Acadly: Between your work and academic dissertation, you’ve seen edtech up close at several of the world’s leading research universities. How has this diversity of experience shaped your decisions and approach to leading change?

Dr. McCready: What my research and experience have taught me is that those factors influencing the evolution of new, technology enhanced teaching and learning practices differ among institutions. For example, the University of Central Florida (UCF) is a relatively young institution, at just over 50 years old, that is primarily serving the economic needs of the region and state. In 2012, UCF had more than doubled the University’s enrollment over the last 20 years, which was possible through online courses and programs. This model of education is very different than Duke University that has traditionally focused on the residential model of education, at least at the undergraduate level.

Understanding the institution’s mission, culture and students it serves is essential in determining which strategies or approach might work best in leading change.

Shortly after I arrived at Oxford, the University endorsed a strategy for Digital Education (2016–2020), which specifies 5 main areas for development:

The Strategy emphasizes that change in teaching practice must be led from the bottom-up, originating with practitioners. It also recognizes that the University needs to provide an enabling support structure to foster the willingness and enthusiasm of staff to embrace new technology use. These are two essential elements in our ability to successfully lead change.

The first step toward implementing the Strategy was to understand more fully the current patterns of technology use in teaching and learning, and to get a sense of the most important areas for resourcing from the perspective of academic staff and students. We met with the academic committees for each Division and led a consultation survey in order to gain a better understanding of the priorities from the perspective of academics and students. We now have a better sense of the priorities, which is guiding our work and informing decisions about the allocation of limited resources.

This work includes leading a review of the University’s Virtual Learning Environment, increasing and enhancing the level of learning technology support available, and supporting both formative and summative assessment through specialised software, as the primary form of assessment at Oxford is through hand-written examinations. It is also important to ensure that the pace at which we proceed in leading this change is appropriate, and that we have sufficient information to make decisions regarding the implementation of any new technologies to support educational objectives, including policy-related considerations.

Acadly: You’ve studied both culture and institutional processes at Duke, Berkeley and UCF in your dissertation. Between changing culture and processes, what’s the bigger challenge in driving the adoption of edtech? And what should be the areas of focus for university leadership when it comes to change management?

Dr. McCready: Both are difficult, but I have found leading cultural change (or the way we have always done things) to be the bigger challenge. In some cases, we are asking individuals to unlearn skills that are deeply embedded into their day-to-day activities, which is extremely difficult. If there is evidence-based research that explains how the changes you are proposing have led to an improved learning experience for students, then that is often helpful in explaining why change is necessary.

For many institutions, long-term improvements to technology-enhanced learning will come slowly and require a significant commitment by both administrators and academics. While there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, an institution’s ability to successfully lead change will require a shared understanding of why change is necessary, including how it will benefit the students’ learning experience, which ultimately should help in determining the priorities for change.

Acadly: At one point, your thesis mentions that the modes of communication in the formal LMS at Duke “mismatched with how today’s students are communicating”, and that is something we’ve spoken about in the past too (1, 2). Do you think the very design of Learning Management Systems and the rate at which they seem to be evolving is a big issue today?

Dr. McCready: I believe the design of Learning Management Systems (or Virtual Learning Environments in the UK) is changing (although perhaps not as fast as we would like) and that this change aligns with many of the predictions made in the report entitled “Next Generation Digital Learning Environments” prepared in 2015 by EDUCAUSE. Rather than a single application or platform, we suddenly have access to a collection of tools (a learning ecosystem) that seamlessly integrates a variety of applications, while providing some level of personalization.

What I find interesting is how many applications we have to choose from today and how we go about evaluating which of these applications might be most suitable.

Take, for example, web conferencing technologies specifically designed to support teaching and learning. I remember a time when there were only one or two applications that were considered best-of-breed for supporting synchronous online sessions, yet today, there are several applications available and it has become our job to understand the unique differences among these applications, while in some cases, supporting more than one tool. Fortunately, it is much easier to provision these tools through the LMS/VLE, thanks to Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), a specification developed by the IMS Global Learning Consortium.

Acadly: We agree completely that LTI has allowed the integration of multiple edtech products into a single interface, but is it not true that a large portion of the faculty use only the basic functionality of the LMS?

Dr. McCready: The question of whether the LMS is being utilised to its greatest capability is one that many institutions are struggling with. Not to mention, some level of uncertainty in whether the tools available through the LMS are being used in the most beneficial or appropriate manner. That’s why it is essential to have staff members who understand both pedagogy and technology and the important relationship between the two. We begin our conversations with faculty by asking them what it is they want the students to know and be able to do, and then begin to consider whether technology might play a role in supporting the learning objectives.

At the same time, the staff also need to keep abreast of emerging technologies, while carefully considering how these tools might be applied to achieve specific educational objectives… and that takes a lot of effort!

The more data you have on how your LMS is being utilised to support specific learning objectives, the more prepared you are to comment on whether the platform is being used to its fullest capability.

Acadly: That’s a great point! In your dissertation, you note how the shortage of instructional designers or support staff can limit an institution’s ability to lead change. This is another trend we’ve touched upon (3) in the past. Is it a better solution to hire more IDs or is it perhaps better to make it compulsory for professors to get trained in the domain?

Dr. McCready: I believe that having learning technologists embedded within a department or academic division makes a big difference in leading change, and at Oxford, that is apparent in the Medical Sciences Division (MSD), which has established a small team of learning technologists to support their academics.

Today, the MSD is one of the most advanced areas in their use of educational technologies, and we believe that is primarily because they have made it easy for their academics to obtain support within the Division.

Acadly: Another observation in your dissertation was that “for the vast majority of face-to-face courses, teaching practices haven’t changed through the use of technology.” What are the desirable changes in teaching practices that technology (or for that matter, anything else) should aim for?

Dr. McCready: Yes, many of the faculty I met with during my research suggested that teaching practices haven’t changed for the majority of face-to-face courses. One faculty member described how the level of utilisation typically fell into one of three categories or levels:

First level, which enhanced current teaching practices, most often through the introduction of digital content into the course

Second level, which began to transform the classroom experience by making it more active or engaging, e.g., the use of student response systems in large, lecture-based courses

Third level, which began to deemphasize the traditional classroom experience in favor of active learning, while supporting flexible scheduling, where part of the course would be delivered online and part would be delivered in person, what is often referred to as a “blended” course.

For many individuals, it is leading step-change that occurs by slowly introducing technology into one’s teaching and building on that experience over time.

Acadly: Often, faculty members contest the value edtech brings to their teaching, despite growing research evidence to the contrary. Do you think universities are doing a good job of “closing the loop” with concrete evidence and learning analytics?

Dr. McCready: At the time I studied U.C. Berkeley, the faculty members I spoke with weren’t sure that online learning was what was best for their students. With anything new, there is always a need to examine evidenced based research and consider how this information applies to your specific educational objectives.

Universities are beginning to close the loop, although the level of change they choose and the pace of implementation often depend on a number of factors, including the academic mission and educational objectives.

Acadly: To probe you a little further on this — what do we really need to measure to get a fair model that can help predict student success? What sorts of data do you think we need? Since data is scattered across products, how far or close are we to the point where we can have all learning data under one roof?

Dr. McCready: I think institutions first have to agree on the problem they are trying to solve or the questions they are trying to answer in regard to student success. Beyond that, it is also important to understand what data your institution currently has access to across the various systems that support students in their learning.

I attended a session at EdTechX Europe on “Intelligent Tutoring for Personalized Learning” that reinforces how essential it is to be able to use data about learners in order to help facilitate their learning.

There is also data that comes from formative assessment, which might be accommodated with live polling tools during class or by designing simulations that emulate real world practice. Regardless of how you assess learning, these technologies provide an increasing amount of data that should help inform practice.

For Oxford, it will likely take some time to determine what data our academics would like to review on a recurring basis. What distinguishes Oxford from other institutions is its tutorial model of teaching at the undergraduate level. Students meet individually or in small groups with their tutors, and thus, there is already a greater level of engagement and personalisation to their learning process.

Acadly: You’ve spent most of your career working in the US. How has your experience at Oxford been? Do you feel the cultural differences between the two countries impacts your work, or does it have more to do with the differences between university culture, rather than national culture?

Dr. McCready: A lot of people are curious how my experience at Oxford compares to other institutions I have worked for, and my answer often varies, as my role and the nature of my work continues to evolve. I believe the diversity of my experience has influenced how I go about solving problems, which is to gather as much information as possible through an ever-increasing global network.

Academic IT is very much an outward facing team, consulting with peer institutions in the UK, US and Australia to name a few. At the end of the day, we are all working toward improving the student’s learning experience, so that is something we all share in common.

Acadly: Thank you so much Dr. McCready. It was a pleasure speaking with you!