1. bookVolume 23 (2020): Edition 1 (July 2020)
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
1027-5207
Première parution
11 Dec 2014
Périodicité
2 fois par an
Langues
Anglais
access type Accès libre

Exploring the Problem of Establishing Horizon Emergent Technologies within a Higher Education Institution’s Operational Framework

Publié en ligne: 13 Sep 2020
Volume & Edition: Volume 23 (2020) - Edition 1 (July 2020)
Pages: 18 - 31
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
1027-5207
Première parution
11 Dec 2014
Périodicité
2 fois par an
Langues
Anglais
Abstract

Since the early 2000s, a plethora of web-based learning technologies has been developed, each proposing to improve the student experience. Yet, a study conducted by Martin et al. (2018) demonstrate sporadic new technology adoption in Higher Education (HE), despite wide-scale social interest and a wealth of academic publications. This paper aims to provide a framework to explore this problem from an institutional perspective, involving both educational planners and pedagogues. This framework, the Pedagogic Realignment with Organisational Priorities and Horizon Emergent Technologies Framework or PROPHET Framework, is a new three phase framework that combines two distinct research methodologies used by policy makers and pedagogues with a new dynamic multi-level diffusion of innovation (DMDI) model specifically designed to support dialogue between these stakeholders. Application of the PROPHET Framework will enable stakeholders to arrive at a common understanding about the efficacy of such new technologies and collaborative exploration of technology through these different lenses will lead to increased confidence in its value and relevance. It is hypothesised that undertaking this process will increase the adoption rate of Horizon Emergent Technologies, resulting in operational policy amendments and evidence of impact in the learning environment.

Keywords

1. Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. Louisville: EDUCAUSE.Search in Google Scholar

2. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40.Search in Google Scholar

3. Beetham, H. (2004). The E-Learning and Pedagogy Programme: First Consultation Responses.Search in Google Scholar

4. de Boer, H., File, J., Huisman, J., Seeber, M., Vukasovic, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2016). Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education: Processes and outcomes. Springer.Search in Google Scholar

5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-1710.1207/s15327809jls0202_2Search in Google Scholar

6. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.10.3102/0013189X032001005Search in Google Scholar

7. Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: from the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583-598.10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.xSearch in Google Scholar

8. European Commission (2019). Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) – Digital Single Market – European Commission. Retrieved 17 October 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/future-emerging-technologies-fetSearch in Google Scholar

9. Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., Jones, D., Jowers, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., Misiejuk, K., Ness, I. J., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Wasson, B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Search in Google Scholar

10. Jackson, M. B. (2013). Conceptual analysis and epistemic progress. Synthese, 190(15), 3053-3074.10.1007/s11229-012-0120-0Search in Google Scholar

11. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

12. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

13. Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35(3), 407-441.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01357.xSearch in Google Scholar

14. Lipton, E. B. (2005). President’s message: Advancing the tide of technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(6), 29.Search in Google Scholar

15. Martin, P. (2018). On the horizon. Advance HE. Retrievable from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/horizonSearch in Google Scholar

16. Martin, S., López-Martín, E., Lopez-Rey, A., Cubillo, J., Moreno-Pulido, A., & Castro, M. (2018). Analysis of new technology trends in education: 2010–2015. IEEE Access, 6, 36840-36848.10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2851748Search in Google Scholar

17. Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5Search in Google Scholar

18. Morley, L. (2012). Imagining the University of the Future. In The Future University (pp. 38-48). Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

19. New Media Consortium and National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (2005). The Horizon Report 2005 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

20. New Media Consortium (2014). NMC Horizon Report 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media ConsortiumSearch in Google Scholar

21. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

23. Salmon, G., & Asgari, T. (2019). Higher Education–the Last Bastion? Distance and eLearning Policy and Development – The Role of e-Learning and Distance Education in the Modernisation Process of Economies, Societies and Education Systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved from https://www.eurodl.org/materials/briefs/2019/Salmon_Asgari.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

24. Shaw, P. (2018). A practice orientated framework to support successful higher education online learning. Proceedings of the European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference, 19th June, Genoa. ISBN: 978-615-5511-23-3.Search in Google Scholar

25. Shaw, P. (2019). Shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference, 19th June, Bruges.Search in Google Scholar

26. Shaw, P., & Green, P. (2019). Shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. Advance HE Annual Conference, 3rd July, Newcastle.Search in Google Scholar

27. Shaw, P., & Stone, J. (2019). Exploring a framework for shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Annual Conference, 19th February, Anaheim.Search in Google Scholar

28. Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: a new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220.10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220Search in Google Scholar

29. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203088364Search in Google Scholar

Articles recommandés par Trend MD

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo