BEE-j Volume 5: May 2005 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol5/beej-5-6.pdf

Research Article
e-Learning versus e-Teaching: Seeing the Pedagogic Wood
for the Technological Trees

Joanne L. Badge, Alan J. Cann, Jon Scott

School of Biological Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road,
Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
Date received: 09/03/2005 Date accepted: 11/05/2005
Abstract
Most Virtual Learning Environments are designed to be simple to use by staff and
students alike. We report a case study where this feature has led academic staff to
reject formal centralised training and teach themselves how to use the system. What
has resulted is widespread use of the system but with poor pedagogic development,
leading primarily to an electronic document repository rather than an online learning
tool which makes full use of the potential of the full suite of available tools. We
describe what steps can be taken to avoid or remedy this problem.
Keywords: e-Learning, Virtual Learning Environment, Blackboard, staff development
Introduction
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are now in widespread use in British
Universities (Browne and Jenkins, 2003, Ward et al, 2001). The University of
Leicester first deployed the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment in May
2002. The School of Biological Sciences was an early adopter of the VLE and
was the first to deploy an undergraduate module using online assessment.
VLE usage is voluntary and at the discretion of the module convenor or
Degree Teaching Team. In order to facilitate adoption of the VLE across the
School of Biological Sciences, we conducted an audit of all module convenors
by means of face-to-face interviews to complete a standardised questionnaire.
Method
The School offers 10 undergraduate degree streams, comprising 85 individual
modules that are delivered by 62 convenors (assisted by other academic
staff). Of the 62 convenors involved in teaching undergraduate modules, 47
were contacted to take part in the audit (some staff were not contacted as
they were retiring, leaving the University or were involved in teaching a
module that was soon to be terminated). They were approached first through
departmental teaching team meetings and then on an individual basis. Initial
consultation established their previous experience of Blackboard. The
convenors were classed as established ‘Blackboard users’ if they had created
a Blackboard site for a module that they convened by uploading teaching
material to the system. Convenors were classed as ‘Blackboard non-users’ if
they had either only used Blackboard to view material that was already online,
or had never accessed the system at all.

BEE-j Volume 5: May 2005 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol5/beej-5-6.pdf

Two questionnaires were devised, Questionnaire 1 for those classed as
Blackboard users and Questionnaire 2 for those classed as Blackboard non-
users (See Appendix A for a full list of questions). There were five common
questions, referring to background information that was independent of
Blackboard usage. These included hardware and software use, training
attended, knowledge of SENDA requirements (Special Education Needs and
Disability Act, 2001), future plans for using Blackboard and any sources of
teaching on external websites. Open questions were used to try to encourage
discussion of the issues raised and look for common themes.

For the Blackboard users, we recorded what features of the VLE they had
employed in their courses, and whether they had used any form of summative
or formative online assessment. We also asked what their motivation for using
the VLE was and what factors prevented them from making greater use of the
system. For non-users, we sought to determine the barriers hindering their
use of the VLE.
Results
The response rate was 87%. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 41
staff, covering 66 modules. Sixty two percent of convenors surveyed used
Blackboard. All of these users employed the software to make teaching
documents available to students, and 85% used the inbuilt Announcements
and Staff Information areas.


Figure 1 Facilities of Blackboard used by staff surveyed