Innovating in Higher Education: Contexts For Change in Learning Technology

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 20052005366975985ArticlesInnovating in higher education
British Journal of Educational Technology
Vol 36 No 6 2005
975985
Innovating in higher education: contexts for change in

learning technology
Andrew Hannan
Address for correspondence: Professor Andrew Hannan, Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth,
Douglas Avenue, Exmouth, EX8 2JH, England. Tel: +44 1395 255368; email:
[email protected]. Andrew Hannan is Professor of Education and Research Coordinator of
Educational Development and Learning Technologies. He was codirector of the Innovations in Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
Abstract
This paper draws on three research projects (undertaken in 199799, 2002
and 200405) that have examined innovation in learning and teaching
methods in UK higher education. The first two of these focused on such matters
as departmental and institutional cultures and the factors that have either
enabled or inhibited change. The third has begun to monitor the impact of the
process of establishing Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. The
prospects for introducing innovations in teaching and learning in higher
education are considered in relation to these wider contexts in terms of policies,
structures and cultures.
Introduction
Innovation is often seen in terms of technological change, of some new gadget or
software that will transform learning and teaching. The assumption seems to be that
innovation is always a good thing and that it normally involves some new, usually
computerised, technology. However, innovations sometimes fail and new technologies
can prove to be more trouble than they are worth. It can nevertheless be argued that
what higher education (HE) institutions need is a climate: (1) that encourages attempts
to improve learning and teaching, (2) where pedagogical and curriculum concerns
drive technological developments rather than vice versa, (3) where the best about the
old way of doing things is adapted to meet new requirements. But how can such an
ideal environment be generated? What kinds of institutional structures and cultures
make innovation possible?
Research projects
Innovations
The Innovations in Teaching and Learning in HE project funded by the Economic and
Social Research Council aimed to examine the innovative responses of staff teaching on
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2005.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
976
Vol 36 No 6 2005
undergraduate programmes in HE to the challenges facing them. The fieldwork was

conducted in two phases, in 199798 and 199899. The first phase focused on innovators (those involved in introducing methods of teaching and learning new to their
situation and intended to bring about improvements) in fifteen universities in all parts
of the UK, nine of which were old (established pre-1992) and six of which were new
(former polytechnics that were granted university status in 1992). The second phase
was concerned with institutional contexts for innovation, and consisted of in-depth
studies of five universities, of which four had been part of the first phase study. In the
first phase, interviews were conducted with 221 people. In the second phase, 116
individual interviews and six focus group discussions took place. Our findings identified
those factors that inhibited and those that encouraged innovation at individual and
institutional levels (Hannan & Silver, 2000). We found that innovation in teaching and
learning was most likely to take place when:
the innovator had encouragement or support from the head of department, dean or
other person in authority;
the institution had a policy establishing parity between research and teaching
and learning, including for purposes of promotion, and the policy was reflected
in practice;
colleagues and people in authority showed an interest in disseminating the outcomes
of innovation; and
resources were available either through the department or an innovations or similar
fund or an education development unit.
Conversely, innovation was most likely to be obstructed by:
low esteem of teaching and learning, compared with research;
lack of recognition and interest by colleagues and people in authority;
institutional or other policies and action plans laying down firm directions that precluded individual, alternative initiatives;
excessively bureaucratic procedures for approval, support and resources; and
quality assessment procedures that inhibited risk taking.
Follow-up survey
During the summer of 2002, I conducted a survey of those first interviewed for this
project. This follow-up research was intended to enable me to gauge the extent to which
UK universities have become more or less supportive of the attempts to improve methods
of teaching and learning and in what ways. The follow-up study was conducted principally by means of an email questionnaire sent to staff at the same 15 institutions
surveyed in 199798, although one of these had since changed its name and shifted
location. I managed to identify 153 of the 221 original innovators who appeared to
be still employed at the same institution. Seventy-six of them completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of just less than half (ie, 49.7%). The email, which was
sent with an ethics protocol, included the following questions:
1. Comparing your experience from 199798 to that now, which of the descriptions
below fit best?
Innovating in higher education
977
(a) Innovation
It was easier then to introduce new methods of teaching and learning in this
institution than it is now.
It is easier now to introduce new methods of teaching and learning in this
institution than it was then.
It is no different.
If youd like to explain your response, please do so below:
(b) Teaching and learning
Teaching and learning had a higher priority in this institution then than they
do now.
Teaching and learning have a higher priority in this institution now than they
did then.
It is no different.
If youd like to explain your response, please do so below:
2. Positive
Please identify any developments at a national or institutional level since 199798
that you feel have had a positive impact on teaching and learning in HE:
3. Negative
Please identify any developments at a national or institutional level since 199798
that you feel have had a negative impact on teaching and learning in HE:
In addition, I conducted 19 interviews, five of which were with innovative newcomers identified by respondents in the survey. The analysis that follows draws from
the responses to the questions posed in the email (five respondents replied to the
questionnaire in tape-recorded telephone interviews rather than via email). The most
easily quantifiable items from the email survey were the two parts of question 1 (see
Table 1).
On this evidence, there appeared to be no consensus about whether or not innovating
was easier in 199798 than it was in 2002, with almost equal numbers replying
positively as affirming the opposite (just less than two-fifths of those making classifiable
responses for each of these options). This approximate balance was also to be found in
nearly all of the individual institutions. With regard to the level of priority given to
teaching and learning, however, just over half (54.7%) of those giving valid responses
believed that this had been raised. Only one (new) university bucked this trend with
four respondents believing teaching and learning had a higher priority in the past than
in 2002, whereas two believed the opposite and two thought there had been no change.
On both the issues addressed by question 2 the responses of new and old universities
were broadly similar, although nine staff (28.1%) from new universities compared to
just five (15.6%) from pre-1992 universities believed that the priority for teaching and
learning had been higher in the past.
Perhaps the best way to understand the factors that staff believed had enabled and
inhibited innovation is to examine the explanations they gave for their responses. In
978
Vol 36 No 6 2005
Table 1: Innovators perceptions of changes in institutional environments

1. Comparing your experience from 199798 to that now, which of the descriptions below
fit best?
(a) Innovation
Frequency
Valid %
It was easier then to introduce new methods of teaching and

learning in this institution than it is now.
It is easier now to introduce new methods of teaching and
learning in this institution than it was then.
It is no different.
Unclassifiable
26
34.2
39.4
25
32.9
37.9
15
10
19.7
13.2
22.7
Total
76
100.0
100.0
(b) Teaching and learning

Frequency
Valid %
Teaching and learning had a higher priority in this institution

then than they do now.
Teaching and learning have a higher priority in this institution
now than they did then.
It is no different.
Unclassifiable
14
18.4
21.9
35
46.1
54.7
15
12
19.7
15.8
23.4
Total
76
100.0
100.0
what follows, the coding given for each quotation enables the reader to identify
respondents from the same university. It also indicates whether the institution concerned is a pre-1992 or a post-1992 university (using Old for the former and New
for the latter) and uses the suffix EDU when the person quoted had an educational
development role at an institutional level, often in addition to teaching and/or management responsibilities.
Eighteen of the 26 who thought that it was harder now (in 2002 compared to 1997
98) to innovate gave their reasons. Of these, seven mentioned the constraints of quality
assessment requirements. The following is a fairly typical example:
Respondent 55 (Old.15.7)
...it is harder to do for a number of reasons which combine internal and external forces and one
is that the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) gets more and more paper driven, and that means
that first of all more and more time is taken up doing paperwork, it means that some of the format
of that paperwork whereby you have to write up... what youre meant to be doing, is such absolute
crap that its really off putting to even try and do it because you waste so much time. If its
something slightly out of the ordinary that somebody hasnt got the answer to, you have to kind
of go through defending all the things you think it does and I for one am very sick of that. Plus
of course they dont actually come and look at teaching, the idea is that now theyll judge us by
the paperwork...
979
Three others blamed the disincentive effect of increasing regulation and paperwork
without specific reference to the quality assurance process. No other factor was identified by more than one respondent.
On the other hand, 14 of the 25 respondents explained why they thought that innovation was easier now (in 2002 compared to 199798). A wide range of reasons was
given. Several believed that there was a process of accretion taking place, supported by
developments at both institutional and national levels. Interestingly, three staff identified adversity as a spur to innovation. Two respondents mentioned the beneficial effect
of courses introduced to new lecturers and two others the support for innovation
afforded by institution-wide developments in the provision of new technology. Four
mentioned the influence of increased institutional support.
Only eight of the 14 respondents who thought that the priority given to teaching and
learning had diminished offered explanations for their stance. Of these, five identified
the increasing emphasis on research as a major factor, as illustrated by the following
response:
Respondent 7 (Old.2.2)
Again there is a lot of talk about the importance of teaching and learning, but the arrival of the
RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) has made people feel more and more that the first priority,
at least for a moderate department, is to raise the research rating. One effect of this is on recruitment: research stars are looked for, regardless of whether they are likely to be good or keen
teachers. Those with a good portfolio of RAE stuff tend to be that bit older too, so we dont get
the young things that liaise most easily with studentsand have the most energy. I am aware
that the RAE was already in place in 19971998, but I think its effect on the general outlook
has been cumulative.
However, 35 respondents thought that the priority given to teaching and learning in
their institutions was higher now (in 2002 compared to 199798). Twenty-three of
these gave reasons, five of them citing quality assurance as a positive influence, as
explained below:
Respondent 50 (New.6.10)
From my perspective I think its got a lot to do with the QAA subject reviews, because you find
areas where things could be improved, and we actually recognise them. Thats why we have more
policies and guidance for people.
For most, there was evidence of an increased recognition of the importance of teaching
and learning, with support provided both internally and externally.
Since the research for the first project took place in 199798, the funding councils for
HE have supported a range of initiatives designed to encourage and support improvements in teaching and learning. In 1999, the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund
(TQEF) was launched by the Higher Education Funding Council for England ([HEFCE],
1999). This was directed at three levels: (1) the institution, by requiring the submission
980
Vol 36 No 6 2005
of institutional strategies for teaching and learning, (2) the subject, through the
establishment of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) subject centres
and the Generic Centre with the further support of the Fund for the Development of
Learning and Teaching (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/1046.htm), and (3) the
individual academic via the annual National Teaching Fellowship awards (http://
www.ntfs.ac.uk/). The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE)
was also established in 1999 as a membership-based organisation intended to raise the
status of teaching in HE by providing professional accreditation and support services.
So, what did our innovators believe to be the developments at a national or institutional level that had had a positive effect on teaching and learning? Seventy staff
responded to this question, but of these 14 provided replies such as none or there
arent any. Of the other 56, 15 respondents identified the QAA as a positive influence,
13 the LTSN, 13 the ILTHE, 10 the TQEFs requirement for institutional teaching and
learning strategies and four the National Teaching Fellowships. Respondent 12
(New.6.1EDU) perhaps sums things up:
National: Dearing Report and subsequent developments such as ILTHE. Most importantly the
institutional strand of the TQEF fundingproviding strategy money. Somewhat mixed feelings
about it, but QAA did its share of frightening people into thinking about change, and in some
cases even actually bringing about quality enhancement. Im unsure about the impact of LTSN
Subject Centres and Generic Centrethey may turn out to be a significant positive force, or
simply a huge waste of money. Institutional: Id have to say the various aspects of the Learning
and Teaching Strategytogether with the process of getting a strategy. Just having one, and
promoting it, regardless of its content, has had a big impact. Other strategies and policies are now
considered in relation to the Learning and Teaching Strategy, and Learning and Teaching has a
voice in decision-making at all levels. Individuals and groups interested in enhancement of
Learning and Teaching are growing into bigger, richer networks.
When asked to identify negative influences on teaching and learning, 68 people

responded. Of these, 25 cited the RAE and the priority given to research. Seventeen
criticised the quality assurance process, compared to the 15 referred to earlier who
thought that this was a beneficial influence on teaching and learning. Interestingly, two
respondents gave the QAA as both a positive and a negative influence. Twenty respondents identified the harm caused by under-funding. Eight were particularly concerned
about the negative impact on teaching and learning of the increase in student numbers.
Overall, several staff had worries about the way in which a number of factors were
combining so as to have a negative impact on teaching and learning. For example:
Respondent 12 (New.6.1EDU)
The largest factor has to be the declining unit of resource at a time when we also want to widen
participation. This has led to unfeasibly large classes of students with very diverse needs, taught
by staff who are unprepared for them. In the light of this challenge some staff retrench to what
they believe to be tested pedagogical methods, and forgo any attempt at innovation.
It needs to be remembered in assessing the above statements that they were made by
members of staff who were chosen for interview in 199798 because of their involve British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2005.
981
ment in innovation, in introducing methods of teaching and learning new to their own
situations. Despite the pessimism of some, however, it should not be forgotten that
almost equal numbers of respondents from the survey as a whole thought innovation
was easier in 2002 than in 199798 as thought the reverse. The general conclusion
seems to be that even when institutions give teaching and learning a higher priority,
those wishing to introduce pedagogic innovations may still be confronted by obstacles
that are difficult to overcome.
The frustration felt by these individuals might be a function of the shift in the way
that innovation has been handled in institutions. As argued in Hannan and Silver
(2000), there seem to have been three interlocking themes, which have to some
extent been overlapping phases, in the history of innovation within institutions of HE
in the past half century. These can be described as individual innovation (drawing
on the ideas of enthusiasts), guided innovation (often supported by institutional
funds derived from national programmes and somewhat loosely connected to guiding
notions about improving teaching and learning) and directed innovation (driven by
institutional imperatives often aimed at maximising returns on investment in new
technologies or promoting more student-centred learning partly for reasons of efficiency). Many of those we interviewed in 199798 were the sort of lone rangers
(Taylor, 1998) who were typical of the first of these phases. Several of them had also
benefited from the guided innovation phase, and a few had become members of central units driving forward directed innovation, but others found themselves unsympathetic to centrally determined initiatives and unable to gain support for their own
ideas.
The responses to the email survey allow us to examine the effects of a number of policy
initiatives. Clearly, the QAA requirements (see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/) have had a massive impact, although opinions are split about whether their overall effect on teaching
and learning has been positive or negative. The fact that they are now to be greatly
revised in the search for a lighter touch is therefore significant (Cooke, 2002; QAA,
2002), but it remains to be seen how much they have penetrated the culture of HE
institutions. It may well be that the bureaucratic process they inspired has now become
internalised partly for fear of the drilling down that might take place should there be
any concerns raised by auditors at institutional inspections that would result in full
subject reviews. Generally, the new system gives more responsibility to the universities
to do their own quality assurance with the QAA merely checking periodically that their
systems are effective. Some would see this as an internalisation of the policing function.
Those who have welcomed the QAA subject reviews and their system of scoring as a
counterbalance to the RAE may not be grateful for this lower public profile. It is possible
that the gains to be had from escaping what some saw as the charade of inspection by
an external body are illusory if the same bureaucratic requirements are simply switched
to an internal process. At the same time, the advantages of a high profile public exposure of teaching and learning practices may be lost. A culture of quality enhancement
rather than audit is still far from being achieved. The quality assurance process has
been largely addressed defensively, with staff very unlikely to provide honest accounts
982
Vol 36 No 6 2005
of how things have been getting worse of the kind given by several of the respondents
quoted above.
The RAE has had a very important influence on all aspects of HE (see http://
www.rae.ac.uk/default.htm). It is worthy of note that the creation of the new universities in 1992 was marked by their first participation in the research selectivity
exercise that took place that same year. For the newcomers, the drive to climb the
RAE ladder has been very strong, whilst the elite research-led universities have been
determined to keep their advantage. Although the process of QAA subject review
has acted as something of a counter-balance, the primacy of the RAE in several
institutions is marked by many of the respondents to this survey. Of course, the
whole context has now changed once again with the publication of the White Paper
(Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2003) and the decisions made about
the future of research funding (HEFCE, 2003a), although the situation in Scotland
and Wales continues to be different from that in England and Northern Ireland. The
government is determined to encourage a diversity of approach (HEFCE, 2003b),
with higher rewards for research confined to those departments with a significant
proportion of their research at an international level of excellence (those rated 5*
and 5). For those departments that have not received HEFCE research funding or
that have had their funding significantly reduced, their previous investment in
research done principally to obtain high RAE ratings looks highly questionable. On
the other hand, the incentives for improving teaching and learning have been
growing.
From the survey reported here it would appear that the TQEF (HEFCE, 1999) has had
a largely positive impact, which perhaps helps explain the generally perceived rise in
the level of priority given to teaching and learning since 199798. Of course, it remains
to be seen how effective the various new incentives will be for further raising the priority
and prestige of teaching and learning (DfES, 2003). The White Paper promised extra
funding to institutions that reward excellence in teaching and an increase in the number of National Teaching Fellowships (from 20 to 50). However, the price to pay for all
this might well be the further separation of research and teaching; the possible establishment of teaching-only universities, the increase in the number of academics
employed only to do research (and presumably of those who will only teach) and the
concentration of research funding in fewer departments. Meanwhile the government
continues to push for a 50% HE participation rate for 1830-year-olds by 2010 (a
proportion already achieved in Scotland), although this is increasingly subject to redefinition. The White Paper (DfES, 2003) promised to increase the funding of those
institutions meeting widening participation targets and to meet the extra costs of retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds. It makes effective widening participation strategies compulsory for those institutions wishing to charge top-up fees for
teaching. It remains to be seen, however, how broadening the intake to elite universities
will impact on those lower down the hierarchy, who may lose some of their better
qualified applicants. Also, if there are to be significantly higher fee levels for students in
some English universities, it will be interesting to see whether or not they result in
983
teaching becoming more important in institutions that have previously prioritised

research.
Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
However, the big idea in the White Paper in terms of encouraging innovation in
teaching and learning was undoubtedly that of giving HE institutions the chance to bid
to establish Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning or CETLs (for details see:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/TInits/cetl/). There was a considerable inducement
in financial terms, with the possibility of receiving 500 000 pa for five years and
capital funding worth up to 2 million for each CETL gaining approval. HEFCE intended
that the CETL initiative would strengthen the strategic focus on teaching and learning
by directing funds to centres that reward high teaching standards, promote a scholarlybased and forward-looking approach to teaching and learning, and where significant
investment will lead to further benefits for students, teachers and beyond (HEFCE,
2004, paragraph 11). Six objectives for the initiative were given (HEFCE, 2004, paragraph 17):
1. to reward practice that demonstrates excellent learning outcomes for students;
2. to enable practitioners to lead and embed change by implementing approaches that
address the diversity of learners needs, the requirements of different learning contexts, the possibilities for innovation and the expectations of employers and others
concerned with the quality of student learning;
3. to enable institutions to support and develop practice that encourages deeper understanding across the sector of ways of addressing students learning effectively;
4. to recognize and give greater prominence to clusters of excellence that are capable
of influencing practice and raising the profile of teaching excellence within and
beyond their institutions;
5. to demonstrate collaboration and sharing of good practice and so enhance the standard of teaching and effective learning throughout the sector; and
6. to raise student awareness of effectiveness in teaching and learning in order to
inform student choice and maximize student performance.
In 2004 David Gosling and I began a longitudinal research project designed to investigate the impact of the CETL initiative (Gosling & Hannan, 2004). The first phase sought
to collect data on the perceptions of staff at the time of submitting a Stage One bid at
which point eight in-depth interviews were conducted with members of staff drawn
from six institutions. A further thirteen interviews were conducted with those who
made it through to Stage Two of the bidding process (from nine institutions) and three
interviews (each with a staff member from a different institution) with those who failed
at Stage One. In all, 259 Stage One bids were made, of which 106 were short-listed for
Stage Two of the process, 74 of these eventually being granted CETL status. We have
been investigating the process of establishing the CETLs since the results were
announced in late January 2005.
From the evidence of the interviews with people who took part in the CETL bidding
process, it would seem that institutions drew on what they perceived as their strengths
984
Vol 36 No 6 2005
in putting forward their proposals. However, many felt that the whole CETL exercise
was not the most accurate way to identify and thence to reward and promote excellence.
For many, it was a chance to put forward a proposal in order to use CETL funds for what
they wanted to do anyway. The one-off nature of the exercise meant that those parts of
institutions not touched by the bids had no incentive to take an interest because they
did not need to learn lessons for the future. The impact on those who did work together
on the CETL proposals was considerableforging alliances and promoting ideas that
would otherwise not have risen to such prominence. The requirements of the process
itself helped to shape the proposals made, particularly in terms of having to invent ways
of rewarding staff who had contributed to the excellence claimed and to spend large
amounts of capital on pedagogic ideas not necessarily dependent on buildings and
equipment. The necessity of playing a bidding game encouraged competitiveness both
within and between institutions. Of course, it remains to be seen what the longer term
impact of the CETL initiative will be, with 74 CETLs added to the 24 subject centres
formerly part of the LTSN and now of the Higher Education Academy (http://
www.heacademy.ac.uk/), which has also incorporated the ILTHE. The sector will
shortly have a profusion of units dedicated to the enhancement of teaching and learning in a variety of ways, with a significant number of CETLs likely to take a more
thematic approach than the discipline-specific centres.
Conclusion
Learning technologists have made a major contribution to attempts to improve teaching and learning in HE as both initiators and enablers of innovation. They have been
well placed as participant observers to note the shifts in institutional climatein structures, policies and culturethat have promoted or restricted such innovation. In institutions where research is held to be more important than teaching but student numbers
are nevertheless increasing, they may have found new learning technologies being
introduced to free staff from too great a burden in terms of the time devoted to traditional means of teaching and assessment, with the hope of at least maintaining the
quality of the student experience. In other institutions in which teaching and learning
are a higher priority, they may have undertaken or supported innovations resulting in
rewards for those involved, such as promotions or teaching fellowships. These new
developments may have been intended to enhance the reputation of the course, department or institution in order to create the sort of excellence that could earn CETL status.
The evidence of the three research projects reported here is that innovating can be a
rewarding experience, but that this is unlikely to be so unless the institutions concerned
make such efforts to enhance the learning of their students a high priority and back
this in practice as well as in their rhetoric. Some aspects of government policy have made
such commitments more likely at the same time as other forces pull in different directions. Those wishing to promote innovation in teaching and learning need to exploit
the opportunities that such tensions create.
References
Cooke, R. (2002). Information on quality and standards in higher education; final report of the Task
Group. Retrieved 13 May, 2005, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2002/02_15.htm
985
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003). The future of higher education. London: HMSO.
Gosling, D. & Hannan, A. (2004). Valuing excellence in teaching and learning: the experience of bidding
to be a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Paper presented at International Conference
of the Society for Research into Higher Education, University of Bristol.
Hannan, A. & Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in higher education: teaching, learning and institutional
cultures. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University
Press.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (1999). Learning and teaching:
strategy and funding. Retrieved 13 05, 05, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/
1999/99%5F26.htm
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2003a). Recurrent grants for 2003
2004. Retrieved 13 May, 2005, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2003/03_10.htm
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2003b). HEFCE strategic plan 2003
2008. Retrieved 13 May, 2005, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2003/03_12.asp
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2004). Centres for excellence in teaching
and learning: invitation to bid for funds. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2002). New method of academic review:
developing the new method of institutional audit. Retrieved 13 May, 2005, from http://
www.qaa.ac.uk/public/newmethod/newmethod.htm
Taylor, P. G. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: lone ranging is not enough. Studies
in Higher Education, 23, 269279.

Innovating in Higher Education: Contexts For Change in Learning Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovating in Higher Education: Contexts For Change in Learning Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovating in Higher Education: Contexts For Change in Learning Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

British Journal of Educational Technology