Itslearning: Mangfold Og Ensretting

Aalborg Universitet Itslearning mangfold og ensretting Gjerstad, Brita DOI (link to publication from Publisher): 10.5278/vbn.phd.hum.00053 Publication date: 2016 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication from Aalborg University Citation for published version (APA): Gjerstad, B. (2016). Itslearning: mangfold og ensretting. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Ph.d.-serien for Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.hum.00053 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. ? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: September 27, 2021 ITSLEARNING: MANGFOLD OG ENSRETTING ITSLEARNING: MANGFOLD OG ENSRETTING AF BRITA GJERSTAD PH.D. AFHANDLING 2016 BRITA GJERSTAD BRITA ITSLEARNING: MANGFOLD OG ENSRETTING by Gjerstad, Brita Dissertation submitted . Ph.d. indleveret: May 25, 2016 Ph.d. vejleder: Professor Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld Aalborg Universitet Ph.d. bi-vejleder: Associate Professor Geir Nybø Stavanger Universitet Ph.d. bedømmelsesudvalg: Professor Ellen Christiansen (formand) Aalborg Universitet Professor Knut Holtan Sørensen Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Docent Monica Johannesen Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus Ph.d. serie: Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University ISSN (online): 2246-123X ISBN (online): 978-87-7112-360-9 Udgivet af: Aalborg Universitetsforlag Skjernvej 4A, 2. sal 9220 Aalborg Ø Tlf. 9940 7140 [email protected] forlag.aau.dk © Copyright: Brita Gjerstad Trykt i Danmark af Rosendahls, 2016 CV Brita Gjerstad har hovedfag i sosiologi fra NTNU og arbeider som seniorforsker ved International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS). I sin forskning tematiserer hun forholdet mellom mennesker og teknologi innenfor områdene trafikksikkerhet og helse. På begge områder utvikles det teknologier som er ment å skape forbedringer, men som likevel ikke automatisk tas i bruk eller gir de forventede konsekvenser. Dette gir grunnlag for problemstillinger knyttet til blant annet sosiale konstruksjoner av teknologi, implementering og personvern. Gjerstad benytter både kvantitative og kvalitative metoder i sine prosjekter I ENGLISH SUMMARY The focus for this thesis is the process though which people approach new technology, by studying how scientific staff at one Norwegian university college began to use learning management systems (LMS). Today, these systems have been implemented by most educational institutions in Norway, but at the time work on this thesis began, LMS represented new technology for the majority of employees and few educational institutions had formally introduced such systems. It was primarily up to the individual employee as to whether or not they would make use of LMS, and thus expertise and utilization varied greatly. The most important theoretical contribution comes from domestication theory. An important claim is the rejection of technological determinism. Following from that, instead of being passive receivers of technology, individuals are seen as active actors. Another important claim is the mutual shaping of the technological and the social. The domestication takes place as the artefact must be acquired, placed, interpreted and integrated. This, in turn, involves strategies taking place in a practical, symbolic and cognitive dimension. Neither understandings, use or consequences are thus given. However, we cannot take for granted that academic staff are able to freely accept or dismiss LMS. They will be influenced by colleagues and as employees, they exist within a system where managerial decisions are made on their behalf. Diffusion theories point out that such decisions may for example be authoritarian and in reality present as a restriction, or they may be advantageous in the sense that they enable the individual to independently decide whether or not to implement the system. It is also reasonable to believe that institution affiliation will provide guidelines for the choices an academic can make. Concurrently, educational institutions can be characterised as being loosely connected, meaning that such institutions have minimal bearing on one another. This could provide the individual with greater freedom. Despite expected freedom in their work, and the possibilities the freedom offers to accept or reject technology based on their own will, a theory about how technology is socially constructed inspires me to ask how different domestications of technology relate to each other. The theory claims that technologies have an interpretative flexibility and can thus be understood in different ways by different people. The interpretative flexibility will be reduced as the technology stabilises, i.e. one particular interpretation will become established as “the correct one”. The main question has been how academic staff develop use and understandings of LMS under the conditions of an early diffusion. I have three subquestions, and ask III ITSLEARNING: MANGFOLD OG ENSRETTING how the use of LMS diffuse among academic staff, how they domesticate it and how the different domestications relate to each other. In order to answer the questions, quantitative and qualitative data was collated during a survey conducted in the autumn of 2003 among a selection of scientific staff at what was then Stavanger College, now University of Stavanger. The qualitative data consists mainly of interviews with a small selection of scientific and administrative staff, conducted in 2002-2004. In addition, documents and minutes from informal meetings dating from the same period have been used as data material. The data material shows an increase in the use of LMS from the latter half of the 1990s. In 2002, Stavanger College introduced Itslearning. This represented a shift in the conditions for using LMS. Prior to the implementation, only a small number of the staff used LMS, although several different systems were in use. The use was largely the result of individual employee’s interests and decisions, although it was to some degree expedited by external influences. The college management further indirectly influenced the staff by providing financial and technical support for some initiatives and by being positive towards staff who started to use LMS. Following the implementation, the role of the management became more direct and clear. For example, managerial decisions were made regarding which LMS to use and for extensive training to be provided. An increasing number of academic staff took the implementation ad notam and started to use Itslearning. On the basis of this, it can be argued that a phase dominated by diversity in technology, learning processes, aims and influencing factors were followed by a phase where the employee’s attitude towards LMS became more singular. Meanwhile, it was found that despite a level of standardisation, some degree of variation would still occur as Itslearning was used in daily practise by the individual. Nonetheless were four different domestications found: - Itslearning was a strategically useful tool for the institution - Itlearning was a practical and administrative tool for academic staff when encountering students - Itslearning was not a suitable tool for the institution - Itslearning was a tool for standardisation and control for leaders and ICT- staff encountering academic staff The analysis shows that a certain standardisation does not impede variations in what individuals stress when they interpret itslearning and integrate it in their everyday work life. Itslearning, this not only represents a new way of handling scenarios, but also causes changes that lead to a redistribution of tasks and responsibilities. It has an effect on the relationship between employee and student as well as between employee and the institution. Practical and symbolic effects are observed which are seen as both positive and negative. This makes it difficult to identify one perception of Itslearning as being more correct than others. The variation in perception exists in IV spite of a relatively singular use. Consequently, the employee’s relationship with LMS can be described as both homogenous and pluralist. The domestication theory has helped me to show that academic staff has been active actors and not passive receivers of the technology. This is an argument against technological determinism. Yet I claim that in my study, the technology has been indirect determining. Management and technical staff has seen LMS as the best way of handling many needs. A consequence of this is, that it is their, mainly practical, understanding of itslearning, that dominates. My analysis also shows that academic staff can use itslearning to change teaching practice. This means, that implantation of a system like itslearning might have consequences beyond those expected by decisions makers. This is useful insight

Load more