available as podcasts/vodcasts. Used to scaffold
tasks & enhance ZPD.
4) LMS course (WebCT) accessed individually/in groups & used to
host support (examples/models/rubrics/instructions), discussion

What existing resources do you
want to adapt?
How do you want to measure the
achievement of LOs?
• What is the estimated time / •
effort required?
• What are key deadlines?
• What support / training is
required?
Table 2: Worked example to illustrate how the guided design framework might be used
forums, collated IM, hyperlinks, quizzes, feedback, calendar.
Empowers learners by giving overview of programme/tools/
Learning Outcomes + enables learners to access/share feedback &
learning experiences to build a sense of learning community.
5) Blogs used to present personal profile (builds community/inter-
subjectivity) & to reflect on/analyse learning experiences &
changes over time + reflect on meta skills. Requires examples
/discussion of possible approach to blog postings.
6) Discussion forum to host collaborative essays & peer review of
other learners’ essays. Provides peer modelling/scaffolding within
ZPD; encourages reflection/analysis. Requires models/examples /
scaffolded interpretation/discussion of rubrics & giving feedback.
• PowerPoint presentations adapted to video format using Camtasia
• Word documents reproduced as multimedia (with images, audio,
video)
• Rubrics interpreted & linked to peer examples of writing
• Vocabulary lists/activities
• Participation in blogs/discussion forums
• Engagement with reflection/analysis tasks
• Short term/long term gains in awareness of structure/vocab/ideas/
accuracy
• Number of learners graduating from programme
One person – two weeks of full-time effort
• Four sessions to be run mid-semester two (starting March 2007)
• Training required on Camtasia & creating/hosting
podcasts/vodcasts

The framework in action

Context includes learning and teaching approaches (including theories and models), tasks
(types, techniques used, associated tools and resources), the interaction and roles of those
involved, and the associated assessments and evaluations (Barnett & Coate, 2005). The
following section of the paper therefore provides further context to the worked example in
Table 2.

The educational context and problem

At DMC all Higher Diploma Foundations (HDF) level students are Emirati males, whose first
language is Arabic, the majority of whom are between the age of seventeen and thirty. Most
students have problems with writing proficiency, which was contributing to the 25% failure
rate in the English 070 Key Common Assessment (KCA) administered at the end of each
academic year to enable students to graduate to higher diploma and degree programmes. An
exacerbating factor was that students tended to have experienced traditional approaches to
education (Al-Jarf, 2004) which promoted passive rote learning skills and memorisation.

It was proposed that a pilot research study be conducted in HDF which would document the
effectiveness of enhancing the writing proficiency component of Foundations English with
ICT, as well as exploring opportunities to provide scaffolding between traditional learning
approaches and more independent, active learning. The initiative was assisted by the
requirement for students to own a laptop before enrolling in the HDF programme. Due to the
constraints of this paper it is not possible to provide a detailed account of the study’s aims,
design, implementation and results. Rather, only aspects relevant to the use of the process
model and framework are described.
First steps

Having identified the broad problem with writing, it was necessary to distinguish specific
components of the writing curriculum that could be adapted and augmented. In consultation
with four instructors who were teaching the quasi-experimental and control groups,
sociocultural theory was ascertained to be the underpinning pedagogical philosophy for the
design of four interventions based around existing resources pertaining to
advantage/disadvantage and compare/contrast essays. Eight key aspects of sociocultural
theory were discussed in relation to design decisions, including providing opportunities for:

• Scaffolding in the form of models, examples, and support to develop thinking skills;
• Collaborating in tasks with an authentic purpose to encourage peer support and review;
• Construction of knowledge through guided discovery and active engagement with learning
activities;
• More advanced peers and teacher to provide guidance;
• The provision of tasks that initially involve structured interaction to help achieve
understanding;
• Learners’ prior knowledge used to inform and structure learning, which needs to be
cumulative, self-regulated and goal-focussed;
• Raising awareness of the tools and interactions involved in writing activities; and
• Progressing toward greater competence and self-direction.
(Adapted from Vygotsky, 1986)

ICT tools were selected that appeared to offer the greatest potential for realising the eight
factors listed above, as well as being readily available. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the
designs and implementation was to be gathered through a range of methods and research tools
to create rich data, including observations, surveys, interviews, quizzes, exams, associated
documentation, reflective blog postings, and discussion board postings.

Task development and ICT tools

A blended learning approach, utilising MSN instant messenger

(http://webmessenger.msn.com), blogs (www.blogger.com), and tools provided in WebCT, as
well as face-to-face classroom sessions, was implemented. The topics – driving and laptops -
were selected by students in a pre-study survey. Ultimately interventions were designed to
encourage students to adopt a recursive, less linear writing process (see Figure 2) that
emphasised the dynamic interplay of skills, knowledge, and revision, within a sociocultural
setting (Murray, 1993). Students were also ‘trained’ in the use of the scaffolding tools and
resources (Barnett & Coate, 2005).
 Figure 2: Recursive writing process (Adapted from Nunan, 1999, p. 274)

WebCT

A course entitled Improve Your Writing and Vocabulary in Foundations (see Figure 3) was
designed and built to provide participants with a suite of easily accessible tools and resources
in WebCT. For example, “How to videos” developed in Camtasia from existing PowerPoint
presentations were used to take students step-by-step through structuring
advantages/disadvantages and compare/contrast essays, and these were hosted in WebCT.
 Figure 3: Home page of the WebCT site developed for the participants of the pilot research
study

MSN Chat

Because of the benefits of synchronous communication (Sullivan, 1993) it was decided to use
MSN chat to brainstorm ideas as an initial step to writing an essay. Previous experience had
illustrated that unless awareness is raised of the reason for the task, as well as a very clear
model and guidelines, chat sessions could rapidly disintegrate. As such, a video was made
showing a chat session that is initially informal, and then models the type of interchange
desired (see Figure 4). A whole class discussion (after watching excerpts of the video)
encouraged reflection on the authentic purpose for the upcoming chat-sessions, and what the
benefits would be. Students also set up MSN so that their chat history could be saved,
retrieved, collated, and the ideas made available in WebCT (see Figure 5).
 Figure 4: Video of model of chat-session to raise awareness of protocols of using it in class

Figure 5: Collated ideas from the first chat session (made available in WebCT)

Vocabulary
A range of topic-relevant vocabulary was identified by the instructors and researcher, and was
explicitly taught to the quasi-experimental groups using a range of approaches, including
Smartboard activities, which students could refer to again during the writing process.

Blog postings
Blog forums were set up, and example postings (see Figure 6) were discussed as a group to
introduce students to self-reflective practice and the reasons behind it. Blog postings were
made after each of the four intervention sessions.

Figure 6: Example (authentic) annotated Blog postings to scaffold students who were
unfamiliar with self-reflection

Discussion board

A discussion board was used to encourage students to take more responsibility for their own
learning in a collaborative enterprise (Murray, 1993) while increasing accountability for their
effort (Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2004). In particular, the researcher wanted to provide tasks which
would “stimulate real communication in the target language” (Willis, 1996, p. 1) and
encourage students to focus on content, accuracy, and structure.

The first step of the discussion board task was to complete an essay in pairs (two students per
laptop) to exploit the benefits of peer support, and the essay was posted to the discussion
board. Access to scaffolding tools and resources at any point was encouraged. Next pairs
selected another essay, and, using a marking rubric (Nunan, 1999) (which was discussed and
for which a model was given) reviewed and gave feedback (Simic, 1994).

Conclusion
This paper has discussed some central issues around the adaptation and design of learning
activities using a flexible, scaffolded process model and framework. The model and
framework are not new, but they do attempt to meet a need for a pedagogically informed,
accessible, time-efficient tool (Goodyear, 2005) for practitioners who are unfamiliar with
adapting education resources to make effective use of ICT enhanced learning (Conole, 2008).
The tool has the potential to be useful to individuals or small teams sharing experience and
skills , especially if there is also the collaborative support of an education technologist
(Rothery & Jenkins, 1999). Furthermore, by offering a common frame of reference, team
communication would be improved and would also increase the likelihood of a high-quality,
effective end product. The structured approach based around key questions could also have
the benefit of making the sharing of designs intra- and inter-departmentally (and possibly
between institutes, globally) a simple, common process. Piloting, evaluation and research
will, of course, be required to assess whether the tool is useful and to refine the design.

References
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2004). Effect of Online Learning on Struggling ESL College Writers. Foreign Language Annals,
37(1), 1-18.
Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models for instructional design Journal of
Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-15.
Armitage, S., & O’Leary, R. (2003). A guide for learning technologists. York: Learning and Teaching Support
Network (LTSN).
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open
University Press.
Bonk, C. J., Kim, K. J., & Zeng, T. (2004). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and
workplace learning settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global
Perspectives, local designs (pp. 100-127). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Conole, G. (2005). Bridging the gap: A review of e-learning research at Southampton [Electronic Version].
ELRC conference. Retrieved June 30 2008 from
http://www.elrc.ac.uk/download/presentations/bridgingthegap/four-GrainneConole.ppt.
Conole, G. (2008). Capturing practice: the role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In L. Lockyer, S.
Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning
Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies (pp. 1-22).
Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education(September), 84-123.
Conole, G., Oliver, M., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Harvey, J. (2007). Designing for learning. In G. Conole &
M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on
practice. Cambridge: RoutledgeFalmer.
Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.),
Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 49-75). London: Springer Verlag.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design
practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Education: A conversational framework for the effective use of
learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study: Review of e-learning theories,
frameworks and models [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 01 2008 from
www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf
McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Merrill, M. D. (2007). A Task-Centered Instructional Strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
40(1), 33-50.
Murray, D. E. (1993). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan
(Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (2nd ed., pp. 100-117). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 397-431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003). Strategies for Building Blended Learning [Electronic Version].
Retrieved June 20 2008 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm.
Rothery, A., & Jenkins, M. (1999). Supporting Learning and Teaching through Collaboration. Oxford: UCISA.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities. The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
Schuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.
Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TESOL Journal(Autumn), 34-35.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Waxman, H., Lin, M.-F., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A Meta-Analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and
learning with technology on student outcomes. from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/index.html
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.