The future of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) is in the hands of the anonymous, grey non-descript mid-level professional manager.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Much of the research into the implementation of TEL has centred on teaching approaches and the change (or not) in the role of the academic, which is reflective of the importance of the academic to what takes place in a Higher Education Institute (HEI). Technology enhanced learning (TEL), however, poses a considerable challenge to how the Higher Education (HE) sector operates, as it has done with numerous other sectors. Typically, technology confronts existing practices and boundaries. For HEIs, TEL has accelerated the move away from the discipline-based academics as being at the centre of the education process and replaced them with students. This displacement of the academic for the student has been complemented by changing approaches to teaching, (the growth of network learning for example) and the introduction of new work practices from the private sector in the guise of new managerialism. With the academic’s role reduced from controller to that of participant, the space left is being filled by client-focused mid-level professional managers. Distinct from academic managers, mid-level professional managers are situated between academics and senior management, which is a key position for the implementation of TEL at a time when its future rests on bridging the gap between the bottom up initiatives of the past and the institute-wide initiatives of the future. This discussion piece reflects on the changing role of the academic in a new managerialist TEL HE sector and argues for the overdue recognition of the importance of the mid-level professional manager to the future of TEL.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to the Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning retain the copyright of their article and at the same time agree to publish their articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
References
Bacon, E., (2009). Do professional managers have a profession: the specialist/generic distinction amongst higher education professional services staff. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 13(1). doi:10.1080/13603100802597007.
Bacon, E. (2014). Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Bass, R., (2012). Disrupting Ourselves: The Problem of Learning in Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, March-April. http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1221.pdf
Buckingham Shum, S. & Ferguson, R., (2012). Social Learning Analytics. Social Learning Analytics, 15(3), 3–26. http://www.ifets.info/journals/15_3/2.pdf.
Burnes, B., Wend, P., & By, R. (2014). The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1–22. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.754858
Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). New Public Management and “Middle Management”: How Do Deans Influence Institutional Policies? The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management, 33, 165-196. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9163-5
Cerratto-Pargman, T., Järvelä, S. M., & Milrad, M. (2012). Designing Nordic technology-enhanced learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 227–230. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.05.001
Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–126. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912
Christensen, C., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting College How Disruptive Innovation Can Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary Education. Innosight Institute: Center for American Progress. doi: 10.1306/74D70D8F-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D
Clegg, S., & McAuley, J. (2005). Conceptualising middle management in higher education: a multifaceted discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27, 19–34. doi: 10.1080/13600800500045786
Coomaraswamy, U., 2014. Information and Communications Technology as a Change Agent for Higher Education. In S. Mishra (ed), ed. ICT Leadership in Higher Education: Selected readings. New Delhi: The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.
Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching culture: Experiences and reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817–828. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00756.x
De Boer, H., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2010). The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management. Higher Education Dynamics, 33, 83–102. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9163-5
de Freitas, S. & Oliver, M., (2005). Does e-learning policy drive change in Higher Education?: A case study relating models of organisational change to e-learning implementation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(1), 81–95. doi: 10.1080/13600800500046255.
Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: the case of “new managerialism” in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235. doi: 10.1080/03054980500117827
Desrochers, D.M. & Kirshstein, R., (2014). Labor Intensive or Labor Expensive? Changing Staffing and Compensation Patterns in Higher Education Overview Delta Cost Project Issue Brief, February. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558470.pdf.
Elton, L. (1995). Task Differentiation in Universities: Towards a New Collegiality. Tertiary Education and Management, 2(2) 138–145.
Georgouli, K., Skalkidis, I., & Guerreiro, P. (2008). A framework for adopting LMS to introduce e-learning in a traditional course. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 227–240. http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_2/17.pdf
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Garrison, D.R., (2011).E-Learning in the 21st Century : A Framework for Research and Practice. Oxford: Routledge.
Gregory, M. S.-J., & Lodge, J. M. (2015). Academic workload: the silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education,36(2), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056
Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: the impact of e-learning on academic identities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 553–564. doi:10.1080/13562510903186774
Hedley, S. (2010). Managerialism in Irish Universities. Irish Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 117–141. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1654533
Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). the Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: a Critical Perspective on Co-Production, Co-Creation and Prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 963–980. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00112.x
Institutes of Technologies Act, Government of Ireland (2006).
Irish Universities Act, Government of Ireland, (1997).
Jones, N. & O’Shea, J., (2004). Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning. Higher Education, 48(3), 379–395. doi: doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000035560.32573.d0
Kolsaker, A. (2008). Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: a study of English universities. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 513–525. doi: 10.1080/03075070802372885
Laurillard, D. (2009). The Pedagogical Challenges to Collaborative Technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2
Marini, G., & Reale, E. (2015). How does collegiality survive managerially led universities? Evidence from a European Survey. European Journal of Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1070676
Marshall, S. (2012). E-learning and higher Education: understanding and supporting organisational change. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.
Meek, V., Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2010). Introduction. The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management, 33, 1-14. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9163-5
Njenga, J. K., & Fourie, L. C. H. (2010). The myths about e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199–212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x
Oliver, M., (2012). Technology and Change in Academic Practice. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber, eds. Tribes and Territories in the 21st-Century : Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. Oxford: Routledge.
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. a., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, 75, 185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
Ramirez, F. O., & Tiplic, D. (2013). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher Education, (123), 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9681-1
Rixom, A. (2011). Professionalisation and decision making in higher education management: new collegiality and academic change. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).University of Bath, Bath, U.K. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/28840/1/UnivBath_DBA_2011_A.E.Rixom.pdf
Rudhumbu, N. (2015). Managing Curriculum Change from the Middle: How Academic Middle Managers Enact Their Role in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 106–119. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v4n1p106
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64. doe: /10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x
Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e‐learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), 201–218. doi: 10.1080/09687760500376439
Stensaker, B., Välimaa, J., Henkel, M., & Sarrico, C. (2012). Introduction: How Is Change in Higher Education Managed? In B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa, & C. Sarrico (Eds.), Managing Reform in Universities. The Dynamics of Culture, Identity and Organizational Change, 1–16. Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137284297
Teelken, C. (2012). Compliance or pragmatism: how do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 271–290. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.511171
Trowler, P. (2010). UK Higher Education: Captured by New Managerialist Ideology? The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management, 33, 83-102. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9163-5
Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121–131. doi: 10.1080/13600800902825835