Online learning and its users

Chandos Information Professional Series Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski (email: Rikowskigr@aol.com) Chandos’ new series of books is aimed at the busy information professional They have been specially commissioned to provide the reader with an authoritative view of current thinking They are designed to provide easy-to-read and (most importantly) practical coverage of topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please visit www.chandospublishing.com New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles; if you would like to write a book for Chandos, please contact Dr Glyn Jones on g.jones.2@ elsevier.com or telephone +44 (0) 1865 843000 ONLINE LEARNING AND ITS USERS Lessons for Higher Education C McAVINIA AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, UK Copyright © 2016 by C McAvinia Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein) Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: 978-0-08-100626-9 For information on all Chandos Publishing publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/ Publisher: Glyn Jones Acquisition Editor: Glyn Jones Editorial Project Manager: Harriet Clayton Production Project Manager: Roshmi Joy Designer: Vicky Pearson Esser Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Engeström’s Extended Activity System (1987) 63 Figure 3.2 Potentially shared and unshared Objects 65 Figure 3.3 Three mediated systems within one activity system as suggested by Kuutti (1996) 69 Figure 3.4 The research design and data set 91 Figure 4.1 The formal stages leading to adoption of the virtual learning environment (VLE) in a higher education institution 102 Figure 4.2 The activity of selecting a virtual learning environment (VLE) 104 Figure 4.3 The activity of supporting mainstreaming of the virtual learning environment (VLE) 108 Figure 4.4 Different activities using technology, and enhancing teaching and learning (T&L) 110 Figure 4.5 The activity of supporting mainstreaming of the virtual learning environment (VLE) 118 Figure 4.6 The activity of reacting to departments’ needs 124 Figure 4.7 The activity of carving out credibility 126 Figure 5.1 The activity of teaching the language module efficiently 147 Figure 5.2 The activity of teaching the content module 150 Figure 5.3 Georgia’s Activity—publishing to foster student engagement with the course 156 Figure 5.4 Liz’s Activity—publishing to make a reading list accessible 157 Figure 5.5 Jo’s Activity—publishing to reduce stress on students 159 Figure 5.6 An unshared Object between Lecturers and Central Supporters 161 Figure 6.1 The activity of keeping up to date 169 Figure 6.2 The activity of undertaking and completing coursework 172 Figure 6.3 An unshared Object between students and lecturers 184 Figure 7.1 VLE activities, actions and operations 192 Figure 8.1 The activity of learning in the cMOOC 217 Figure 8.2 The activity of learning in the xMOOC 217 Figure 8.3 The activity of implementing the cMOOC 219 Figure 8.4 The activity of implementing the xMOOC 219 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Students Participating in This Study Table 5.1 Attitudes Towards the VLE and Towards Increasing Use of the VLE, n = 30 Table 6.1 What Did Students Expect to Find in the VLE? n = 56 94 144 167 xi ABOUT THE AUTHOR Claire McAvinia works as a Learning Development Officer at the Learning, Teaching & Technology Centre (LTTC) in Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), Ireland Her role involves teaching on and coordinating DIT’s Postgraduate Diploma in Third Level Learning and Teaching, and contributing to the MSc in Applied eLearning and MA in Higher Education, as well as the LTTC’s workshops, research, and developmental projects Claire was previously Learning Technologist at Maynooth University, mainstreaming the adoption of a virtual learning environment across the institution, and managing a wide range of projects in teaching and learning Before joining Maynooth in 2004, Claire worked in the United Kingdom at the University of Surrey and University College London, gaining extensive experience in the use of e-learning integrated with learning and teaching development She holds a BA and PhD from Trinity College Dublin, an MA from the University of Kent, and postgraduate certificates in learning and teaching from University College London and the Open University Her research interests are in curriculum design, the development of academic practice, Activity Theory, digital literacies and computer-assisted language learning xiii FOREWORD There is a reason why, at the end of many stories, the hero rides off into the sunset It’s because staying would be hellish After their work has been done, they would get in the way, disrupt the peace, remain discontent; and who could live with that? This book is important because it is not about heroes.Too much research in the field of educational technology has a hero, and typically, it’s the technology The claims are grand; the stakes are high Pantomime villains are lined up to be knocked down, often by fairly flimsy flourishes People seem to go along with it all, though, because who doesn’t enjoy a rousing tale? The trouble is, research that valorises technology, research that grants it the power to determine educational futures, has relatively little to say about the everyday lives of the people who actually education The experiences of learners, teachers, managers and other professionals is much more complex than these tales of valour allow The message of this book—that our institutions are living communities, not merely systems to be impacted by technology—is a salutary reminder not to lose sight of the realities of peoples’ experiences This book is all about those realities It is about what actually happens when technology is adopted in Higher Education As a result, it gives us the stories we need, rather than the ones we might most enjoy.These stories are not always easy to hear: they call into question what matters to us, why we have made the choices (and mistakes) we have, and why we continue to make the same choices (and mistakes) over and over again, whether that be with Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), MOOCs or some other new, shiny innovation What is particularly wise about this work is that we know VLEs, and most of us are pretty clear: they’re not heroic.The wisdom of looking closely at this familiar, almost invisible technology, is that it is no longer so new and so shiny, and no longer blinds us to the actions of the people who make it, use it, struggle with it, reject it, and so on As a result, studying VLEs allows us to understand change, and how people make those changes, rather than holding up technology as some kind of fetish, as if by purchasing it or taking out an institutional subscription, we could buy all the changes for which it has come to stand xv xvi Foreword There is, however, a subtle but important caveat One nice point within this work hangs on the very idea that technology can come to stand for innovation All of us who are responsible for education face the ongoing anxiety caused by the seemingly endless stream of unfamiliar, sometimes overwhelming, new developments The radical promise of each new technology is hyped up, all the way to its inevitable collapse The analysis here, however, reveals the ways in which institutions claim to be innovative simply by adopting a new system, even though teachers and students continue to use successful, tried-and-tested approaches, refusing to abandon everything they know works just so they can jump onto the latest pedagogic bandwagon The literature in the field may hold a sense of disillusionment about the unfulfilled potential of technology, but this sleight of hand is a skillful and impressive achievement: it allows educators the space for pedagogic evolution while saving face for institutions that want to offer students a cutting-edge experience To work, this rhetorical flourish relies on a wider trope in the educational technology literature: the idea that technology has revolutionised society The printing press is dragged out time and time again as a point of comparison, positioned as an epoch-defining technology to persuade us that such things are possible We all know that technological development has enabled global communication; intensified business; let people meet and talk and learn and even fall in love, despite the barriers of geography Fewer people remember, though, that the technology that let this happen was the telegraph Or the telephone Or even the postal service Of course, it would be disingenuous to suggest there is nothing new about the Internet—but it is just as disingenuous to pretend that nothing like this has ever happened before, and that we have nothing to learn from the past One of the great strengths of this particular account is that we get that wider picture: placing the study reported here into a wider historical context, complete with stories of disillusionment, shows why this work is so important This is not about something that happened long ago, in a galaxy far, far away Using the VLE is something that has a history, one that explains how we came to be in the situation we find ourselves in It something that is happening now—each and every day—to the majority, if not the totality, of our staff and students And what could be more important than that? Martin Oliver Professor of Education and Technology UCL Institute of Education UK ACKNOWLEDGMENT This book was inspired by the very kind and constructive feedback I received from my doctoral examiners Robin Goodfellow and Lorna C ­ arson, and my doctoral supervisor Breffni O’Rourke I am very grateful to them for encouraging me to undertake the project of returning to the thesis and changing it into a text that might be useful to a wider audience Robin Goodfellow provided insights into how I might adapt the research, but more importantly helped me to see that it could have potential practical use for other people His positive encouragement has been greatly appreciated It was my great good fortune to work with Martin Oliver some years ago He originally suggested that I undertake doctoral research long before I considered it myself, and he has now very generously written the Foreword to this book I am indebted to him for his support as a colleague and friend and thank him sincerely here Many other people have helped and encouraged me along the way, particularly my colleagues at the Learning, Teaching & Technology Centre (LTTC) and elsewhere in Dublin Institute of Technology I would particularly like to thank the Director of the LTTC, Jen Harvey, for her support and kindness in facilitating completion of this book Although it is some time ago, my previous employers at Maynooth University facilitated two periods of study leave in the latter stages of the research which were invaluable, and which are acknowledged once again here I would also like to acknowledge particularly the participants in the research across all of the sites involved They gave of their time willingly and cheerfully, and many continued to provide positive words of encouragement even after their participation had concluded Colleagues and friends have provided constant help and support to me, and some have also generously read draft sections of this work at various stages I would like to thank very sincerely Alison Farrell, Mary Delaney, Terry Maguire, Maeve Martin, Jane Secker, Colleen McKenna, John K ­ eating, and Tom Murphy I would also like to thank Claire McDonnell, Orla Hanratty, Roisin Donnelly, Pauline Rooney, Frances Boylan, Dolores McManus, Linda Boyd, Daphne Mulvey, Kevin O’Rourke, Damian ­Gordon, Fred Mtenzi, and Ciarán O’Leary for the many formal and informal ­conversations about all aspects of the development of teaching in a digital age which have enabled me to think through the issues raised in this book xvii xviii Acknowledgment Harriet Clayton, Glyn Jones, and George Knott at Chandos/Elsevier have been so helpful throughout each stage of the proposal, reviews, and eventual writing of this book They have been meticulous in their advice and in the editing, and therefore any errors remaining in this text must be my responsibility Finally, I would like to thank friends and all my family, Caroline, Deirdre, Joanne, and Fidelma, and most especially my father Oliver, Ruth, Neil and Louise, Romy and Naoise They have all been at my side throughout the years of this research in all its forms and it would quite simply have been impossible to undertake any of this work without their support I dedicate this book to my parents, Oliver and Brenda 218 Online Learning and Its Users theoretic analysis of cMOOCs in the future The literature analysed in this case leads to the model shown in Fig 8.1 and the unintended Outcome, that learners are unable to complete their learning because of the contradictions in the activity at present For the xMOOC, shown in Fig 8.2, the Rules closely resemble traditional face-to-face education The learner needs to know how to watch, listen and make notes The Community is all members of the xMOOC, with much less possibility that others will be involved The Division of Labour is between the lecturer as expert and the students as consumers online On the surface, this is much more recognisable as a blended learning or even as a traditional learning activity However, the contradictions also arise in the xMOOC even though it may be a more recognisable learning environment for the learner In this case the outcome indicates a poor learning experience for the learner as a result of the limitations of xMOOC pedagogy, and the lack of inclusion she/he may experience The contradiction at (A) between Mediating Artefact and Object reflects the break between the mediating artefact and the learning of the subject, which breaks down when the learner has been exposed to content only without the scope to interact with other learners or receive feedback on his/her progress At (B) there is a contradiction between the Division of Labour and the Object, reflecting the potential isolation of the learner who is unsupported with his/her learning in the xMOOC The lecturer is not involved in teaching individual learners or feedback on their progress Finally, at (C), the contradiction indicates that the learner might have expected greater connection with the lecturer, or with the other students Again, this analysis is based on literature review only and there is potential for other contradictions to be present in the activity which account for the outcomes we have seen Not all learners might be familiar with watching videos for learning and instead react to them as entertainment, or view them passively without making notes They may be required to participate in discussion forums or quizzes in the xMOOC, and here again digital literacies would be needed Figs 8.3 and 8.4 model the cMOOC and the xMOOC from the perspective of the facilitator or lecturer as Subject involved in leading both The cMOOC Facilitator has the Object of opening access to the subject, and this is mediated through a loosely structured collaborative online environment, potentially drawing on the web, open educational resources and social media The Division of Labour is between the Facilitator/ Lecturer and the students, and the Community includes all members of the cMOOC as well as potentially involving others in the learning Lessons for the Future – The VLE and the MOOC 219 F022&VRFLDOPHGLDOLQNV ZHESDJHV &RFRQVWUXFWLRQRI OHDUQLQJLQWKHVXEMHFW )DFLOLWDWRU & $ &ROODERUDWLRQ FRFRQVWUXFWLRQRI OHDUQLQJQHWLTXHWWH FRPPXQLFDWLRQLQ VRFLDOPHGLDDELOLW\ WRORFDWHHYDOXDWH DQGXVHRQOLQH LQIRUPDWLRQ % $OOPHPEHUVRIWKH F022&SRWHQWLDOO\ RWKHUVRQOLQH /HDUQLQJFRPSURPLVHG DFFHVVWRVXEMHFWQRW UHDOLVHGDFFHVVRZLQJ WRWKHGLVHQJDJHPHQW RIOHDUQHUVODFNRI GLVUXSWLRQRIWKH WUDGLWLRQDOPRGHO )DFLOLWDWRUV OHFWXUHUV  VWXGHQWV Figure 8.3  The activity of implementing the cMOOC [022&YLGHRFOLSVTXL]]HV GLVFXVVLRQIRUDOLQNVZHESDJHV 'HOLYHUOHFWXUHWDON RQOLQH /HFWXUHU % /HDUQLQJLQDOHFWXUH VHWWLQJRUE\ ZDWFKLQJYLGHR± VLWWLQJOLVWHQLQJ PDNLQJQRWHV FRQVXPLQJ $ 3RRUFRPSOHWLRQ UDWHVQHHGWRDGDSW FRXUVHVWREHWDVWHUV RUWRVXSSRUWIOLSSHG PRGHO & $OOPHPEHUVRIWKH [022& /HFWXUHUDVH[SHUW VWXGHQWVDVFRQVXPHUV Figure 8.4  The activity of implementing the xMOOC networks established The Rules of the activity (as in Fig 8.1) include tacit skills in online communication, netiquette and the use of social media Ground rules may have been established for collaboration online, and here again the learner may be calling on skills previously learnt (for instance, in locating and evaluating information online) The Subject, Lecturer/Facilitator, seeks to facilitate coconstruction of learning in the subject, but the Outcome is uncertain It has been characterised in Fig 8.3 as the failure to open access to the subject, and to higher education in general, due to the loss of the learner through disengagement or discontinuation of the course There is a contradiction at (A) between the Rules and the Community, reflecting the experience that not all participants in 220 Online Learning and Its Users the MOOC may understand their role and the rules of engagement Similarly at (B), there is a contradiction as they may not understand the D­ivision of Labour, or may need additional support to that available from a community of learners This is also shown in the contradiction between the Facilitator and the Community at (C) In Fig 8.4, the Subject is the lecturer in the xMOOC, whose Object is to provide content on the subject matter in question This is mediated successfully through the xMOOC, but contradictions arise in the bottom half of the system where the Rules, Community and Division of Labour may contradict the lecturer’s stance The Rules for this activity are that the learner participates by watching material, taking notes or potentially taking quizzes or posting discussion messages, participating at a distance from the lecturer and from the other students The Community is all members of the xMOOC, and the Division of Labour here again is between the lecturer as expert and the students as recipients of the information The Outcome is again uncertain but the literature indicates that it is likely to be a poor completion rate, with indications that the model needs adaptation and may serve better as a taster course for the on-campus version, or as a support to a flipped classroom model.The contradictions in the system suggest why this outcome might be occurring, and how the xMOOC could be developed There is a contradiction at (A) between the Lecturer and the Community, as the lecturer is removed from the group and loses the ability to interact with them, and at (B) between the Rules and the Community The potential audience for the xMOOC may not be familiar with the lecture format, or experience inclusion in this setting At (C) the contradiction is between the Community and the Object, as a consequence of the other contradictions xMOOC students may expect more interaction than simply consuming content, or alternatively the system may work very well to deliver content but does not deliver the transformative outcome hoped for or anticipated The Community and Subject may not share the Object, and could potentially reject the Division of Labour whereby the consumer must make sense of the material alone without the adequate support and feedback she/he might expect from a university course An issue with this analysis is that it assumes we can identify an Object for the MOOC at all, and Objects in Activity Theory are bound up with the Subject’s motivation for the activity Bali (2014) highlights that in the case of the MOOC, this motivation, and the objective, may not in fact be clear at all as yet The Objects identified here from the literature are tentative, and those for the lecturer are not student centred The cMOOC Lessons for the Future – The VLE and the MOOC 221 facilitator seeks to change the way of doing business and experiment with open education, while the xMOOC lecturer seeks to deliver a course online It is not clear whether the xMOOC lecturer has the Object of reducing time, effort and resources needed to deliver to a larger number of students – this may well be the Object of someone else within his/her institution This opens up the possibility of unshared Objects across institutions embarking on MOOC implementation The analysis suggests that the learner is somewhat lost in the MOOC discourse at present, and therefore we must ask who the MOOC is really for In the context of the US experience of the MOOC, the motivation for the activity may be financial saving as the Object of institutions or government MOOC educators and learners may or may not share this Object given the uncertain Outcomes from MOOC activities at present 8.5 DISCUSSION The MOOC has been promoted as the means to solving a range of ills in higher education: underfunding, overcrowding, access and widening participation, scaleable and scaled-up use of online learning, and a sharing of the wealth of educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged regions nationally and internationally But MOOCs now have a literature of disappointment all of their own, or so it would appear The ready implementation of the xMOOC is regarded as a pedagogically limited model of lectures on the web, and calls to mind once more the earlier criticisms of the VLE as shovelware The poor completion rate of MOOCs has been widely documented Researchers are challenged to produce any kind of evidence base around student learning in the MOOC because of the fluid and transient nature of the student cohorts involved More seriously, for some writers the MOOC is further evidence of a desire by governments and commercial enterprises to commodify and privatise higher education by packaging and selling its courses Institutions meanwhile have struggled to find a suitable business model for the MOOC and investment may well be starting to tail off (Kolowich, 2015) What can the experience of the VLE tell us about these problems, and how can activity theoretic analysis help? As we have seen, the VLE was at one point viewed as the means to make every institution into an online institution, opening up access to higher education while opening (potentially lucrative) markets of learners around the world However, the VLE was a closed system requiring registration to the institution to access courses The MOOC removes one part of the 222 Online Learning and Its Users boundary by giving open access to the content and some of the educators, while the institution usually retains control over accreditation This has left the MOOC open to the vulnerabilities of every other form of open and distance education before it, and in particular it is vulnerable to poor completion rates (Chiappe-Laverde et al., 2015) Much has been made of the issue of low participation and dropout in MOOC courses A 90% dropout is indicated in some studies (Cusamano, 2013) There are aspects of this problem that may be alleviated by better MOOC models: the activity theoretic analysis presented here indicated contradictions that could mark points of development for existing MOOC models Learners without previous experience of higher education need user-friendly mediating artefacts: Fini (2009) reported that learners would not tolerate poor usability of a MOOC platform, nor would they use existing social networking tools or a proliferation of tools that were not relevant to them.While the toolkits used in xMOOCs might be regarded by some as limited, and pedagogically limiting, the ‘abundance of tools’ (Fini 2009, p 21) in the cMOOC was overwhelming for learners.The provision of additional supports for st­udents, learning designs and materials that would be inclusive of all students, and ground rules or advices to support online collaboration would support learners with the Rules and Division of Labour in MOOC activities An alternative perspective on this issue, and one that has already been picked up in the literature, would be that completion of a MOOC is not regarded as essential Fini (2009) reports evaluation of a MOOC that showed learners participated based on their own aims for the course, time available and their ability to manage their own learning Educational technologists are uniquely challenged to evaluate learning and teaching in the MOOC with its transient student cohort (Fini, 2009) Data collection with MOOC participants is extremely difficult, and methods may well be limited by the lack of access to groups This represents a new challenge in e-learning research: it becomes almost impossible to research learners’ experiences.This makes it more difficult for researchers to recommend improved designs and supports for learners It may be more fruitful to work with lecturers teaching in MOOCs who have at least some contact with these students, and whose roles in the MOOC need greater recognition and support (Ross et al., 2014) The adoption of the xMOOC has been rapid in a scenario where many lecturers have not been given time or support in developing their use of the MOOC Just as the VLE was accused of having a weak pedagogy, so the xMOOC has come to be judged in this way too Criticism has been made of the pedagogy of the MOOC Lessons for the Future – The VLE and the MOOC 223 with its ‘short unsophisticated video chunks, interleaved with online quizzes, and accompanied by social networking’ (Vardi, 2012, p 5), and the loss of the potentially revolutionary ‘openness’ it offered (Chiappe-Laverde et al., 2015, p 13) A greater focus on the processes of learning and teaching in the MOOC, rather than focussing on the content as product, would be likely to improve the model (Ross et al., 2014) This would entail taking an activity-led approach with MOOC lecturers and facilitators, and supporting them in developing their use of the MOOC as a mediating artefact supporting a defined Object cMOOCs have been regarded as having the more pedagogically innovative design, with greater learner interaction and collaboration But Connectivism is a teaching philosophy and is not shared by most of those who are now trying to implement MOOCs In campusbased deployment of the VLE, lecturers did not necessarily have to implement constructivist learning designs in their module pages: face-to-face class time could be used for dialogue, interaction, group work and active learning with their students.With the MOOC, there is no face-to-face class to compensate for a limited online experience As chapter ‘Lessons for Teaching in Higher Education’ showed, lecturers have taken advantage of the VLE to share content, but they have also recognised and articulated the limitations of content sharing in that space They needed time to develop their VLE pages, and to experience two-way mediation with the VLE to undertake new activities which had not previously been part of their teaching For the MOOC to work, they need this time and experience They may also need continuing professional development appropriate to the task: support with articulating a teaching philosophy, skills in the design of blended learning, skills as facilitators, and the means to support peer-to-peer teaching online The activity systems modelled in the previous section showed that there are wider issues at play in the MOOC, and the potential for unshared Objects among MOOC lecturers, learners, and host institutions The possible financial gains from the MOOC have not yet materialised, and potentia­lly conflict with the ideals of opening access to higher education These contradictory aims for the MOOC suggest the lack of a clearly defined purpose for it, beyond implementation The notion of a particular e-learning innovation as being a ‘hygiene factor’ or as having ‘environment­al legitimacy’ (Naveh, Tubin, & Pliskin, 2012, p 339) is key here: institutions follow each other and implement what becomes the norm across the sector In examining the cases of both the MOOC and the VLE at management level, it is clear that the Objects to be mediated by these technologies were 224 Online Learning and Its Users not focused solely on improving the student experience, and perhaps not primarily focused on students at all Both cases show a willingness amongst educators and their leaders to innovate, which is positive However, there has been a tendency to ‘fall for’ (Kuutti, 1996) one technology as the means to resolve resource issues, student recruitment and retention, access targets and underfunding Aligned with the desire to solve problems is the fear of being left behind by not implementing the new system The slowdown in the growth of the MOOC (Kolowich, 2015) and the emergence of a more critically reflective evidence base in literature (Chiappe-Laverde et al., 2015) indicate a moment when as practitioners we should pause to consider how the MOOC can best mediate and extend activities in higher education, rather than rushing to implement The MOOC has helpfully rekindled debate about what online learning in higher education is for (Marshall, 2013), and it has engaged some research-intensive institutions in considering what their e-learning missions should be It is useful to have renewed debate of these issues in the literature as a spur to reflection and development in e-learning in higher education The MOOC has also focused attention on the digital literacies of learners, and Stewart’s (2013) helpful discussion reminds us that although the MOOC is problematic and ‘gets conflated with higher education, with globalization, and with networked learning’ (p 228), it could also be a ‘Trojan horse’ for ‘the sociocultural growth and spread of digital literacies’ (p 228) Chapter ‘Challenges and Disappointments’ addressed the theme of disappointment in relation to the VLE through the literature, identifying that there had been three areas of focus for researchers: pedagogical and theoretical, organisational, and methodological It may be timely to use these areas of focus once more to consider what we want to achieve with this technology, what are the possible commercial interests and institution-wide implications, and how we might construct a useful evidence base to guide our efforts 8.6 WHAT CAN THE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT REALLY TELL THE MOOC? The story of the VLE seems to have been repeated in elements of the story of the MOOC In MOOC discourse, we see another version of the transformation of the traditional campus into open and distance education provider With the MOOC, registration processes are informal and greatly simplified, and accreditation is not always included or even required ... Online Learning and its Users In 1992, the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) was launched in the United Kingdom to begin a move towards overarching themes and programmes for online. .. for learning and teaching in higher education as online learning or (for brevity) “e -learning. ” These terms are selected in preference to learning technology,” and “technology-enhanced learning ... Sumner, 2014) Support roles in learning and 18 Online Learning and its Users teaching, combined with support roles in the use of new technology, led to the emergence of the learning technologist’ or