When we make use of a piece of technology it becomes an extension of our bodies, and allows use to do things we could not previously do, or allows us to do things better (Miller, 2011).

When our tools are complex, customisable, objects, e.g. a mobile phone, we are able to use them for many different purposes, and each individual will use them differently. We enhance ourselves in personal ways.

There is a common view that Technology Enhanced Learning presupposes that we will all use the same technologies in the same ways.  That is, we can all be trained to enhance particular abilities by using particular technologies in particular ways.  There is little accounting for individual differences in how we already / will use these tools.

To illustrate this, I will recount an ongoing situation that I am currently experiencing within my workplace.  The tool in question is the VLE – a highly customisable tool.  According to our Quality Manager, all of our lecturers must use it both for disseminating information, and as an interactive teaching tool.  The reason stated is that ‘FE staff look up to HE staff and expect them to be better’ which equates to ‘HE staff must be using the VLE to at least the same standard if not better’. Having explained that many HE staff do not use the VLE for interactive teaching because they use alternative tools that reflect what is commonly used in their industry and the tools that their students already / will use in their future professions, they could only fall back on the argument of FE looking up to HE.

This seems to be a case of ‘we have provided this tool and you will use it even if it is not the best tool for you and your students’.  And an expectation that all staff can enhance their students experience by using the same tools in the same ways regardless of individual needs and preferences.

No recognition is given for the innovative use of other technologies, even where these have been recognised and highlighted by external authorities as examples of good practice. How can this type of directive possibly enhance teaching or learning? And how does foregrounding the expectations of FE staff improve the quality of teaching and learning in HE?

Bayne, S. (2014) What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”? [online]. Learning, Media and Technology. 40 (1), pp. 5–20. [Accessed 16 January 2015].

Miller, V. (2011) The Body and Information Technology. In: Understanding digital culture. London: Sage. pp. 207–223.