Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Symphonie praxis : a suite exploring faculty experiences and policy frames surrounding digital technologies… Gratham, Christopher Hamilton 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2016_february_gratham_christopher.pdf [ 523.38kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0221491.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0221491-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0221491-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0221491-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0221491-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0221491-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0221491-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0221491-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0221491.ris

Full Text

Symphonie PraxisA suite exploring faculty experiences and policy frames surrounding digitaltechnologies in BC’s post-secondary education systembyChristopher Hamilton GrathamBSc, The University of British Columbia, 1989MSc, The University of British Columbia, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDoctor of EducationinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORALSTUDIES(Educational Studies)The University of British Columbia(Vancouver)December 2015c Christopher Hamilton Gratham, 2015AbstractThis study explores faculty members’ lived experiences with digital technologiesin their teaching practice at British Columbia University (BCU), and it investigatesthese individual experiences within overlapping and interrelated contexts at theglobal, provincial, and institutional scales.The study was inspired by the researcher’s practice in educational technologyleadership at BCU and those experiences, along with the researcher’s perspectiveas geographer, are seen throughout the study.The research is informed by critical theory of technology to situate the differ-ent perspectives used to frame technologies. It draws upon research on globaliza-tion to analyze provincial and institutional policy documents. It also draws uponBourdieu’s ideas on capital to understand power and influence shifts: particularlywithin the institution and how participants’ capital shifts over time.The study illustrates the complex and sometimes contradictory ways that fac-ulty members see their relationship with digital technologies in their practice, andit highlights how government priorities can become institutional policy and ulti-mately manifest in faculty members experiences.The study shows how the role of the instructor and the field of higher educa-tion are changing, and it situates increasingly ubiquitous digital technologies inthe change. It illustrates how participants attribute tensions in their practice todifferent logics between themselves and BCU administrators. And it shows howparticipants take on the responsibility themselves of increasing their use of digitaltechnologies, even when they don’t believe more technology use will help theiriipractice.This research contributes to the ongoing discussions regarding higher educa-tion policy and the roles for digital technologies within that field.iiiPrefaceThis dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, ChristopherHamilton Gratham, and was undertaken under the supervision of principal in-vestigator Dr. Michelle Stack of the University of British Columbia (Faculty ofEducational Studies). The fieldwork reported in Chapter 6 was covered by theUniversity of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board CertificateH11–00889 and the BCU Research Ethics Committee Certificate 2011–20.ivTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixList of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiDedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii1 Prelude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Allemande: Context and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Positioning Myself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1.1 Leadership in Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 9Busy practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Perception and prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Dichotomies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Neutral and democratic perspective? . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.1.2 Geographic Viewpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15vScale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2 Aims and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.2.1 Significance of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Courante: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1 Overview of Approaches to Technology Studies . . . . . . . . . . 213.2 Critical Theory in Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.3 E-learning Research – Personal Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.4 Bourdieu - Connecting the Local and Personal Scales . . . . . . . 303.5 Globalization and Educational Policy - Connecting to Provincialand Global Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 Sarabande: Methodology and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404.1 General Research Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404.1.1 Knowledge Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414.1.2 Strategies of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424.1.3 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.2 Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.3 Qualitative Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464.4 Credibility of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.5 Researcher Positionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Minuet - I: Findings from Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.2 Provincial Policy Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.2.1 Campus 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Technological change is inevitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Knowledge economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575.2.2 BC’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60vi5.2.3 Summary of Provincial Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 645.3 BCU Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655.3.1 4th Hour Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 Minuet – II: Findings from Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.2 Autonomy and Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.3 Changing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786.3.1 Time Crush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786.3.2 Changing Definition of the Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836.3.3 Bureaucratization, Efficiency, Standardization . . . . . . . 876.3.4 Support Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906.4 Changing Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946.4.1 Changing Relationships with Students . . . . . . . . . . . 946.4.2 Changing Relationships with BCU Colleagues . . . . . . . 99The time it takes is not valued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Procedures around policy change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006.4.3 Changing Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056.5 Synthesis and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116.5.1 Change in way Faculty Talk about Technologies . . . . . . 1116.5.2 Different Logics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136.5.3 Responsibilisizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146.5.4 Changing Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157 Gigue: Summary, Conclusions, and Future Research . . . . . . . . . 1177.1 Recasting and Additional Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177.2 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1268 Postlude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131viiA Research Ethics Board Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139B Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140C Sample Code Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143D Generic Contact Letter and Demographic Information . . . . . . . . 148viiiList of TablesTable 3.1 Views on Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Table 4.1 Interview Participants Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Table 5.1 Campus 2020 Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Table 5.2 BC’s Skills for Jobs Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Table C.1 Codes associated with the top-level code: symbol . . . . . . . 144ixList of AbbreviationsA number of terms recur frequently throughout this dissertation. The first time Iuse each term it is written out in full, and each subsequent time it is replaced bythe abbreviation listed below.BCU British Columbia University, anonymized name used for the institutionwhere this study was conductedCET Centre for Educational Technologies, anonymized name used for theoffice of education technology support at institution where this studywas conductedUBC University of British ColumbiaLMS Learning Management SystemCTL Centre for Teaching and Learning, anonymized name used for centre atthe institution where this study was conductedWWW World Wide WebMOOCS Massively Open Online CoursesBC British ColumbiaCCU College and Univeristy Commission, anonymized name used for ahigher education accreditation granting bodyxAcknowledgmentsI would like to express deep gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Michelle Stack, for herguidance, patience, and good humour throughout my research and writing journey.In addition to the many hours of reading, discussing, and revising details of myresearch, I feel very fortunate that she was receptive to my creative – sometimesoverly so – thoughts and able to help separate the potentially useful from thedistracting paths.I would also like to thank the other members of my research committee – Dr.Deirdre Kelly and Dr. Andre´ Mazawi – for their thoughtful and useful feedback,for sharing inspiring ideas, for their attention to details, and for their kind guid-ance.I would like to thank the study participants – my colleagues at BCU – for theirtime and interest in my study and for their dedication to their practice.Finally, I would like to thank my family – Suzanne, Evan, and Colin – forunderstanding how important this project has been to me and for allowing me allthe time away from them that this journey required.xiDedicationThis dissertation is dedicated to my sons – Evan and Colin. Follow you imagina-tion, ask questions, keep an open mind, and persevere.xiiChapter 1PreludeImagine you have front row seats in a great old concert hall. There you sit, eyesclosed, as J. S. Bach’s grand orchestral work envelops you like the sun’s rayson a warm spring day. At times all the intricate parts, all the sections, all thesound waves coming from each of the hundred musicians merge into a greater,comprehensive experience. But then, what’s that?Ever so gradually, you notice as the flutes start an ascending phrase, and yourattention is drawn to its intricate turns and twists. Where did that come from?Was it always there? And why didn’t you notice it earlier? It seems very familiar.Didn’t the horns play something just like it a few minutes ago. Hold on. What’sthat now?You hear the same thing from the violins. Well . . . almost the same thing, butthis time it’s turned over head-on-its heels and syncopated. You marvel at howthis line descends, interjects, yet still perfectly complements the flutes. And then,suddenly, you notice something else.The low strings are playing an ostinato pattern, repeating an slow arpeggio,providing a harmonic foundation supporting both the upper lines. When did thatstart? Was it going all along?Then your mind shifts and you start to wonder just what makes this worksound as it does today, right here, right now, in this hall, with these musicians,1and with you there listening? Surely Bach was trying to say something with thismusic, and it clearly reflects the early 19th century Weimar. But was it like thatscene in the Milos Forman’s film Amadeus where the deaf Mozart hears, in hishead, the complete and final version of his famous requiem as he wrote it down?It can’t be so. For the orchestra as you heard it today didn’t even exist in Bach’stime. Some of the instruments didn’t even exist in his time.Then you wonder how the conductor’s experience comes out in todays’ per-formance? And what about all the musicians? They’ve heard the piece from manydifferent recordings. They are highly trained. But they’ve got their own storiesand experiences too. They might have had a bad day, a fight with their standmate, good news from their family. How do all these elements - sometimes sweet,sometimes discordant - meld into what you are hearing right now?This metaphor helps me to place my practice and my research. I have front rowseats, listening to the changing role of digital technologies in higher education.But I am also on stage, actively performing the work as well, and maybe evenconducting a few parts.Even at my least modest I can’t muster enough hubris to claim to fully hear allthe interacting lines and the entire work. Instead, in this research I hope to be ableto identify some of the most striking lines and phrases and to make connectionswith both the external and internal factors that contribute to the entire work.Much of my practice concentrates on the detailed level, much like followingthe twists and turns of the flutes, the violins, or the horns. These details - thephrases and timbres - are critically important components of the whole; but theyare not the entire work. They exist within a host of overlapping contexts.I believe that one of the problems in the practice of educational technologyleadership is that those detailed lines are the only elements heard. We are often sofocussed on certain individual phrases from the performance that we don’t hearthe entire work and all the influences that created it.My general approach in this research is to place myself in that in-betweenzone, my focus oscillating between the individual phrases and lines and the pro-2cesses and structures interacting together to form the larger work.3Chapter 2Allemande: Context and SettingA movement which introduces the main themes of the workI’m starting to look like an outdated old goat. Kevin - BritishColumbia University (BCU) Faculty memberYou could literally hire James Cameron to make Math 101. MarcAndreessen - Founder of NetscapeKevin1 is the jelly-filled doughnut of teaching. Meet him in his overflowingoffice and, before you’ve talked to him for even five minutes, before you’ve barelyeven poked at the surface, his passion for teaching and his students oozes out. Youcan’t miss it; it’s all over everything he touches: the books, papers, the art. It’s allover everything he says: his goals and aspirations for his students. Yet, Kevin’swork has begun to take on a sour taste.On the face of it, Kevin should be near the apogee of his career. He’s got aPhD, is well respected in his field, and has published widely. He’s worked as adepartment head, a program advisor, and he has supervised many students. He has1All participants and the institution are referred to by pseudonyms. See Table 4.1 for partici-pants’ demographic information.4made lots of contributions to the community - both related to his academic disci-pline and as a volunteer in areas outside of his academic expertise. He’s taughtat BCU with glowing reviews from students and colleagues alike: he’s a masterteacher, although far too modest to say so himself. But despite all these accom-plishments, Kevin still feels like an old goat being readied for pasture. Why?Many of Kevin’s concerns get revealed when he speaks about the changingrole of digital technologies2 in the teaching practice. Despite ample evidence toshow that he already does a great job teaching – excellent teaching evaluationsand commendations from students — Kevin feels pressure to change the way heteaches. He feels pushed to incorporate more technologies into his teaching, eventhough he doesn’t think it will help his students. Kevin wants to respond to thedemands he feels from students, colleagues, the University, and larger societyas a whole. Yet he has a difficult time reconciling those demands with his ownexpertise and experiences.While my discussions with Kevin usually begin grounded in some very prac-tical aspect of how to apply a particular technology to his classes, the discussionstend to zoom out to a larger scale that questions just how appropriate certain tech-nologies are in higher education and who gets to decide how technologies shouldbe incorporated into the practice. And it is when addressing these larger scale,more general questions, applied to his specific situation, that we get to the seedsof Kevin’s discontent.If we think about Kevin’s dilemma, it is not really based in the technologiesthemselves: they are the surface sheen. Instead, his problems reveal much moredeeply rooted, fundamentally political questions. They reveal questions askingwhat values we want to promote in higher education: just what are our aims?They ask questions like who determines what technologies are used and how?They ask how those choices are made? They question how how much autonomyindividual faculty members have, and how much they should have? They ask how2Throughout this dissertation I will use the terms technologies, educational technologies, anddigital technologies interchangeably to refer to digital and network technologies.5much autonomy individual institutions have, and how much they should have?My research is based in a similar perspective to the way I have describedKevin’s dilemma above. I am interested in digital technologies in higher educa-tion, but it’s not the technologies themselves that I am particularly interested in.Instead, I view the technologies as a framing device to help focus attention onthe political aspects that are tied to the increasing use of technologies. And asdigital technologies become more pervasive in society, I think that these politi-cal questions that accompany the technologies become increasingly important toinvestigate.Digital technologies are now deeply intertwined with across many aspects ofour lives. Just think about how often you use your smart phone, the Global Posi-tioning System in your car, browse the web, use social media, stream music files,or even use WiFi or the cellular network. Or Google yourself to see your digitalfootprint. Modern technologies have become so embedded, so integral, and sopervasive in our lives that we live in a technopolitan culture (Winner, 2010)3.And this culture is just as evident in higher education as any other other realmof society. For example, just think of how often we hear the terms knowledgeeconomy, e-learning, and information age associated with higher education. Or gointo a university classroom today to see the pervasive use of the digital technolo-gies such as the World Wide Web (WWW), Learning Management System (LMS),mobile devices, clickers, and digital projectors – just to name a few.These technologies are so pervasive that to many they have already replacedany possibility of doing education any other way. As Netscape founder, and nowventure capitalist, Marc Andreessen explains it:We can’t use the old approach to teach the world. We can’t build that manycampuses. We don’t have the space. We don’t have money. We don’t havethe professors (Roose, 2014).3As he describes it, “if one observes how thoroughly our lives are shaped by interconnectedsystems of modern technology, how strongly we feel their influence, respect their authority andparticipate in their workings, one begins to understand that, like it or not, we have become mem-bers of a new order in human history” (Winner, 2010, p. ix).6Andreessen doesn’t rue the loss of the old way. To him the benefits of moretechnology in education are so obvious that they are beyond seriously questioning:The question is for the 14-year-old in Indonesia staring at a life of either,like, subsistence farming or being able to get a Stanford-quality educationand being able to go into a profession (Roose, 2014).Andreessen’s prognosis for higher education incorporates what he calls entertainment-industry economics. Referring to the current level of Massively Open OnlineCourses (MOOCS), he calls the production values pretty low. But in, say, tenyears he forecasts a different vision:What if we had Math 101 online, and what if it was well regarded and yougot fully accredited and certified? What if we knew that we were going tohave a million students per semester? And what if we knew that they weregoing to be paying $100 per student, right? What if we knew that we’dhave $100 million of revenue from that course per semester? . . . You couldliterally hire James Cameron to make Math 101 (Roose, 2014).This technopolitan view is not just a vision for the future of higher education,it has already brought very real changes. For instance, last year Florida lawmakerscommitted $35 million to create a reduced-cost, online-only bachelors program atthe University of Florida. And the University’s plans are even larger: by 2024 call-ing for an enrolment of 24,152 students over 35 different degrees, and projecting$76.6-million in revenue and $14.5-million in profit. Furthermore, University ofFlorida online plans to attract thousands of international students, charging tuitionrates four times as high as the $112 per credit paid by in-state students (O’Neil,2014).And just as Kevin’s questions surrounding the expanding use of digital tech-nologies at BCU are fundamentally political rather than technological questions,I think the most important questions as this technopolitan culture becomes evermore deeply and widely entrenched in society are also fundamentally politicalquestions and not technological ones.7Yet, I am concerned that the debates arising out of expansion of digital tech-nologies - both in institutions like BCU and in the greater society - are often limitedto narrowly focussed instrumental questions concerning the utility and efficiencyof various technologies as tools. For example, at BCU the questions have becomefocussed so narrowly on which LMS to use (which are valid questions), that wedon’t also question the consequences, implications, and other issues that go alongwith using LMS in the first place. To use Andreessen’s idea, the discussion centresaround which famous director should we hire to make Math 101 - James Cameronor Norman Jewison - rather than what are the pros and cons of doing Math 101this way? What we are missing is the space to query the broader, deeper, andricher questions that engage the values, goals, and meanings of higher education,technology, and their interactions.I wonder how we have arrived at a situation where the debates about such animportant and complex area have been so conceptually limited. So, in a sense, Iapproach this research from a stance of criticism. But this criticism should notbe taken as an anti-technology stance. Instead, I think it should be viewed from apositive stance, just as we would cast literary or arts criticism. I aim this researchas a critical self-reflection, an attempt to understand complex interactions, and Itry to provide new resources to re-invigorate debates about the roles for digitaltechnologies in higher education.Perhaps you are someone like Kevin: a long-time faculty member with spe-cific questions about digital technologies. I am, and I write from this perspective.Maybe you are a faculty member who sees potential for technologies to enhanceteaching. I am, and I write from this perspective too. Perhaps you are involved ineducational technology leadership or management: your work involves support-ing, encouraging, and mentoring faculty in using technology. I am, and I alsowrite from this perspective. Maybe you are a critic of technology: asking broaderquestions surrounding the roles and choices of technologies in higher education.I am, and I write from this perspective too.If you share any of these perspectives or questions, I hope you find some useful8snippets or even nuggets in the way I have approached this research. But even ityou don’t have a particular interest in the technologies, I think that this researchwill be helpful to anyone with an interest in policies and experiences in highereducation.2.1 Positioning MyselfMy departure point for this research is unabashedly sympathetic towards the ques-tion and perspectives raised by my faculty colleagues like Kevin. Others mightview the questions differently, but my interests result directly out of my long-time practice as a faculty member in the British Columbia post-secondary system.In particular, experiences through my work in educational technology leadershipat BCU provided the motivation to attend the EdD program at the University ofBritish Columbia (UBC) and inspired this research project.As an EdD student, reflecting on my practice at BCU, I kept returning to anumber of questions that seemed important yet that were also given short shrift ifeven considered at all in the practice.In this section, I review my practice in order to make visible these questionsand how I came to think about them. I want to make this background visiblefor two reasons. First, while I make efforts to understand different views andperspectives, my knowledge is necessarily limited and so are my claims to knowl-edge. Second, by bringing my experiences and perspectives to the fore, I open upthe possibility that this unique combination may offer a fresh perspective to theknowledge in this field.2.1.1 Leadership in Educational TechnologyI have worked as a faculty member at BCU for the past 25 years, and the ma-jority of my work has involved positions in educational technology leadership.While the formal names of the job titles have changed - liaison, manager, director,special appointee, chair, etc - I have always viewed this work as broadly encom-9passing the following two domains: working with faculty members interested inincorporating digital technologies into their teaching practice; and working withsenior administration, faculty, staff, and students to determine when educationaltechnologies make sense, and, if they do, which particular ones to use. From myperspective, this practice is situated in the intersection of fields of technologies,policy, politics, and education.Busy practiceMy interest in this topic grew from my experiences in this practice. And my prac-tice is so crammed full with the day-to-day support and administrative tasks thatthere is almost no time left to follow the current research in the field, let alone addto it. And the practice is so busy that I was worried about falling under the spellof accepting the norms just because, “that is the way we do things around here.”I did have questions about the influences on and impacts of digital technologies,but I didn’t have the time to investigate those questions.While I can’t claim with certainty that others in educational technology lead-ership positions have succumbed to the same spell, colleagues at other institutionshave shared similar concerns about the lack of time to read or perform researchin their practice. Furthermore, faculty colleagues at BCU have also frequently ex-pressed frustration trying to find time to properly evaluate and understand how touse digital technologies in their teaching.With this research project I try to break the spell and stop the pattern of con-tinuing on out of habit. I try to make sense of questions that I previously couldn’tcarve out the time to investigate. I turn my focus to the types of cracks illustratedby Kevin’s story and to the observations from my own experiences explained be-low.Perception and prestigeI received my MSc from the UBC in 1991: a time long ago, before the widespreadreach of the WWW and just as personal computers were starting to appear. I had10experience with networked computers during my graduate work and did have apersonal computer at home; however, my technology expertise was at best averagefor my peers in graduate school. I was not an expert in technology and certainlyhad no background in using technologies in teaching.Upon graduating I began working at BCU as a full-time faculty member inthe Department of Geography. I was one of the youngest and least experiencedfaculty members at the institution. But despite my lack of experience, colleaguesperceived me as having a level of technology expertise, granting me more influ-ence and prestige than I would have otherwise expected.I had little experience teaching and almost no knowledge of the inner workingsof power within the institution or BC’s post-secondary system. I had almost nobackground in the theory or sociology underlying technology. Yet I could programin FORTRAN.This perceived expertise in technology compared to colleagues at BCU gaveme more symbolic capital4 than my more experienced peers, and eventually ledme to be asked to work on and chair technology committees, and eventually to cre-ate and manage a new centre for supporting faculty members use of technologies,the Centre for Educational Technologies (CET).If we fast forward to 2015, the technology landscape at BCU has changed. Thepolitical and financial environment has also changed drastically and BCU is nowin a period of contraction and not one of expansion. I am no longer amongst theyoungest faculty members, and technology use and expertise has become far morewidespread. So widespread in fact, that BCU has closed the CET that I createdand where I worked. Support of faculty with digital technologies has now beenreclassified as training and is now performed by the BCU’s IT department.It is undoubtedly true that the average level of technology expertise of BCUfaculty is much higher now than it was when I started, and I have less symbolic4A form of capital that is not formally recognized as capital in the way as are economic capital(e.g. money) or cultural capital (e.g. degrees). Symbolic capital (e.g. prestige, reputation) dependson other people believing someone possesses those qualities. See (Bourdieu, 1986) for a fulldescription on the forms of capital.11capital due to a perceived expertise advantage in technology. Yet at the same time,my work towards the EdD degree and my experience and expertise working havegreatly expanded my knowledge of the field: practical, theoretical, and analytical.This example from my practice shows how my own prestige and power atBCU has been influenced by factors outside of my expertise relative to the field.Arguably, I should not have been given the work that I was in educational technol-ogy leadership so early in my career. At that point, my background and expertisedid not leave me well equipped to fulfill the demands of the position. But my per-ceived expertise in technologies increased my influence and power and led to thework. Now that I have a much stronger background in educational theory, leader-ship, and the sociological aspects of technology use – in addition to over 20 yearsof experience in the work – I am much better equipped for a role in educationaltechnology leadership. Yet that role no longer exists at BCU.With my own personal experiences as but one example, I wanted to investigatehow other faculty members experienced the relationships between technologicalknow-how and their prestige and influence within BCU.DichotomiesAnother area of curiosity that arose from my practice is the apparent dichotomousviews – both from those working in the field and in some of the research literature– that frequent discussions around technology in education.I would often hear people categorized into one of two opposite groups. Termslike techies or luddites are frequently used to describe those who seem eitherkeen or reticent to use technologies. Similarly, terms like early adopter and lateadopter are often used to indicate those either ahead of or behind the mainstreamin their technology incorporation. Even terms like digital immigrant and digitalnative (Prensky, 2001) have moved into the common vernacular of faculty andadministrators when referring to people’s views on and use of technologies.While these labels may sometimes be useful to represent the distribution of apopulation, or the goal of a particular effort, or possibly even the future based on12a choice of technologies, my experiences at BCU indicated that they provided anoverly simplistic view of faculty positions related to technologies. Many faculty Iworked with seemed to be both early and late adopters – and middle adopters too– sometimes all at the same time.Not only did I find these labels over-simplistic, but I also noticed a tendencyto problematize those on the wrong side of the dichotomy. For example, I wouldattend meetings where a key goal was to try to understand why the late adopterswere lagging and what was wrong with them, or what was wrong with what wewere doing to cause them to be so far behind, and what could we do to bringthem “on board” with using the technologies more or faster. To perhaps stretchthe point, I sometimes felt like I was assumed to be in this group with a utopianview of the role of technology in higher education and the most important thing Icould do was to convert the dystopians.My experiences with this relatively simplistic portrayal of dichotomous campstroubled me. Firstly, in my practice I didn’t actually see faculty neatly confined tothese opposed positions. Instead I felt that their views were far more situationaland contextualized. Secondly, I felt it was unwise to problematize those facultywho didn’t use technologies very much. Instead of trying to make them use tech-nologies more, I wanted to know why they didn’t choose to use the technologies.I wanted to know their reasons and their views.Neutral and democratic perspective?In addition to seeing how pervasive these false dichotomies had become, my prac-tice also unearthed for me questions regarding values and attitudes towards tech-nologies in general, and specifically in education.Work in educational technology sometimes involves choosing one technologyor another, and I found it very interesting how these projects were framed as aninstrumental task that involved listing the technical features of each option almostlike a pros and cons list. While this process might have some benefits, it struckme as incomplete at best, only considering the instrumental and technical aspects13and not allowing room for any more fundamental questions regarding what tech-nologies we want to use and why we want to use them. This approach treats thetechnologies simply as neutral tools for us to use as we see fit and doesn’t con-sider any values that might be embedded within the inner workings of the variousoptions.For example, when deciding which LMS to use, the project was presentedthis way: as an instrumental choice between neutral technologies. Yet the twocompeting systems had value choices deeply embedded in their design and theseseemed fundamentally important for faculty to discuss. One system was built witha strict hierarchy - administrator, faculty, TA, student - with a cascading set ofprivileges. The other system conceptualized everyone as participants in a “virtualspace” and presented a much reduced hierarchy where all participants had equalabilities to write, post, create, and contribute. Viewing these two platforms onlyfrom a list of features misses out on a fundamental difference in design philosophyembedded deeply into all aspects of how the system works.Viewing choices like this as purely instrumental also misses out on the politi-cal aspect of these decisions. On one hand the structures at BCU to make decisionsabout technologies often appeared democratic, at least at the instrumental techni-cal level. We had committees full of people from the various faculties and con-stituent groups. Yet at the same time the portrayal of technologies as neutral andinstrumental tools, with little if any room for debate about themeta level questionsregarding the values intertwined with the technologies, limits the how democrati-cally the decisions are made. Many faculty who would be happy to enter debatesinvolving values and the aims of education show little interest in committees de-ciding on technologies based on lists of features. Presenting technology decisionsin this manner resulted in decision making structures far less democratic than theyappear to be.These experiences piqued my interest to learn about the ways people thinkabout and talk about technologies and the structures at the institution that allowand don’t allow those discussion. I wondered if faculty see these technologies as14neutral tools or do they see them wrapped up within a larger social context? I alsowanted to know how faculty viewed the procedures and processes surroundingtechnology decisions at BCU and if they saw them as structures that opened up thekinds of debates around technology that faculty found useful.2.1.2 Geographic ViewpointWhile those specific questions noted above arose from my practice in educationaltechnology leadership, through my time as an undergraduate and graduate ge-ography student and more than two decades teaching undergraduate geographycourses a geographic viewpoint is indelibly imprinted on my way of approachingproblems.ScaleThe concept of scale is a key element that underlies the geographic viewpoint. Inits simplest form, scale refers to size, either absolute or relative. Geographers talkabout scale in a number of different ways, and particularly relevant to this studyare the concepts known as phenomenon scale and analysis scale5.As the name suggests, phenomenon scale represents the size at which thestructures and phenomena of interest occur. These scales are often referred to byterms such as micro, meso, or macro-scale or local, regional, and global scale. Ac-curately defining the phenomenon of interest and determining the scales at whichthey occur is an important component of geographic research.Once the scale of the phenomenon is determined, the next step is to acquiredata to analyze that phenomenon. The level of data resolution (or granularity) ofthese data is what geographers call the analysis scale. Ideally the analysis scalematches the scale of the phenomenon of interest. But this is often not possibleor practical: the data simply may not exist at the appropriate scale of the phe-nomenon. For example, satellite data at resolution of 30m may be able to provide5See Montello (2013) for a good overview on the concept of scale in geography15information on local and regional scale phenomena but can not provide the gran-ularity needed to draw any conclusions about micro scale phenomena.Following from my observations and experience in educational technologyleadership, a main aim of this study is to investigate how faculty members under-stand, talk about, and negotiate the role of technologies in their teaching practiceat BCU. The geographic perspective reminds us that this specific phenomenonoccurs at the scale of an individual in one institution, and that it can best be in-vestigated by analysis at the same level – individuals in that one institution. Inother words, to find out how faculty members at BCU interact with technologiesand their teaching, I need to use data collected from individuals at BCU.While this correspondence between the phenomenon scale and the analysisscale might seem blatantly obvious, it is too often missing both in research and indata used in educational technology leadership.Some research is focussed on larger scale trends or on theoretical constructs.And while these may be valuable in their own contexts, connections to the workingpractice of educators are difficult to establish without analysis at the institutionalscale.Similarly, the practice at the institutional scale decisions regarding educationaltechnology use and implementation are often made without data from that same,larger scale: that is, without the knowledge of how faculty at that very institutionperceive, use, and feel about the role of technologies in their practice6.SystemsWhile isolating and identifying the scale of the phenomenon and analysis is auseful organizing construct, clearly there can be interactions between phenom-ena, both at the same scale and between scales. The geographic viewpoint usesa systems approach (or theory) to analyze these between-scale interactions. Thissystems approach recognizes that most phenomena don’t exist in a vacuum; rather,6 Nespor (2004) provides a more complex exposition of the concept of educational scale: trac-ing spatial and temporal trajectories as pupils and teachers move through the educational systems.16they are part of an interlinked system of different processes.To illustrate the concept of a system, think of a typical home hot water heatingsystem. This system incorporates taps, pipes, hoses, valves and a hot water tank.Energy is input into the system through a heat source (e.g. natural gas or electricheat) and is lost from the system by running hot water from a tap and by loss tothe air inside the house. While we may have good reason to study an individualcomponent of the system (e.g. to find a leaking tap), often we will want to studythe entire system or interaction between components of the system. Furthermore,each individual component (pipe, valve, etc.) may have a different significancewhen viewed as part of the entire system than it does when looked at as an isolatedpiece7.On the surface this system may seem simple - pipes, hoses, taps, and energy- yet there are many complex interactions that may be hidden. For example, wemight want to study the turbulence in the water flow or the detailed chemicalreactions in order to know the diameter and composition of pipe materials needed.Similarly, the role of digital technologies in higher education is sometimescharacterized as a relatively simple system: students flow into the system, classesand ideas are the energy input, and the digital technologies are the pipes and tapsthat direct the flows. Yet, most people engaged in higher education easily recog-nize that this view is far too simplistic. Instead, they see that system is full ofnumerous, sometimes barely visible components and influences that interact inmany complex ways as people follow their trajectories through the system.In this research I have organized the phenomena and analysis into the fol-lowing four scales: global, provincial, local, and personal. I use the term globalscale to refer to phenomena that are primarily observed and analyzed at nationalor international levels. Provincial scale refers to phenomena and analysis at thelevel of province of British Columbia (BC). I use the term local scale to refer tophenomena and analysis primarily focuses on levels smaller than the provincial(e.g. regional, institutional, Faculty, and departmental). Finally, I use the term7This example is was originally presented by Haggett et al. (1977, p. 17).17personal scale when discussing attitudes and perceptions of individuals. This re-search report analyzes and reports on findings at each of these scales and alsomakes connections between the scales.2.2 Aims and Research QuestionsThis study begins with the overarching aim to understand BCU’s faculty mem-bers lived experiences with digital technologies in their practice. Integrating mybackground with insights gained from research literature, I realized that facultymembers’ lived experiences with digital technologies are best understood throughintegrating their stories within local, provincial, and global contexts. To investi-gate this aim, I adopted two specific research questions as follows:1. What policy frames are used surrounding digital technologies at BCU withinBritish Columbia’s multi-layered post-secondary system, and how do theseframes reflect and intersect with global trends?2. What frames do BCU faculty members use surrounding the use of digitaltechnologies? How do these frames intersect with the policy frames? Inwhat ways do they coincide and where do they differ? What structures atBCU impact these faculty frames and how do they do so?I begin engaging these questions in Movement 3 with a summary of relevantacademic literature to establish the background and theoretical frameworks uponwhich I draw for the study. In this movement, I start at the global scale andorganize the theoretical positions that have been used to study technologies. I thenturn to review some of the empirical studies – which are primarily at the personaland local scales – that have influenced the field of educational leadership. Next,I review some constructs and empirical studies which help connect this personalscale to local scales. Finally, I finish this movement by returning to review globalscale concepts – such as globalization and neo-liberalism – and engage how theycan be connected to the smaller scales.18In Movement 4, I explain the theoretical, strategic, and methodological detailsof the study.My first research question looks at provincial and local scale policy and inter-actions within the context of the larger scales, and in Movement 5, I investigatethis question and analyze two particularly important provincial policy documentsas well as policy discourse from BCU within the overarching context.The second research question centres on understanding the lived experiencesof faculty members at BCU: how they perceive and act upon the role of digitaltechnologies in their practice in the particular context of the positions and policies– analyzed in previous chapters – and the politics of the institution. In Move-ment 6, I analyze scale data collected from faculty interviews at the personal scale,and identify themes and connections between this data and the larger scale phe-nomena.Finally, in Movement 7, I summarize and synthesize the results from the vari-ous scales and makes recommendations for further research.2.2.1 Significance of StudyI believe this study is significant in a number of ways. First, by focussing intentlyon faculty experiences at BCU and by engaging with theory, it can prove useful topractitioners at BCU itself. Second, the reflective nature of the interview processhas provided participants with time and resources to reflect and build a more com-plete understanding of the layers of complex interactions that influence the roleof digital technologies within the milieu of their practice. Third, because it is anempirical study of the interactions between the local scale phenomena at BCU andthe overarching contexts of provincial and global scale influences, I believe thisstudy is relevant to other institutions within similar policy contexts.19Chapter 3Courante: Literature ReviewA movement which reviews related research and lays the theoreticalfoundation for this workTo investigate the research questions presented in Section 2.2, I draw uponand integrate a number of related existing theoretical approaches and streams ofresearch. In this movement, I review relevant literature from each of these streamsand show how I will draw upon each of those streams and their theoretical under-pinnings to conduct this research study.In Section 3.1, I start at the global scale and provide an overview of the ap-proaches taken towards technology studies. In Section 3.2, I review examples ofhow thinkers have applied concepts from the area of critical theory toward technol-ogy studies, integrating these larger contexts into smaller scales. In section 3.3, Ireview the most common approaches taken towards research into faculty perspec-tives towards e-learning – studies that primarily concentrate on the personal scale.In Section 3.4, I engage how Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus, andcapital can be applied to explain interactions between personal and local scaleswithin organizations. Finally, in Section 3.5, I summarize the global scale policyperspectives influencing higher education and investigate how phenomena at thisscale can be integrated with provincial, local and personal scale phenomena.To conduct a comprehensive background of relevant research and theoretical20ideas, I compiled a bibliographic database1 of writings relevant to my study. Iused a number of methods to find these writings. First, as my thinking about thetopics has evolved, I made special note of papers, books, and articles of particularinterest and added them to my database directly. For each of these, I combedthrough their bibliographies to delve more deeply into the sources of the thoughtsthey present – sometimes drilling down a number of levels – which provided asecond source of relevant literature.To ensure that my literature sources were not only limited to these first ordersources and their direct bloodlines, I also added to my database by performingnumerous searches using Google Scholar, UBC Library, the Directory of OpenAccess Journals, Educational Full Text, Academic Search Complete, JSTOR Artsand Sciences Archive, SpringerLink Journals, and the Education Research Com-plete holdings. Through these sources I conducted multiple searches of the litera-ture on studies related to faculty use of technologies, policy related to higher edu-cation and technology, and to the use of theoretical concepts that I felt might proveuseful (e.g. critical theory, capital, globalization, neoliberalism, etc.). I conductedsearches both on individual key words and using various boolean combinations ofterms of interest such as the following: “educational technologies”, “Instructionaland computer technologies”, “ICT”, “technology”, “teachers”, “teaching”, “fac-ulty”, “higher education”, “schools”, “policy”, “globalization”, “neoliberalism”“field”, “symbolic capital”, and “responsibilisizing”.3.1 Overview of Approaches to Technology StudiesBefore delving into the specific literature on policy, faculty, higher education, andeducational technology, it is helpful to review the variety of theoretical approachesthat have been applied to technology studies in general.I find the work summarized by Feenberg (1999, 2002, 2000) a very useful way1Currently 293 items where each resource is cited, annotated, ranked, and categorized in ataxonomy of keywords21to organize these approaches as shown in Table 3.12.Table 3.1: Views on TechnologyTechnology is: Autonomous Humanly ControlledNeutral Determinism Instrumentalism(complete separation ofmeans and ends)(e.g. modernization theory) (liberal faith in progress)Value Laden Substantivism Critical Theory(means form a way of lifethat includes the ends)(means and ends linked in systems) (choice of alternativemeans-ends systems)Table 3.1 summarizes the positions into four main perspectives – determinism,instrumentalism, substantivism, and critical theory – based on two main criteria:whether technologies are autonomous or human controlled; and whether technolo-gies are neutral or value laden.Taking the view that technologies are value neutral, we can follow along thefirst row and see there are two positions based on whether or not people have thefreedom to determine how technologies develop and evolve. If the answer is no,then the technology is autonomous and humans are just following as technologiesevolve along its own laws. Feenberg calls this position technological determinismand gives modernization theory as an example of this stance.The determinist tradition is widely seen in social sciences today through thebelief that, “the driving force of history is technological advance” (Feenberg,2003, para. 25). In this view, technology shapes society in the service of progressand efficiency. Therefore, “it is not up to us to adapt technology to our whims buton the contrary, we must adapt to technology as the most significant expressionof our humanity” (Feenberg, 2003, para. 25). In my practice, this view usuallyappears in statements that present technology as driving educational change andthat faculty must either accommodate the change (e.g. use the LMS for course2much of the explanation of this table is adapted from (Questioning Technology, Feenberg,1999)22resources, use the WWW in their classroom) or be left behind. I will show inMovement 5 that this view is evident in policy documents and in Movement 6 thatit is displayed in how participants frame technologies in their work.Still in the first row, representing a neutral view of technology, instrumental-ism is characterized by a stance that humans can control the steps in the evolutionof technologies. From this perspective, technology is value-free and the ends areseparate from the means. Consequently, technology has no preference for howit is used and humans can control technology and use it to suit our own desires.As Feenberg says, “Technology in this scheme of things encounters nature as rawmaterials, not as a world that emerges out of itself . . . but rather as stuff awaitingtransformation into whatever we desire. This world is understood mechanisticallyand not teleologically. It is there to be controlled and used without any innerpurpose” (Feenberg, 2003, para. 17).According to Feenberg, this instrumentalist view is the most commonly rep-resented conception of technology, and as I have shown in Movement 2, I see itfrequently in my practice when people say that technology is (just) a tool.In contrast to instrumentalist and determinist views, substantivism (first boxin the second row) doesn’t see technology as neutral; rather, it attributes valuesto technology that can be related to specific conceptions of the good life. Andbecause technologies embody certain specific values they can’t be seen as merelyinstrumental and they can’t be used for different purposes by different people withdifferent ideas of the good.Feenberg uses the metaphor of choosing a religion to illustrate the substantiveview of technologies. He writes:When you choose to use technology you do not simply render your existingway of life more efficient, you choose a different way of life. Technologyis thus not simply instrumental to whatever values you hold. It carries withit certain values that have the same exclusive character as religious belief.But technology is even more persuasive than religion since it requires nobelief to recognize its existence and to follow its commands. Once a soci-ety goes down the path of technological development it will be inexorably23transformed into a technological society, a specific type of society dedicatedto values such as efficiency and power (Feenberg, 2003, para. 29).We can certainly see a similarity between substantive and determinist views.However, while determinists believe that technology is the neutral servant of hu-mankind, substantive theory offers a more nuanced and comprehensive perspec-tive incorporating these notions around values.The view that I most closely associate with, and where Feenberg has developedhis work, is represented by the box labeled Critical Theory. This approach sharessome characteristics of both instrumentalism and substantivism: like instrumen-talism it sees that technology is in some sense controllable, and like substantivismit also sees technology as value-laden.The difference between substantivism and critical theory is somewhat subtleso deserves further explanation. In substantivism, technology is associated withvalues of efficiency and power, values which represent a technological way of life.So even if we can make choices between technologies, those choices are of littleconsequence since they are simply different paths within a technological way oflife. In contrast, critical theory of technology sees the values embodied in tech-nology as uniquely embedded in and related to specific social situations. Con-sequently, in this perspective technology choices are of consequence and thesechoices can lead to not one, but many different possible ways of life, “each whichreflects different choices of design and different extensions of technological me-diation” (Feenberg, 2003, para. 40).Critical theory shares the view with instrumentalism that technology deci-sions are humanly controllable. But it does not share the instrumentalist stancethat technologies are value neutral. Critical theory sees the means and ends asconnected. As Feenberg describes the difference, “even if some sort of humancontrol of technology is possible, it is not instrumental control. In critical theory,technologies are not seen as tools but as frameworks for ways of life. The choicesopen to us are situated at a higher level than the instrumental level” (Feenberg,2003, para. 42).24I find critical theory particularly appealing because it leaves space for thesehigher level, meta choices about which values we wish to embed in the technolog-ical framework of our lives. As Feenberg describes it, “Critical theory of technol-ogy opens up the possibility of thinking about such choices and submitting themto more democratic controls” (Feenberg, 2003, para. 42).But what form might these democratic interventions take? Are people suffi-ciently concerned and informed to take technologies into account in election-likeformats? Feenberg argues that we are not. Instead he recounts small-scale exam-ples (e.g. environmental movement, use of email and social networks to organizeprotests, and net neutrality3) that point to the potential of greater participation indecisions about uses of technologies.While each of these examples may seem small on their own, Feenberg sug-gests that perhaps together they represent a significant step toward a democraticrationalization of technology. Critics of critical theory question this focus on thesesmall scale political gains, claiming that the theory overestimates their signifi-cance in light of the larger picture of global capitalism (see for example, Veak,2000).3.2 Critical Theory in Educational TechnologyWhile most of the writing I have found on this critical theory approach concen-trates on its theoretical aspects, it has been applied in a number of empirical stud-ies related to digital technologies in and education.Hamilton & Feenberg (2005) employ critical theory in their empirical studythat contrasts the technical codes4 that led to the prevalence of CAI (ComputerAided Instruction) in one setting with different codes that privileged computerconferencing in another environment. In the analysis they point to the importanceof bringing to the foreground the values associated with the choices:3Principle that all types of data on the Internet are treated equally by Internet providers andgovernments with no differential pricing, throttling, or blocking.4Technical codes represent the,“background of values, assumptions, definitions, and roles thatguides technological design” (Hamilton & Feenberg, 2005, p. 111)25[t]he essential question to ask in a revised politics of online education iswhether the technology will work to facilitate the transmission of staticinformation, fostering standardized modes of interaction between humanusers, machines and commodified knowledge, or whether the technologiesand online programmes can be rooted in an essentially social ideal of educa-tion, extending and enabling new forms of mediated interaction. (Hamilton& Feenberg, 2005, p. 116)And in particular, they point to the socially specific nature of these choiceswhen they conclude that, “[t]echnology could potentially support either one ofthese programmes. But, as outcomes, they are in no sense given prior to specificappropriations within particular social settings” (Hamilton & Feenberg, 2005, p.116).Flanagin et al. (2000) have applied these ideas in a study of the develop-ment and structure of the WWW by examining its technical design, usage patterns,and formal and informal policies. By conceptualizing the Internet as a series ofchoices by designers, users, and policy makers, this approach allows them to in-terrogate the underlying social and cultural values that led to its development andexpansion. In this study they concluded that the very design of the Internet reflectsmany of the values of its developers – values, “that appear to foster equality andfreedom of information, and a certain empowerment achieved through the abil-ity to associate easily with others from a diversity of backgrounds and locations”(Flanagin et al., 2000, p. 423).Friesen (2008) applies a critical theory perspective to interrogate three widelyheld and quoted beliefs about e–learning: that we live in a knowledge economy,that users enjoy “anywhere, anytime” access, and that institutional change is gov-erned by fixed “laws” of progress in computing. He does this by examining spe-cific claims and comparing them to actual social conditions. Through his anal-ysis, Friesen concludes that these common-sense beliefs are actually myths that,“simplify or obscure a complex social reality that is constituted by different andconflicting forms of knowledge, and these claims are shown to work to the benefit26of interests that are hegemonic and conservative in nature” (Friesen, 2008, para.1).I find much promise in incorporating this critical theory approach to educa-tional technology studies, particularly in the way that it provides a more subtleapproach compared to the commonly applied instrumental views on technologies.While my research interests are not specifically rooted in details of technologiesthemselves as are most of the applications of the theory cited above – for exam-ple, I am not investigating details about design of specific software or networks –I find this framework relevant for my research. In particular I find the approachtaken by Friesen a particularly useful guide when analyzing policy discourse inMovement 5.3.3 E-learning Research – Personal ScaleEverett Rogers’s book, Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1995), can be used tohelp explain how much e-learning research literature focusses on the personalscale and situates faculty members’ attitudes towards technological change. InRogers’s model, technologies are “disseminated” through a largely passive au-dience of “users”. Because the technologies are ready-made and the populationmainly passive, the model allows for two dichotomous responses – either adaptionor resistance. Much e-learning research focusses on teachers’ attitudes to tech-nologies and attempts to categorize those responses using this model: teachersare portrayed as either early-adopters or late adopters; innovators or laggards (forexamples, see Mahony & Wozniak, 2006; Bull et al., 2002; Woodell & Garofoli,2003). And as I have shown in Movement 2, this tendency for binary categoriza-tion extends beyond the academic literature into the common language used in thepractice of educational technology leadership.Numerous empirical studies have drawn on Rogers’s work to investigate howfaculty members use technologies in their practice. The vast majority of these toohave focussed greatly on teachers’ attitudes towards technology (for examples,see Gressard & Loyd, 1986; Woodrow, 1992; Watson, 1998). These studies focus27on teachers’ attitudes because, “[t]eachers’ attitudes are major predictors of theuse of new technologies in instructional settings” (Gulbahar & Guven, 2008, p.38).Noting the importance of teachers’ attitudes, Albirini (2004) tries to delvedeeper into the causes of these attitudes: “[w]hile the study of teachers’ attitudesis in itself important, a more significant challenge is to identify the factors thatmay have produced these attitudes” (Albirini, 2004, p. 7). In his doctoral dis-sertation, he examined 887 Syrian teachers’ attitudes towards technologies andthe factors that contributed to those attitudes, “including computer attributes, cul-tural perceptions, computer competence, computer access, and teachers’ personalcharacteristics” (Albirini, 2004, p. 7).Also trying to explain teachers’ attitudes, Rogers (1995) stays at the personalscale when he investigates key attributes of the technologies themselves that in-fluenced whether they are accepted and adopted by faculty. In this work, he iden-tifies the following five key attributes of a technology that would make it likelyfor faculty to adopt: that it has a clear advantage over previous methods, that it iscompatible with existing practice, that it is not too complicated or complex to use,that it shows observable results, and finally, that it can be tested on a limited basisbefore its full-scale adoption.Some recent research in educational technology studies tries to make connec-tions between the personal scale (attitudes) and the local scale factors (schoollevel), such as the Gulbahar & Guven (2008) study of 326 Turkish primary schoolsocial studies teachers. In this study they identify factors that most encouragedteachers’ use of technologies, and the relate those attributes to teachers’ percep-tions of their own computer expertise. Amongst other things, they found thatteachers felt strongly about a sufficient support structure and resources, ampletraining time and resources, and ongoing opportunities to share and develop skillsand experiences surrounding their technology use.Other researchers have also made connections between the personal and localscale and identified a number of these issues as particularly important in determin-28ing faculty adoption of technologies. For example, Demetriadis et al. (2003) focuson the importance of training and support offered by the institution and concludethat, “[t]raining efforts are generally welcomed by teachers but consistent supportand extensive training is necessary in order for them to consider themselves ableto integrate [technologies] in their teaching methodologies” (Demetriadis et al.,2003, p. 35).This stream of e-learning research is helpful for my study because it allowsme to draw upon a solid base of literature surrounding faculty attitudes towardsthe use of technologies. Furthermore, the research that more broadly focusseson factors contributing to these attitudes reiterates the importance of institutionalsupport and training. Yet, despite these useful insights, e-learning research is alsoof limited use to me because of strategic, theoretical, and ethical concerns.The strategic concern surrounds the focus of the e-learning literature on fac-ulty members’ attitudes towards technologies. The concept of faculty attitudes isrelated to, but not a direct match with, my research interest of how faculty frametechnologies. In the literature, the term, “attitudes” tends be used in restrictiveways – do faculty use certain technologies or not. While this is an interest to me, Iuse the term, “frame” to indicate my focus on the broader concept of how facultymembers organize, perceive and communicate about technologies in their work.Because e-learning research focusses so much on individual attitudes, I feel that itmisses much of the interactions and influences of the overlapping contexts at theorganizational, the governmental, or the global scales.In addition to my interest in a broader conception of framing, I am also con-cerned that most of the e-learning research focusses so much on the personal scale,with only a few examples broadening the scope to the local scale of the institu-tion. As I explained earlier, while I am interested in the personal scale of facultyframing, a key element of my research lies in making explicit the connections tothe higher level scales.My theoretical concern is that much of this research treats technologies as neu-tral and is therefore grounded in instrumentalism, a stance that conflicts with my29critical theory perspective. Because of the theoretical approach of this literature,faculty use of technologies is viewed as the instrumental choice made by ratio-nal individual teachers based on their attitudes towards, and the attributes of, thetechnologies, and the research largely fails to acknowledge the values embeddedin those decisions.My final concern – which I call ethical in nature – is with the ethical stancethat seems to underpin this research stream. Much of the research in this streamseems pre-occupied with an overarching goal to understand ways to increase fac-ulty adoption of new technologies. When technologies are presented as solutionsto problems, then getting more faculty members to use technologies is a logicalsolution to those problems. From this perspective, much of this research takesa stance that understanding teachers’ attitudes is a prerequisite to limiting facultyresistance and ensure the success of technology implementation (For example, seeAlbirini, 2004; Woodrow, 1992; Watson, 1998). I do not share this deficit modelview of faculty members and do not endorse an overarching goal of trying to getmore faculty members to adopt technologies.3.4 Bourdieu - Connecting the Local and PersonalScalesAs I worked through thoughts about my research questions, I found it useful toengage the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu – especially when trying to make connec-tions between personal and local scale. While Bourdieu does not explicitly takeon technologies per se very much, in his books on media he does suggest that“technical objects” are worth serious study.Some authors (see for example, Sterne, 2003) have engaged Bourdeusian con-cepts interrogating how technologies become technologies through social practiceby invoking the concepts of habitus, capital, and field5.5“Habitus is a concept that mediates between relatively structured social relations and rela-tively objectified forms of economic or social agency or interest. Bourdieu uses the term field todescribe groups of interrelated social actors, and capital to describe the specific forms of agency30Engaging these ideas has reminded me to pay careful attention to how I definethe objects of my study. In contrast to the approaches of the e-learning stud-ies discussed in Section 3.3, which define technologies themselves as the objectsof study, I take the Bourdeusian approach that, “technologies do not have an exis-tence independent of social practice, [and] they cannot be studied in isolation fromsociety” (Sterne, 2003, p. 385). I have learned from this approach that the objectsof my study are not the technologies themselves. Instead, I am studying the poli-cies, the framing, and the politics that surround technologies in higher education.And these ideas from Bourdieu are particularly useful to help me understand thesocial practice within the organization.Kvasny (2006) uses Bourdieu’s theory to inform her empirical study investi-gating the effectiveness of community technology centers in providing computerskills to inner-city communities. In this research, she questions the underlyingassumptions for the centers – that greater access and computer skills will improvethe life chances of those involved with the centers – and reframes the problems asprimarily social rather than technology based.She concludes that, while these programs are often seen as successes in thatthey do actually increase the digital literacy of some members of the community,they represent policy built on misrecognition of the problems causing inner-citypoverty. Rejecting the common-sense framing of the problems as being rooted intechnological divides, Kvasny examines the role of culture in reproducing, “long-standing social inequities [that] shape beliefs and expectations regarding ICT andits impacts on life chances” (Kvasny, 2006, p. 160).In another study, Kvasny & Trauth (2002) challenge the commonly held be-lief that technologies can help under-represented groups level the playing fieldand create more of a meritocracy. Here they examine dominant discourses aboutpower within information technology and investigate how people from variousunder-represented groups respond to these dominant discourses.In another study, Kvasny (2005) also employed Bourdieu’s concept of habitusand prestige within a given field” (Sterne, 2003, p. 375).31to explain the discourse and conceptions around inner-city technology trainingcentres. Here she compares the discourse of the officials who created the centersto that of the inner-city residents making use of the facilities. She finds that theofficials implementing programs talk about the programs’ benefits as providingtechnical skills to allow participants to become job-ready. In contrast, she findsparticipants’ discourse shows that they believe that they have only made “babysteps” and, for the most part, they remained unemployed, or underemployed, aftercompleting programs.She also compared how the officials who implemented the programs spokeabout the benefits they themselves receive from the implementation. To the of-ficials, their own personal benefits centered around the increased communicationand networking that the technologies provide. Yet when the same officials spokethe benefits for the program participants, they did not speak about those samenetworking and communications aspects. Instead, they spoke about providingparticipants with much more basic computing skills.Davis (2005) has engaged Bourdieu’s concepts in a particularly relevant studythat analyzes the process and political implications associated with the develop-ment of a web-based foreign language software project at large US public re-search university. This study focusses on a single large department, and it followschronologically through the successful development of a software project and con-centrates on the organizational framing and politics surrounding the project.One of the key findings of this study was evidence to refute the deterministposition, characterized as:the entire form of society is . . . determined by technology: New technolo-gies transform society at every level, including institutions, social interac-tion and individuals . . . Human factors and social arrangements are seen assecondary (Chandler (1995) as cited in, Davis, 2005).This study highlighted the importance of symbolic capital and tracked the dis-tribution of capital, both economic (the project brought funding to the department)and symbolic (the project both raised the prestige of the department and recon-32figured the power and prestige within the department) through the lifecycle andaftermath of the project. And as these configurations of capital changed, so didthe habitus – the sensibilities, the accepted norms, and the dominant values – ofthe field (department).This stream of research shows how I can draw upon Bourdieu’s concepts tohelp analyze the changing nature of the field of higher education – specificallyteaching at BCU. Furthermore, they provide good examples of how to apply thenotion of power and symbolic capital to help make connections between the per-sonal and the local scale in this study.3.5 Globalization and Educational Policy -Connecting to Provincial and Global ScalesWhile my initial motivation for this study grew out of my practice and questionsabout how faculty at BCU think about and engage with technologies in their prac-tice, it is clear that these personal and local scale phenomenon exist within a larger,global scale framework of complications, interactions, and feedbacks. Throughmy studies and research, I became more aware of ways of thinking about theseglobal scale phenomena, and I wanted to see how these scales were connected. Iwanted to draw connections between ideology, policy, practice, and faculty mem-bers lived experiences surrounding technology and education.In their analysis of globalization and educational policy, Rizvi & Lingard(2013) relate scales to Bourdieu’s concept of fields. They suggest that educationalpolicy exists within the context of overlapping fields: a global field (which I amcalling global scale), a national field (which for this study I am also calling theglobal scale), and a regional field (which I am calling provincial scale). By not-ing the overlapping between layers, they highlight the opportunity to study theinterconnections between those fields.Robertson & Dale (2013) point to a large change in the influence of differentscales on educational policy over the past few decades, with greater power beingincreasingly felt from global scale actors and agencies. While globalization and33what it means is a contested notion, the concept has been presented as influenc-ing changes in higher education when described as, “the economic, political, andsocietal forces pushing twenty-first century higher education toward greater inter-national involvement” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 290). But, it is more than justa concept used to describe empirical changes in economic activities. It represents,“both an ideological formation and a social imaginary that now shapes discoursesof educational policy” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2013, p. 23).While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to critique the different viewson globalization in education, I don’t want to reify globalization as the “cause”of education policy. So instead of thinking of globalization as a blanket struc-tural cause, I think it is useful to see these global trends as important factors thatinfluence and impact education policy - which is still local and contextual - andultimately how the policy affects the practice of educators.On this scale it is not only the increasing power of globalization that impactsexerting educational policy, but how, “[c]urrent forms of privatising and global-ising in and of education are connected together by a common political project -that of neoliberalism” (Robertson & Dale, 2013, p. 427)Since the elections of Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980’s, neoliberal6economic policies - including cutting back government budgets, privatizing gov-ernment operations, and charging user fees for many services - have taken overfrom more interventionist policies that had prevailed earlier (Klees, 2008; Rizvi& Lingard, 2013). Not only were these policies implemented in North Americaand Europe, but they had a much broader reach on the global scale as the IMF andWorld Bank changed policy direction as well (Klees, 2008, p. 311).While globalization and neoliberalism do not necessarily move in lock step,some suggest it makes sense to characterize how they overlap by using the concept6“Neoliberalism, here, is treated neither as a concrete economic doctrine nor as a definite set ofpolitical projects. Rather, I treat neoliberalism as a complex, often incoherent, unstable and evencontradictory set of practices that are organized around a certain imagination of the market as abasis for the universalization of market-based social relations, with the corresponding penetrationin almost every single aspect of our lives of the discourse and/or the practice of commodification,capital accumulation, and profit making” (Shamir, 2008).34of “neoliberal globalism” (Dalea & Robertson, 2004, p. 140). As a result of theseideological and technology shifts, governments have increasingly moved towards,“a minimalist role for the state in education, with a greater reliance on marketmechanisms” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2013, p. 3).According to Rizvi & Lingard, hand-in-hand with neoliberal thinking andglobalization, a “social efficiency” perspective is becoming the dominant viewof the goals of education. This view, “requires education to play a more impor-tant instrumental role in developing workers able to contribute to the economicproductivity of nations and corporations alike” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2013, p. 79).Simultaneously, Klees argues that the rise of neoliberalism and globalization hasled to a sea change in thinking about education characterized by, “the increaseduse of some form of user fees; the privatisation of more educational activities; andthe direct connection of management and financing of education to measurableoutput” (Klees, 2008, p. 312).Brown (2003) points out that neoliberalism not only refers to economic poli-cies, but it also encompasses a political rationality that involves, “extending anddisseminating market values to all institutions and social action” (Brown, 2003,para. 7). And with this rationality, the state “must not simply concern itself withthe market but think and behave like a market actor” (para. 10) and therefore ac-quiesce to market forces in spheres that would otherwise be considered separatemoral and political realms.Recent advancements in communications and computing technologies havecertainly been key players in the burgeoning neoliberal globalism, as evidencedby the ubiquity of terms such as “knowledge economy” and “knowledge soci-ety”. And in higher education, these technologies have been equally influential inthe language and debate, leading to predictions of a, “dramatic revolution” (Tett,2013) that would mean less faculty autonomy, could lead to the end of “courses” aswe know them (Kim, 2014) or even entirely eliminate the need for post-secondaryinstitutions (Saccaro, 2014), to be replaced by distribution of information andcommunications through the WWW such as free websites (e.g. wikipedia), openly35available course websites (e.g. open education movement), or unlimited partici-pation courses (e.g. MOOCS).While some academics question the headlong rush towards increasing tech-nology use, for the most part the media frame the technologies as an unalloyedgood: promising a, “budding revolution in global online higher education” and ofMOOCS specifically that, “[n]othing has more potential to lift more people out ofpoverty” (Friedman, 2013).And there is no doubt that digital technologies are becoming ever more ubiq-uitous in higher education. For example, consider results from the recent surveyon the use of LMS’s in the US: 99% of institutions have LMS’s in place, and 99%of faculty and 83% of students use them – at least to some extent – while 56%of both faculty and students saying they use their LMS daily (Dahlstrom et al.,2014, p. 4). The study goes on to summarize that, “global LMS revenue wasestimated at $1.9 to $2.6 billion in 2013, with projected growth to $7.8 billion by2018” (Dahlstrom et al., 2014, p. 5).So how does the ever increasing reach of technologies in higher education tiein with neoliberalism and globalization? One connection arises when technologiesare presented as answers to economic imperatives.For example, Moody’s investors rating service recently downgraded the en-tire US higher education sector from a “stable” to “negative” outlook due to,“mounting fiscal pressure on all key university revenue sources” in general, andin particular noting that, “universities can expect the share of their operating rev-enues from state appropriations to continue to stagnate or even decline” (Moody’s,2013). Increased use of digital technologies can be touted as a mandatory path inlight of neoliberal austerity measures towards education funding (Olds, 2013).As Moody’s writes, this represents a, “fundamental shift in strategy by industryleaders to embrace technological changes that have threatened to destabilize theresidential college and university’s business model over the long run” (Moody’s,2013).Thrift sees these trends as indicators of a move towards “Big Ed”: a push36towards all but the elite universities moving from independent institutions to be-coming more like chain stores. As he describes this future:[T]hese conglomerates will be public-private entities based on supplyingperformance-based contracts financed by government and on meeting de-mand from individual consumers who will have large arrays of informationabout quality variability available. The days of relying on block grants fromgovernment will pass (Thrift, 2012).Another trend becoming apparent is the increase in partnerships between highereducation institutions and private companies. For example, Rochester Instituteof Technology (RIT) recently signed an agreement with furniture manufacturerSteelcase to create a “classroom as a learning tool” space (Bolkan, 2014). Andthis “Partner or Perish” perspective is not without its risks, including the limitedchoice of platforms, limited transparency of many agreements, and the result thatmost of the revenue from partnerships goes to the private partners (Kolowich,2014).In addition to the potential pitfalls noted above, in the rush towards digitaltechnologies as solutions, faculty members often do not have a place to make theirviews heard (Azevedo, 2012). And the pressure to strike digital technology dealsquickly can have great consequences all though the hierarchy in higher educationmanagement too. Recently, the University of Virginia dismissed its president be-cause of her lack of push on the technology front. She was perceived as,“not onthe cutting edge and going where Stanford and Harvard were going” (Azevedo,2012).At the same time that digital technologies are framed as solutions to global andnational economic problems, they are also presented as part of a very local scalesolution to a language of “personalized learning” that reframes, “the learner orperson as the ideal subject of education policy and philosophy” (Pykett, 2009, p.375). This personalized scale framing masks a, “more centralized, target driven,performance-led, managerial, and competitive education system” (Pykett, 2009,p. 375)37Higher education in British Columbia is influenced by the same pressureswe see globally, including shrinking public funding. As former UBC PresidentStephen Toope describes it, “the big problem in theWest is that government grantsto higher education are basically flatlined, and have been, in our case, for five years. . . there is less money being spent on a per capita basis than in the 1970’s” (Todd,2014). Four decades ago, the provincial government used to provide 70 per centof UBC’s budget, but today it has dropped to less than 45 per cent, a per studentgrant decline from $17,000 to $11,000 in today’s dollars (Todd, 2014).These declining government grants have led BC’s universities to seek more do-nations, embrace market principles (e.g. rent out facilities, reconfigure programswith new fee structures, etc.), recruit and enroll more full fee paying internationalstudents, and to cut “a swath of programs” (Richter, 2014).While these examples all illustrate evidence of globalization and neoliberalismin specific policies, how are they related to the local and even personal scale?The concept of responsibilization here can prove very useful to help make theconnections.The term responsibilization was developed in the literature on governance, andit refers to the set of processes by which individuals become responsbile for tasksfor which they formerly would not have been responsible, tasks that might havebeen the duty of the state, an institution, or perhaps not even recognized as a dutyat all (O’Malley, 2009). The term is closely associated with a neoliberal politicaldiscourse and is founded on a “ general neoliberal drive to ground social relationsin the economic rationality of markets” (Shamir, 2008, p. 3).Many authors refer to responsibilization as a technique of governance, and assuch, “in contrast to mere compliance with rules [it] presupposes one’s care forone’s duties and one’s un-coerced application of certain values as a root motivationfor action” (Selznick (2002) as cited in Shamir, 2008, p. 7).A key element in this connection to overarching ideology lies in individualsbeing constructed as, and identifying as, autonomous and independent contrac-tors who believe that the duties or tasks before them will benefit them – in an38entrepreneurial or employability sense (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005). If peoplesee themselves as autonomous and see benefit in certain duties or tasks, then theywill responsibilisize them (take on the responsibility for those tasks themselves).Again, this is not only an economic connection, but a politcal and moral one.As Brown (2003) describes it:In making the individual fully responsible for her/himself, neoliberalismequates moral responsibility with rational action; it relieves the discrepancybetween economic and moral behaviour by configuring morality entirely asa matter of rational deliberation about costs, benefits, and consequences.(Brown, 2003, para. 15)3.6 SummaryAs this movement has shown, there are a number of research traditions uponwhich I draw to investigate my research questions. I am firmly rooted in thecritical theory approach to these questions, and this approach acts as my maintheoretical guide at all scales of analysis. In particular, I draw upon these guideswhen analyzing provincial and local policy documents in Movement 5. I drawupon some useful resources in the e-learning literature in Movement 6. In thismovement, I also draw upon the concepts and research incorporating Bourdieu’sideas to help understand the dynamics and relations at the BCU’s local scale. Fi-nally, I draw upon global scale ideas such as globalisation and neoliberalism tohelp situate policy framing at the provincial and local scales and I use the conceptof responsibilization to make connections to the personal scale.39Chapter 4Sarabande: Methodology andMethodsA movement which summarizes how this work was constructed4.1 General Research StrategyTo investigate the research questions presented in Movement 2, I needed to makenumerous interrelated decisions on a number of levels as pointed out by a numberof authors (see for example, Bryman & Teevan, 2005; Creswell, 2003; Denizen& Lincoln, 2011; Crotty, 1998). Creswell has conceptualized this multitude ofinterrelated questions about research design as follows:1. What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including a the-oretical perspective)?2. What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures?3. What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?404.1.1 Knowledge ClaimsA number of authors have identified the positivist and constructivist traditionsas the two main paradigms that dominate educational research (see for exampleDenzin & Lincoln, 2005; Jonassen, 1991; Alexander, 2006).The positivist position entails an objectivist ontology (that phenomena are ex-ternal to observers, and beyond their impact) and takes a deductive approach totheory, stating a hypothesis, then employing the scientific method attempting tobe value-free in testing the hypothesis. As I showed by summarizing the researchin Movement 3 and my practice in Movement 2, positivist frameworks dominatethe e–learning research and the practice of educational technology leadership.In contrast to this tradition, the constructivist paradigm rejects the positivistnotion of an objective reality for a relativistic ontology that reality is local andspecific and constructed by individuals and groups (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p.193). The overarching goal of this approach is to, “see through the eyes of thepeople being studied” (Bryman & Teevan, 2005, p. 154) and to understand theirbehaviours and beliefs in their own particular contexts.This research project is grounded in the constructivist tradition. My overar-ching concern in this research and the way I have formulated the research ques-tions show that I am interested in “visiting” (Creswell, 2003, p. 9) the context offaculty at BCU. I am interesting in gathering information and trying to interpret(make sense of) the multiple threads of how participants see digital technologiesplay out in their practice. I am interested in analyzing policy discourse and mak-ing connections with larger scale trends and with the lived experiences of studyparticipants.In addition to positivist and constructivist positions about knowledge claims,Creswell (2003) identifies a third position he calls advocacy/participatory research.This position grew out of a concern that a, “constructivist stance did not go farenough in advocating for an action agenda to help marginalized people” (Creswell,2003, p. 9) and can be seen in some of the research summarized in Section 3.2and Section 3.4. While my research is not driven by the emancipation and so-41cial justice concerns of much participatory research, I do embrace some elementsassociated with this paradigm.In particular, I draw on the elements suggested by Hostetler that, “good ed-ucational research requires our careful, ongoing attention to questions of humanwell-being” (Hostetler, 2005, p. 16). Specifically, I hope that these findings canbe used to bring about a change in practice at BCU. I also hope that, at least insome small way, study participants have been given the opportunity and incentiveto reflect on and make connections between their own experiences with digitaltechnologies at BCU and the institutional and provincial contexts within whichtheir experiences have played out. Finally, I hope that at some level this researchhelps to spark or stoke political debate about the values and aims of education andthe roles that technologies should play in working towards those goals.4.1.2 Strategies of InquiryHaving established the stance upon which I am seeking to understand the problemand make knowledge claims, I chose research strategies that were epistemologi-cally consistent with this approach: strategies that employed qualitative methodsemphasizing words and meaning rather than numbers and statistics.Much qualitative research takes an inductive approach to build theory fromobservation in the field, “from the ground up”. However, in addition to this roleof building theory, some argue there is also a role for qualitative research to ”test”theory (see for example, Silverman, 2006).My approach to this research should be seen as combining both building andtesting senses of this relationship with theory. My first research question looksinto how policy frames technologies and this question can be viewed from this“testing” perspective by investigating how these theoretical constructs play outin policy documents. The second research question delves deeply into individualparticipants’ lived experiences at the local scale and therefore can be viewed morefrom the the inductive approach of building theory. By asking for rich detailof participants’ experiences and trying to interpret the multiple threads looking42for important themes, I am building the themes and theories. Additionally, thesedetailed conversations will also provide opportunity to “test” if the theories areevident in participants’ discourses about their experiences.In addition to employing qualitative strategies, the very nature of my over-arching question suggests a case study framework is an appropriate approach tothe topic. Case studies entail in-depth investigation, bounded in time, of a singlelocation, and they try to understand phenomena within real-work context, “es-pecially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearlyevident” (Yin, 1994, p. 14).BCU 1 was founded approximated forty years ago during the rapid expansionin BC’s community college system. Nearly a decade ago, along with a numberof other colleges, BCU’s designation was changed to university status, and todayit serves approximately 15,000 students (combined full-time and part-time) andoffers programs leading to certificates, diplomas, and degrees in numerous pro-grams.I have been a faculty member at BCU for the last twenty five years. I startedteaching Geography full-time, then spent approximately fifteen years as Managerof BCU’s CET, and have recently returned to teaching Geography full-time.I chose BCU as the location for this study for a number of reasons. First, itis the site of my practice and the setting where my questions originated. Second,I also am deeply immersed in the culture of BCU and therefore have much tacitknowledge of the setting: I understand much of the unarticulated contextual un-derstandings that are taken for granted by BCU faculty members. I believe that thistacit knowledge allows me to build a richer understanding than if I were studyinga location where I did not have this detailed knowledge. Third, I intend to cyclethe findings from my research back into my practice at BCU.1In addition to anonymizing the name of the institution, I have purposefully kept the detailsbrief in order to protect the privacy of the individuals involved in the study.434.1.3 Research MethodsI have used the approach to knowledge claims and research strategies describedabove to lead to two specific methods (or procedures) to investigate the specificresearch questions: policy analysis and qualitative interviews.4.2 Policy AnalysisBecause, “much of social life in modern society is mediated by written texts ofdifferent kinds” (Pera¨kyla¨, 2005, p. 869), analyzing text is one of the main em-pirical materials available to qualitative research. To investigate my first researchquestion – how does policy frame digital technologies? – I draw from methodsassociated with textual analysis to analyze policy documents and discourse at boththe provincial level and the institutional level.The Canadian education sector is primarily under provincial jurisdiction; con-sequently, BC provincial government public policy heavily influences the day-to-day practice at BCU. While the concept of “policy” is a complicated notion in-volving actions, non-actions, intentions, directions, processes, debates, etc. (seefor example, Rizvi & Lingard, 2013; Taylor et al., 1997; Ball, 1994), I have cho-sen to analyze two influential policy documents that represent much of the think-ing behind BC public post-secondary education policy at the provincial level. Ichose these documents because they were both very influential in influencing post-secondary institutions in BC. Additionally, I chose them because they bracketedmy study – from just before to just after – and illustrate a very quick change ingovernment policy surrounding digital technologies in higher education.Released a few years before this study began, Campus 2020: Thinking Ahead.The Report. Access and Excellence: The Campus 2020 Plan for British Columbia (Plant,2007) was meant to be a, “broad, conceptual map rather than a detailed blueprint” (Met-calfe et al., 2007, p. 1). This plan was widely discussed throughout the higher ed-ucation field across BC and within BCU, and it was extensively discussed amongsteducational technology practitioners. Additionally, the plan was released around44the same time that the provincial government changed BCU to university desig-nation, and this plan frequently surfaced in discussions surrounding the changingvision, mission, and mandate of BCU.BC’s Skills For Jobs Blueprint: Re-engineering Education and Training (Gov-ernment of BC, 2014) was, as its name implies, released as a blueprint for thepost-secondary system in BC. As it was released after I had completed the inter-views for this study, I could not have found any direct links to the document inparticipants’ comments. However, the language used in this document providesinteresting insight into the changing context in which I conducted the interviews.Furthermore, subsequent to much of my data collection, this document has be-come even more important as it has tied funding to programming decisions atBCU.To analyze these provincial policy documents, I drew on methods of thematicanalysis as described by Braun & Clarke (2006) as well as discourse analyses con-ducted by critical theorists such as Feenberg (1999) and Friesen (2008). I beganthe analysis by familiarizing myself with the documents through multiple, carefulreadings. Next, I identified passages of text either explicitly or implicitly relatedto digital technologies in higher education. Within these identified passages, Iidentified and reviewed common themes, paying particular attention to ideologiespresented as common sense, self-evident, neutral, or objective (Friesen, 2008).In addition to policy at the provincial scale, I also analyzed institutional poli-cies at BCU. I used a similar approach as described above for the provincial policydocuments. However, at this scale, to help maintain anonymity, instead of ana-lyzing the full-text of policy documents, I chose the source as general policy dis-course in addition to small text snippets from BCU policy documents. I consideredas BCU policy discourse concepts and directions discussed during the qualitativeinterviews (see Section 4.3) where it was clear the participants and the researcherboth understood the context and meaning of the policy. BCU policy documentseither published publicly or made available to all BCU faculty members were alsoincluded as institutional policy documents. Having identified the data sources for45BCU policy, I analyzed this data with the same methods as described above for theprovincial policy.4.3 Qualitative InterviewsTo investigate the second research question – the frames participants use surround-ing digital technologies – I rely on data collected from semi-structured interviewswith ten BCU Faculty of Arts and Sciences faculty members.I have leaned heavily on the writing of Kvale (1996) to guide my interviewplanning. He uses the metaphor of the interviewer as a traveler to illustrate a con-structivist approach to interviewing (Kvale, 1996, pp. 3-6). I find this metaphorparticularly relevant here because I viewed these interviews as a journey that willleave me with stories to tell. And like any traveller on a journey, I find that theprocesses change me and my perspectives. This view led me to choose a semi-structured interview format, and I encouraged participants to see the interviews asconversations about a topic of mutual interest.Flowing from my research questions, and thinking about the thematic orderand dynamic structure of the interviews, I mapped out an interview guide thatlists the topics and sequence for the questions, as shown in Appendix B.With the goal of having ten faculty members participate in the study, from myUBC address I sent invitations to 47 BCU faculty members from on Faculty (seeAppendix D for the invitation letter). I choose these faculty members because Ihad worked with all of them before, because they were from an area of BCU withwhich I had tacit knowledge, and because they all used technologies in their teach-ing to some extent. Twelve faculty members expressed interest in participating,but two were not available within the timelines to complete the study. This leftten participants interested and available – which was the number I had originallyplanned to have. These participants were asked to complete a short demographicsurvey2 and the results are presented in Table 4.1. In this table, age refers to theage of participants when the interviews were conducted, and seniority refers to2Demographic questionnaire is included in Appendix D.46how many years participants had been working at BCU when the interviews wereconducted. Expertise, use, and potential are self-rated on a Likert-like scale of1 – 5, where 1 refers to the least and 5 refers to the most. Expertise refers toparticipants’ expertise in digital technologies. Use refers to participants’ currentlevel of use of digital technologies. And potential refers to participants’ feelingson whether increased use of technologies has the potential to improve teaching.Table 4.1: Interview Participants Demographic DataPseudonym Gender Age Seniority Expertise Use PotentialRobyn F 5160 > 20 3 2 1Sara F 5160 1520 4 4 5Victor M > 60 < 35 2 2 3Michael M 5160 2025 3 3 3John M 3140 < 5 5 4 3Lisa F 5160 2025 4 5 4Barb F 5160 2025 3 4 4Jane F 5160 2025 2 1 3Kevin M 4150 1520 3 2 4Greg M 4150 610 2 3 4While it was not a specific goal to try to include all demographics, the partic-ipants are relatively evenly split by gender and technology expertise. The partici-pants do however, skew very heavily to the more experienced and older end of thecontinuums. The participants originate from 5 different departments, all from thesame Faculty.With each participant, I scheduled an initial interview of approximately onehour length, at a location of mutual convenience. I recorded each interview ontwo mobile digital recorders, and then transcribed the interview data to text docu-ments. I sent transcriptions to participants, asked them to verify what I transcribedwas both accurate and what they intended to say, and encouraged them to clarifyor elaborate on any elements of the conversations For three participants, I sched-uled follow up interviews to clarify and expand on one or more questions. Again,47I transcribed the second interview and sent those transcriptions to the participantsfor verification.I started analyzing the data – coding interview transcripts and identifying find-ing themes – with paper copies, using pen and highlighters. I quickly found thatusing specific qualitative data analysis software was essential to keep track of mywork.I initially read through interview transcripts and noted which answers relatedto which interview question and which research question. I started by groupingcodes into hierarchies identified in my initial research questions. For example,a top level code called symbols contains subsidiary codes identifying differentways faculty used symbolism to describe their experiences with technologies. An-other top-level code, org, contains all the codes surrounding descriptions of howrelationships and politics at BCU show up in faculty descriptions. These codesand hierarchies evolved, and over the course of analysis I had three revised ver-sions of codebooks (see Appendix C for a sample of one hierarchy from my code-book).Through an iterative cycle or identifying and analyzing codes, I graduallydeveloped themes that recurred and cross-cut through the interview data.I find the musical metaphor I present in the Prelude to this dissertation is alsoa helpful way to think about analyzing interviews with participants in the study.Perhaps it would be even more appropriate if we changed the genre from classicalto improvised jazz. Now, instead of pre-composed parts, the musicians use onlya very basic agreed upon harmonic structure (chords) to spontaneously compose(improvise) the performance.How would we analyze this performance when we don’t even have a musicalscore upon which to consult? Some of the key elements would certainly includethe following: a detailed understanding of the chords, the rhythm, and the style;perfect pitch would allow us to write down the exact notes they musicians areplaying; attentive listening and observation; and in depth knowledge of the settingand background that lead to the performance.Turning to the interviews for this study, I know the main chordal structure, the48basis for the performance well. The interview conversations followed interviewquestions that grew out of my research questions. And while I don’t have perfectpitch, I recorded all the interviews and transcribed to text all the conversations.Where answers were unclear or inconclusive I conducted follow-up interviewswith participants. Finally, my work at BCU, and in the same faculty as the par-ticipants, allows me to approach the analysis with a good understanding of thebackground and context surrounding the interviews.Just as others would interpret a musical performance differently, there areother ways to analyze these interviews. However, I believe that the care and atten-tion I directed towards thorough analysis, and my knowledge of the context, allsupport my analysis as warranted.4.4 Credibility of ResearchWithin the interpretivist tradition a proliferation of research methods has led tomultiple and contested approaches for evaluating educational research.For example, Lincoln & Guba (1985) suggest that the evaluation of qualita-tive research should centre around the concept of trustworthiness, which they sayconsists of the following four aspects: credibility, transferability, dependability,and confirmability.Alternately, Howe & Eisenhart (1990) propose a set of four general standardsfor qualitative research: fit between research questions and data collection andanalysis; effective application of specific data collection and analysis techniques;alertness to and coherence of background assumptions; and overall warrant.Tracy (2010) presents a pedagogical model of eight “big–tent” criteria thatall excellent qualitative research should meet: worthy topic; rigour; sincerity;credibility; resonance; significant contribution; ethics; and meaningful coherence.Because there is no one “gold standard” for evaluating this research I havechosen to take certain elements from each of these approaches and summarizethose that I think are most important to demonstrate the credibility of this study.I think that this study is credible because I have been careful to ensure a fit be-49tween the approach to knowledge generation, my strategic approach to the study,my formulation of the research questions, and my methods of data collectionand analysis. My epistemological position led to the research questions, researchquestions led to the strategies, and the strategies led to the methods and analysis.Not only have I been careful to ensure and show this line of reasoning, butI have been in frequent contact with my supervisory committee of UBC EDSTfaculty members. I believe that my attention to detail, and the supervision by anexperienced committee, speaks to a worthy topic and appropriate rigour that meetsthe standards of good practice in the field.I have kept detailed documentation of the procedures and findings throughoutthe study. All procedures were recorded in a detailed research log that is availablefor review by my committee. I have sent summary memos to my supervisor aftereach meeting. Additionally, detailed notes and written interview transcriptionshave been provided to the study participants in order to ensure the accuracy of thethose conversations.I have paid careful attention to the ethical dimensions related to the researchand study participants. I have taken extensive efforts to ensure the personal pri-vacy and ethical considerations towards participants and the study has passed thescrutiny of the UBC Behavioural Ethics Review Board and the BCU ethics researchcommittee. (see Appendix A)Finally, I believe this research is credible because I have acted in good faith bybeing as transparent and reflective as possible about the influences on the research.Throughout this report, and particularly in Movement 2, I have in detail describedmy practice, background, and motivation behind this study and how my thoughtsregarding this research have changed over the length of the study.4.5 Researcher PositionalityMy positionality in this research is both as an insider and an outsider. I am aninsider in that I am a faculty colleague of those I have interviewed. At the sametime, I might be seen as somewhat of an outsider by some faculty, because of50the word “Manager” in my job title or because at times I have not been teachingregularly in the classroom. Ultimately, I am formally and informally a colleaguewith those faculty members participating. I am in the same faculty association,and I have no involvement in the evaluation of faculty.I have taken a number of steps to reassure faculty over any concerns relatedto my position. First, I have assured them that their participation is valued, butvoluntary, and that they could opt out at any time for any reason. Second, I havereiterated that the purpose of my study is not to quiz participants on their knowl-edge of educational technologies; rather, the purpose is to understand their viewsand experiences. And in this area, they, not me, are the experts. Finally, I re-minded participants that we will be documenting their views collaboratively: Ishared my analysis with them and invited clarification and elaboration to ensurethat I am accurately representing their opinions. Specifically, I sent participantsdigital copies of interview transcripts and invited their feedback, comments, andsuggestions to ensure that I accurately documented the conversation. Furthermore,I also encouraged participants to clarify or expand further upon any comments thatwere documented in the interview transcripts.As stated above, the primary ethical consideration of this study concerns theprivacy of the participants’ identities. To mitigate this concern, I have used pseudonymsand research numbers for participants and departmental areas in any communica-tion regarding the data collected in the interviews.A final ethical consideration revolves around information and data about BCUof which I am aware but is not publicly available. To mitigate this concern I havenot specifically identified BCU and have not used exact wording from any BCUpolicy. I acknowledge that an enterprising reader could determine BCU’s actuallocation; yet, I still feel that not disclosing the site is helpful at least in preventingthe casual reader from knowing the location.51Chapter 5Minuet - I: Findings from PolicyA movement which looks at the provincial and local scale policy5.1 IntroductionNow that I have summarized the related research and frameworks upon which Idraw in Movement 3 and the details of the research method in Movement 4, I turnto analyze the data for this study.In this movement, I focus on the provincial scale in section 5.2 and analyze twoparticularly relevant policy documents, and I focus on the local scale in section 5.3and analyze BCU institutional policy. My goal in this analysis is to investigate myfirst research question:• What policy frames are used surrounding digital technologies at BCU withinBritish Columbia’s multi-layered post-secondary system, and how do theseframes reflect and intersect with global trends?5.2 Provincial Policy DocumentsHigher education falls under provincial jurisdiction, and consequently BC provin-cial government public policy heavily influences the day-to-day practice at BCU.52While the concept of “policy” is complicated notion involving actions, non-actions,intentions, directions, processes, debates, etc (see for example, Rizvi & Lin-gard, 2013; Taylor et al., 1997; Ball, 1994), as described in Movement 4, I havechosen to analyze two documents that represent much of the thinking behind BCpublic post-secondary education policy. First, I look at Campus 2020: ThinkingAhead. The Report. Access and Excellence: The Campus 2020 Plan for BritishColumbia (Plant, 2007), and then I analyze the BC’s Skills For Jobs Blueprint:Re-engineering Education and Training (Government of BC, 2014). Then I sum-marize the two documents, noting in particular the changes in BC’s post-secondaryeducational policy between 2007 and 2014.5.2.1 Campus 2020Geoff Plant, a former member of the BC Liberal government, was appointed asspecial advisor to the Premier and Minister of Advanced Education to lead aproject to review and make further recommendations for BC’s post-secondary sys-tem. The final report (Plant, 2007, hereafter called Campus 2020) represents aconceptually broad view toward restructuring the BC post-secondary system fo-cussed on the goals of equity of access and capacity of excellence in both teachingand research. Table 5.1 shows some of the key elements surrounding authorship,consultation, and themes in Campus 2020.Metcalfe et al. (2007) have analyzed Campus 2020, highlighting questionssurrounding provincial planning structures, access and equity, aboriginal educa-tion, vocational training, adult education, and the funding of BC’s post-secondarysystem. However, questions surrounding Campus 2020’s relationship with educa-tional technologies have remained largely unstudied. In this section, I investigatetwo key assumptions underpinning Campus 2020’s conclusions: the assumptionthat technological change is inevitable, and the assumption that the knowledgeeconomy drives higher education.53Table 5.1: Campus 2020 ReportAuthor/DateGeoff Plant 2007Ministries InvolvedPremierAdvanced EducationKey Consultationspublic post-secondary institutions and associationsprivate post-secondary institutions and associationsAboriginal AssociationsFaculty associationspost-secondary student associationsunions/labour organizationsK-12 systemmulticultural organizationsbusiness organizationsindustry training/trades organizationslocal governmentfederal governmentgeneral publicKey ThemesAccess and EquityWorld class InstitutionsKnowledge EconomyInevitable Advance of TechnologyTechnological change is inevitableWhile the role of technologies in BC’s post-secondary system are not always ex-plicitly stated in Campus 2020, they are, nonetheless, implied as central to manyof the report’s observations and recommendations. As the report states, “[f]ewissues sparked more animated discussions among Campus 2020 participants thanthe question of technology’s impact on the future of learning and education” (p.33). The report characterizes participants’ responses as falling in three camps:that the technologies will revolutionize higher education, that it was a “dangerousfad to be resisted”, and finally a more moderate “middle way” perspective sug-gesting technologies as, “tools in the educators toolkit . . . increasing the range ofoptions for learning without displacing traditional, classroom-based, face-to-faceteaching” (p. 34).54The language used in Campus 2020 presents technological change as a givenwhen it characterizes, “[t]he relentlessness, inevitability, speed and unpredictabil-ity of technological advancement” (p. 34). By framing technological change as“inevitable” and “relentless” and evoking the “impacts” of technologies, the reportis firmly rooted in determinism as it casts technological change in as unquestionedand suggests that the only role for educators and institutions is to either pre-act orre-act to these inevitable changes.In some places, Campus 2020 does offer us choices: “[w]e can stand by andallow technology to shape education, or we can embrace the challenge of askingeducators to shape technology” (p. 34), so it does show elements of instrumen-talism. However, those choices it offers are constrained within the bounds of theinevitable march of technological change, and are limited to choosing – or shap-ing – the impacts of the change, and it does not question the inevitable march oftechnological change.The language of Campus 2020 represents a hard (as opposed to soft) formof technological determinism (Smith & Marx, 1994). In hard determinism, tech-nologies have the power (or agency) to effect social and educational reform. Theseexamples could also be classified as optimistic, rather than pessimistic, forms ofdeterminism because they emphasize the positive potential of technology over thenegative aspects.But Campus 2020’s determinism is not the only way one could view techno-logical change. Imagine instead a view that casts technological change in a dif-ferent light, as contested, constructed, and intertwined with social and economicfactors. Framed this way, the relationship between technology and education ismuch more complex than that presented in Campus 2020. From this view, tech-nological change would be seen not as the driver of educational change. Rather,technological change would be seen as a political process. Framed this way, tech-nological change would not be seen a given (as the report says), but as a scene ofstruggle and negotiation.Campus 2020 claims that technology innovations will afford faculty flexibility55by,“ increasing the range of options for learning without displacing traditional,classroom-based, face-to-face teaching” (p. 34). But this has not necessarily beenthe case. As I show in Movement 6, participants from BCU feel they have less andnot more flexibility: they are required to produce course outlines in one softwareproduct (MS word), they have one LMS system, and are required to submit finalgrades in one specific way. And not only do they feel they have less flexibility,they say that technologies have displaced classroom-based face-to-face teaching.And as I will show, this lack of choice and autonomy associated with technologyis a major concern for most BCU faculty interviewed for this study.Perhaps some of this myth casting increased flexibility to technologies canbe explained by a misunderstanding of the typical lifecycle of software imple-mentation in higher education institutions. Many of these technology applicationswere developed in the institutions themselves as grass roots individual or groupprojects of faculty and other developers1. And in those early, trial stages they doafford more choices and flexibility to faculty.However, as applications become more mature and mission critical they fre-quently move away from faculty control into a centralized, institutionally man-aged department (typically an IT department). The applications then become cen-trally managed and they exhibit many characteristics that faculty and studentsassociate with administrative aspects of the institutions. For example, the firsttime anyone accesses the LMS at BCU they are required to digitally sign a code ofconduct and a statement that they will follow copyright rules. Then, when look-ing through a list of course sites, people browse through a hierarchical structureof Faculties and Departments before arriving at a list of courses for each individ-ual instructor. And when a new course is created in BCU’s registration system,an empty course is automatically created in the university’s LMS, and students areautomatically registered in the LMS site for the course, even if the instructor wasnot planning to use the LMS.1For example, the CET at BCU has developed two different LMS systems; One of the majorLMS systems was developed as a faculty project at UBC56These examples are just a few of the changes at BCU as the LMS moved fromfaculty project to a centrally controlled system, and they show how this evolutionresulted in less, not more, flexibility for faculty and students.Knowledge economyCampus 2020 uses the language of the “knowledge economy” as a fundamentalrationale for changes to the BC post–secondary system. For example, it says, “in arapidly shifting, knowledge-intensive economy, it’s no longer good enough simplyto acquire a body of knowledge”, noting that, “[w]orkers will increasingly need tobe adaptable and flexible in responding to emerging job requirements” (p. 33).With this language that Campus 2020 treats knowledge as a commodity, per-haps a “super-commodity” where the role of the post-secondary system is toprepare “workers” by making them “flexible” and “adaptable” to succeed in the“knowledge intensive economy”.And with this view of the post-secondary system as a tool for post-industrialknowledge generation, the report casts our current forms of schools and univer-sities as shopworn remnants of an old paradigm. Consequently, Campus 2020predicts the declining importance of the physical classroom as, “[t]he bricks andmortar classroom will yield increasingly to the virtual classroom, and to alterna-tive locations for learning: in communities, in workplaces and in homes” (p. 10).It asks us to, “break free from traditional learning approaches” (p. 33).To reconfigure for this new paradigm, Campus 2020 calls for more flexibilityin learning, for multiple literacies, and for more diverse and interactive distancelearning options. While claiming that education now is about much more thanknowledge, it calls for us to make content available online, noting that, “much ofthe curriculum of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’sgreat universities, is now available online” (p. 50).With this view of the knowledge economy, Campus 2020 makes connectionsto globalization and the demand for BC’s institutions to become more competitive.It says our institutions must be, “destination(s) of choice for the best and brightest57students from across the province and around the world” (p. 11). And in numerouscases, it cites our need to become “world-class” institutions (for example, p. 9,p. 74, and p. 76), because, “learner(s) will pick and choose course options frominstitutions across the province and around the world” (p. 9).Ultimately, Campus 2020 connects the changes it says are required because ofthe knowledge economy to a language of competitiveness and commercialization.As the report says, “In an emerging knowledge economy, this may be one ofthe key contributors to achieving the Great Goal of creating more jobs per capitathan anywhere else in Canada” (p. 80). And to ensure this of competitiveness,the report calls for more demands for accountability as, “we will need to developnationally accepted metrics of higher education activity and achievement” (p. 31).But where does this notion of the knowledge economy come from, and whydoes Campus 2020 accept it without question?This language can be traced back at least as far as Daniel Bell’s notion of theknowledge theory of value (Bell, 1976)2. And as with the notion that technologychange is inevitable, the idea that we live in a knowledge economy can be con-tested. Friesen (2008) calls this knowledge economy a myth, and he points outhow it emphasizes the most crucial value of education and knowledge as produc-tive forces, drivers of a profit-making economy.Portraying knowledge in this light, primarily as productive force, also privi-leges some types and characteristics of knowledge over others. The neutral, con-sumer, and utility-like aspects of knowledge are brought to the foreground at theexpense of the aspects of self-development or as an element of social change ordemocratic decision making. Additionally, focusing on the economic framingof knowledge leads the reconceptualization of knowledge itself as commodities:often referred to as learning objects or knowledge objects, which can be modular-ized, exchanged, re-purposed and re-packaged, and commodified.If we contest this notion of the knowledge economy, then we can contest manyof the conclusions of Campus 2020, and consider alternate views where the most2Bell appears to deliberately use this phrasing as a variation of Marx’s labour theory of value58important values of education are different: perhaps focussing on education’semancipatory role, its importance in producing involved, democratic citizens, orthe role educational institutions play in social reproduction.Biesta (2006) reminds us the language matters when we talk about education,and he makes a strong case that we have lost something in the shift of languagefrom “education” to a language of “learning”. The language of learning allowsfor a reframing of education as an economic exchange, where, the educator (andeducational institution) are seen as providing the goods and services to the learner(consumer). That is, education can be framed as a product provided by the pro-ducer (teacher, institution) for the consumer (student). “This is the logic whichsays that educational institutions and individual educators should be flexible, thatthey should respond to the needs of the learners, that they should give the learnersvalue for money, and perhaps even that they should operate on the principle thatthe customer is always right” (Biesta, 2006, p. 58).Of course there are many benefits to being flexible and reacting to the needsto students: making courses more accessible is clearly a good thing. However,Biesta agues that the more important question lies in whether or not the funda-mental educational process itself should be framed as an economic transaction.He argues that in a true economic transaction the consumer knows, in detail, whathe or she wants, but in going to school the student only knows what they want ina more broad and general sense: they want an education. But the details of the ed-ucational transaction are left largely up to the social interaction between educatorand student.Another problem with framing education as an economic transaction is that itlimits the range of acceptable questions to ones relating to those related to effi-ciency and effectiveness, and this framing leaves little room for questions aboutthe purposes and aims of education. If all the focus is on the needs of the individ-ual learners, “it also creates a situation in which there are hardly any opportunitiesleft for democratic deliberation about the content and purpose of education and itsrole in society” (Biesta, 2006, p. 60).59Campus 2020 provides mixed messages in this regard. It notes that partici-pants in the report’s consultation phase almost unanimously agreed that, “[t]heidea that higher education policy should be a response to what the marketplaceneeds is an approach that views learners narrowly as economic objects and inputs,rather than as citizens” (p. 9). Yet, it frequently uses the language of learningand presents higher education along the lines criticized by Biesta: focusing on“learner choice”, institutions bringing “more flexibility into learning modalities”(p. 9), and the entire sector to adopt more “flexibility, adaptability and responsive-ness . . . ‘nimbleness’ ” (p. 10).5.2.2 BC’s Skills for Jobs BlueprintBC’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint (Government of BC, 2014, hereafter called theblueprint) was published in 2014 by the BC Liberal government as a policy direc-tion towards, “ re-engineering education and training so that British Columbia’sstudents and workers have the skills to be first in line for jobs in a growing econ-omy” (p. ii). As I show in Table 5.2, which summarizes some of the key elementsof the blueprint, this document notes a marked change in policy from that of Cam-pus 2020.When comparing the summaries in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2, some key differ-ences become apparent before even delving into the details of the language in thepolicies. For example, one obvious difference is that while Campus 2020 wasauthored by Geoff Plant, the blueprint has no designated author.There are also significant differences in the groups involved in creating thepolicy document. Within government, Campus 2020 only lists the Premier’s of-fice and the Ministry of Advanced Education as key government contributors. Incontrast, the blueprint lists the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Skills Training asa key area involved in the policy creation – suggesting more focus on job train-ing. And when looking at consultations from outside of government, the differentapproaches become even more clear. Campus 2020 lists a host of groups and as-sociations as important consultants when creating the policy, most of which are60Table 5.2: BC’s Skills for Jobs PolicyAuthor/Date? 2014Ministries InvolvedPremierJobs, Tourism, and Skills TrainingEducationAdvanced EducationKey ConsultationsEmployersIndustryITAIndustry sector advisory councilsKey ThemesLNGlabour market projectionsresource industriestraining more responsive to employers’ needsskillsjobsrelated to either the secondary or post-secondary system in BC. In stark contrast,the key areas consulted for the blueprint are all industry related.And the key themes of each policy are also markedly different. While I haveproblematized some of the approach and language in Section 5.2.1, nonetheless,Campus 2020 is squarely centred on education. In contrast, the blueprint framespolicy more around the language of “training”.The blueprint’s focus on training shows its pre-occupation with economic con-ditions. It says that, “[m]atching labour market requirements with the skills we aregraduating will mean that British Columbians can take advantage of our growingeconomy” (p. 7).The blueprint rationalizes this focus on training because it forecasts one mil-lion job openings in BC within the next eight years (p. 7) due to “major new oppor-tunities including expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) development in North-ern B.C., increased trade with Asia, new mines and mining expansions, growingforestry exports as well as increased activity in the resource sectors, transporta-61tion, industry and business” (p. 7).This jobs and skills focus is evident in the blueprint’s plans for all levels ofeducation. For elementary through high-school students it says, “we want to giveyou an earlier head start to hands-on learning so you’re ready for the workforceor more advanced training when you graduate” (p. 6). And as those studentsmove on to post-secondary, the links to job preparation are even more direct: “Ifyou’re in a college, university or institute, or are thinking about attending, we’rematching training with jobs in demand, and maximizing the spaces available toprovide the programs you need to compete successfully in the workforce”(p. 6).The blueprint summarizes the three primary objectives of its policy as follows(p. 8):• A head-start to hands-on learning in our schools.• A shift in education and training to better match with jobs in demand.• A stronger partnership with industry and labour to deliver training and ap-prenticeships.With this language the direction of policy is clearly focussed on jobs. But wecould problematize what a “head-start” actually means and for whom it is a headstart. The policy language justifies the changes as giving students a head-start,but a critic might say that it gives industry a head-start by using public funds to“train” new employees.And the notion that this is a head start for industry is further bolstered bythe blueprint’s focus on industry partnerships. The blueprint describes how thegovernment will be, “working closely with employers, industry, labour and theITA (the provincial body responsible for apprenticeship training) to target skillstraining to high-demand occupations, remove barriers that limit labour mobilityand increase the participation of industry and labour in the skills training system”(p. 16).While the consultation with employers suggests a collaborative model of plan-ning for the re-engineering of the system, the collaboration doesn’t extend further62than industry, and the blueprint makes no mention of collaboration or consultationwith experts in education.In a similar vein, the blueprint states that to, “make the most effective use ofour training resources” (p. 17) we need a “solid base of information”(p. 17) to,“support our goal to better match training and education with industry needs andprovide the best information on labour market trends to educators, counsellors,students and their families” (p. 17). Here we see the blueprint focuses on provid-ing this information to educators (or trainers) and it doesn’t suggest a collaborativerelationship with educators as it does with industry.In calling to provide this best “labour market” data to students and their fam-ilies, the blueprint also treats students in this one-dimension and one-directionalmanner. It is one-directional in the sense that it is providing information to stu-dents, but does not consult them about what their aims are for their education.And it is one-dimensional in that it treats students as consumers. As noted abovein the analysis of Campus 2020, Biesta (2006) suggests that this one-dimensionalframing of students as rational consumers closes off debate and questions aboutthe aims and purposes of education.The blueprint does not make frequent mention of technology in relation toeducation. And by not engaging this idea, it implies as a given that skills and jobtraining embody technologies.In the few specific examples where the blueprint engages technologies withrespect to learning, it does so from the perspective of enabling workers to moreeasily access training. For example, it promotes, “ [e]-learning modules that letstudents learn at their own pace and at the most convenient time for them fromany location” and suggesting,“[r]emote learning sites that bring teachers and re-sources to students in remote locations through the use of technology such asvideo conferencing” (p. 20).635.2.3 Summary of Provincial Public PolicyComparing the Campus 2020 report of 2007 with the Skills for Jobs Blueprint of2014 shows how rapidly policy language and focus has changed in a short time.While there are some similarities in the language – both documents cite “in-evitable” changes as the key reasons for their overhauling of BC’s educational sys-tem – they attribute the changes to different causes and prescribe different pathsto meet the changes.Campus 2020 attributes much of its proposals to the technology driven ex-pansion of the “knowledge-economy”. But just seven years later the concept ofknowledge-economy is completely absent from the blueprint. Instead, in 2014,the blueprint attributes its re-engineering of the system to the “incredible oppor-tunity” of up to 1 million new jobs in the LNG, mining, forestry, and resourcesectors.What has happened to the knowledge-economy driving the changes recom-mended in Campus 2020? Has it already come and passed us by? Are we stillwaiting for it? And where were these incredible opportunities for skilled jobs in2007? Were they not there? Were they too far away to see? Are they really herenow?Not only is the concept of the knowledge-economy absent from the blueprint,the concept of knowledge itself is rarely invoked. In the document’s 52 pages,the word “knowledge” only occurs eight times, and usually directly connectedto job skills (e.g. “knowledge and skills”). This represents a huge shift in policyfrom Campus 2020, where knowledge (or at least the knowledge economy) is pre-eminent. Not only have the driving forces behind these policy documents changedso quickly, but this rapid change in focus makes us wonder if the documents’narrow-focus in the first place is misplaced? That is, was such a focus on theknowledge-economy too limiting in Campus 2020?While Campus 2020 did encourage faculty to play a role and engaged them inquestions, those questions were in the context of a taken for granted paradigm shiftfrom the old ways to the new ways demanded by the knowledge-economy. While64it asks questions, did Campus 2020 ask the right questions? Instead of queryinghow to best respond and re-act (or lead and pre-act) to the knowledge-economy,should it have asked much more broad and fundamental questions about the aims,purpose, and content of education as suggested by Biesta (2006)? In Movement 6,I show that BCU faculty are far more concerned about those types of questions thanthe ones raised by Campus 2020.The Skills for Job Blueprint similarly is one-dimensionally focussed on re-engineering our system, this time to prepare for the predicted boom in skilled andtrades jobs. While Campus 2020 called for consultation with educators, that isalmost entirely absent in the blueprint. The blueprint calls for considerable col-laboration and partnership with industry, but the collaboration with educators andstudents is primarily one-directional and takes the form of government and indus-try providing educators and students with job prospect information by economicsector. While undoubtedly most students will want a job at some point, doesthis one-dimensional focus on the job market also miss the fundamental questionsraised by Biesta (2006)? Does it risk treating students so much as consumers thatit forgets any other aspects of educational endeavours? Again, in Movement 6,I show that BCU faculty bring a different perspective and ask different questionsthan those asked by the Skills for Jobs Blueprint.5.3 BCU PolicyBecause the largest source of BCU’s funding comes from the provincial govern-ment, BCU policy is heavily influenced by provincial policy, and this provincialscale influence on local policy can be seen both directly and indirectly.A direct impact is evident when provincial policy specifically directs fund-ing to particular programs. For example, The Skills for Jobs Blueprint explic-itly directs institutional policy because twenty-five percent of provincial operatinggrants to post-secondary institutions needs to be, “aligned to training that matcheswith high-demand occupations and jobs” (p. 12). And it is the provincial gov-ernment that decides which occupations are high-demand and which programs at65institutions like BCU match those areas. Unless it wants to forego this funding,BCU must directly apply this funding towards training programs in designatedareas.Provincial policy also impacts BCU policy through its governance structure.In accordance with the University Act (Government of BC, 1996), BCU’s Boardof Governors is responsible for the management, administration, and business af-fairs of the university. A majority of board members are appointed - through theLieutenant Governor in Council - by the BC provincial government, and as polit-ical appointees, these board members are pre-disposed to align with governmentpolicy and therefore align board policy in agreement with that of government.Local policy implications also arise from how the University Act designatesthe BCU Senate as the body responsible for policies regarding academic and cur-riculum content. Designated in the act as a “Special Purpose Teaching Univer-sity”, the composition of the BCU Senate is legislated as different from those ofBC’s earlier designated universities. The majority of BCU Senators are non-facultymembers while the majority at a university such as UBC are faculty members. Incases of controversial academic issues where groups may vote in blocks, the bal-ance of power at BCU is clearly tilted against the faculty member perspective.While the BCU Board and Senate have numerous policy documents, few relatedirectly to digital technologies, and where they do exist it is difficult to square thepolicy document with the practice at BCU. For example, BCU’s mission and goalsspecifically state a goal to develop a Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL).While this centre was created, it was then eliminated shortly a few years later andand has yet to be replaced.Another inconsistency lies in the same policy’s direction to support exemplaryinstruction [and] use of educational technology. Nearly a decade before the policywas created, BCU had already created the CET and actively promoted and rewardedthe use of exemplary teaching using educational technologies. But shortly afterthe policy came into effect, this centre and the associated incentives were disman-tled.66Some of these inconsistencies can be traced to BCU’s efforts to gain accredita-tion. Soon after it received university designation, BCU quickly began the processof applying for accreditation from the College and Univeristy Commission (CCU).One of the CCU’s recommendations during the accreditation process was a call fora more centralized and strategic plan for teaching, learning, and technology sup-port. In response, BCU created a CTL and designated a Director and hired staff.Shortly after the CCU officially granted BCU final accreditation the CTL and Di-rector were eliminated and remaining staff were shifted to other areas in BCU.It is difficult to make the connection between BCU’s stated mission, vision, andgoals policy and the creation and subsequent scrapping of the CTL. The timingof the actions within the accreditation process suggests a response to that process.Furthermore, budget pressures have been extreme in recent few years as BCU hastaken the decisions to eliminate numerous programs. These budget limitationscould have also played a role in decisions to remove the CTL as those areas do notgenerate revenue for BCU and spending in those areas do not count as students inreporting to government.Throughout the transition and early growth as a university, BCU had been with-out an academic and strategic plan and this could possibly explain the disconnectbetween policy and practice regarding educational technologies. Recently, BCUaccepted and published its first academic plan which is intended to guide the in-stitution’s strategic planning over the next three years. This new academic planmay lead to tighter links between institutional policy documents and the prac-tice at BCU. Heretofore, much of the local practice has developed in response todisparate local effects: specific implementation polices of various departments,committee resolutions, and individual employee practices.Numerous examples abound of policy, generated by local internal areas (e.g.the IT department), impacting the day-to-day practice at BCU including accept-able use policies, email and website appropriate use policies and policies regard-ing technology acquisition and development. Examples from a broader level ofconstituents might include the choice of LMS, student registration and records sys-67tems, and content management systems for departmental website. Departments orprograms also develop policies related to educational technologies. For example,some departments create a policy to create an LMS site for each course to whichfaculty must upload at least a course outline. Another department created a pol-icy that student grades will be submitted electronically rather than on paper. Insome cases these policies seemed to arise out of general consensus of the facultymembers while in others they are more in response to changing dynamics in thepractice (e.g. fewer staff have lead faculty to create their own course outlines,assignments, or course outlines).As I show in Movement 6, these specific policies as practice had a big impacton faculty experiences with technologies.5.3.1 4th Hour PolicyAs the research progressed, I realized that interview participants made only infre-quent mention of particular provincial level policy. Additionally, while they spokeof local policy as practice, they also did not frequently refer to specific BCU policydocuments that explicitly relate to technologies. Instead, I found that participantsrelated their current working conditions to other local policies: policies that at firstglance didn’t appear to be related to technologies, yet were intricately intertwinedwith those technologies. And of these local policies, a recent time-tabling policychange – known in BCU discourse as the 4th hour – elicited the most frequent andfervently emotional responses.For most of BCU’s history, regular 3-credit academic courses were scheduledwith an extra hour of contact time - a 4th hour - compared to the three contacthours the same course would have at most institutions. Faculty members feltlargely autonomous in how they could use this extra, 4th hour. The vast majorityof faculty used the extra hour as face-to-face class time: some faculty simplytaught as they normally would for an extra hour each week, others held seminarsor reading groups each week. Teaching a class for four hours a week was thenorm.68Two years before I started this study, BCU changed the way courses werescheduled, removing the 4th hour. Courses that formerly had four scheduled con-tact hours were revised to have three contact hours. The extra, 4th contact hourwas removed from the class schedule. Faculty were still expected to teach the 4thhour in some way, but no longer had classroom space to use for that hour.Like other institutions, BCU has experienced cyclical fluctuations in enrol-ment: during up-swings classes were full and there were long wait-lists; duringdown-swings many classes would not be full. The 4th hour policy change wasimplemented during one of the up-swings in enrolment. BCU was bursting at theseams. Classrooms were full, wait lists common, and BCU had no extra space toaccommodate more students. So the implied and stated rationale for the policychange was to free-up more classroom space.In some ways, removing the scheduled 4th hour seems, if anything, like areduction in faculty workload. After all, faculty had less scheduled class time andno one was monitoring how much material was covered during a class. If theywished, instructors could simply teach a quarter less material. Yet participants inthis study didn’t see the policy in this way.Instead, they unanimously preferred having the 4th hour scheduled in the time-table, citing the extra help they could give to students and the freedom to teachmore or different material it allowed. And not only did participants prefer theprevious 4th hour arrangement, but this new policy, and the way it came aboutand was implemented stirred up deep emotions.As I show in Movement 6, the policy change associated with the 4th hourhad multiple impacts on participants: participants had very practical concerns onhow to manage material and students with one hour less contact time, they had anassociated pressure to incorporate technologies such as the LMS, and they weretroubled about the decision making process and the timing and implementation ofthe policy change.69Chapter 6Minuet – II: Findings fromInterviewsA movement which looks at how faculty at BCU frame digitaltechnologies6.1 IntroductionIn Movement 5, I summarized relevant policies on provincial and local scaleswithin which BCU sits. I now focus on BCU faculty members’ lived experiencesand present the main findings from analyzing interviews with the ten BCU facultymembers who participated in this study. Specifically, I explore in depth my secondresearch question:• What frames do BCU faculty members use surrounding the use of digitaltechnologies? How do these frames intersect with the policy frames? Inwhat ways do they coincide and where do they differ? What structures atBCU impact these faculty frames and how do they do so?As I have established earlier, faculty experiences and framing should be viewedin overlapping layers of contexts from scales previously discussed. While partic-70ipants themselves made relatively few explicit connections between their expe-riences and global trends and policies, in this movement I will identify some ofthese connections. Similarly, participants only made a few direct connections toprovincial policies, but in this analysis I draw some connections between thesescales too. In contrast to not making many connections to global and provincialinfluences, participants did commonly relate their experiences directly to specificlocal policies at BCU, and in particular, to the 4th hour policy as I discussed inSection 5.3.1. Here, I will highlight these links and integrate them to the largerscale phenomena.As explained in Movement 4, I analyzed the interviews and codes to buildcommon themes. The following sections present the most important themes Ihave built from analyzing the data. These themes overlap and intersect in numer-ous places, yet for clarity of discussion, I have organized them into three main cat-egories – autonomy and independence, the changing nature of instructors’ work,and the changing relationships within BCU. Furthermore, some important ele-ments of my analysis – ideas related to symbolic capital and responsibilisizing– span across all themes and are discussed throughout the sections. Finally, inthe last section of this movement, I synthesize and summarize the key elementsarising from these themes.6.2 Autonomy and IndependenceParticipants frequently spoke in terms that surround the intersection of technolo-gies and how they saw their own sense of professional autonomy and indepen-dence.Starting from recollections of their early use of digital technologies, manyparticipants brought ideas around autonomy to the foreground. As Victor, themost senior study participant, says:Well, a long, long time ago, BCU was lending out Apple II’s so I borrowedone for the summer, with very few instructions in how to use it. I was finefor about two or three weeks, and then I did something, and I couldn’t get it71to work, and nobody was around at all who could help me. It really was thesummer, and summer used to be totally dead here.Not only do Victor’s comments illustrate this notion of autonomy, but his lan-guage – “long, long time ago” , “nobody was around”, and it was “totally dead”– evoke images of a pioneering journey into the wild west: a journey full of self-reliance and total independence. Other participants also evoked the same images,and to some it wasn’t just a metaphorical journey as Robyn recalls experiencesfrom her days as a graduate student:I do remember those punch cards that you had to use at [my grad university].There was one computing science building ... trudging uphill both ways.Some participants expressed these notions of autonomy during their early ex-periences with digital technologies not in this language of a journey, but rathersimply as them being the first, or amongst the first, to use the technologies, asKevin’s comments show:I really think I was one of the first people to use email that I know. I knowthat very few people did this because I had email addresses with all myfriends that I could communicate with and it was . . . like five.While seeing themselves as amongst the first, participants realized that theywere just barely ahead of the mass migration. Kevin again:It was a very steep upward curve. Because the first year there was just a few,and then the second year there was quadruple that, and the year after that itwas almost like everyone.Participants spoke about both positive and negative aspects of these early expe-riences, but most of the stories focussed on a positive slant. For example, Michaelspeaks with pride about his days as a graduate student:72When Apple first came out, the first one, the first Mac . . . it was tested onus at [my grad school] before they brought it out. So I worked on an Applethe year before it came out.Some faculty even describe their early experiences as a spark of inspirationfor their further use of technologies, as Barb enthusiastically recounts her experi-ences:I remember being here working on my dissertation and I actually bought acomputer, a little PC. No one in this whole [area] actually had computers intheir offices – or very few people did – but I had one in my office, and I hadmy own printer. I remember realizing that you could go into the databasesby doing a dial-up out to my grad school, and I could sit here with my cupof tea and scroll through the abstracts, and I thought I had died and gone toheaven! I just thought WOW!It seems that for these participants, their autonomy – or more accurately theirperception of their own autonomy – plays an important role in their narrativesabout digital technologies and their work. And this language is consistent withwhat both the academic literature and popular usage have come to associate withearly adopters.There were very real limits on their independence and autonomy in these earlyexperiences. For example, Victor describes his feeling of autonomy when he gotto take home a computer to play with. But there were strict boundaries aroundhis choice: there was only one computer, one operating system. Yet despite theseconstraints, participants like Victor still focussed on their feeling of autonomy.When recounting these early experiences participants primarily focussed onusing technologies mostly outside of the regular working life as faculty members.They spoke about using email with friend and taking a computer home to playwith over the summer. And even when talking about aspects related to the work,such as connecting to academic databases, Barb paints a relaxing image whileenjoying her cup of tea.73Participants characterized these digital technologies as interesting areas to in-vestigate, possibly with the thought of adding them to their classes at some point.And when viewed from this perspective, participants spoke of feeling autonomousand not unencumbered by limits to their technology choices.While they frequently still used the language, the ways that participants spokeabout autonomy and independence changed markedly as they went chronologi-cally through their experiences with educational technologies. In contrast to thesedescriptions of early pioneering journeys, participants talked about their currentexperiences in ways that were complicated by numerous influences and are fre-quently marked with contradictions. Kevin’s description of his feelings with usingtechnologies today was typical of participants when he says, “ [it’s a ]sensitive is-sue with me”.One of the factors that complicates these notions of autonomy is the con-nection between technology expertise and symbolic capital and how participants’symbolic capital has decreased over time.In Movement 2, I recounted my own experiences at BCU and analyzed howmy perceived expertise in technologies raised my symbolic capital and led to po-sitions that would typically require more seniority than I had. Similarly, partici-pants’ stories recounting pioneering experiences with technologies also show howthey associated their own leading edge technology experiences with high symboliccapital.However, over time, most of these participants seemed to lose much of thissymbolic capital as they left the leading edge and other faculty members gainedthis capital. Kevin’s story about his experiences on a new degree advisory com-mittee illustrate how he saw his current symbolic capital:This steering committee is fairly tech savvy. Everyone who is on it is really. . . I’m really a little behind. [It’s] one of the reasons I have to become LMSliterate fast.Kevin associates other committee members’ greater technology expertise withmore symbolic capital than he has and suggests a hierarchy developing associated74with this symbolic capital. For Kevin, this is a situation he feels the need toaddress quickly by becoming more LMS literate, “fast”.While Kevin didn’t comment here on why his colleagues are more technologi-cally savvy than he is, a number of participants contrasted their use of technologiesnow with that of younger colleagues. As Robyn describes it:[While] I don’t really see the advantage of it [the LMS], but I also know thatalmost everybody [younger] uses it, and I probably should because of that.I feel kind of like the only person who doesn’t.Robyn’s comments show how the narrative has changed. Instead of the pi-oneering narratives participants used when describing their first uses of digitaltechnologies, she now characterizes herself as lagging behind her younger col-leagues. But Robyn still evokes the language of autonomy – “I probably should”(use more technologies).Participants expressed a range of reactions to feeling behind, and these reac-tions complicated their earlier perceptions of autonomy and independence. Greg’scomments show one way participants reacted to this feeling:It does take me longer, I think, to adapt to using these technologies thansomebody that’s younger, but I will still take the time and effort, most of thetime, to try to figure it out if I do think it’s going to be important.Like Robyn, for Greg the autonomy narrative is still strong as he expressesconfidence that he has the choice – if he thinks it is important – to learn and usethe technologies. But this feeling of autonomy is complicated as Greg goes onto express more ambivalent emotions about incorporating technologies into histeaching:To tell you the truth, my mixed-mode courses I haven’t been using all thetools in there probably as well as I should. Is it out of ignorance? Partially.Was it out of a desire to [not use them]? I’m not a control freak – but just toensure things were going as they should be? Well, that was part of it too.75Here we get a window into Greg’s internal conflicts about the technologies. Onone hand he feels he has the independence to choose the technologies he wants touse. But on the other hand, he comments that he hasn’t actually been using all thetools as he should.But who determines how he should use them? Greg seems to take the respon-sibility on himself saying that he doesn’t use them, partly because of his ignoranceof the tools and partly because he wants to be completely comfortable with a tech-nology before incorporating it into his teaching.While the narrative of autonomy is still there, the concept of autonomy seemsto have changed. When discussing autonomy earlier, participants spoke of it inthe sense of them deciding whether or not to take home the computer and, if so,how to play with it: they spoke in a narrow sense focussed on the technologicalobject itself.But when discussing autonomy in their current practice, participants not onlyspeak about autonomy in the sense of using technologies, but they also refer toautonomy in the broader context of their role as academics. And the question ofwho determines which technologies faculty should use seems very important inthe context of participants’ claims about independence.And talking about autonomy within these broader contexts uncovers morecomplications and contradictions in participants’ framing. Kevin’s comments il-lustrate some of the complications:I’ve been very pleased – lucky maybe – that there’s been no policies at all,that no one is telling me that I should use it or I have to use it [technolo-gies]. You know, the Dean’s office is never looking out and saying you’renot keeping up with it. So I don’t feel pressure from administration to geton board.Here Kevin is very clear in this statement that he is independent in his choicesand that there is no policy forcing his moves. Yet, just moments later in the inter-view, he expresses a different view:76I do feel there’s pressure that way. I feel that . . . . you know it’s not anintentional policy to sort of put pressure on old goats . . . but I think that ispart of it. It’s just that the new young faculty come in and they’re all very,very . . . [computer savvy]. They all did their PhD’s and Masters degreeswith computers. And I didn’t do that.Here we can see the contradictions. Kevin says that there is no policy forc-ing him to use technologies and that he doesn’t feel pressured. But then he talksabout feeling the pressure trying to keep up with his younger, more technologi-cally savvy colleagues. Kevin expresses his frustration when he went on to de-scribe his feelings:I’m getting older and the average faculty age is getting younger I’m startingto look like an old outdated goat around here. And I gotta be a bit currentand I know there’s great things about [the LMS] and I just gotta pick it up. Ijust don’t want to be left behind. I’m feeling that I’m already left behind.Here we can see Kevin’s complicated situation. Even though he earlier saidthat he doesn’t feel pressure to use more technologies, he now says that he doesneed to use them to keep up with his younger more technology-savvy colleagues.Kevin associates symbolic capital with technological expertise, and this commentshows how he sees his symbolic capital is slipping. Moreover, with his sense ofindependence and autonomy, Kevin places the onus on himself to “pick it up”. Ifresponsibilization is a technique of governance, then Kevin’s thoughts show howthese participants embody this technique and take the onus upon themselves: howthey responsibilisize.As I will discuss in upcoming sections, these comments indicate a change inthe nature of the work these participants do and a change in the symbolic capitalimportant to this work. When Kevin talks about getting “current”, he is referringto becoming more current with the technology (with a high symbolic capital).It is interesting that he is not referring to keeping “current” in his field – whichpreviously would have counted for more symbolic capital.776.3 Changing WorkIn addition to these notions of autonomy and independence, participants also fre-quently linked digital technologies to a host of issues surrounding changes in theirteaching practice.6.3.1 Time CrushWhen speaking about their current teaching practice, participants made multipleand frequent connections between technologies and the amount of time they take.As Michael says:I have very little time to actually test things out, and it drives me crazy whenI have to . . . I’ve got so many things going on in my life; I can’t take thetime to find a new way to do things.As Michael illustrates, participants’ perceptions of time associated with usingtechnologies in their practice encompasses a number of emotions and elements,many of which are intertwined with many of the other themes arising from thisstudy.One common concern focussed how much time new technologies take to in-corporate into their practice: time to learn to the technology, time to learn howto incorporate them into their pedagogy, and time to maintain the products of thetechnologies. Michael crystallizes the concern succinctly:Because you have to keep up on it. I don’t have time.Sara’s comments are typical of how participants speak of the time required tolearn new digital technologies:I definitely would talk about frustration, frustration about having to learn somuch, but where’s my time to learn this?Becoming increasingly animated (speaking more quickly and gesticulatingwith her hands), Sara continues on to explain how the time associated with thetechnologies affects her workload:78If I’m going to embrace the technology I do want to do it well. So whenstudents say, “Oh, this link isn’t working, this isn’t working”, you know, Ifeel like I’ve bitten off too much, that I’m trying to deliver this, but I don’thave the time to maintain it, and then it’s a substandard product.This topic was clearly a very sensitive one with Sara, bringing out her frus-tration. Throughout most of the interview she speaks about her love of teachingand interaction with her students. But here, when referring to the time crushshe invokes language of an educational “product”, which is uncharacteristic ofhow she spoke elsewhere. Here we see evidence of how she responsibilisizes theneo-liberal perspective that casts education in the language of markets and theeconomy.These excerpts illustrate the stark contrast to participants’ positive depiction oftheir earlier experiences with digital technologies. When speaking about their cur-rent use of technologies, participants’ comments expressed more negative emo-tions now that the technologies have become more pervasive. It seems that manyparticipants have difficulty in reconciling their past experiences and views withthe neo-liberal language they see surrounding digital technologies.Yet even though they feel pressured to use the technologies, participants stilluse the language of autonomy and talk about their own choice to use – or howmuch to use – certain technologies. In addition to learning to use the technologies,this autonomy narrative continues into the tasks of managing and monitoring themthroughout the term. As Greg says:It’s my site, it’s my course: I’m responsible for it. If I’m responsible forit then I should be actively moderating. There’s more responsibility on mypart to at least be aware of and to moderate the discussions. And you knowwhat? Frankly, I don’t want to take that on.Greg clearly takes ownership in the details of how a course runs and the ten-sions surrounding the technologies are clear. He feels that if he’s going to use theonline discussions then he’s responsible for moderating them. All his experience79teaching tells him that this should be his role, and that is a task he takes on in hisface-to-face classes. But he’s now feeling pressure to take on this new task that hedoesn’t feel well-equipped to do.At the same time, Greg seems to be asserting some degree of independenceand staking his claim on the space – these are my courses, and I will decide whatthey need and do the work to maintain them. Greg’s comments indicate he feelslike he has been able to assert his independence to a large degree and decide whichtechnologies he will incorporate and which he will not.In addition to the time it takes to learn and monitor the technologies throughouta term, participants also spoke about the time the technologies take out to set-upand to use.Lisa describes a typical scenario:Okay, turn on the computer, turn on Internet Explorer, turn on the [LMS]site, sign in, sign into this and into that, and, again, 10 minutes have gone bybefore you can start to teach a class.As Lisa describes it, these more mundane technology aspects eat into the timeshe has for what she sees as important in her practice – working with students.Participants expressed different emotions when talking about this set-up time.Like Lisa, some seemed to grudgingly accept it. To others, it was a particularlysore point, as Michael illustrates, while becoming increasingly frustrated recount-ing a story of how much teaching time he lost to set-up:15 minutes of class was lost because of trying to set up a video, and I evencame in 10 minutes early.And it’s not only classroom time that leads to this frustration, but also “wasted”outside of the classroom. Lisa explains the time wasted when she arrives in heroffice each day:So I think this was definitely unintended. We didn’t anticipate that back inthe early days of building computers, learning about programming. I turnedon my computer in my office. . . and how long it takes to boot up.80Flowing from their comments on howmuch time the technologies take to learnand their products take to maintain, many participants, feeling overworked al-ready, questioned whether or not spending more time with technologies was thebest way to use their time.Kevin’s comments illustrate this feeling:When I’m spending time setting up (the LMS) and learning it on my owntrying to learn it - that could be time maybe better spent reading yet anotherjournal article or keeping up with (my field). There’s so much literature,there’s so many amazing new books that I never get around to read, but nowI gotta spend time with technology.Victor’s comments show similar sentiments:It’s really time consuming, and I still actually find it way more interestingand way more useful to add to my knowledge base in the disciplineBoth Kevin and Victor are senior faculty who cut their academic teeth duringa paradigm before ubiquitous digital technologies. Their views of the practicegrew from a place where knowledge in their disciplines was valued very highlyand they used to spend much of their time related to their discipline – readinga journal article, adding to knowledge base. These were the traditional signs ofsymbolic capital they associated with the field.But with ubiquitous digital technologies, they see symbolic capital in highereducation changing. The traditional capital associated with knowledge of theirfield is now of less importance and symbolic capital associated with technologyexpertise in now more valued.Kevin and Victor both spoke about a change in symbolic capital in the fieldthat shows a change in the role of the instructor from discipline expert (althoughthat seems to be still implied) to technology expert. They did, however, differ inhow they reacted to this shift.81Victor, who was very close to retirement when the interviews were conducted,acknowledges the work involved with the technologies but still asserts his auton-omy in choosing to use his time to, “add to my knowledge base in the discipline”.He does use the technologies to a certain extent, but he seems quite comfortablewith a relatively low level of use. Because he is so close to retiring, it seems thatVictor has little risk by not building technology expertise.In contrast, Kevin – ten years younger than Victor – seems to lament his loss ofautonomy when he acknowledges that he has, “gotta spend time with technology”.Even though he would rather spend his time in areas traditionally associated withsymbolic capital (keeping up with his field), he talks about how he must insteadbuild this capital by acquiring technology expertise.And not only have the extra time demands of technologies impacted their cur-rent workload, but some participants showed concern about the extra time re-quired by possible technical problems tipping them past their coping point. Kevindescribes these concerns as he says:I’m really worried that I might have some [LMS] issues over the courseof the semester - and my semesters are always pretty stressful and I gottakeep up with you know like 4 or 5 different courses. If I have an [LMS]problem, is it going to take me away from being completely . . . . I like tobe so thoroughly prepared for my lecture. And I’m worried that when I’msitting there preparing for my lecture or the next days lecture that I’m goingto be sitting there trying to figure out some [LMS] issue.Here he describes his workload already as “stressful”, trying to prepare for andkeep up with all his courses. He realizes all the extra time it takes to set-up andmaintain his courses in the LMS and he now adds an extra concern, anticipatingthe time crush he would be under trying to deal with LMS problems. We can seefrom these comments that it is not even the actual extra work causing problems,but it is also the anticipated extra work as well.826.3.2 Changing Definition of the RoleAll this extra time that participants identify does not just represent additionalhours, but it also points to how the role of instructors has changed along withthe increase of technologies.For example, when discussing her teaching strategies Robyn points to pro-cesses involving students in “active work”, and she worries that the demands asso-ciated with the technologies take away from students going through this process:I think that because of things like [the LMS], or people who aren’t goingto class because the PowerPoint is on [the LMS], and they just need to sitand. . . And, you know, I think it’s making them expect us to give them moreand maybe making them a little bit lazy to do their own work. I’ve been herelong enough to notice that change. Somebody asked me the other day, areyou going to give us an outline for the midterm? I said no I think you shouldmake your own outline, because that’s part of studying. I said, you’ve gotyour course outline, so you know the topics. You know the chapters to readfrom your course outline.Here Robyn shows the pressure she feels to meet the expectations of her stu-dents, set by actions of her faculty colleagues. According to Robyn, many of hercolleagues have used the technologies - the LMS in this case - to upload so muchcontent that it takes away from what she sees as the important “active work” thatstudents need to do to learn. But despite these pressures Robyn doesn’t changeentirely; her form of resistance is to still insist that her students still do some ofthis work that she sees as so important.Some other participants don’t offer the same resistance. They feel the tech-nologies have many problems; yet, they still use them. Given the previously men-tioned time constraints, and despite the problems, they see digital technologies asan aid to covering more curriculum. As Sara says:Part of it is time management. We don’t have enough time in class to ef-fectively discuss things, and it’s frustrating. You know, we’ve shortened it83down to one and a half, three hours of contact a week, and I really feel that.I feel that a huge part of the learning comes with, actually, students talkingabout things, either in small groups or as a classroom as a whole. So, this isin some ways a substitute for the time we’ve lost in class.Sara’s comments show how the definition of her work has changed. Theamount of class contact time has decreased due to the loss of the 4th hour andshe now has to determine how to use the technologies as a “substitute” for thetime she has lost in class. Her work has now changed to incorporate not onlytechnology expertise, but also the management skills to determine how to meldthe technology into her curriculum plans.Other participants coped in different ways. They use technologies, but doso very little in the first weeks of a term, because they feel that the face–to–faceenvironment gets their relationships with students off on a strong footing. As Johnsays:Building a very strong rapport with those students in those first two weeks[is important], because then I can go anywhere. That’s what gives me thelicense with the students. You feel the temperature, you know what is hap-pening with your class. So I think rapport is the key.John’s comments shows how participants view teaching as an embodied ac-tivity, the face–to–face contact allowing him to “feel the temperature”. Knowingwhen and how to shift from the completely face–to–face to using the technologiesmore is a new part of the work for these participants.Participants spoke about how technologies have changed students’ workloads.As Michael says:They [already] have enough to do. They don’t need more assignments. I’vegot more than enough in the text and the way I do stuff in class.Kevin describes similar sentiments:With the assignments, the essays, the lectures, and the textbook I think that’senough resources. (Becomes more animated) I don’t think they need more -84that’s the thing. I don’t think they need more. I think they’re already havingtrouble keeping up with those. So if you add on a whole bunch [more] . . . Ijust don’t know if it’s going to add any quality to their learning.These comments show how participants worry about students having too muchwork. And it’s not only that, but their faculty work has changed too in having toarbitrate how to incorporate the technologies and determine how much work togive his students.Some faculty feel that the technologies make it too easy to give students morework: too much work. For example, as Sara mentions regarding the [LMS] andstudy outlines:I think people are giving them too much now, because it’s just so easy to doit. And I’m even falling into that. Like I just told you, I starting to thinkI should send them these lecture outlines, and maybe that’s just pressurebecause I’m hearing other people are doing it.Participants frequently spoke about many of these concerns in the context therecent change in the 4th hour policy at BCU. For some faculty, the biggest loss isfelt by the students who need the extra classroom time for help. As Lisa says:For those students on the more challenged side, the classroom is crucial, andthey’ve taken the classroom time away. The [LMS] site doesn’t replace it.And it’s not just the reduced time for classroom help that hurts. Lisa alsoregrets that she now has less time to cover important content:I regret the loss of classroom time. It’s a quarter of our classroom time. I’mfinding I get to the end of the semester, and I swear, you know, I have notime to get to at least a couple of chapters. My experience is that for most ofthe students, the classroom time is crucial.For others, the loss of flexibility due to less classroom discussion time is thebiggest drawback for students. As Jane says:85You know, there’re all kinds of things that people do, but you can’t do itin person anymore, and you can’t have the discussion in person any more.It’s a shame. . . . I don’t think they realize how technology doesn’t replacethe ability of students to sit in a classroom and talk with each other and theability of instructors to help that to happen.Cleary frustrated, Jane goes on:Oh, well they took 25 percent of the face time out of the classroom, expectus to get the same results, and I can’t get the same results. I mean, that’s a lotof time with students. So what’s gone is I don’t show the movies I showed. Idon’t allow, like we said, up to 10 minutes, maybe, of discussion. Not often.One minute, two minutes is more likely.Here Jane talks about the technologies changing her job as she loses the “flex-ibility” to use the classroom time as she wishes to. She values the work as spend-ing time in the classroom and helping students talk with each other, but with thechange in policy, more technology, and her changing work, she has lost some ofthat chance to, “help that to happen”. And she makes connections between thechange in work not allowing her to, “get the same result”.In addition to listing a number of ways that the participants feel the loss ofa 4th hour hurts students, the comments also reveal how these faculty talk aboutthemselves as objects of this policy: they feel like the policy has been done tothem. In comparison to the language that participants used to describe their earlierexperiences - where they are the subjects and “use” technologies - the languagethey employ here – “they” took it away from us; “I regret the loss”; “I don’t thinkthat they realize” – how these faculty members now feel objects of the policy.They feel they have lost their voice and their autonomy.Not only do they see the technologies as increasing and changing the natureof their own workload, but these excerpts all show examples of how participantssee technologies used to overload students with too much information and work.And they don’t stop at the technologies at the university, but feel that students aresuffering from technology overwork in their lives as a whole. As Greg says:86[Students] I’ve talked to recently say that it’s a lot of work, and they’re start-ing to resent the amount of work involved in updating Facebook, checkingup on their email, in using technology as a social tool. So they’re starting toresent the amount of time that they have to spend doing that, but they feelthey have to socially in order to keep up. If they fall behind, then they’refalling behind, and this is normative. It’s an expectation now in their socialgroup that they do this, and if they don’t then they may be running a little bitafoul of their group.Greg’s comments challenge the popular perception that youth want more tech-nology both within the larger context of their lives and their student lives in par-ticular. He questions the technological deterministic view as discussed in Move-ment 3 and the technology centric forecasts for education offered by those such asAndreessen in Movement 2.6.3.3 Bureaucratization, Efficiency, StandardizationI previously discussed faculty concerns about the extra time it takes to learn, touse, and to manage technologies such as the LMS, and how incorporating thesetechnologies forced them to make complicated choices about if, when, and how toincorporate these technologies into their teaching. In addition to these concerns,participants also spoke about a seemingly continuous line of extra tasks – oftenmediated by digital technologies – making more and more demands on their time.Michael’s comments are typical of participant concerns:There seem to be more forms we fill out, we take things online. Like, insteadof just filling out a form that’s already printed, you’ve gotta go in there,you’ve gotta find it.Not only is it forms online, but participants pointed to numerous examplesof workload increases they attribute to technological change. For example, BCUrecently switched from a paper based to a digital entry system for faculty to submitfinal grades. As Robyn says,87(Now) I have to go in on the website and do [input] the grades . . . it’s justsomething we didn’t do before.These comments show how work that was formerly done by others (supportstaff, managers, administrators), mediated by technologies, has now been down-loaded to faculty members. Taken in isolation, it might make sense for many ofthese tasks to be transferred to faculty members, but with so many different tasksdownloaded, these participants feel like they can’t keep up with the workload.Even participants who expressed a desire to incorporate technologies into theirpedagogical practice often spoke of the time required as something they wouldhave to trade off against other time demands on their workload.BCU has used three different LMS’s in the past twenty years, and participantsspoke about the increased workload and frustrations in moving course materialsto the new system. As Sara says:Each time we make the transfer . . . I know we have resources available tous, but I have to find the time to relearn that, and sometimes the things don’ttransfer well.Robyn speaks about extra additions to her workload in other aspects of her jobthat, at least at first glance, don’t seem related to technologies:I have to download all the images off the website for the textbook . . . it’sstuff you didn’t have to do before.Robyn here describes all the extra work associated with technology when sheadopts a new text book. Previously she might receive a package or slides or over-head transparencies to use in her classroom. But now, she has to download all theimages for each chapter, un-compress the files, and then import them into the LMSor sort them into her own filing system. Additionally, many publishers will nowinclude banks of quiz questions with each book. To use this bank, Robyn needs todownload the questions, un-compress them, figure out how to import those ques-tions into the LMS, then use the LMS to release the questions to students whenappropriate.88As these comments show, not only has increased reach of technologies led tomore work teaching with the technologies, but the non-teaching aspects have alsointensified as these aspects are now more bureaucratized.Participants also spoke about digital technologies in the context of efficiencyand standardization. On a campus with limited classroom space, waiting lists forcourses, and small classrooms, faculty see technologies being pushed as a way touse this limited space as efficiently as possible, as Sara says:They went the route where we don’t have the room space, so by defaultpushing people into using online, because really, there’s nothing else left.Participants are suspicious about this push for efficiency, and they are deeplyconcerned by the prospect of the technologies leading to standardization. Jane’scomments illustrate a common concern with the implementation of technology atBCU:Mark my words. you’re younger than me. You’ll be here when I’m gone.What it will require is that every course outline is going to look exactly thesame. It will have to fit exactly the same template. It will have to be this,that, and the other thing. And it will be absolutely consistent, because that’sthe only way the system can work. Not because it’s the best. Not becauseit’s the smartest, but because that’s what the system requires.Jane goes on to attribute the push for consistency to both the administrationand to the larger forces requiring the standardization.As the place gets bigger, it’s taking on a more corporate appearance, andone of the things I’ve noticed very much . . . and I think technology makesthis sort of a circle of inevitability . . . is this massive, massive push forconsistency. All of us must do things the same way at the same time in thesame way, because if we don’t were wrong. And I think an awful lot of thatcomes out of admin’s need to measure things somehow.89These comments show how participants draw connections between technolo-gies, standardization, and requirements for accountability. Jane, who has hadmore administration experience than other participants and thus may have hadmore insights into this area, notes how technologies can be used to measure andsurveil faculty and students. We see a concern that the expansion of technologywill require faculty to lose autonomy and do things the same way. Jane goes on:Jane’s comments also show participants’ concerns that the push for consis-tency and standardization will lessen their autonomy further. As she says:But it’s a lot easier to do when you’ve got a lot of technology going. Therenow comes Survey Monkey, and out comes this and that and the other thingthat you can all get on, and you can be required to do all of it in exactly thesame way.6.3.4 Support IssuesIn addition to stress over a heavy and increasing workload, participants also fre-quently expressed concerns around support structures in place of technology use.And as technologies have become more embedded in the work these concernsaround support have also increased.To some participants the promise of technologies, coupled with a poor supportsystem, is their top concern. As Victor says:That’s sort of my nightmare. You set up all those expectations, and then thetechnology can’t fulfill those expectations.Victor’s “nightmare” comment shows just how important the support struc-ture is for participants. Some faculty see the potential for faculty to incorporatetechnologies as most closely tied to the level of support. As John says:I think when it comes to technology and education in the classroom, theinstitution has to do a much, much, much, much, much better job of makinginstructors lives easier, facilitating the use of educational technology insteadof impeding it.90In some cases it is the support and knowledge of certain kinds of hardware andsoftware. As Lisa describes,They won’t put [a certain application] on our computers. So I did it myself,I didn’t even get their support. But I was having trouble connecting to . . . infact, I still haven’t connected that notebook to the network. And I went upthere to find out why, and he looked at it and looked at it and tried to figure itout. I had to take it back to the vendor, and he said, oh, you have to push thisbutton. And I understand the IT Department doesn’t know every computer,but it didn’t give me a lot of confidence that he knew anything!Lisa describes her experiences with another application,It was great! It was a great program, and then they finally told us no. Wewon’t put it on any machine because we don’t support it. So we wanted it. . . like, even if we could just have it on one machine in a classroom.Lisa’s comments certainly show concerns about her autonomy to choose anduse the technologies as sees fit. Moreover, they illustrate the gap between whatshe sees as the promise of technology support and the reality for faculty. This lossof autonomy is shown again here by how she is an object of the decisions – “theytold us” they wouldn’t put it on because they didn’t support it.Barb comments further on this gap:I do find that there’s lots of stuff out there, but how we as faculty get toaccess this is very frustrating.John sees great potential pedagogical use of technologies, and he suggests thatBCU should expand options for faculty rather than limit them:I know that it is limited in resources, but allowing instructors to trial cer-tain technologies – because the ones that do work have such an impact onstudent learning that it’s a great investment. I think the institution has to bemore open to that and give more license to its instructors to experiment witheducational technologies without needless constraints.91And in addition to software concerns, participants also expressed their supportconcerns while speaking about the state of the computers in their office, as Johndescribes:I think that the equipment we are given is atrocious. It’s deplorable that weare expected to do our work efficiently and optimally with the equipmentwe are given. That’s why that is sitting over there — (he points to his BCUsupplied old desktop computer and monitor sitting a pile in the corner of hisoffice).Barb’s and John’s comments highlight contradictions they feel surroundingtechnologies. On one hand, policy and discourse tout the benefits of using tech-nologies, and they believe there may be real benefits and they identify technolo-gies they would like to use. Yet on the other hand, they see that the focus onstandardization of technology choices - in the name of support and efficiency –limits their ability to employ these technologies.While the language of “efficiency” is often used as a reason to incorporatemore technologies, these participants turn that argument on its head here. Johninvokes the terms “efficiency” and “optimally” to argue against the poor state oftechnologies given to faculty at BCU. John is essentially saying, “how can webe efficient if we don’t have up–to–date equipment”. He raises an interestinginternal conflict in this language. Institutions such as BCU are seen as, and toutedin policy as, technological advanced and well positioned to be “efficient”. Yetfaculty members like John feel they can’t be efficient and work optimally because,at least from their perspective, BCU does not provide them with current enoughtechnology.I found it interesting that participants attribute those software decisions solelyto the IT department at BCU, and they don’t speak about what we might call thepolitics of software, which would incorporate a broader view of the marketplaceand how institutions such as BCU are positioned within this field.Jane also talks about the wasted time and she seems to indicate a hierarchydictating computer age within BCU:92Admin people always get new computers, we get their hand-me-downs. Fac-ulty are - and I’m not suggesting that faculty are more important than others- but faculty always end up with the computers that take 20 minutes to bootup and then maybe do and maybe don’t.It’s not only the computers in their offices that cause concern, but also thespeed and reliability of the BCU network. Many participants recounted stories oftimes when their plans for a class were disrupted by network problems. Jane hadplanned an entire class around viewing a series of short web-based videos and thenhaving group discussions surrounding the videos. Upon arriving in the class Janefound the network not working, and she was unable to run the class as planned.Clearly frustrated, Jane sums up her feelings on using the network for anything inher classes:I don’t think I will ever, ever take the risk of putting anything up that I couldnot live without, because that’s just asking from trouble from God as far asI’m concerned.Victor describes similar concerns:I know faculty in here who have come in and not had their stuff on the LMS.They put their PowerPoint on the network drive, got into class, and couldn’taccess the network drive any longer. Nobody had been told that. So you goin there, and you rely on this stuff because it’s supposed to be there. Youdon’t take overheads in or stuff like that. You’re totally stuck.These comments show how the role of instructor has changed as the largercontext within which the role has changed. Prior to technologies becoming soubiquitous, he would simply prepare overheads at home or in his office. Butnow, by using PowerPoint and the network, greater emphasis is placed on theperformance in class mediated by those technologies. And it’s not just one setof technologies - PowerPoint and the network - replacing another - overheadsand a projector. But it is also a change in his feeling of control and autonomy93in the practice. It’s true that the bulb could go out on his projector, but Victorknows how to switch to the spare bulb and feels in control of the situation. Withthe Powerpoint being inaccessible over the network, Victor feels powerless and“stuck”.6.4 Changing RelationshipsIn addition to these themes around autonomy and changing nature of their work,participants spoke in great detail about interpersonal relationships related to theirpractice and how these relationships have changed.6.4.1 Changing Relationships with StudentsOne common thread that emerged was how participants spoke about and valuedtheir personal relationship with students and ways they see digital technologieschanging those relationships.For many participants the foundation of their educational practice is built uponrelationships founded upon students and faculty physically being in the samespace at the same time and engaged in the educational processes. Greg wasdemonstrative as he describes this sense of space and time:When they’re [students] in the classroom and they’re going to be there,they’ve got to be there.Here Greg is referring to physically being there and also being fully engagedin the educational process. And he sees digital technologies in the classroom as achallenge to creating an engaged community:Students very often can distract themselves. Having access to the internetdraws them out of the classroom.And it’s not just specific distractions Greg is referring to. He really is express-ing his core values about the educational process:94But you see, [technologies contribute to] why I think sometimes studentslook at themselves as being observers in the classroom and not participants.And as educators, I think it’s our role to make it clear that they are partici-pants, active and responsible. They’re responsible for the process as muchas the instructor is.Greg’s choice of language here is evocative. He attributes technologies thepower to cast students as objects – “students look themselves as observers in theclassroom” – instead of subjects – “active participants” engaged in the process andas responsible for success as the instructor. This change from active participant(subject) to observer (object) parallels participants’ descriptions of faculty roleschanging from technology pioneer to those who are responding to a system andlack the autonomy.Greg’s observations that classroom technologies lead to students being dis-tracted and less engaged stands in marked contrast to the policy language dis-cussed in Movement 5, which calls to “engage all of us as citizens more di-rectly” (Plant, 2007, p. 92) and for the community to “participate actively indiscussions about programs for learning” (Plant, 2007, p. 44).Greg and others see digital technologies in the classroom hindering this engag-ing environment they want to create, turning students into passive observers. Hesees the technologies distracting both the specific students using the technologyand also others in the classroom. Greg again:If they don’t want to [be there], then don’t. Just don’t be there. Don’t bethere distracting others. Because it does distract others. I think some peoplethink there’s no problem with just checking their smart phone or workingon their laptop. They think, well, I’m not bothering anybody else. Sorry, Idon’t buy that. You are!Greg became animated when speaking about this distraction, and he createsthe following analogy to turn it on its head:95If I’m instructing class, even students themselves, if they want to text, theysay why the hell shouldn’t I be able to text, or why shouldn’t I get on mycomputer and check my Facebook. And it’s the same students who, say,if you came to see me in my office and you’re in the middle of explainingsomething to me and you ask me a question or are talking about somethingand I pull out my smart phone and I start texting my wife, maybe chuckling,smiling about something, screwing around on my computer, or reading abook, pulling out a magazine, twiddling my thumbs, clipping my nails, howwould that make you feel? And they’d say well you can’t do that!Greg seems be yearning for a sense of connection with his students that nowseems lost to what he sees as the distraction associated with technologies.Additionally, Greg’s comments indicate how technologies bring about a fur-ther change in his relationship with students: a loss of his authority as teacher.Lisa’s comments echo these sentiments when she speaks with sadness about asituation where she was trying to connect with her class:I was talking about a heart-rending, serious problem, and these two guys inthe back of the classroom were smiling into the computer because they werewatching something. By the time I walked back there they had changed it ofcourse, but I find that is distracting to them, It’s also distracting to the peoplebehind them. But it’s also distracting to me, because I’m completely put off.I’m telling this story about this heart-rending situation, and they’re smilinginto the computer.Both of these participants connected distractions associated with technologiesin the classroom as hindering their engagement with students and a correspondingfeeling she is losing authority and respect. In these stories they both associatestudent engagement with students focussing attention on the instructor, whereverthey are spatially in the room. But when students engage with the laptops orphones, both participants feel like other students’ focus moves from the instructorto the students using the technologies.96These ideas surrounding place and students being actively engaged and in-volved in the classroom are frequently expressed using the language of “commu-nities” of learning. While participants spoke frequently about digital technologieshampering the sense of engagement that creates these communities, some partici-pants felt that it is possible to use technologies to create this sense of community.For example, as Michael says about a colleague:She does it well. She creates a community online, and it’s not just a place togo to do stuff. It’s actually a place to be.Michael’s language describing his colleague is very evocative. She uses tech-nologies to create real communities that are not just places to, “go to do stuff”– places of disinterested transactions – but places “to be”, to exist, to engage, tointeract, to live. Michael admires that his colleague can create these communi-ties online, but he doesn’t feel inclined to create those same communities onlinehimself:If I’m going to put my energy into creating learning communities, I’d rathercreate it face– to– face and spend my time in class and meeting people out-side of class.Creating this sense of place and these communities as “places to be” is clearlyimportant to Michael. And he does acknowledge that his colleague uses the tech-nologies very well to create those communities. Yet Michael chooses not to puthis “energy” into creating online learning communities, instead he wants to directhis energy to creating those communities inside the face–to–face class.Michael’s comments and actions demonstrate one way participants reactedto the challenges to their autonomy presented by expanding use of technologies.Michael asserts his independence by resisting using technologies to create theplaces he speaks and instead focussing his “energy” to create the communities inthe face–to–face classroom.97Even within the face–to–face synchronous classroom setting, some partici-pants see the technologies as an impediment to the sense of relationship and com-munity they are trying to build. As Lisa describes one situation with a guestpresenter:He said, well, you know, I guess we should get the projector and laptop andset it up. And I said, you know what? I think not. I think that for this topicwhat we need is more face–to–face, people to people, and the technologygets in the way, and even just setting up the technology can get in the way.Like Michael, Lisa sees the technologies as impediments to the elements ofthe community she is trying to build, and she uses language that evokes imagesof the technologies as real physical barriers to the place she wants to build. Andlike Michael, Lisa has also developed strategies to resist the technology to carveout her idea of community and resist – in this case not setting up the laptop andprojector.These participants all seem to refer to spatial aspects of teaching and howtechnologies influence those notions. When asking that students be “there” and“engaged” they seem to be referring to the relationship as embodied — being ineach others’ physical presence. But it is more than just being physically therein that space because, as participants pointed out, students can be physically inthe same space but not be actively engaged. A number of comments show thatsome participants feel like technologies – by causing distractions – can easilylead students to this condition of being physically there but not engaged.I find it interesting that no participants commented on the same phenomenon –being physically present but not actively engaged – while bracketing technologies.Surely students can “tune-out” what is going on in a class even when they don’thave a technology to distract them. Moritz (2013) investigated this phenomenonand found that the use of mobile phones had no impact on student engagement.As a result of this study, he suggested that these discussions focussing on rude-ness and respect reflect more about cultural values than about actual engagement.98Nonetheless, participants in this study did not evoke distractions other than thoserelated to technologies.Furthermore, except for Michael’s comment on his colleague, these partici-pants did not discuss students being actively engaged when not physically presentin the same space. Surely we have all experienced at least moments where we arefully engaged when we are not physically in the same space.6.4.2 Changing Relationships with BCU ColleaguesIn addition to these changes in relationships with students, participants spokeabout their relationships changing with their faculty colleagues and with adminis-trators at BCU. Many of the participants’ views relating to the role of technologiesat BCU can be understood through the framework of symbolic capital and thechanging power relationships within the institution.The time it takes is not valuedAs the comments above show, participants framed technologies as very time in-tensive. While a number of participants seem willing to put in the extra timerequired, they expect this time and effort to be acknowledged. But they feel thisis not the case. Sara, who based on the pre–interview participant survey, incorpo-rates more technologies than the other participants, expresses similar concerns toothers:It takes an awful lot of time, and I feel that, I fear that people are thinkingthat we only teach three hours now, or something like that. I put in as muchtime or more than I ever did by maintaining my websites and things like that,and I think that the students have got a lot of value there, but it is a lot, a lotof work.These comments indicate a changing dynamic between faculty and adminis-tration and suggest that the power relationship is tilting more towards the admin-istration.99This imbalance becomes more apparent in participants’ comments that at-tribute this lack of recognition to university administrators who don’t come from ateaching background, and therefore, don’t understand the time involved. As Saradescribes it:Anyone who’s not involved in teaching, they don’t get how much time wespend on these things. And it’s totally being devalued, all of that work, evenfurther devalued.Jane was clearly frustrated as she expressed her thoughts:I think that most of the people making the decisions are not people whoactually have spent much time in the classroom. We’ve got various peopleout there who’ve spent very, very little time in a classroom at all, not to nameany names particularly, but we’ve got all kinds of them. I don’t think theyhave the slightest idea of what goes on in most classrooms to be honest withyou!Jane’s comments show how the her role is changing and she feels the loss ofpower and respect because “they” – those with decision making power – valuedifferent attributes than she does. The skills that Jane values and would like toassociate with symbolic capital – skills associated with teaching experience – aregiven short shrift by those in power.Procedures around policy changeAs I mentioned in Movement 5, participants most commonly related their expe-riences with local scale policy, and in particular the 4th hour policy dealing withclass contact time. In particular, participants took issue with the rationale andquestioned the processes surrounding the policy change.This policy evoked strong emotions amongst participants. As Michael de-scribes it:I think that was just a joke, a bureaucratic decision that had really nothing todo with pedagogy at all.100Michael is clearly making a political critique here when he calls the process a“joke”. His comments point to the tension between bureaucratic and pedagogicalvalues, and Michael strongly sides with pedagogical values.Participants understand that the 4th contact hour was dropped to free up classspace, and they question the process and consultation that resulted in the decision.Michael again:It was about getting more classroom time, and what’s really interesting isthat when we went through that whole process and we then had the delaythat went on and on. . . because I was on that committee. We were goingto send out the poll to everybody, because we had to get it out because thestudents were going to leave, right? And the one question that it would haveasked, would you rather have the four hours in class or three hours with this,disappeared off of that [poll].These comments were typical of how faculty questioned the consultation pro-cesses. Michael was on the committee investigating a possible change, but won-ders why the planned question about the policy was never put to students. Com-ments like this seem to indicate a checkbox consulting process – consultation donein order to say that it was done, but not to actually impact policy.Some participants questioned which areas at BCU had the most influence inthe policy change, as Michael says:It was so that we had more classroom time, so that we would have morecourses, particularly out of [the] Business [academic area].Participants mostly attributed the decision to BCU administration, which theyfelt is out of touch with the teaching practice. As Jane says:I think that most of the people making the decisions are not people whoactually have spent much time in the classroom. we’ve got various peopleout there who’ve spent very, very little time in a classroom at all, not to nameany names particularly, but we’ve got all kinds of them. I don’t think theyhave the slightest idea of what goes on in most classrooms to be honest withyou.101Jane’s words complement Michael’s earlier commentary about the tension be-tween pedagogical and bureaucratic rationales, and they show how these partici-pants face a changing environment where decisions are made by an administrationthat values financial (space) concerns more than pedagogical ones.While participants did not often relate their local working conditions to largerscale (provincial or global) policies, Jane did mention that the policy process waslikely driven as response to pressure from the provincial government. She says:The government does put on real pressure for FTE. You’ve got to get thisFTE out there. Well how do you get them? We don’t have rooms where youcan put 500 students at a time. I’m pretty sure if we did our admin wouldbe very happy for us to be doing those kinds of things, but we don’t havethe architecture for it so they’ve got to make the most out of their 35-peopleroom, and government is constantly cutting down, cutting down, and cuttingdown and yet demanding that you do more and more and more. So ya, Ithink they are pushed by government.Participants see the elimination of the 4th hour as an easy solution for theadministration because the technologies such as the LMS are so ubiquitous thatthey were viewed as an easy way to solve enrolment and space issues.For example, as Sara says:They went the route where we don’t have the room space, so by defaultpushing people into using online because, really, there’s nothing else left.Similarly, as Michael describes it:[Y]ou had two choices. You had one where you had these meetings outsideof class, which not everybody could come to, so what the hell good is that?You’re not really doing anything with that, or you use the LMS, and noteverybody was doing it well, so you’ve got all of these people using [theLMS] in crappy ways, including me, even though I tried.102These comments do show faculty making significant connections between lo-cal policy and the larger field. In particular, as we now see in provincial pol-icy (Government of BC, 2014), provincial government funding largely determinesspace and programming issues at the institution. When talking about the pressurefrom the provincial government, these comments really show not just faculty, butalso the BCU administration as objects: pawns subjected to or implementing atop-down approach to policy.As Sara says with these policies, “there’s nothing else [choices] left”. Whenseen though this lens, the promises associated with technologies that manifestin these policies do just the opposite of what the technologies are touted to do:choices are limited and local level autonomy is lessened in favour of more controlby the provincial government.Additionally, comments such as Michael’s – “you’ve got all these people us-ing the [technologies] in crappy ways” – challenge the assertions of technologysupporters that the technologies lead to more engagement.As other comments surrounding technologies have shown, the 4th hour pro-cess and implementation caused frustration and resentment amongst many partic-ipants, who felt the decision took away their autonomy and accompanying profes-sionalism. As Michael says:I remember them saying, well, don’t you think it’s kind of arrogant to thinkthat the only way somebody can learn is in a classroom? And I’m going,well, don’t you think it’s kind of arrogant to think that the way I teach in theclassroom isn’t really good?Michael’s comments directly call into question symbolic capital and issues ofpower within the institution.Sara’s comments echo the similar sentiments about the policy implementation:I have, God, resentment, really, about the way the process came. We shouldhave had so much lead time, and we should have had paid time to build theskill set so that then you could actually create things.103For Sara, the resentment comes not so much from the technologies; ratherfrom the process and loss of autonomy. As she points out:I think the whole thing was a big fiasco. We always had the capability toteach for three hours and have our fourth hour as something else, but theytook away the options for us by not having room space accessible for us, andI think that was really wrong.Sara’s “fiasco” comment can be seen echoing Michael’s earlier characteriza-tion of the process as a “joke”. There are both commenting on the process andthe values and logic behind the decision. They are both making political state-ments that the decision come from places and people who don’t have the kind ofsymbolic capital valued by these participants.Or as Michael bluntly puts it:You always had the option to go down to three hours and have the fourthhour online, or whatever I wanted to do. Now suddenly you had to do it.These comments reveal a change in faculty work and attitudes that is hiddenin a strictly instrumental analysis of technologies and efficiency.When faculty spend so much more time with the technologies – learning, trou-bleshooting, maintaining, etc. – there are other consequences for the other partsof their work. They either have less time to spend on other other parts of theirpractice, which for many participants means the areas they have traditionally as-sociated as important in their work - reading, staying current in their field, engag-ing face-to-face with students. Or, they end up simply doing more work, some ofit unpaid.Additionally, as faculty members’ attitudes shift towards resentment, mistrust,and feeling like objects, it makes sense that there would be some negative impacton their work. Some participants worry that reducing the contact time associatedwith the loss of the 4th hour is the first domino to fall in the chain towards a largerteaching load. As Sara says:104You know, here’s a real fear: that we’re going to . . . What if we go downto three-hour blocks and somewhere they say, Well, now the norm will bethat you teach nine sections, or something like that. That’s a real nightmare,because we’ve just said you don’t have to worry about that fourth hour any-more.Participants attributed many institutional policy decisions to BCU administra-tors applying a bureaucratic logic. As Jane describes it:It was very clear that they were trying to free up classroom space so theycould run more classes. What that means is that you can’t say, Well, I’ll havea one-hour discussion and, you know, divide my class into four groups andhave one-hour discussions with the four groups. There’s no room. There’snowhere to take them. We don’t typically have room in our offices for thosethings. So the point, I think, very quickly became stick people into moretechnological means of delivering material. But I think it’s a screwed-upmess to be honest with you.Why is it a screwed-up mess? Jane problematizes this further:I don’t think they realize how technology doesn’t replace the ability of stu-dents to sit in a classroom and talk with each other and the ability of instruc-tors to help that to happen.Notice how Jane attributes the decision to “them” – BCU administrators – andmakes the political commentary on the processes and result. Jane attributes theconflict to an apparent disconnect in values between faculty like her who do knowteaching and an administrator group who largely do not. Or as she puts it bluntly:We do have a whole bunch of administrators who don’t understand teaching.6.4.3 Changing ExpectationsI asked participants if they felt pressure from BCU to use technologies. At leastinitially, almost all participants said they did not feel pressure. Kevin’s earlier105comment that he feels pleased – lucky maybe – that he doesn’t feel pressure touse technologies expressed typical sentiments for these participants. And not onlydid they not feel pressured, but they frequently used the word “trust” to describehow they felt BCU treated their use of technologies. Victor describes his feelingsas follows:In the same way as we’re trusted to take the material we’ve got to teach it inthe way that we see as the most valuable way of teaching it. We’re not likea lot of school teachers, where there’s a curriculum we have to follow. Wecan decide on our own version of that curriculum.Here Victor uses “we” to refer to university instructors in general, but alsospecifically to himself and his faculty colleagues at BCU, whom he again charac-terizes as having a lot of autonomy.But the contradictions appear when the same participants express pressure touse technologies. So where does this pressure come from? Most of the partici-pants responsibilisize and assign it to themselves. As Kevin says:The pressure comes from me.However, digging more deeply, we can see the pressure comes from differentsources. Some can be attributed to the desire to keep up with peers As Kevin says:I mean the pressure I feel . . . I just want to keep up.Here Kevin refers to the change in his work associated with the spread indigital technologies. He earlier mentioned that he values keeping up with devel-opments in his discipline. But his comments here refer to building symbolic cap-ital by keeping up with his colleagues’ technology use, even though he questionswhether using those technologies will help his teaching.These comments show how strong the narrative is with these participants. It’sso strong that it leads him to responsibilisize the need to “keep up” with his col-leagues technology expertise in order to nurture his own employability in within106the larger contexts of the hard technological determinism of provincial policy dis-cussed in Movement 5 and neo-liberal ethos discussed in Movement 3. It is alsoworth note here that Kevin takes on the responsibility himself of keeping up histechnology skills: he doesn’t question here whether or not BCU or the provincialgovernment should take on that responsibility.Greg, too, puts pressure on himself. But for him it is not so much to keep upwith colleagues; rather, to make connections with his students. As he says:If I feel pressure it’s more from me. It’s internal, and I’m driven more to usethe technology so that it’s something the students will relate to, somethingthat will give meaning to the material that I’m trying to pass on to them.Here we can see Greg responsibilisizing the need to up his technology game,as he takes on the role of “autonomous entrepreneur” (Shamir, 2008, p. 10) andthe responsibility to prepare himself to make that change.Robyn describes the pressure she feels to try and keep up with her colleagues:I’m sometimes embarrassed to admit that I don’t have it [technology] now.You know, I just feel bad. You know, oh, you don’t have a LMS site. It’salmost like I feel like I should, that I’m obligated to do it.Robyn’s comments show how she accepts the rationality that these technologychanges are inevitable: she used to feel more control, but now she has lost hersense of agency and feels bad that she hasn’t kept up with the changes.Kevin describes his situation as follows:The pressure is coming from myself to keep up. I’m not being told to doso. I feel that there’s really good technology available for use if I put mymind to it and start learning it and applying it so I know it’s within reach ifI wanted it.Kevin reiterates again his independence and autonomy and responsibilisizesthe need to, “put my mind to and start learning” the, “good technology available”.With these comments we can see some of Kevin’s conflicting tensions. On one107hand he feels like an “old goat” who needs to take advantage or the good technol-ogy available to him. But on the other hand, he questions whether or not he reallywants that technology as he has made frequent comments about his doubts thatthe more technologies will make his teaching better.Not only did these pressures lead to participants responsibilisizing the needto change, but participants also expressed frustration as changing policies wentfurther and required that change. When describing a policy change that requiredfaculty to start inputting grades electronically, Victor describes he reaction to sys-tem problems:I wondered what the hell was going on! Was it me? Is it the wrong pass-word? I better go check what my passwords are. Really frustrating, and itwasted a lot of time.When discussing this story further, Victor comment that his worry is not aboutpressure or “encouragement” to use technologies, but the lack of support infras-tructure in place:At one level my concern is sort of the opposite; not that encouragementor coercion but the resources available for faculty to do it if they want to.Certainly I’ve had the feeling over the last four or five years that we’re moreand more encouraged to do that, to use the LMS in class, or that sort of stuff inclass. But you get to class, and it doesn’t necessarily work. The computer . . .you can’t log on. They’ve changed the password without telling anybody,those sorts of things.So close to retirement, Victor doesn’t talk about feeling pressure to use tech-nologies, but he worries that his younger colleagues – who do feel that pressure –won’t have enough support in place to successfully use the technologies.Not only do participants feel pressure to keep up with their colleagues, butthey also spoke the perception that students expect or demand they use more tech-nologies. As Robyn explains:108I think the students are kind of taking it for granted that we all have thistechnology.Jane recalls this expectation from students as motivation when she started us-ing email:It was becoming increasingly important to me to be able to access email onevenings and weekends, and I hadn’t felt that need until you start having thestudents and colleagues who expect you to respond evenings and weekends.And this accessibility was even more important to Jane when she was in aDepartment Head role:Certainly as Chair in the last few years it’s been crucial to me.Jane here is referring the expanding temporal scope of her work, especially asChair, where she now need to uses the technologies to be accessible to students,administrators, and other faculty colleagues alike.This need to stay accessible signifies a significant change in the role of aninstructor who used to be unavailable away from campus. Greg describes hismotivation to use more technology to stay current with the students:Technology is something these students, now young adults, grew up with.The less familiar with it I am, the less efficient I’m going to be as an educator.They’re used to using technologies and want to continue to do so.Here Greg invokes the neo-liberal market language of “efficiency” with posi-tive connotations of making him a better teacher and he responsibilisizes the needto acquire these skills.Victor echoes similar thoughts when he says:Students, who increasingly live their lives with computers and that sort oftechnology, sort of expect to be taught that way.Kevin also perceives this student expectation, but also the expectation of theirparents too. As he describes his reason to use the LMS:109The students expect it . . . and even students’ parents I’m starting to find.I’ve heard a parent say, oh, my daughter has a professor who doesn’t evenhave his powerpoint slides up or something like that. Wow! That reallystruck a chord with me .. I think parents really recognize that their kidslearn with technology and they want their children’s professors to have thattechnology.These comments show Kevin’s cognitive dissonance around technologies ineducation. Previously he stressed how he believed much of his success in teachingrelated to his “old school” ways. But here he showed surprise at his own commentthat even his students’ parents “recognize that kids learn with technology”.Sometimes faculty members talk in terms of student expectations, but theyare also talking about how students view their technology use compared to otherfaculty members. As Robyn says:I’m thinking, oh, they’re going to think the other teachers are giving themall this, and I’m not.When referring to faculty colleagues use of PowerPoint slides, Jane notes thatthere is a student expectation to use more modern technologies:I read a lot of faculty evaluations, and I have sometimes seen commentsfrom students (about PowerPoint) It’s so old fashioned. And I don’t actuallyreally care what other people are using in their classrooms, but I care whatstudents think . . . if they’re expecting this and they’re seeing this as oldfashioned and behind the times and clunky, its probably interfering withtheir process.By citing “faculty evaluations” Jane extends the pressure further than meetingher students’ needs. Faculty evaluations are institutional practices of accountabil-ity and surveillance, and Jane makes note of these comments in these evaluationsand responsibilisizes the need to live up to “what students think I’m using”.What does it mean to be, “old fashioned”? It seems to imply somehow beingnot as good of a teacher. But why is it bad and does it really mean this? Jane’s110choice of language – “clunky” and “behind the times” – speaks of an inevitable,progressive, and deterministic view of technologies as I discussed in Movement 3.Jane’s concern with, “what students think I’m using” shows her responsibilisizingthe need to act as an entrepreneur herself and move forward with her technologyuse.She also talks about students as a homogenous group in this view and when shetalks about meeting, “their needs”. But what does it mean to meet their needs?Are the needs of each individual student so similar that it even makes sense totalk about it this way? Jane doesn’t problematize these questions as she distillsstudents’ needs.Jane’s language here also adopts a neo-liberal model metaphor for rational-izing an increase role of technologies. Here she talks about meeting the needsof students (consumer) adopting the neo-liberal ethos applied to higher educationthrough provincial policy.6.5 Synthesis and Summary6.5.1 Change in way Faculty Talk about TechnologiesWhen I look at these interview conversations as snapshots, shedding light on par-ticipants’ experiences, I am struck by the transformation in how they talk aboutabout technologies in their practice through the different stages of their careers.Participants often spoke about their early uses of technologies using the sym-bolic language of the pioneering journey, and while they did recount frustrations,the overriding image was that they were proud of being amongst the first to dothis work.These views on their early uses of technologies mesh with and illustrate partic-ipants’ identity of themselves and the academics as independent and autonomous:they got to choose and use the technologies as they saw fit.In these early stories, the technologies were mostly seen as additional to themain demands of their practice. But they didn’t speak of the technologies in the111sense of extra work; rather, as a bonus that they could take home and play with inthe summer or on weekends. Furthermore, participants spoke about the technolo-gies themselves as discrete objects – computers, word, printers – separate fromthem and their teaching.But as the conversations turned towards their more current experiences witheducational technologies, their feelings became much more complex. Recountingthese more recent experiences, participants’ spoke of technologies no longer asdiscrete objects, but rather as thoroughly embedded in their practice. And thetechnologies changed from being additional toys to deeply embedded, participantstalked about their experiences with the technologies very differently.Many participants expressed concern over the time it takes to learn, maintain,and support the technologies. While participants also had to take time to do thosethings before, they didn’t seem to see it as being so onerous because they weremaking the choice to play with the technology. But now, with the technologiesdeeply embedded in their work, participants’ viewed the time requirements asmore onerous and demanding.Numerous participants also talked about support issues in a similar manner.Their previous, pioneering experiences also required IT support from BCU; how-ever they rarely commented on support issues from those early days.. But oncethe technologies became more ubiquitous and embedded into their practice, par-ticipants expressed a host of concerns around support for the use of technologies.Discussions around support also revealed participants concerns surroundingabout how they see themselves, how they are viewed by their students and col-leagues, and how their role as instructors is changing over time. Most of theparticipants talked about their own experiences as students and their earlier expe-riences teaching with faculty seen as the experts, the “sage on the stage”. Partici-pants were used to being, and being seen as, the authority. But that has changed.With technologies so ubiquitous participants are no longer the authority onall in the classroom. At the very least, their students know more than they doabout the technologies. And with access to the internet, students can instantly112have access to information that the participants - the teachers - don’t know about,even in their own field of expertise.Not only does instant access to information change the participants’ role inthe class, but their concerns over support further eroded their feeling of authority.Participants expressed concerned about how they would look “stupid” or like an“old goat” to their students if they couldn’t get the computer working properly atthe front of the classroom.In addition to expressing these concerns, participants’ framing of their cur-rent views frequently include contradictory feelings towards technologies. On theone hand, participants said that they don’t feel like BCU is forcing them to usetechnologies; on the other hand, they cite numerous examples of where they arerequired to use certain technologies such as the LMS or to input grades on-lineusing a student record system.Participants feel conflicted. They want to be great teachers and they feel likethey are doing great work already. Yet, they also feel, for a host of reasons, thatthey should incorporate more technologies into their teaching, even when they arenot sure that the technologies will actually make their teaching better.6.5.2 Different LogicsSome of the contradictions faculty face can be attributed to different logics evidentin the interviews: one logic attributed to administration and the other attributed toteachers.A logic attributed to the administration is illustrated by the fourth hour schedul-ing policy. Embedded in this logic is a neo-liberal ethos that efficiency (heremanifest as the efficient use of space) should be an overriding priority in highereducation. Based on this logic, the problem of long wait-lists for classes can besolved by eliminating the fourth hour, scheduling classes with less contact time,and adding more classes to the schedule.However, now BCU is not facing the same burgeoning enrolment, and in par-ticular the academic areas represented by participants in this study no longer have113excess enrolment. In fact, few courses in these areas have wait lists, and there areoften classes with much fewer than a full complement of students. But there isno talk off adding a fourth scheduled hour back to these classes now that space isavailable. Instead, classes that are less than eighty percent full are cancelled, andthe dominos fall such that some faculty members lose work.The logic here is one of efficiency. But rather than being efficient working tothe goal of having more students receive an education, it is a case of economicefficiency. This logic hinges on having more full classes – that can cover theircosts – and not having classes run that are not full – and which would cost BCUmoney.The increasing use of technologies at BCU can be looked at as an extensionof the logic of efficiency. Incorporating the LMS allows faculty to use classroomspace and time more efficiently. Having faculty create and edit their own courseoutlines is more efficient because it requires fewer support staff. Similarly, requir-ing faculty to submit grades on-line through a student registration system is moreefficient than a paper based system that might involve more staff.In stark contrast to this logic of efficiency, most participants talk about theirown logic of education differently. This logic focusses almost entirely on rela-tionships with students. Faculty talk about these interactions as the foundation ofeducation. They talk about the relationships developing over time and in specificplaces. And this sense of time and place is something that participants feel isdifficult to find when technologies are used to replaces face-to-face interactionswith students. Participants spoke of their goals to, “make them [students] feel im-portant” (Lisa), and, “to see themselves as having power and agency” (Michael),which these participants feel can only be enacted through their synchronous (intime and space) engagements with students.6.5.3 ResponsibilisizingNotions of independence and autonomy kept recurring through much of the par-ticipants discussions. Earlier in their careers, the symbolism of the pioneering114journeys focussed on this autonomy. But as their uses of technologies continued,participants still spoke about their autonomy, but their stories were more compli-cated and sometimes contradictory. They spoke about not feeling pressure fromthe university to use technologies, but they expressed ways that they did feel pres-sure.The narrative of autonomy is so strong that participants seemed to reflect thepressure back on to themselves, responsibilisizing the need to “keep current” anduse technologies like what their younger colleagues, their students, indeed muchof the field of higher education are doing. Contradictions also occurred as partic-ipants like Kevin felt the need to use more technologies – to “up my game”– eventhough he already thought he was doing a great job teaching and doesn’t believethat the technologies will improve his teaching.This notion of autonomy is very powerful for these participants, and it ledto them responsibilisizing the need to learn and use more technologies as theyframed themselves as independent, entrepreneurial contractors, solely responsi-ble for maintaining their employability — even when those technologies stand incontrast to what they feel are good educational practices.6.5.4 Changing FieldThe field of higher education has clearly changed with the widespread reach ofdigital technologies. And with the field changing the definition of work haschanged for these participants. As it represents symbolic capital in BCU, mostparticipants talked about the increasing importance of technology expertise andthe declining importance of reading, publishing, and keeping current in their field– areas that they would traditionally associate with more symbolic capital.While participants still use the language of autonomy, they clearly feel thatthey have less autonomy and independence over their work. Much more of theirtime is spend dealing with the concerns around technologies both inside the classand outside ot it. Their work has become more bureaucratized and much moreadministrative work has been downloaded onto them. important form of symbolic115capital for these participants.The teaching practice has changed considerably as participants struggle withthe practice of engaging students in the sense of place and space that they havetraditionally valued in their practice.116Chapter 7Gigue: Summary, Conclusions, andFuture ResearchA movement which ties together previous themes and looks toward thefutureIn Movement 5 and Movement 6 I have given detailed descriptions of thedata and answers to my two main research questions. In this movement, I recapand recast the evolution of my thoughts throughout the research process, I noteadditional observations and conclusion that resulted from the research, and I pointto the limitations of the current study and areas of interest for future studies.7.1 Recasting and Additional ConclusionsI’m starting to look like an outdated old goat. Kevin - BCU FacultymemberYou could literally hire James Cameron to make Math 101. MarcAndreessen - Founder of NetscapeYes, you have seen these quotes before in Movement 2. No, they have notbeen copied here by mistake. I have repeated them here because they are still117meaningful to me. But as my knowledge has expanded, and as the context at BCUhas changed, I now see these statements in a different light. Now, having analyzedhistorical approaches towards technologies, having analyzed policy at differentscales, and having analyzed data from interviews with study participants, I seethese statements in the context of complex interactions and feedbacks betweenmultiple scales of influence.The seeds for this study grew frommy experiences working with faculty mem-bers as Manager of BCU’s CET, and my first idea was to investigate why certainfaculty use technologies one way and why other faculty members use it a differentway.In my work, I experienced faculty enthusiasm towards technologies, but I alsonoticed unease, conflict, and contradictions about the technologies and how theywere being implemented at BCU. And I became increasingly more intrigued bythese tensions. I wondered how could someone like Kevin, with such a stellarteaching record, feel like an anachronism? And at the other end of the spectrum,I wondered how someone like Andreessen could see the technologies as suchunalloyed blessings?My initial thought was to investigate the tensions by trying to understandfaculty members’ individual attitudes and perspectives towards the technologies.And remembering my background and norms of my practice, this approach seemedlike the obvious one to take.After all, as I reviewed in Movement 3 there is a long history in e–learningand technology literature of investigating individual’s attitudes and perceptionstowards technologies. And the language used (adopter, resister; digital native, dig-ital immigrant) treats people as isolated individuals, cast under positive (adapter,native) or negative (resister, immigrant) connotations depending on how muchthey incorporate technologies into their teaching.And this individualized, atomized approach is not just prevalent in the re-search, but has been acquired by those working in educational technology lead-ership as well. Even the everyday language used by those in the practice, that of118“users” and “tools”, implies that it is a matter understanding individual facultymembers psychology to lead them towards using the technologies.But as I progressed through the EdD program I became exposed to a diverseset of conceptual resources that gave me a new perspective on statements such asthose by Kevin and Marc Andreessen. These resources helped me to understandmore about policy generation, implementation, and implications. They helpedme to understand different ways of approaching leadership. They helped me tounderstand the historical context of thinking about technologies. And they helpedme to think anew about just what the purpose is of higher education. Incorporatingthese new resources into my thinking, it didn’t make much sense to investigatefaculty perspectives in isolation. Instead, I found it useful to think of those facultyperspectives within the context of policy – at BCU, provincial policy, and nationaland global influences – within the context of historical approaches to technology,and within an expanded idea of the role of leadership.I could see how BCU policy, such as the fourth hour policy, impacted botheducational technologies at the university and how participants talked about thosetechnologies. I could see how provincial policy - such as the Campus 2020 reportand, more recently, the Skills for Jobs policy - interacted with institutional policyand participants practice at BCU. I could see how faculty members’ actions, byresponsibilisizing the demands of incorporating digital technologies even whenthose using those technologies represented what they felt as good teaching prac-tice, were making policy by their actions.Although I had been working managing the CET for many years, I came to thejob with technology skills, and not with a strong background understanding thetheory and history of technology studies. I found it very helpful to be able to placemy current context within the historical and theoretical frameworks that have beenused to view technologies. The ideas reviewed in Movement 3 provided me witha helpful context within which to place individual statements, policy, and globaltrends.And though I had been working for more than a decade in a role of educational119technology leadership, I had never previously thought much about what leadershipmeans. In fact, I doubt that I would have been able to articulate a clear concep-tion of my own views on educational leadership at that time, but I did recognizethat my work environment was heavily influenced by the dominant bureaucratic-managerial model where leadership results from hierarchical rank within an orga-nization and is centered around goals based on the needs of the organization andnot those based on the needs of its members or of the greater society (see, forexample Foster, 1989).My thinking around these questions surrounding my practice has evolved ashas my thinking and actions around educational leadership. I question the bu-reaucratic model’s initial assumptions equating leadership and management, andinstead view leadership in my practice as (Foster, 1989) describes it:Leadership is at its heart a critical practice, one that comments on presentand former constructions of reality, that holds up certain ideals for compar-ison, and that attempts at the enablement of a vision based on an interpreta-tion of the past. In being critical, then, leadership is oriented not just towardsthe development of more perfect organizational structures, but towards areconceptualization of life practices where common ideals of freedom anddemocracy stand important (Foster, 1989, p. 52).I have tried to take this critical approach to leadership towards my practice andthis research. First, I am being critical of my own views by asking if my perspec-tive and experience is appropriate for investigating these questions. Additionally,I question my role as an educational leader. Just because I am in a position ofsome decision making power, does that give me the right to carry out the practiceas I see fit? I am also critical of the views of the faculty participants in this study.Why shouldn’t someone like Kevin try using more features of the LMS? And howdoes he know that his “old-school” teaching style is really the best? And I amcritical of BCU. While it purports to create and implement policy in the service ofgreater student access or success, who gets to make those decisions? And how arethose terms defined?120While this approach to leadership is a fundamentally critical practice, Fosterreminds us that it is not enough to just be critical. If the critique identifies socialinequities then this approach must be, at least to some degree, transformative. Italso must be educative by aiming at the transformation through analysis of thecurrent conditions and presentation of a vision of possible alternatives. And fi-nally, the approach is ethical in at least two respects. It is concerned with theindividual ethical actions of the leaders and also with the overall ethical commit-ment of the community. By thinking about these issues, writing about them, andimplementing them in my practice, I am trying to enact change.As I travelled through the EdD journey, I was able to draw upon these re-sources and perspectives, and I began to look at statements like Kevin’s and An-dreessen’s with a much better understanding of the larger contexts and interactionsbetween those contexts.My perspective went from viewing the individual statements from completelyatomized faculty members to seeing them as reflecting and interacting with thelarger scale forces. While I was still interested in the same topic, the new per-spective lead to me to focus on understanding how faculty members frame digitaltechnologies within the contexts of policy and larger scale influences such as glob-alization. And I became more interested in looking at the different scales and theinterrelationships between them.To return to the musical metaphor, instead of just hearing individual instru-ments, my new perspective made me better equipped to hear the entire orchestra.Conclusion 1 The study of policy, leadership, and education during the EdD pro-gram gave me a much more broad and integrated perspective towards ob-servations in my day-to-day educational technology leadership practice.At the same time that my knowledge and perspective were changing, the spe-cific context at BCU changed markedly between the study’s nascent stage and nowthat it is complete. While change may be a constant in higher education, thischange was faster and more significant than any others during my two and a halfdecades of working experience.121BCU was newly designated a special purpose teaching university just beforethe study started. However, at least for faculty members, the day to day operationsand practices were very much the same as during the previous decades of historyas a community college.When the study was conceived BCU had burgeoning enrolment, waitlists forclasses, and not enough building space to create any more classes. Furthermore,traditional academic areas - where the study participants teach - accounted forthe majority of BCU’s faculty and student body. At that time, the use of digitaltechnologies in the teaching practice was seen as a largely based on each facultymember’s choice. For example, if faculty members wanted an LMS site for anygiven course, they contacted the CET to create the site for them. Finally, whenthe study was being formulated, I was working full–time as manager of the CET,working with faculty members who were interested in incorporating educationaltechnologies into their teaching.Today the context is very different. BCU has been established as a universityfor nearly a decade, and it has entirely new governance and academic leadership.As participants reminded me frequently during interviews, none of the academicleadership moved to those positions from teaching roles at BCU.BCU is now following strategic directions aligned closely with the BC provin-cial government’s policies of skills and jobs training. BCU is expanding degreeofferings in areas designated (and funded) as growth areas by this policy, and theuniversity has cancelled a number of programs and degrees in areas not designatedand funded by provincial government policy.Today the overall enrolment at BCU is lower than in the past. In particu-lar, lower enrolment is most noticeable in the traditional academic areas (thosein which study participants teach): most of the traditional academic areas offertwenty to thirty percent fewer courses than they were when I started this study. Atthe same time, BCU has expanded its degree and course offerings in applied areas.The traditional academic areas now account for less than one third of BCU’s fac-ulty and student population, and the internal power has shifted from the academic122to applied faculties.Now, digital technologies are ubiquitous and their use in teaching practice isthe norm. In contrast to the example above from the early days of the study, LMSsites are now automatically created for each running of each course. Faculty nolonger request a LMS site, but it is created automatically, betraying the assump-tion that faculty members will use those sites. All students in each course are alsoautomatically enrolled in these automatically created LMS sites. While facultymembers are not required to use the LMS site, using them has become normative.Additionally, because sites are automatically populated with students, faculty feelpressure to use the LMS even if they were not otherwise planning to do so. And inaddition to LMS technologies, all BCU classrooms are now equipped with instruc-tors’ podiums (computer, DVD, etc), data projectors, and document cameras.Finally, my own work has changed drastically. The CET was eliminated twoyears ago. While no official reason was announced, I was told that the changewas made to save money because faculty members are all now so familiar withthe technologies that a CET office was no longer required to help with the peda-gogical aspects of using the technology and that any questions faculty had coudbe answered by the IT department.And within this context of these changes, the timeline seems significant. Formany years, the working lives of most faculty participants had not changed sub-stantially. As I was beginning the study, changes related to government pol-icy (fourth hour policy, changing program mix, increase in technologies) werejust starting to become noticeable. And now, that the study is completed, thosechanges are even more apparent: BCU has undergone substantial change to itsprograms to align with government priorities, digital technologies are ubiquitousboth in the classroom in non-classroom aspects of faculty practice.The findings from this study may have changed if the timing were different.For example, the impact of the policy documents studied were just beginning to befelt at BCU when I conducted interviews with participants. Had I done the studyfive years earlier, I suspect participants would have not spoken of these policies,123and I suspect they would have spoken even less about provincial policy effects. Incontrast, if I interviewed the participants today, I suspect participants would havemade stronger connections to provincial policy.Conclusion 2 Understanding the current and historical context is important tohelp understand how faculty frame educational technologies.Wearing my geographer’s hat, thinking about scale and interactions betweenscales provides a useful way to think about this research.In this study participants spoke most often about their immediate personaland local scale. A number of the research questions asked about their particularsetting and conditions, but some questions also asked them about conditions andinfluences in a more general sense. But despite these prompts to increase thescale, participants talked mostly about experiences at their own scale. That is,they talk about their teaching, their experiences, the relationships with colleaguesand students.And when asked to try and make connections, they primarily did so at the localscale - within their classes and their departments. And when they make connec-tions with policy they also mostly did so at the smallest, institutional scale poli-cies such as the 4th hour. Participants did occasionally talk about larger, provincialscale factors, yet rarely make direct connections to their personal local conditions.This local scale thinking is illustrated by the recurring talk about autonomy.While many of the participants’ experiences can be connected to provincial scalepolicies (e.g. expansion of use of technologies related to BC Campus, 4th hourrelated to demand for government reporting and in increase in FTE’s, etc.), partic-ipants themselves rarely seemed to make those connections. Instead, they seemedto relate those experiences to the local, institutional scale. Thinking about thingson the local scale seems to be a way participants make sense of their practice andtheir identity.When participants spoke about their early experiences with technologies theyoften referred to the technology as discrete from themselves (the computer, that124old thing, etc.). And as an object separate from themselves, it seems relativelyeasy to understand technologies when spoken about on this personal scale.Conclusion 3 Using the geographical concept of scale is helpful to analyze howfaculty see their experiences with technologies.Conclusion 4 Participants frame technologies at their own personal scale as theytalk about their experiences using technologies in their practice.But now that the technologies are more ubiquitous and embedded, it seemsthat this similar line of thinking, primarily in one scale, can explain some of theconflicts faculty express. Not recognizing the interactions between the scales (in-fluences of provincial or global policy) leads to responsibilisizing and some of thecontradictions. For example, comments like, “Even though I’m not convinced thatit will make me a better teacher, I need to take the time to learn the technologies”don’t recognize connections to larger scale phenomena and therefore contributesto a feeling of lack of power to make any changes and a feedback loop that furtherenhances thinking on a local scale. At least for some participants, the result isa contradiction between what they feel like they have to do and what they feelis good practice. Without recognizing the interactions between scales and beingable to move between these scales, the influences and feedback are easily missed.Conclusion 5 Looking only at the personal scale leads to missing the intercon-nections between scales that impact the participants’ current context. Notseeing the interconnections in this study led to participants’ responsibilisiz-ing (taking on the blame of not keeping up).The participants in this study were all experienced faculty members with back-grounds in the Social Science disciplines. To varying degrees, participants wereall familiar with concepts such as power, fields, and globalization. Yet, I foundthat they didn’t draw on these concepts when referring to digital technologieswithin their own practice. Again, it seems that when focussing on the small, local125scale, participants didn’t recognize the interactions and make connections to theselarger scale phenomena or even invoke concepts with which they are familiar.Although I didn’t specifically ask participants to comment on concepts suchas globalization, I did ask them to draw any connections they could between theirlocal conditions and larger scale influences. I found it surprising that they didn’tinvoke the language and ideas from their academic fields. As changes at BCUhave become more evident, an area of future study would be to investigate ifparticipants would now draw upon these concepts and the language of their fieldsto make connections between policy and their practice.Conclusion 6 Participants in the study were familiar with certain theoretical con-structs but did not draw upon these when trying to understand their ownworking experiences with technologies in their practice.7.2 Limitations and Future ResearchThis study has a number of limitations, mostly related to the time and context ofthe study and to the nature of the participant group.Because it is a case study conducted at a particular location and time, the re-sults are necessarily limited BCU at that specific time. Furthermore, the studyparticipants all came from the same Faculty from within BCU, and all of the par-ticipants were full-time faculty members, most with high seniority. Including par-ticipants from more areas from within the university, and including those with lessseniority or with something other than full-time status, would have likely broughtin different perspectives. Additionally, I did not have access to agreements be-tween BCU and technology companies and vendors, so this study was not able toaccurately assess the scale, importance, or impact of these agreements on localand provincial policy.There are numerous areas of future study related to this topic that could proveuseful and complementary to this study.126It would be interesting to conduct the same study again now that the impactof provincial policies has become more evident. Would the participants speakdifferently about those policies? Would they draw more connections at differentscales?Within one institution (say BCU) it would be useful to explore how the dif-ferent detailed contexts within the institution could lead to different views andperspectives on technologies. How would faculty members from an area withincreasing symbolic capital view the changes?It would also be useful to expand to other institutions within BC to investi-gate how similar provincial and global contexts interact with different settingsand contexts. What differences and similarities would arise in those contexts?It would also be interesting to return to my final conclusion – that the partic-ipants didn’t draw upon those theoretical constructs with which they are familiar– to see if they explicitly draw upon those ideas now, in a different context, whenspeaking about technologies in their practice.127Chapter 8PostludeDid you hear that? The oboes just tumbled down a scale in descendingthirds. What’s that now? An arpeggio from the entire string section, acrescendo matching the rising pitch.In the prelude, I opened this work by introducing the analogy of the researcheras an audience member to a grand orchestral concert, shifting focus between theindividual instruments and the sound of the entire orchestra, between the individ-ual themes and the larger sound, meaning, and effect of the piece.Now that the study is complete, I think the metaphor is still relevant, but itneeds to be extended.Sometimes you are aware of the sound of the entire orchestra, the warmthblanketing you. So in tune. So in time. Like everyone involve as integral,intermeshed vital parts of the same, living organism. But hold on. What’sthat? Something is off. This is not in tune. This is not in time. Now it goesevery more awry. The entire performance crashes, out of sync. It grates anddisturbs you. It has become harsh, discordant, cacophonous. And then yourealize that you are not in the audience, you are on stage: a performer, aparticipant.In the original metaphor I placed myself as an observer: an outsider. NowI realize that I am also up on the stage performing the piece too, just like the128participants in my study. So I am an insider doing this research as well. Yet, at thesame time, I still maintain elements of being an outsider: I have actually collectedand analyzed the data and bring in the host of theoretical and conceptual resourcesdescribed in this dissertation. Perhaps the metaphor might best be thought of asshifting perspectives, sometimes from the audience and sometimes as a performeron stage.Additionally, the metaphor should be extend to include the details, results andconsequences of the performance itself. When participants discuss their earlyexperiences with technnologies, or moments in the classroom where they makestrong connections with students, they speak in a tone and language that mirrorsmoments of musical consonance, where the harmonies and rhythms embody asense of calmness, smoothness, and order.In contrast, participants’ conflict and angst with the tensions they feel sur-rounding the technologies can be seen as parallel to elements of harmonic disso-nance or rhythmic tension within an orchestral performance. Using this extendedmetaphor, we could see the tension and contradictions participants express as anal-ogous to tensions and dissonance in the musical performance. That dissonancecould result from the individual themselves, from their section, the entire orches-tra, or even broader. And we we could extend the metaphor to see the “different”logics described in Movement 6 as musical tension and dissonance, resulting fromfundamental differences amongst the performers in concepts of tone and time.Extending the metaphor to include myself as a performer and the overall effectof the piece helps me to think about my own role in my practice. As a sectionplayer or a section leader, I contribute to the overal effect of the piece: to thetiming and the tuning.But how will I act? I can focus my efforts on altering my playing to helpingthe ensemble play more in time and more in tune. On the other hand, I may wantto work towards discordance and alternate rhythms as ways of resisting what I seeas misguided direction and policy.I can not answer that question with one overarching, consistent answer. In129some situations I will act to try to make the performance more harmonious, whileat others times I will resist and work towards cacophony. Like the policy andparticipants in my study, my actions and response will largely be influenced bythe particular context within which I am situated.130BibliographyAlbirini, A. (2004). An exploration of the factors associated with the attitudes ofhigh school EFL teachers in Syria toward information and communicationtechnology. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University. ! pages 28, 30Alexander, H. A. (2006). A view from somewhere: Explaining the paradigms ofeducational research. Journal of philosophy of education, 40(2), 205–221. !pages 41Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:Motivations and realities. Journal of studies in international education,11(3-4), 290–305. ! pages 34Azevedo, A. (2012). In colleges’ rush to try MOOC’s, faculty are not always inthe conversation.http://chronicle.com/article/In-Colleges-Rush-to-Try/134692/. Accessed:2014-07-03. ! pages 37Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach.McGraw-Hill International. ! pages 44, 53Bell, D. (1976). The coming of the post-industrial society. In The EducationalForum, vol. 40, No. 4, (pp. 574–579). Taylor & Francis. ! pages 58Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Against learning: Reclaiming a language for education inan age of learning. In Beyond Learning: Democratic education for a humanfuture, chap. Chapter 1, (pp. 13–32). London: Paradigm. ! pages 59, 60, 63,65Bolkan, J. (2014). Rochester institute of technology pilots classroom as alearning tool.131http://campustechnology.com/articles/2014/09/29/rochester-institute-of-technology-pilots-classroom-as-a-learning-tool.aspx?admgarea=news.Accessed: 2014-10=01. ! pages 37Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. InternationalJournal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3-4), 161–188. ! pages 39Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook ofTheory and Research for the Sociology of Education, chap. 1, (pp. 241–58).Westport, CT: Greenwood. ! pages 11Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. ! pages 45Brown, W. (2003). Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory &Event, 7(1). ! pages 35, 39Bryman, A., & Teevan, J. T. (2005). Social Research Methods. Don Mills,Ontario: Oxford University Press, canadian ed. ! pages 40, 41Bull, G., Bull, G., Garofalo, J., & Harris, J. (2002). Grand challenges preparingfor the technological tipping point. Learning and Leading with Technology,29(8), 6–12. ! pages 27Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism. URL (consulted 21June 2001): http://www. aber. ac. uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet. html.Retrieved Aug-12-2015. ! pages 32Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixedmethods approaches. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, 2 ed. ! pages 40, 41Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectivein the research process. Sage. ! pages 40Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem oflearning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and itperspectives. Tech. rep., Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR, September2014. Available from http://www. educause. edu/ecar. 2014 EDUCAUSE. CCby-nc-nd. ! pages 36Dalea, R., & Robertson, S. (2004). Interview with boaventura de sousa santos.Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(2), 147–160. ! pages 35132Davis, J. (2005). Power, politics, and pecking order: Technological innovation asa site of collaboration, resistance, and accommodation. The Modern LanguageJournal, 89(2), 161–176. ! pages 32Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgiou, G., Psillos, D.,Vlahavas, I., Tsoukalas, I., & Pombortsis, A. (2003). Cultures in negotiation:teachers acceptance resistance attitudes considering the infusion of technologyinto schools. Computers and Education, 41(1), 19–37. ! pages 29Denizen, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of QualitativeResearch. Thousand Oaks, Californnia: Sage Publications. ! pages 40Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitativeresearch. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. ! pages 41Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. London/New York: Routledge.! pages 21, 22, 45Feenberg, A. (2000). Do we need a critical theory of technology? Reply to TylerVeak. Science, Technology, and Human Values, (pp. 238–242). ! pages 21Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. ! pages 21Feenberg, A. (2003). What is philosophy of technology? Lecture to Komabaundergraduates.URL http://www.sfu.ca/⇠andrewf/komaba.htm ! pages 22, 23, 24, 25Flanagin, A., Farinola, W., & Metzger, M. (2000). The technical code of theinternet/world wide web. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(4),409–428. ! pages 26Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. Critical perspectiveson educational leadership, (pp. 39–62). ! pages 120Friedman, T. L. (2013). Revolution hits the universities.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-revolution-hits-the-universities.html. Accessed: 2014-07-03. ! pages36133Friesen, N. (2008). Critical theory: Ideology critique and the myths ofe-learning. Ubiquity, 9(22).URL http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/volume 9/v9i22 friesen.html ! pages 26,27, 45, 58Government of BC (1996). University Act of British Columbia. ! pages 66Government of BC (2014). BC’s skills for jobs blueprint: Re-engineeringeducation and training. ! pages 45, 53, 60, 103Gressard, C., & Loyd, B. (1986). Validation studies of a new computer attitudesscale. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal. ! pages 27Gulbahar, Y., & Guven, I. (2008). A survey on ict usage and the perceptions ofsocial studies teachers in turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3),37–51. ! pages 28Haggett, P., Cliff, A. D., & Frey, A. (1977). Locational analysis in humangeography. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 68(6). !pages 17Hamilton, E., & Feenberg, A. (2005). The technical codes of online education.E-Learning, 2(2), 104–121. ! pages 25, 26Hostetler, K. (2005). What is ”good” education research? EducationalResearcher, 34(6), 16. ! pages 42Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative)research: A prolegomenon. Educational researcher, 19(4), 2–9. ! pages 49Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a newphilosophical paradigm? Educational technology research and development,39(3), 5–14. ! pages 41Kim, J. (2014). MOOC’s and the end of courses?http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/moocs-and-end-courses. Accessed: 2014-07-07. ! pages35Klees, S. J. (2008). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education:Misleading analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies andEducation, 6(4), 311–348. ! pages 34, 35134Kolowich, S. (2014). What you need to know about companies that run onlineprograms for colleges.http://chronicle.com/article/What-You-Need-to-Know-About/149075/.Accessed: 2014-10-01. ! pages 37Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative researchinterviewing. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. ! pages 46Kvasny, L. (2005). The role of the habitus in shaping discourses about the digitaldivide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). ! pages 31Kvasny, L. (2006). Cultural (re) production of digital inequality in a UScommunity technology initiative. Information, Communication & Society,9(2), 160–181. ! pages 31Kvasny, L., & Trauth, E. (2002). The digital divide at work and home: thediscourse about power and underrepresented groups in the information society.In Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology: IFIPTC8/WG8. 2 Working Conference on Global and Organizational Discourseabout Information Technology, December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain, (pp.273–291). ! pages 31Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc. !pages 49Mahony, M., & Wozniak, H. (2006). Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory andprofessional development in elearning: a case study of the ‘CHS eLearningResource and Staff Support Project’. Breaking down boundaries:International experience in open, distance and flexible education–Selectedpapers, (pp. 70–78). ! pages 27Metcalfe, A. S., Mazawi, A. E., Rubenson, K., Fisher, D., MacIvor, M., &Meredith, J. (2007). Campus 2020 and the future of British Columbia’spost-secondary education: Critical responses and policy perspectives. Centrefor Policy Studies in Higher Education & Training. ! pages 44, 53Montello, D. R. (2013). Scale in geography. In M. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes(Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (pp.13501–13504). Oxford: Pergamon Press. ! pages 15135Moody’s (2013). Moody’s: 2013 outlook for entire us higher education sectorchanged to negative. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-2013-outlook-for-entire-US-Higher-Education-sector-changed–PR 263866.Accessed: 2014-07-03. ! pages 36Moritz, M. (2013). Teaching ethnographic research through a collaborativeproject. anthropology news. Retrieved from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1556-3502.2013.54703.x/.Accessed 2014-09-21. ! pages 98Nespor, J. (2004). Educational scale-making. Pedagogy, culture and society,12(3), 309–326. ! pages 16Olds, K. (2013). Memo to trustees re: Thomas Friedman’s ‘revolution hits theuniversities’. http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/globalhighered/memo-trustees-re-thomas-friedman’s-‘revolution-hits-universities’. Accessed:2014-07-03. ! pages 36O’Malley, P. (2009). Responsibilization. The sage dictionary of policing, (pp.276–278). ! pages 38O’Neil, M. (2014). Pushed by lawmakers, U of Florida dives into onlineeducation. http://chronicle.com/article/Pushed-by-Lawmakers-U-of/146767/.Accessed: 2014-10-20. ! pages 7Pera¨kyla¨, A. (2005). Analyzing talk and text. The SAGE handbook of qualitativeresearch. ! pages 44Plant, G. (2007). Campus 2020: Thinking ahead. The report. Access andexcellence: The campus 2020 plan for British Columbia. BC Ministry ofAdvanced Education. ! pages 44, 53, 95Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1–6. ! pages 12Pykett, J. (2009). Personalization and de-schooling: Uncommon trajectories incontemporary education policy. Critical social policy, 29(3), 374–397. !pages 37Richter, B. (2014). BCU president urged to step down.http://www.nsnews.com/news/bcu-president-urged-to-step-down-1.1018415.Accessed: 2014-07-07. ! pages 38136Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2013). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. !pages 33, 34, 35, 44, 53Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2013). The social justice implications ofprivatisation in education governance frameworks: a relational account.Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 426–445. ! pages 33, 34Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. ! pages 27, 28Roose, K. (2014). In conversation with Marc Andreessen.http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/marc-andreessen-in-conversation.html. Accessed: 2014-10-20. ! pages 6,7Saccaro, M. (2014). When will the internet replace college?http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/when-will-internet-replace-college/.Accessed: 2014-07-03. ! pages 35Selznick, P. (2002). The communitarian persuasion. Washington: WoodrowWilson Center Press. ! pages 38Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: on market-embedded morality.Economy and society, 37(1), 1–19. ! pages 34, 38, 107Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk,text and interaction. Sage. ! pages 42Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (1994). Does technology drive history?: The dilemmaof technological determinism. Boston: MIT Press. ! pages 55Sterne, J. (2003). Bourdieu, technique, and technology. Cultural Studies,17(3/4), 367–389. ! pages 30, 31Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy andthe politics of change, (pp. 22–35). Routledge. ! pages 44, 53Tett, G. (2013). Welcome to the virtual university.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3bc52f0c-6b38-11e2-9670-00144feab49a.html.Accessed: 2014-07-03. ! pages 35137Thrift, N. (2012). The future of big ed.http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/the-future-of-big-ed/31122. Accessed:2014-07-03. ! pages 36, 37Todd, D. (2014). UBC boss passes on hard-earned wisdom. The Vancouver Sun,July 4, 2014. ! pages 38Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellentqualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. ! pages 49Veak, T. (2000). Whose technology? Whose modernity? Questioning Feenberg’squestioning technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(2),226–237. ! pages 25Watson, D. M. (1998). Blame the technocentric artifact! what research tells usabout problems inhibiting teacher use of it. In . M. R. G. Marshall (Ed.)Capacity Building for IT in Education in Developing Countries, (pp.185–192). London: Chapman and Hall. ! pages 27, 30Winner, L. (2010). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age ofhigh technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ! pages 6Woodell, J., & Garofoli, E. (2003). Faculty development and the diffusion ofinnovations. Syllabus, 16(6), n6. ! pages 27Woodrow, J. (1992). The influence of programming training on the computerliteracy and attitudes of pre-service teachers. Journal of Research onComputing in Education, 25(2), 200–219. ! pages 27, 30Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverley Hills: Sagepublishing. ! pages 43138Appendix AResearch Ethics BoardCertificationsThis research project was approved by the UBC Behavioural Ethics ResearchBoard (Certificate H11 00889 and the BCU Research Ethics Committee (Cer-tificate 201120).139Appendix BInterview GuidePlanned questions for the first interviews are listed below.QuestionsWhat comes to mind when you hear the term Educational Technologies?How would you define Educational Technologies?Our field is rife with terminology and jargon. Rather than provide a def-inition of the terms (e.g.. educational technologies, ICT’s, etc), I want tofind out what those terms mean to the participants. Moreover, this conver-sation will allow us to construct a common language for the remainder ofthe interview. What meanings do people make of the terms?Please tell me a bit about your history using technologies. Can you remem-ber your first experiences with computers? With the internet? Whatwere those experiences like? Did anything excite you? Frustrate you?Did you work as a team or on your own?This will help to establish their technological expertise and also will beprobed to identify some of the symbolism they attribute to technology. Ihope to elicit rich stories to help illustrate how technologies are a part oftheir habitus.140Can you tell me about how you use educational technologies as part of yourpractice at BCU?I will ask the participants to tell stories about if and how they use tech-nologies in their teaching. I am interested in looking for the connections(or lack thereof) between their professional use of educational technologiesand use of technologies in their private life. I will follow up on these ex-amples and ask why they use the technologies the way they do. I anticipateresponses will help explain how they feel about technologies and the influ-ence of institutional politics in how those understandings are translated intotheir practice.Can you give me some specific examples when you have incorporated educa-tional technologies into your teaching? Have you found it useful or notand how so? Can you give me some examples of where you consideredincorporating technologies but decided not to do so? Why not?Following from the previous question, this question aims to probe into thespecific and detailed circumstances impacting each participant’s choicessurrounding educational technologies.How do your views on educational technologies connect with those of yourdepartment and colleagues? Your faculty? The university’s adminis-tration? Are there any directives or policies that influence how you useeducational technologies in your practice?Here I will probe how the relationships within the functional areas at BCUplay a role in impacting technology usage. I anticipate this will lead into anumber of follow-up questions, depending on their responses, to establishthe detailed nature of the impact of these relationships and their educationaltechnology usage. For example: Do they feel pressured to use technologies?Do they feel encouraged? How so? How do factors such as their seniority,experience, and position play a role?141In my study, I’m trying to connect how people talk about the aims of educa-tion in general with how they see the role for technology. So here’s themillion dollar question: What do you see as the ultimate aim(s) of edu-cation? Please tell me about any experiences that helped you establishthis view.Here I am trying to understand faculty member’s views about the aims ofeducation.And the second million dollar question: How does your understanding ofthose aims of education relate to how you think about and how you useeducational technologies?WIth this question, I hope to more fully understand the connections facultymake between their vision for education and the role they see for educa-tional technologies within this view.Do you have an ideal scenario you could imagine for educational technologyat BCU?Following up on the previous questions, I am interested in how participantsbelieve technologies could best serve education. I hope to see what theythink is possible and desirable. For example, do they see the ultimate roleof educational technologies as producing more employable graduates, aspersonal productivity enhancers, as social networking tools, as somethingelse entirely, or as a combination of these concepts.Now the opposite. Could you envision a nightmare scenario for educationaltechnologies at BCU?As opposed to the previous question, here I am interested in their dystopicview. I believe this will help to further bring out the symbolism participantsattach to technology as well as more details about the political setting andpower relationships.142Appendix CSample Code BookTable C.1 presents a sample from Version 3.0 of my code book. This sampleshows the codes, descriptions, and sample excerpts primarily related to how par-ticipants used symbolism in their descriptions of their experiences with digitaltechnologies. Other top level code tables in the code book (not included here)include those realted to organizational issues and structure, those most closelyrelated to particpiants’ expressed emotions, those related to the details of theirteaching practices, and those related to their aims of education.143Table C.1: Codes associated with the top-level code: symbolCode Description Examplesymbol Top level code that thatexhibits symbolic meanings.These represent and idea, pro-cess, or entitypioneer describe their early technol-ogy use in terms of lone-ranger, epic, lonely, a journey“I was one of the first”ubiquitous the technologies are commonplace in the system“fully diffused through BCU.Everyone had a computer intheir office of course, and ev-ery faculty member was onemail”oldgoat anachronism, out of date “as Im getting older and theaverage faculty age is get-ting younger, Im starting tolook like an old outdated goataround here”immigrant faculty describe themselvesas digital immigrants and dif-ferent from the digital nativestudents. They use the tech-nologies but aren’t as fluent inthem.“Theyre all better than me ..every single one I’m findingthat.”144serendipity describing things that seemedto happen more by accident orcircumstances than by plan“I think it sort of just evolvedthat way. I think I ... I neverthough I would ever be doingthis ”, “So I guess I acciden-tally stumbled upon a place Idnever even heard of ...”upgame desribes feeling like theyneed to incorporate technolo-gies to stay current or be per-ceived as staying current“I feel all my colleagues andusing it and I just gotta raisemy game in that area ”repository describing technologies suchas moodle as a place to putmaterial for later retrieval“site or platform to put coursematerials on. Powerpointslides, course outline, and as-signments”social describe technology in a so-cial sense. i.e. about commu-nity, communications“I wanted to communicatewith a few friends”timesink describing technologies astaking too much time, ortoo much of the limited timeavailable. Related to orga-nizational and emotion top-level categories (overworked)and time pressure“that could be time maybebetter spent reading yet an-other journal article or keep-ing up with ... but now I gottaspend time with technology”145overload describing student as hav-ing enough to do alreadyand worry that adding morethrough technology is toomuch. Also related to teach-ing category and organization“with the assignments, the es-says, the lectures, and thetextbook I think thats enoughresources.” “if you add ona whole bunch of websiteor Moodle assignments, orthings like that I just dontknow if its going to add anyquality”lateadopter describing themselves as be-ing late to start using tech-nologies“I was a very reluctantstarter”lazy describing the feeling thatputting everything up onLMS makes the student lazyby taking away valuableeducational opportunities(e.g. like creating their ownnotes)“(access) ... makes the stu-dents lazy because they’re ex-pecting us to give them more”native describing students as digitalnatives“They’ve grown up withthem. They’re used to deal-ing with them and want tocontinue”lovehate describes their two sided rela-tionship with technology“I have a love-hate relation-ship with technology”security describe worries about job se-curity related to increasinguse of technologies in teach-ing“They can do everything bydistance, and that can put meout of a job”146tool describing technology as atool to be used as the instruc-tor wishes to accomplish cer-tain tasks“It’s a really good tool to helpme do what I want to do.”spin describing gov’t or adminspin to encourage the use oftechnologies“... a governement comingalong and deciding to call thisthe greening of education ... ”147Appendix DGeneric Contact Letter andDemographic InformationDear Colleague:My name is Chris Gratham, and I am writing you as a doctoral candidate inthe Department of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia. Mydoctoral dissertation involves conducting a study entitled“Examining the Sym-bolic and Political Dimensions of Faculty use of Educational Technologies”, andI am seeking BCU faculty members who are interested in participating in thisstudy.The seed of this research project was planted through my experiences andobservations working with faculty at the CET. Educational technology literatureand practice typically view faculty use of technology through an instrumental lens:faculty enumerate their particular goals, evaluate the attributes of the technologiesavailable, and, within the limits of the institutions support structure, decide whichtechnology is best suited to achieve their goals.While not discounting an instrumental component, my experiences at BCUsuggest that there are other dimensions that are at least as important in influenc-ing faculty choices surrounding educational technologies. These ideas have beenfurther cultivated during the last four years of my doctoral studies as I have incor-148porated sociology, educational, and technology literature into my views.In this study I am interested in going beyond the instrumental and investigat-ing the impact of these other dimensions on your use of educational technology.I am interested in how you think about education and technology and how thesethoughts mediate your use of educational technology. I am interested in how yourbackground, your family, and your discipline influence your educational technol-ogy choices. I am interested in how the details of how the relationships withinyour departments, disciplines, and the university itself impact your technologyuse.My research objective is to investigate the symbolic and political dimensionsthat impact faculty use of educational technology at BCU. To achieve this objec-tive I plan to interview up to ten faculty members. If you choose to participatein this study, it would involve less than two hours of your time and include thefollowing activities:• Respond to the brief demographic questionnaire on the last page of thisletter. This questionnaire will take less than ten minutes to complete andwill allow me to select study participants with an eye to diversity in age,gender, discipline, seniority, and expertise in technology.• Participate in an interview related to your thoughts on teaching and technol-ogy, your background, your experiences using technology, and your experi-ences at Capilano. This interview will take about 60 minutes.• Participate in a follow-up interview with the goal of clarifying any points ofconfusion in the first interview or raising any new questions that have arisenout of my analyses of the initial interviews. This follow up interview willtake between 30-45 minutes.Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you agree toparticipate you may withdraw from the study at any time without any negativeconsequences or any explanation.149The data for this study will be used to write my doctoral dissertation and anyaccompanying articles.Confidentiality in responding to questions during individual interviews willbe protected by using pseudonyms for all participants, their colleagues, and theirdepartments. Furthermore, all recordings, data, and paper for this study will bekept locked in my home office with backup copies locked in the UBC office of myresearch supervisor, Dr. Michelle Stack.In addition to myself, the research team for this study consists of the follow-ing members of the Department of Educational Studies: Michelle Stack Ph D,Associate Professor and research supervisor; Deirdre Kelly Ph D, Professor; andAndr Mazawi Ph D, Associate Professor. If you are interested in participating inthis study please complete the Demographic Questionnaire for BCU Faculty onthe following page and return within seven days to me via campus mail or to myemail address.Best Regards,Chris GrathamDoctoral CandidateDepartment of Educational StudiesThe University of British Columbia150Demographic Questionnaire for BCU Faculty1. Name:2. Primary Department:3. Gender:4. : Age: <30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, >605. Appointment Status (RFT, RPT, etc.)6. Number of years teaching at BCU:7. What is your expertise level using technologies? (Choose a number from1-5 where 1 represents very little expertise and 5 represents expert use):8. Howmuch do you incorporate educational technologies your teaching? (Choosea number from 1-5 where 1 represents very little and 5 represents to a largeextent):9. Do you think that increased use of and access to educational technologieshas the potential to improve your teaching? (Choose a number from 1-5where 1 represents very little or no potential to improve it and 5 representsgreat potential to improve it):151

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0221491/manifest

Comment

Related Items