This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]

On: 01 February 2015, At: 06:02

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

What do university teachers think

eLearning is good for in their teaching?
a
Carlos González
a
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Educación ,
Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile
Published online: 09 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Carlos González (2010) What do university teachers think eLearning is good for
in their teaching?, Studies in Higher Education, 35:1, 61-78, DOI: 10.1080/03075070902874632

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070902874632

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Studies in Higher Education
Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2010, 61–78

What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their

teaching?
Carlos González*

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Educación, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860,
Macul, Santiago, Chile
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

Taylor
Studies
10.1080/03075070902874632
CSHE_A_387635.sgm
0307-5079
Original
Society
02009
00
Dr
cgonzalu@puc.cl
000002009
CarlosGonzález*
and
in
for
Article
Higher
(print)/1470-174X
Francis
Research
Education
Ltd
into Higher
(online)
Education

Although numerous studies have been conducted on conceptions of teaching,

research extending this investigation into conceptions of teaching using eLearning
is rare. This study employed a phenomenographic approach to investigate what
university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching. Four qualitatively
different ways of conceiving of eLearning were discovered: (a) to provide
information to students; (b) for occasional communication among unit participants;
(c) to engage students in online discussions; and (d) to support knowledge-building
tasks. Four dimensions of variation provided a more detailed picture. These were:
role of teacher, role of students, unit participants’ interaction and perception of
embeddedness with face-to-face component. Results are situated in line with those
from previous research and indicate an emerging consensus of findings. Academic
developers may benefit from these outcomes by using them in designing eLearning
support programs. Further studies confirming or challenging previous findings, as
well as associating conceptions of eLearning and teaching, are proposed.
Keywords: conceptions; university teaching; eLearning; phenomenography; on-
campus university education

Background
Considerable research has been conducted on conceptions of teaching (e.g. Dall’Alba
1991; Dunkin 1990; Dunkin and Precians 1992; Gow and Kember 1993; Kember and
Kwan 2000; Martin and Balla 1991; Martin and Ramsden 1992; Pratt, Arseneau, and
Collins 2001; Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor 1994; Samuelowicz and Bain 2001).
Results from these studies have presented a high level of consensus, uncovering
conceptions ranging from ‘teacher-centred/content-oriented’ towards ‘student-centred/
learning-oriented’ (Kember 1997). This finding remains consistent even though studies
have been carried out in different contexts and used different methodological
approaches (Åkerlind 2003).
Newer studies have developed the range of conceptions. For example, Åkerlind
(2004) proposed new dimensions of variation to understanding conceptions of teach-
ing. In her study, dimensions of variation were: role of students, benefit for students,
benefit for the teacher, and breadth of benefit. Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne (2007)
identified six dimensions of good teaching: practice, context, teachers’ role, students’
role, atmosphere and physical environment. Ashwin (2006, 656–9) investigated a very
specific teaching domain: tutorials. He identified that ‘accounts’ of tutorials varied

*Email: cgonzalu@uc.cl

ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online

© 2010 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075070902874632
http://www.informaworld.com
 62 C. González

from ‘being a place to develop an understanding of concepts’ towards ‘being a place

where new positions on the topic are developed and defined’. Law et al. (2007)
explored conceptions of teaching, stressing the cultural specificities of Hong Kong
teacher educators. These authors highlighted that the themes emerging from their
interviews were in line with ideas about good teaching developed in western
conceptualisations, but included factors not often present in previous studies, such as
theory-based instruction, professional commitment and passion.
Over the last decade, one important element influencing on-campus university
teaching has been the progressive incorporation of eLearning. Most universities have
installed learning management systems, online learning resources, video-conferencing
and other audio-visual technologies. eLearning is no longer seen as the preserve of
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

distance education or ‘virtual universities’: it is becoming part of the normal educa-

tional provision of ‘conventional’ campus-based universities (Ellis et al. 2006; Ellis,
Steed, and Applebee 2006). However, this eLearning uptake has not been accompa-
nied by a significant growth of research extending prior findings on conceptions of
teaching to the area of teaching using eLearning, particularly from a phenomeno-
graphic perspective. As far as I am aware, at the time of this study, only five articles
had addressed this topic from this perspective (Ellis, Steed, and Applebee 2006;
González 2009; Lameras, Paraskakis, and Levy 2008; McConnell and Zhao 2006;
Roberts 2003). Two of them reported work in progress (Lameras, Paraskakis, and
Levy 2008; McConnell and Zhao 2006), one had been conducted in ‘distance educa-
tion’ settings (González 2009) and one reported conceptions of blended teaching
rather than eLearning (Ellis, Steed, and Applebee 2006).
Roberts’s (2003) study discovered three conceptions of teaching using the Web:

● As a source of information: in this conception the Web is mainly seen as a

medium for the students to retrieve information. Teachers upload lecture notes,
papers, etc.; and direct students to websites for subject resources.
● For individual and independent self-paced learning: the Web is seen as a space
that may provide the opportunity of engaging with subject analysis or subject
drills that could lead to learning.
● For group analysis, decision making and dialogue: the Web is seen as a space
in which learning relationships may be developed. It implies a more sophisti-
cated use of the Web, which allows interactions among participants.

Elaborating on Roberts’s conceptions, González (2009) investigated this phenomenon

in a different setting: fully online distance courses in the area of the allied health
sciences. Three conceptions of teaching using eLearning were found:

● For individual access to learning materials and information, and for individual
assessment: eLearning is seen as a medium to provide information in the form
of learning materials, suggested websites, etc.
● For learning-related communication (asynchronous/synchronous): the commu-
nication afforded by eLearning is emphasised. It is seen as a space where
students may engage in online discussion or contacting peers and teachers
through email.
● For networked learning: eLearning is seen as a medium in which tasks are set
for the students to participate in, in a process of knowledge creation and sharing
of information.
 Studies in Higher Education 63

Like Roberts, González found conceptions focused on provision of information or on

learning-related communication. However, a conception not reported by Roberts
emerged: eLearning as a medium for networked learning. González (2009) extended
Roberts’s work by discovering a more elaborated conception of teaching using
eLearning.
Similar to the information-focused conceptions found in these studies, preliminary
outcomes from McConnell and Zhao (2006) showed that the Chinese university teach-
ers interviewed conceived of eLearning as a sort of resource-based learning, in which
some materials were uploaded for the students to use on their own. Lectures were the
preferred method of teaching and eLearning was not conceived of as a good medium
for mastering course content. Also in a preliminary report of findings, Lameras et al.
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

(2008) presented outcomes from a study into conceptions of teaching using a virtual
learning environment, held by a group of five university teachers from the area of
computer science. Three categories and six subcategories emerged. These were:
● Information transfer, which had the subcategories:
° Providing information: emphasises the use of information created to be used
off-line first as a medium to support face-to-face activities;
° Extending information: the focus is on provision of further information by
means of links to websites or other relevant online material;
° Clarifying information: clarifying small points in the content being taught by
using, for example, bulletin boards.

● Understanding concepts, which has two subcategories:

° Understanding the topic: emphasises the understanding of content by explain-
ing content through eLearning tools and monitoring progress through online
tests or quizzes;
° Rethinking the topic: students’ reflection on the topic encouraged through
participation in online tasks.

● Developing the concept, which has one subcategory:

° Developing the topic: eLearning is used to contribute and share ideas.
Participation in online discussions is encouraged.
Ellis et al. (2006) found four conceptions of blended teaching, which are in line
with the findings discussed. Blended teaching was seen as a medium for:

● Replacing part of a teacher’s responsibilities: sees the incorporation of eLearn-

ing as providing students with materials to study on their own and, in this way,
abstaining from part of the teaching duties.
● Providing students with information: the incorporation of eLearning is seen as a
means for providing information to students, typically by uploading lecture
notes.
● Developing student understanding through aligning media to intended learning
outcomes: eLearning as a medium to align learning outcomes. Emphasis is
given to discussions, both face to face and online, and purposeful engagement
with online materials.
● Helping students develop and apply new concepts: the incorporation of eLearn-
ing is conceived of as a key element to realise intended learning outcomes.
Synergy between eLearning and face-to-face learning tasks is emphasised.
 64 C. González

While these few studies have been conducted in different settings and by different
researchers, similarities can be seen. Conceptions range consistently from ‘eLearning
as a medium to provide information’ to ‘eLearning as a medium for engaging in
communication–collaboration–knowledge building’. In the ‘information-focused’
conceptions, university teachers would see eLearning as a medium to provide infor-
mation to students in the form of lecture notes, online resources, links to external
websites, etc. It is understood as a delivery medium rather than a space for learning.
In the ‘communication–collaboration–knowledge building’ conceptions, eLearning is
seen as a medium to engage in discussing, debating, developing understanding and
building knowledge. In this case, eLearning is conceived of as a space for engaging in
learning tasks and activities that may lead to higher-level learning experiences. This
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

suggests that a similar level of consensus may be emerging on studies on conceptions

of teaching using eLearning, as was found with research on conceptions of teaching.
However, further research is needed. As indicated before, only one of these articles
(Roberts 2003) reported a fully completed study on conceptions of teaching using
eLearning in an on-campus ‘conventional’ higher education setting. The field is only
at the beginning of understanding the complexities of what university teachers think
eLearning is good for in their ‘established’ face-to-face university teaching. The study
reported in this article contributes to this area of research.

Methodology
The present study followed a phenomenographic approach. Phenomenographic
research aims to reveal the qualitatively different ways in which people experience
phenomena in the world around them (Marton and Booth 1997; Marton and Pong 2005).
It is concerned with developing, from the data gathered, a hierarchically structured set
of categories of description which represent people’s different ways of conceiving of
some phenomenon of interest (Marton 1986): in this case, teaching using eLearning.
University teachers from two research-intensive campus-based Australian univer-
sities were invited to participate as interviewees. For this study, participants needed to
have had the experience I was interested in (Marton and Booth 1997). Therefore, those
invited had been teaching using eLearning within the last year. Following Bowden’s
(2000a) suggestion, variation in experience was sought in terms of discipline, teaching
experience, academic position and gender. Trigwell (2000) recommended samples
between 15 and 20 for such studies. Fifteen is considered the minimum for uncovering
variation. At the upper end, the limiting factor is the volume of data produced and its
manageability. In concordance with this guideline, people were invited to participate
until a sample of 18 university teachers was achieved. Characteristics of the sample
are presented in Table 1.
Interviews were employed as the medium for data gathering. Phenomenographic
interviews have the objective of making the interviewee bring forth her/his awareness
of the phenomenon under investigation (Marton and Booth 1997, 130; Prosser 2000).
In order to achieve this, interviews were flexible, allowing interviewees to show the
elements they were focally aware of in relation to the phenomenon under investigation
(Marton 1986). Questions related directly to eLearning in teaching were employed to
provide consistency, such as, what is eLearning good for in your teaching? Follow-up
questions were employed to help interviewees reflect on and reveal their awareness
(Åkerlind, Bowden, and Green 2005; Bowden 2000b), such as, could you explain
more? Why is that important? What do you mean by that?
 Studies in Higher Education 65

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.

Teaching experience Academic position Discipline Gender
More than 20 years Associate Professor Law Female
More than 20 years Senior Lecturer Biochemistry Female
More than 20 years Senior Lecturer Physics Male
More than 20 years Lecturer Counselling Male
Between 11 and 20 years Associate Professor Law Male
Between 11 and 20 years Lecturer Astronomy Female
Between 11 and 20 years Lecturer Social Policy Female
Between 11 and 20 years Lecturer Psychology Female
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

Between 6 and 10 years Senior Lecturer IT Male

Between 6 and 10 years Senior Lecturer Accounting Male
Between 6 and 10 years Lecturer Vet Sciences Male
Between 6 and 10 years Lecturer Psychology Female
Between 6 and 10 years Lecturer Pharmacy Female
Between 6 and 10 years Lecturer Sociology Female
Less than 5 years Lecturer Counselling Male
Less than 5 years Associate Lecturer Management Female
Less than 5 years Associate Lecturer Industrial Safety Male
Less than 5 years Tutor Biology Female

Steps in analysing the interviews were as follows:

(1) The interviews were read several times to become familiar with their contents
and to identify sections related to conceptions of teaching using eLearning
(Åkerlind 2005a).
(2) A more focused reading was then conducted. I searched for similarities and
differences between and within relevant sections of interviews. Illustrative
paragraphs were annotated and summarised (Åkerlind 2005b, c; Bowden
2000b). In conducting this process, I kept an open attitude, trying not to
impose categories on the data but searching for common aspects in the tran-
scripts which might later configure categories of description (Marton 1986).
However, at the same time, I was aware of prior research conducted exten-
sively on ‘conventional’ settings and less extensively on teaching using
eLearning. The important issue was being aware of prior research but not
imposing a predetermined set of categories on the data (Prosser 2000).
(3) The analysis generated an initial list of categories of description. This initial
set was reduced by seeing if some of the categories represented the same thing
under a different heading (Åkerlind 2005a; Trigwell 2000).
(4) Transcripts were read again in relation to the initial categories of description.
The aim was to see if the categories accurately represented the experiences
described by the university teachers. This led to an iterative process in which
categories were tested and retested against data until the system of meaning
was stabilised (Marton 1986).
(5) In order to build the final outcome space I followed Marton and Booth’s (1997)
criteria of distinctiveness, structurally inclusive relations and parsimony. This
 66 C. González

implied that the categories of description included in the outcome space

reflected something very distinctive about the phenomenon; it was possible to
organise categories in a hierarchy in which lower-level categories were
included in the higher-level ones; and a small number of categories represented
the variation in experiences of phenomena under investigation.

Results
The following qualitatively different categories of description emerged from the anal-
ysis. eLearning was conceived of as a medium:
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

(A) to provide information to students;

(B) for ‘occasional’ online communication;
(C) for engaging students in online discussions;
(D) to support knowledge-building tasks.

Each category is elaborated below (a number is provided at the end of the illustrative
quotations to identify them from different transcripts; while keeping interviewees
anonymous).

Category A: eLearning as a medium to provide information to students

The information provided can be related to administrative matters or academic
content. Regarding administrative issues, teachers find the unit’s website good for
uploading the unit outline, providing information related to deadlines, links to univer-
sity policy documents, etc.

I think this is good [eLearning] to disseminate information about assignments, about

what the university says about plagiarism, marks … things like that. (I7)

The information provided is related to academic content as well, such as lecture notes,
links to websites with relevant academic information, links to the library to get papers
or book chapters, etc.
I think [eLearning] is very good … students may log in and have a look as they wish, so
they can download the [lecture] notes, or look at web links, and any other material
provided. (I5)

In relation to providing information, an issue about which teachers remarked is the

‘immediacy’ that eLearning affords. If something new, related to professional practice
or academic materials, comes up during the semester it can be uploaded straightaway
to the unit’s website.
I think it is also good … for example if I put 70 references … I can put new things as
they appear … you can actually be more current. Previously, you would need to wait
until the next semester. Now you just write to the library and they put it up on the Web
for you. It can be very very current. (I17)

In this conception, eLearning is seen as a ‘supply channel’ rather than a medium for
learning. Teachers see themselves as providers of online information. The correspond-
ing role for students is to be recipients of online materials or resources, with few
opportunities to define or modify what they are given.
 Studies in Higher Education 67

Category B: eLearning as a medium for ‘occasional’ online communication

In this second category, eLearning is seen as a space where students can, from time to
time, ask questions related to content or administration to teachers or other students.
Similarly, teachers can make announcements about changes, invited speakers, etc.
Occasionally means, in this context, that online communication is not encouraged as
part of a designed task, and only happens if unit participants feel they need to say
something. In this conception, it is seen that online communication can be deployed
in different ways: to ask and answer questions, to make announcements, to have a
space for keeping in touch.

We have discussion boards for a number of purposes … for each topic we have two
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

discussion boards, one open for general questions … questions … related to the text-
book, and then we have a separate discussion board for how I will ask questions … in
the exams and I have a separate discussion board for administration questions … (I2)

The Web was also seen as good for making announcements and keeping in touch
between lectures, mainly on administrative grounds.

To communicate with students between classes, because this is easier than email
students, to post announcements into the [learning management system], and that is a
nice and convenient way to do that. (I6)

The difference between this category and category A is that the communicative
features of eLearning come to the foreground. It opens a channel for students to access
their teachers and to occasionally communicate among themselves, as well. However,
teachers are still seen as the main providers of information, maintaining a teacher-
focused conception. Online communication is seen as a ‘peripheral’ part of the learn-
ing experience; and not as promoting tasks leading to high-level understanding.

Category C: eLearning as a medium for engaging students in online discussions

This category emphasises the possibilities for online discussions to promote high-level
understanding among students. There is a key shift from a focus on the teacher and the
information provided to the development of students’ ways of understanding what is
being taught. The online side of the learning experience is conceived of as a space
where students can analyse, apply, theorise, reflect, etc.; and, in this way, develop
their understanding. The active involvement of students in online discussions comes
to the fore in this category of description. Online communication becomes part of the
core process of learning.
In this conception, structured online discussions are seen as a task that may promote
high-level understanding. For example, students make sense of the theories taught by
discussing them online in groups. In this way, they are able to apply and reflect about
what is being learnt. Moreover, they are able to relate these online discussions to their
own personal experiences or to their imagined future experiences as professionals.

The first level is to get the theory and lectures; the second level is start discussing and
understanding in the tutorials; the third level is go away and think about it on their own,
reflect on how it connects to themselves; then [online] talk about it to each other and
respond to each other. So, that’s a nice sort of deepening of learning that takes place from
the theory to real personal application. I think online discussions are good for students
to start thinking deeply about what they are learning. (I18)
 68 C. González

In addition, the Web is seen as a medium to provide a space for encouraging deep
thinking about the students’ own work associated with the course.

When the Web is used for students in the field … is where I really think it’s where …
it’s teaching with the Web rather than supporting students’ learning with [online] lecture
notes. … where you can use it to have discussions … we have a website … it is their
opportunity to engage with some university thinking. Stand back from the day-to-day
tasks they are working on to be critic … so again, this course is very much about starting
a critical reflection … being critic about what they are doing … so the Web is a tool to
do that, to stay in touch with them, to make sure they are standing back from what they
are doing … is a way of thinking about and sharing information with their fellow
students colleagues about how they are dealing with that sort of issues. (I10)
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

This conception represents a shift in understanding eLearning from providing infor-

mation to supporting students’ learning. Teachers are not the main source of online
information any more. Online tasks promoting high-level understanding give space
for students to develop their own learning. Teachers set up and facilitate tasks for
high-level understanding, while students are expected to participate actively in the
tasks designed.

Category D: eLearning as a medium to support knowledge-building tasks

As in conception C, this conception includes an awareness of eLearning as a way to
engage students in tasks promoting high-level understanding. What makes this
conception qualitatively different is the understanding of eLearning as a medium to
support knowled-building tasks. eLearning is seen as a space in which students can
work collaboratively and tasks are designed in this way. In this process students may
use the full potential of available tools, related to content (such as relevant websites),
communication (such as discussion boards, chat, and email) and collaboration (such
as repository space and Web 2.0 tools). The Web may support the creation of learning
products that reflect high-level engagement and understanding, such as, a collabora-
tively written report, an e-poster, a wiki, or a blog. This is a key element of this
conception: eLearning is seen as a space where students are engaged in collaboratively
creating something reflecting their learning.

[eLearning] is vital for my teaching … That is vital to it, because that’s the place where
they can all communicate with one another, as well as do the drafts and store their mate-
rial … that they’ve already got: the summaries, the booklets or whatever. So, that’s a
really important repository, as well as the communication device of the teams [which are
writing group reports]. (I14)

At the same time, the unit’s website is seen as a space where students can provide
feedback on the work of other groups: as a space for collaboration in knowledge building.

Normally the way we do it is … each group posts their reports and the other groups give
them feedback. It also allows the students to see what other teams are doing, and engage
in discussions about those topics … sometimes they engage in meaningful discussions
[related to feedback], and that’s what I think is successful learning. (I1)

Rather than eLearning being a medium to provide content, the content itself is
created by students. Blogs are seen as a good tool to do this. Students engage in devel-
oping their blogs, which are seen and commented on by other participants in their
 Studies in Higher Education 69

groups. It is seen that through blogs, students can develop their own understanding
about what they are learning.

The reason of using blogs is that I want the students to develop their own voice, and
blogs are less formal, less structured … And the idea here is that they get their own
idiosyncratic voice about blogging and they can be personal, they can give an opinion,
things that you can’t do in essays … without a lot of formality. (I14)

This last conception represents the most elaborated emerging from the analysis of the
interview transcripts. Teachers see their role as setting up online environments in
which students can construct and develop their understandings about course contents
collaboratively. They are seen as active learners who create reports, blogs, etc., and as
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

having an active role in developing a community of learners and sharing information.

Participating online is a core and integral part of the unit. Online tasks have a very
high level of embeddedness in the units of study, with the online and face-to-face
components given equal importance.

Relationship between the categories of description

Four key dimensions of variation are presented here to provide a richer view of
conceptions of teaching using eLearning, and to help describe relationships between
conceptions. These dimensions are: the role of the teacher in relation to eLearning; the
role of students; course participants’ interaction; and perception of embeddedness
with the face-to-face component.

Role of the teacher

This dimension represents an expanding focus, from the teacher as a provider of
online materials to the teacher as responsible for (a) creating an online space for
knowledge building and collaboration and (b) acting as guide and facilitator.
In category A, the teacher’s role is seen as a provider of online information. He/
she has the knowledge of what students need to access to learn about the content of
the unit. The teacher uploads lecture notes, selects websites and/or online materials
which reflect their own understanding of what is being taught. In category B, the role
of the teacher expands to setting up communication spaces, such as discussion boards
or contact email, mainly to receive questions about course content or provide a space
where students can answer each other’s questions. The focus is still mainly on what
teachers do. Category C represents a shift in how teachers conceive of their online role.
Teachers set up online discussions to support high-level learning. They move from
being focused on their own understanding to developing the students’ understanding
through reflection and application of new concepts. Finally, in category D, the role of
the teacher advances to setting up space for work groups to share and collaborate in
knowledge building; and to facilitate the process. Teachers see themselves as designers
of the online environment and of activities for the students to work on.

Role of the students in the online environment

This second dimension represents an expansion in focus from students as receivers of
information to students as active creators of content and knowledge.
 70 C. González

In category A, the students’ role is seen as that of passive recipients of the online
materials provided. In category B the students’ role is occasional communication via
the unit’s website, related to questions or announcements. Category C represents a
change of focus: the students’ role is engaging in online discussions with a view to
promoting high-level understanding. In the final category, D, the students’ role is
engaging in knowledge building, sharing and collaborating in this with other course
participants.

Course participants’ interaction

This theme is represented by an expansion in focus from very little interaction (one
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

way) in category A, to very high interaction (multiple ways) in category D. In

category A, the online environment is not seen as a space for interaction between
course participants. It is for provision of information only. In category B, the unit’s
website is seen as a space for interaction between course participants, but in a limited
way. Posting announcements, asking questions and unstructured discussions are seen
as the main activities through which participants may interact. In category C, the unit
website is seen as a space for interaction related to engagement in structured online
discussions promoting high-level understanding. Category D represents an under-
standing of the online environment as a space for having a large amount of interaction
between course participants. Interaction is seen to occur in multiple ways: between
students and/or teachers; sharing ideas and information; co-creating reports or concep-
tual artefacts and other products of learning, etc.

Perception of embeddedness with the face-to-face component

This dimension is important, as it relates the online and face-to-face sides of the units.
It varies from seeing the online component as something not integrated to the unit, to
something which is a constitutive part of the learning and teaching experience.
Category A represents the understanding of the online environment as not inte-
grated, with a very low level of embeddedness in the unit experience. It is seen as an
extra (a ‘bolt-on’), something that could be used, or not, without adding value other
than ‘convenience’. In category B, the online environment is understood as a ‘periph-
eral’ part of the unit, having a low level of embeddedness. Although there is some inter-
action and communication, the Web is still conceived of as an extra, which could easily
be given up without affecting the unit experience. In category C, the online environ-
ment is seen as an essential part of the unit. It has a high level of embeddedness. Online
discussions are seen as key parts of the unit. Students can reflect, engage in deep think-
ing and apply what is being learnt to their particular experiences. Finally, category D
represents an understanding of eLearning as essential, having a very high level of
embeddedness with the face-to-face component. The online environment provides
opportunities for students to reflect, share, and collaborate in the building of knowl-
edge. Using the unit’s website is seen as a way to support what students do face to face.
Table 2 presents a summary of dimensions of variation relating categories of
description, including quotations from interviews to illustrate them.

Hierarchical relationship among conceptions of eLearning

In coherence with phenomenographic research, conceptions of teaching using eLearn-
ing are considered to be in a hierarchical relationship. ‘eLearning to support
 Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015
Table 2. Dimensions relating categories of description of conceptions of eLearning.
Occasional online
Providing information communication
Role of the Provides information Sets up discussion boards/make
teacher ‘I use it [eLearning] for announcements/ answer
content for students … occasional questions
if I want them to read ‘My role is setting up a website
something, I’ll put a for the unit using [the learning
link up to the article. I management system] … used
won’t make them find it for general information, for
themselves.’ (I12) updating students …
announcements, any changes
to lecture formats … maybe a
guest teacher coming … is
more about information
clarification … about the
content.’ (I13)
Role of the Passive recipients – May ask questions through online
students individual learning discussions boards or email
activities ‘…The discussion forum …
‘All course materials are students can put questions in
folded up there [on the the discussion forum, I
web] for the students to sometimes see what’s going on
download them if they and answer some questions …
want … they are also also students may answer
encouraged to visit themselves.’ (I6)
relevant web sites.’ (I12)
Engaging in online discussions
Sets up spaces for high level
understanding tasks/guide
discussions/promote
understanding
‘There are some tasks for
students. The basic one is
online discussions, … I give
them a list of topics to discuss
before … they have to do
readings and after that … they
meet online, they can do it at
the same time or posting
messages.’ (I7)
Participate actively in online
tasks (structured discussions)
Online discussions are very
helpful …by engaging in
online discussions they start
thinking more deeply about the
information they have already
got from the lecture, readings
and face-to-face tutorials. (I18)
Supporting knowledge building
tasks
Sets up spaces for discussion,
collaboration and knowledge
building/facilitate – guide the
process
‘For each tutorial group I provide
[online] space for their projects.
They are working in a project
together and they have their
space online to do that … these
small groups have their own
discussion boards and they can
exchange information with each
other.’ (I14)
Share, build, collaborate, develop,
and create.
‘I’m finding that the web is
particularly good for students …
for their group projects and for
cooperative learning because it
provides a forum for them to
work together …’ (I3)
(Continued.)
Studies in Higher Education
71
 Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

Table 2. (Continued.)
72

Occasional online Supporting knowledge building

Providing information communication Engaging in online discussions tasks
Course One way (lecturer to Two way (student to Two way (student to lecturer to Two way (student to lecturer to
participants student) lecturer to student/ student/student to student) student/student to student)
interaction student to student)
C. González

Very low High Very high

‘I give information about Low ‘It’s a way of analysing … people at ‘They prepare an e-poster … they
the unit … where the ‘I think the online work, which they are doing in are given a webpage [to] upload
materials are, how I’m component is good for pairs … they have to go back and material, and they are given the
going to mark the students to make analyse that and then post task of preparing a poster … then
assignments, when is the questions to each other something … they do a reading, they have to present their poster
exam … I show them … that sort of they do an activity, they post a [online] to the rest of the groups …
very basic websites as interaction …’ (I15) hundred words related to that, and the point is that they all have access
well … but that’s all I do then the other students have to … so they all can add and remove
with the web.’ (I12) read all the postings and they have … and contribute.’ (I17)
to comment on two of them.’ (I10)
Perception of Very Low Low High Very high
embeddedness ‘For me the web is fantastic ‘… The discussion ‘Online discussions are really a ‘They have a private online
with face-to- for putting extra forum, so students can continuation of face-to-face discussion board where they can
face information up and it put questions there. tutorial … The aim is deepening develop their ideas about this
component does it very easy … Now, we tell them that what they are learning, reflecting [different scenarios about
that’s one thing that I it’s a discussion forum, about it and applying it to their possible complaints related to
like. Because I’ve done basically for them, but personal experience.’ (I18) professional practice they are
it before … give some we monitor it. So if a working on in face-to-face
information, put some student asks a question, sessions], store materials and
extra things and people another student may develop their presentations for
needed to photocopy it answer it … but … or the rest of the class … we have
from the library.’ (I8) may not.’ (I6) group discussions, all the groups’
presentations go up on the web, as
well after the lecture, so they can
share that and use it in online
discussions during the week.’ (I5)
 Studies in Higher Education 73

knowledge-building tasks’ is positioned as the highest category of description in this

hierarchy, because it reflects the more inclusive and complex understanding of what
eLearning is good for in teaching. It is the most inclusive, because eLearning is under-
stood as a medium to support knowledge-building tasks but, at the same time, as a
space for engaging in online discussions, for occasional communication and for provi-
sion of information. Moreover, it is more complex because it implies an awareness of
more aspects of eLearning: simultaneously covering the informative, communicative
and collaborative. On the other hand ‘eLearning for providing information’ represents
the most limited understanding of eLearning for teaching, as it shows no awareness of
its communicative or collaborative possibilities at all. Inclusiveness runs only in one
direction, reaffirming the hierarchical nature of the relationship among categories of
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

description.
As a summary of the main findings of this study, relationships between referential
and structural aspects of conceptions of teaching using eLearning, as well as the way
in which higher-level conceptions are inclusive of lower-level conceptions, are
presented in Table 3.

Discussion
Before discussing the results of this study, it is important to acknowledge its limita-
tions. First, the sample came from just two Australian universities and was relatively
small. A sample of 18 is not uncommon in phenomenographic research (Åkerlind
2005a; Trigwell 2000). However, while the study may provide useful insights into
conceptions of teaching using eLearning, it is important to recognise that some cate-
gories were made up from a small number of responses. Also, interpretation of results
needs to consider that the study represented conceptions of teaching using eLearning
of a small group of teachers in very particular contexts. Results are not claimed to be
generalisable.
Second, it is also important to point out that ways of thinking of eLearning
described by the interviewees did not reflect an exhaustive range of the possible
learning technology uses. Following Laurillard’s (2002) classification of learning

Table 3. Referential and structural aspects of conceptions of teaching using eLearning.

Structural (how)
Information Communication Collaboration
Referential (what) perspective perspective perspective
Less complex and (A) Providing Category A
inclusive conceptions information
(B) As in (A) and for Category B
occasional online
communication
More complex and (C) As in (B) and for Category C
inclusive conceptions engaging in students
in online discussions
(D) As in (C) and to Category D
support knowledge
building tasks
 74 C. González

technologies, results showed that uses of eLearning were mainly associated with
‘narrative’, ‘interactive’ and ‘communicative’ media and, to a lesser extent, ‘produc-
tive’ media. ‘Adaptive’ technologies (e.g. simulations) did not emerge. Rather than
seeking to describe every possible way of using eLearning, the aim of this study was
to explore teachers’ conceptions of teaching using eLearning from their own perspec-
tive. However, it is important to acknowledge that further studies may identify uses of
eLearning not found in the present investigation, and that these may be associated with
some different conceptions.
Third, although the focus of this study was to explore conceptions of teach-
ing using eLearning employing a sample representing a wide range of experi-
ences, it is also important to consider that there may be differences in terms of
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

disciplinary backgrounds, teaching experience, gender and so on, which may be

masked due to the sampling strategy. Recent research has found, for example,
that discipline and teaching are associated (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006). Simi-
larly, further research may find that eLearning is conceived of differently by
teachers in particular disciplines, or with different experience in teaching,
academic positions, etc.
Turning to discussion of results, the studies mentioned in the introduction of this
article suggested that conceptions of teaching using eLearning ranged from ‘informa-
tion provision focused’ to ‘communication–collaboration–knowledge creation
focused’ (Ellis, Steed, and Applebee 2006; González 2009; Lameras, Paraskakis, and
Levy 2008; McConnell and Zhao 2006; Roberts 2003). Findings from the present
study are in line with that range. This reaffirms the emerging consensus among
findings in this area. Table 4 presents a summary of these findings in relation to those
from previous studies.
Analysis of Table 4 shows that all these studies have reported conceptions of
teaching using eLearning as a medium ‘for providing information’; and all but
McConnell and Zhao (2006) ‘for engaging in online discussions’. This is coherent
with Laurillard’s (2006) perspective on the current situation of eLearning in higher
education. For her, provision of online materials and participation in discussion boards
would be the most extended uses of eLearning. The present study also identified a
conception of teaching using eLearning as a medium for ‘occasional online commu-
nication’. Only Lameras et al. (2008) found a similar conception, in which eLearning
was seen as a medium ‘for clarifying information’. This conception is relevant
because it shows a different understanding of the communicative feature of eLearning.
Previous studies suggested that teachers tended to conceive of discussion boards, chat
or email as media to promote and engage in learning. In this study, it was found that
communication through the Web can also be seen as merely provision of information.
In this respect, the communicative feature of eLearning does not go further than the
occasional announcement or question. In relation to the highest level category of
description found in this study, eLearning as a medium ‘for supporting knowledge-
building tasks’, only two of the five previous studies reported similar conceptions:
Ellis et al (2006) and González (2009). It may suggest that this more advanced
understanding of eLearning would be not as widespread as those associated with its
‘informative’ and ‘communicative’ features. It is also important to note that some
categories found in previous studies were absent here. These are ‘blended teaching as
replacing part of the responsibility of being a teacher’ (Ellis, Steed, and Applebee
2006), ‘the web used for individual and independent self-paced learning’ (Roberts
2003) and ‘understanding the topic’ (Lameras, Paraskakis, and Levy 2008). The last
 Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

Table 4. Outcomes of the present study and prior research on conceptions of teaching using eLearning.
The present study Previous studies
Roberts (2003) Ellis, Steed, and McConnell and Lameras et al. González (2009)
Applebee (2006) Zhao (2006) (2008)
Conceptions Blended teaching as
focused on replacing part of
provision of the responsibility
information of being a teacher
eLearning as a The web as a Blended teaching as eLearning as a Information transfer The web for
medium for source of providing medium for (a) providing individual access
providing information students with uploading information to learning
information information material for the (b) developing materials and
students to study information information,
on their own (c) clarifying and for individual
information assessment
eLearning as a
medium for
occasional
communication
The web used for Understanding
individual and concepts
independent (a) understanding the
self-paced topic
learning
Conceptions eLearning as a The web used for Blended teaching as (b) rethinking the The web for
focused on medium for group analysis, developing student topic – developing learning-related
communication– engaging in decision understanding concepts communication
collaboration– online making and through aligning (c) developing the (asynchronous/
knowledge discussions dialogue media to intended topic synchronous)
building learning outcomes
eLearning as a Blended teaching as The web as a
Studies in Higher Education

medium for helping students medium for

supporting develop and apply networked
knowledge- new concepts learning
75

building tasks
 76 C. González

two represent an understanding of eLearning as engaging with online interactive mate-

rials, which were not found in the present study.

Conclusion
The results presented in this article have provided further evidence of an emerging
consensus about conceptions of teaching using eLearning. However, more studies are
needed to explore the similarities of prior research findings or to discover divergent
interpretations. For example, this study did not find a conception associated with the
use of ‘adaptive’ media (Laurillard 2002). Further research may find conceptions of
teaching using eLearning associated to those particular learning technologies.
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

Research exploring conceptions of teaching using eLearning in relation to other

elements of the teaching experience, such as approaches and perceptions, would also
help to integrate this research with related areas of study. In this regard, research
associating conceptions of teaching using eLearning and conceptions of teaching is
particularly relevant. This may facilitate a better understanding of how university
teachers are coping with demands to incorporate eLearning into their ‘established’
face-to-face teaching, with important implications for academic development.
Research into conceptions of teaching has helped to understand how university teach-
ers approach their teaching and, in this way, helped them to change and develop their
practice (Ginns, Kitay, and Prosser 2008). Research on conceptions of teaching using
eLearning may have a similar use, supporting university teachers to integrate eLearn-
ing into their ‘established’ practice (McConnell and Zhao 2006). Findings from this
article may be employed by academic developers and eLearning managers as a model
to understand teachers’ conceptions of eLearning. This will help them to create
eLearning development programs for university teachers in accordance with the
outcomes of this area of study.

Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the Chilean Ministry of Education through its MECESUP
program.

References
Åkerlind, G.S. 2003. Growing and developing as a university teacher – Variation in meaning.
Studies in Higher Education 28, no. 4: 375–90.
Åkerlind, G.S. 2004. A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education 9, no. 3: 363–75.
Åkerlind, G.S. 2005a. Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In Doing developmen-
tal phenomenography, ed. J.A. Bowden and P. Green, 103–27. Melbourne: RMIT Univer-
sity Press.
Åkerlind, G.S. 2005b. Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the
qualitative research paradigm. In Doing developmental phenomenography, ed. J.A.
Bowden and P. Green, 63–74. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Åkerlind, G.S. 2005c. Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research and Development 24, no. 4: 321–34.
Åkerlind, G.S., J. Bowden, and P. Green. 2005. Learning to do phenomenography: A
reflective discussion. In Doing developmental phenomenography, ed. J.A. Bowden and
P. Green, 74–100. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Ashwin, P. 2006. Variation in academics’ accounts of tutorials. Studies in Higher Education
31, no. 6: 651–65.
 Studies in Higher Education 77

Bowden, J. 2000a. The nature of phenomenographic research. In Phenomenography, ed. J.

Bowden and E. Walsh, 1–18. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Bowden, J. 2000b. Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account. In
Phenomenography, ed. J. Bowden and E. Walsh, 47–61. Melbourne: RMIT University
Press.
Bowden, J., and E. Walsh, eds. 2000. Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Dall’Alba, G. 1991. Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. Research and Development in
Higher Education 13: 293–97.
Dunkin, M.J. 1990. The induction of academic staff to a university: Processes and products.
Higher Education 20, no. 1: 47–66.
Dunkin, M.J., and R.P. Precians. 1992. Award-winning university teachers’ concepts of
teaching. Higher Education 24, no. 4: 483–502.
Ellis, R.A., P. Goodyear, M. Prosser, and A. O’Hara. 2006. How and what university students
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22, no. 4: 244–56.
Ellis, R.A., A.F. Steed, and A.C. Applebee. 2006. Teacher conceptions of blended learning,
blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology 22, no. 3: 312–35.
Ginns, P., J. Kitay, and M. Prosser. 2008. Developing conceptions of teaching and the
scholarship of teaching through a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education. International
Journal for Academic Development 13: 175–85.
González, C. 2009. Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: A study of lecturers
teaching postgraduate distance courses. Higher Education 57, no. 3: 299–314.
Gow, L., and D. Kember. 1993. Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 20–33.
Kember, D. 1997. A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ concep-
tions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7, no. 3: 255–75.
Kember, D., and K.P. Kwan. 2000. Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science 28, nos. 5–6: 469–90.
Lameras, P., I. Paraskakis, and P. Levy. 2008. Conceptions of teaching using virtual learning
environments: Preliminary findings from a phenomenographic inquiry. Paper presented at
the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning, May 5–7, in Thessaloniki, Greece.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the
effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. E-learning in higher education. In Changing higher education, ed. P. Ashwin,
71–84. London and New York: Routledge.
Law, E.H.F., G. Joughin, K.J. Kennedy, H. Tse, and W.M. Yu. 2007. Teacher educators’
pedagogical principles and practices: Hong Kong perspectives. Teaching in Higher
Education 12, no. 2: 247–61.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., K. Trigwell, A. Nevgi, and P. Ashwin. 2006. How approaches to
teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education 31,
no. 3: 285–98.
Martin, E., and M. Balla. 1991. Conceptions of teaching and implications for learning.
Research and Development in Higher Education 13: 298–304.
Martin, E., and P. Ramsden. 1992. An expanding awareness: How lecturers change their
understanding on teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education 15: 148–55.
Marton, F. 1986. Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different under-
standings of reality. Journal of Thought 21, no. 3: 28–49.
Marton, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marton, F., and W.Y. Pong. 2005. On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher
Education Research and Development 24, no. 4: 335–48.
McConnell, D., and J. Zhao. 2006. Chinese higher education teachers’ conceptions of e-learn-
ing: Preliminary outcomes. Paper presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, December 2–5, in Sydney, Australia.
Parpala, A., and S. Lindblom-Ylänne. 2007. University teachers’ conceptions of good teach-
ing in the units of high-quality education. Studies in Educational Evaluation 33, nos. 3–4:
355–70.
 78 C. González

Pratt, D.D., R. Arseneau, and J. Collins. 2001. Reconsidering ‘good teaching’ across the contin-
uum of medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 21,
no. 2: 70–81.
Prosser, M. 2000. Using phenomenographic research methodology in the context of research
in teaching and learning. In Phenomenography, ed. J. Bowden and E. Walsh, 34–46.
Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Prosser, M., K. Trigwell, and P. Taylor. 1994. A phenomenographic study of academics’
conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 4, no. 3: 217–31.
Roberts, G. 2003. Teaching using the web: Conceptions and approaches from a phenomeno-
graphic perspective. Instructional Science 31, nos. 1–2: 127–50.
Samuelowicz, K., and J.D. Bain. 2001. Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education 41, no. 3: 299–325.
Trigwell, K. 2000. A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In Phenomenogra-
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 06:02 01 February 2015

phy, ed. J. Bowden and E. Walsh, 63–82. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.