Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Enabling Disruptive Technologies for Higher Education
Learning and Teaching
Michael Flavin
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
The IFS School of Finance, London, UK
m.flavin@open.ac.uk
mflavin@ifslearning.ac.uk
Abstract: Higher Education Institutions (H.E.I.s) have invested significantly in technologies for learning and
teaching, with Virtual Learning Environments (V.L.E.s) being more or less universal (Britain and Liber 2004).
However, technologies provided by H.E.I.s have not been universally successful in terms of adoption and usage.
Meanwhile, both students and lecturers use a range of technologies not controlled by H.E.I.s to enhance their
learning and teaching on one hand, their social lives on the other, and to blur the boundaries between the two.
There is therefore a need to understand how non-institutional technologies influence learning and teaching, and
to understand how they can be incorporated into institutional contexts. In order to address this issue, this
research investigates how H.E.I.s can engage constructively with “disruptive technologies” (Christensen 1997).
Disruptive technologies in the context of this research are technologies that are not designed explicitly for
learning and teaching, but which transpire to have learning and teaching potential. The research uses Activity
Theory and Expansive Learning (Engestrom 1987, 2001) and the Community of Practice theory (Lave and
Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998) as the primary lenses through which to analyse the impact of disruptive
technologies. The research uses questionnaires and interviews in its pilot study phase to identify the technologies
people use, the purposes for which they use them, and the extent to which uses of technology may be regarded
as disruptive. The research is also interested in how disruptive technologies impact on activity systems
(Engestrom 1987, 2001), and interested in how disruptive technologies impact on online identity formation. The
findings suggest that a more bottom-up and less top-down approach to the implementation of technologies to
support learning and teaching in H.E.I.s is more likely to lead to the enhanced adoption of technologies.
Moreover, the findings suggest that users create their own meanings for technologies. In addition, the findings
suggest that learners’ uses of technologies blur the lines between work, study and recreation, which carries
implications for where learning takes place, the means by which it is delivered, and the power relations that
operate within a learning and teaching situation.
Keywords: disruptive technology; expansive learning; community of practice; eLearning
1. Introduction
H.E.I.s in the UK have invested significantly in technologies for learning and teaching, with Virtual
Learning Environments (V.L.E.s) being more or less universal (Britain and Liber 2004). However,
technologies provided by H.E.I.s have not been universally successful in terms of adoption and usage
(Selwyn 2007; Conole et al. 2008; Blin and Munro 2008). Meanwhile, both students and lecturers use
a range of technologies not owned or controlled by H.E.I.s to enhance their learning and teaching,
and their social lives, and to blur the boundaries between the two (Conole et al. 2008).
A number of researchers anticipated that the use of technology in learning and teaching “would
transform and disrupt teaching practices in Higher Education” (Blin and Munro 2008, p.475; Sharples
2003). However, this has tended not to happen. There is therefore a need to understand how
technologies used outside formal educational contexts shape learning, and how they can be
effectively incorporated into formal structures for supporting learning and teaching. In order to address
this issue, this paper investigates how H.E.I.s in the UK can engage constructively with “disruptive
technologies” (Christensen 1997).
2. Disruptive technology
Disruptive technologies are technologies that disrupt established practices. Conversely, “sustaining
technologies” are technologies that enhance performance along pre-established lines, as Christensen
(1997) outlines:
What all sustaining technologies have in common is that they improve the performance
of established products… Disruptive technologies bring to market a very different value
proposition than had been available previously… Products based on disruptive
technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to
use. (Christensen 1997, p. xv)
917