Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Does Knowing lead to doing in the case of learning

platforms?

Jean D.M. Underwood & James Stiller

To cite this article: Jean D.M. Underwood & James Stiller (2014) Does Knowing lead
to doing in the case of learning platforms?, Teachers and Teaching, 20:2, 229-246, DOI:
10.1080/13540602.2013.848569

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848569

Published online: 25 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 354

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014
Vol. 20, No. 2, 229–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848569

Does Knowing lead to doing in the case of learning platforms?

Jean D.M. Underwood* and James Stiller

Division of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

(Received 14 March 2012; final version received 22 November 2012)

There have been significant advance in educational technology but they have not
always brought about measurable shifts in user behavior. This study examined
the relationship between teachers’ knowledge about a tool and their use of that
tool. In many secondary schools use of a Learning Platforms (LPs) is no longer
optional although the degree of engagement with the technology remains a
matter of choice. However, individual decisions to use selected functionalities of
these systems are not well captured in current models of technology acceptance.
In a best-case scenario, self-reported possible and actual use of LPs was acquired
for 50 teachers from eight technology-rich schools. Three key barriers to use
were identified: the functionality of the software, workloads and personal
interest. Based on teachers’ knowledge of LP functionality and perceived barri-
ers to use, four distinct groups of teachers emerged. A low-user group identified
all three barriers, showed little enthusiasm for use of this technology and had a
markedly impoverished perception of the LP. There were three distinct higher
use groups based on perceived barriers. While the functions used by these three
groups showed less variation, with innovative functions such Blogs and Wikis
remaining aspirational, there were differences in how such limitations were
viewed. Whether the response was one of complacency and frustration has
implications for professional development programmes.
Keywords: barriers to change; teachers; technology integration; technological
knowledge; learning platforms

Introduction
The changing characteristics of the world’s economic and social activity, that is the
shift to the Information Society, requires new skills, attitudes and habits to be
developed through a new information skills based curriculum. In their study of the
international implementation of such a curriculum Voogt and Pelgrum (2005)
asserted that there was a discontinuity between the goals of such a curriculum and
the actual curriculum implemented by teachers and students in the classroom even
though new digital technologies were available to support educational change. While
the use of technology has become essential in many areas of activity, Demetriadis
et al. (2003) point out that traditional teaching can produce ‘satisfactory’ educational
outcomes so the impetuous from changing practice is not strong.
That there have been changes in the use of ICT to support the information
curriculum is readily apparent as is exemplified by the trend away from support-
ing learning through small-scale highly specific educational packages, towards

*Corresponding author. Email: jean.underwood@ntu.ac.uk

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

230 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

large-scale, multifunctional environments. These environments are variously termed

Virtual Learning Environments (VLE), Learning Management Systems (LMS),
Learning Platforms (LP) and Personalized Learning Platforms (PLP) depending on
the functionality of the system. Such environments consist of tools (forums, quizzes)
and data (students, content) within a context of a course or module (Wilson et al.,
2006). These digital learning resources may be unidirectional such as a piece of
text or a podcast; bi-directional as in a quiz or test; or multidirectional as in a
collaborative multi-user game or simulation. Latterly there has been a focus on
communication functions in such systems, an acknowledgement of the importance
of communities of practice in stimulating learning (Lin, Lai, Chu, Ma, & Hsu,
2009). The LMS is the core component of a modern LP integrating the different
technologies, distributing the learning content, supporting the learning process, and
serving as a general communication point and interface between learner and teacher.
In addition, it collates and makes available key decision-making data. Zimmermann
(2008) argues that no other technology allows a teacher to support learners in such
a structured, systematic way, driven by learning objectives. Although Ebner,
Holzinger, Scerbakov, and Tsang (2011) question this assertion, arguing that there is
now so much free technology available, which can be used as hands-on tools to
enhance learning and teaching, that the concept of the LP is already out of date.
However, the development of ever more complex and multi-functioning tools
continues. While Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) rely on the simple aggre-
gation of existing content and services mainly using Web 2.0 technologies, Respon-
sive Open Learning Environments (ROLEs) are the next generation of PLEs.
ROLEs which allow the inclusion of new learning material and learning services
which then can then configured so that learners are able to create their own learning
environments are seen as a major way forward (Kirschenmann, Scheffel, Friedrich,
Niemann, & Wolpers, 2010). Consequently, throughout the lifetime of a ROLE, new
configurations will be created by learners as needed. ROLEs are transforming life-
long learning by introducing a new infrastructure on a global scale while dealing
with existing LMSs, institutions, and technologies (Friedrich et al., 2011).
Although van Raaij and Schepers (2008) have argued that learner acceptance is
the key to successful LP implementation, teachers’ acceptance is also crucial as they
provide much of the content and direct usage of the system. They too must accept
the technology. However, as Kenny and McDaniel (2011) point out the need to con-
vince teachers that the effort to integrate curriculum technology is worthy of the
effort is not always fully recognised. There are encouraging reports of teachers
embracing this new mode of working. From his two-year study of the use made of a
LP across one UK local authority Passey (Passey, 2011) concluded that practices
were emerging that will lead to enhanced involvement and engagement in learning
activities for parents as well as pupils and teachers. Tay, Lim, Lye, Ng, and Lim
(2011) in Singapore and Pombo, Smith, Abelha, Caixinha, and Costa (2012) in
Portugal have also found positive developments in the use of LPs by teachers.
The research presented here investigated UK secondary teachers’ responses to
the LP in their schools. While some see such systems as revolutionizing the way
educators teach and students learn (Bryant & Hunton, 2000; Wells, de Lange, &
Fieger, 2008) others are less sanguine. Sclater (2010) for one asserts that both stu-
dents and tutors under-use many high-level functions, such as the communication
tools. While the range of tools has grown teachers often find the more advanced
functionalities difficult to customise (Severance, Hardin, & Whyte, 2008).
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 231

So, while in principle the LP is a safe and secure customisable environment that
is reliable, which can be can be both didactic or immersive, it is the former more
passive model that is most pervasive. As Severance and his colleagues point out
such LPs are primarily a mechanism for meeting the needs of the institution in that
they provide a basic, common technology platform for teaching and learning
(Severance, Hardin, & Whyte, 2008). They are generally too hard to customize at
the individual user level and the development of these systems has often proved
unresponsive to the needs of those users who want their teaching and learning envi-
ronments to be under their personal control. Wilson and his colleagues argue that
current LPs support an asymmetric relationship with tutors having a greater range of
tools to organize, create and communicate at their disposal than those available to
the learners in their charge.
Despite reservations from the user community, there are strong policy and
commercial drivers encouraging the use of LPs. They are at the centre of Next
Generation Learning, a UK government policy to ensure the effective and innovative
use of technology throughout learning and education1. Companies such as Black-
board and Design2Learn have established a global market for their products and
Moodle, a free and open source e-learning software platform, had almost 50,000
registered sites world wide in 2009.2 However, there are grounds to question the
growing dominance of LPs, at least in their current conception. We have discussed
learner resistance to LP usage before (Underwood et al., 2010), here we focus on
how and why teachers do or do not engage with this technology.

Technology acceptance
Technology acceptance is a critical issue that has generated a plethora of theories
(see Dwyer, Hiltz, & Widmeyer, 2008; van Raaij & Schepers, 2008; Venkatesh,
Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Acceptance, use and the impact of technology are
often seen as synonymous and the mere use of technology is perceived as innovative
without a clear articulation of where the inventiveness lies. A seemingly major
change to the paperless, bookless digital school can only be said to be transforma-
tional if adoption of the technology results in shifts in behaviour, for example the
deconstruction of the curriculum-based timetable in favour of an individualized
working-week for each child as evidenced by Underwood et al. (2007). While Wikis
and Twitter, perceived as having educational potential because they are so readily
used by students, are generally used as message boards by the few but form no part
of the pedagogic tool kit of the majority of teachers (Banyard, Underwood, Kerlin,
& Stiller, 2011).
The Task-Technology Fit Theory (TTFT) suggests that for a technology to
become embedded it has to be fit-for-purpose, where fit is the degree to which a
technology supports the requirements of a task and matches the abilities of the user
(Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). However, fit is a prerequisite not a guarantor of
acceptance so on later models the focus shifted away from the technology to the
user as in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) a
melding of eight earlier models (Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT identifies three
determining constructs that impact on user intentions:

(1) Performance expectancy; the degree to which an individual believes that

using the system will result in improved performance.
232 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

(2) Effort expectancy; the degree of ease associated with the use of the system.
(3) Social influence, the individual’s perception of whether ‘important others’
think s/he should use the new system.

A recent UK survey showed 100% of secondary and 91% of primary school senior
staff viewed their LP as a positive influence on teaching and learning (BESA,
2009). While 70% of primary and 60% of secondary teachers surveyed reported that
the LP was useful or very useful for storing and accessing learning resources and
teaching software (Smith, Rudd, & Coghlan, 2008). Amongst teachers with LP
access, over 29% of primary and 24% of secondary teachers reported that the LP
saved them time. However 60% felt it was time-neutral with a further 10% of pri-
mary and 14% of secondary teachers reporting that it absorbed time. The majority
anticipated the LP would bring benefits, but on one actual usage measure, that of
workloads, the technology was seen as neutral or having negative impact by three-
quarters of the sample. This finding brings into focus one of the central concepts,
effort expectancy, of the UTAUT. So what makes a technology acceptable even at a
cost in, for example, the user’s time?
Venkatesh et al. (2003) argue that attitudes are not a key determinant of behav-
iour and that the observed relationship between attitude and intention cited in many
studies is spurious resulting from the omission of the other key predictors, such as
performance and effort expectancies. The primary drivers of choice are epistemic
value, that is the capacity to arouse curiosity and satisfy a desire for knowledge, and
the functional value, which has been linked to effective self-regulation of learning,
suggesting a process through which technology adoption can take place. It is also is
a prerequisite of functional value and these two together have a substantial influence
on people’s attitudes, overlapping as they do with the concept of perceived useful-
ness in Davis’s (1989) TAM. For example, Liu and his colleagues have shown that
the intention to use online learning environments is linked to perceived usefulness
or functional value coupled with previous online learning experience (Liu, Chen,
Sun, Wible, & Kuo, 2010).
Gibson’s (2008) theoretical framework of how the nature of knowledge influ-
ences technology integration, predicated on the dichotomy between declarative
(knowing about) procedural (knowing how to do) knowledge, asks is knowing about
sufficient to stimulate teachers to acquire the skills of use a technology (procedural
knowledge)? For task-oriented products like LPs the functional value is an obvious
predictor of actual use. However, users may not be aware of the full functionality of
the LP in their school? If functional value of a system to be recognised, then a high
epistemic value is essential if a technology is to become embedded in practice
(Pihlstrom & Brush, 2008; Xu, 2007). Do LPs intrigue teachers, are they motivated
to find out about such technology or has it a low epistemic value resulting in a low
level of curiosity?

This study
As with much of the work emanating from Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of
Planned Behavior, the majority of TAM questionnaires focus on intention to use a
system and assume a simple choice between use and non-use (e.g. Teo & Noyes,
2011; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Here we captured individuals’ knowledge and
self-reported use of the system but also what parts of the whole system, individual
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 233

functions, an individual engaged with. Going beyond the simple survey, this more
in-depth study sought to understand the mechanisms leading to LP usage by asking
the following questions.

(1) Are teachers aware of the potential use of their school’s LP? This level of
awareness of the functionality of the LP, we argue, is an indication of the
teachers’ curiosity and epistemic value they place on the technology.
(2) Does knowing about a tool result in that tool being used? Network analysis
was used to describe teachers’ level of knowledge of LP functionality and
their actual use of the technology.
(3) Can specific groupings of functions be identified and if so do they relate to
the primary roles of staff within a school?

Method
Participants
Fifty teachers from eight technically sophisticated UK secondary schools took part
in this study. All teachers had at least three years classroom experience and there
were roughly equal numbers of from the humanities and sciences. All of the teachers
were required to regularly use technology within their teaching.

Materials and procedure

There were three sections to the research instrument. In section 1, teachers identified
the potential functions of their schools’ LP. To assist with this task the teachers were
presented with a diagram (Figure 1) that identified some known functions of LPs
(see JISC, no date). Teachers recorded their understanding of the LP by removing or

Figure 1. Data capture diagram for potential and actually used functionalities of Learning
Platforms.
234 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

adding new functions as appropriate. Once the task was completed, the teachers
were asked to identify those functions they actually used on a duplicate diagram
(Section 2).
The third section consisted of 10 questions concerning the extent to which
different factors limited a teacher’s use of the LP. The 10 factors were personal
ability, permissions and access rights, time constraints, insufficient training, technical
support, lack of interest, the limitations of others, the LP software, computer
availability and accessibility of the LP off campus. The teachers’ responses were
recorded on a six point positively anchored Likert scale, where a value of one repre-
sented a minor limitation and six a major barrier to use. An open section was also
provided where teachers could append comments should they so wish.

Results
Scoring
A potential range of 0–21 functions was possible when constrained by the diagram
provided. However, as other functions could be added, as happened in several cases,
there was no definable maximum. The number of potential functions teachers did
record ranged from 2 to 20 for potential and 1 to 18 for actually used functions.
These data on the potential and actual uses of the LP plus the identified barriers to
use were the basis of the cluster and network analysis. The network analysis
provided not only a measure of the connections between identified uses but also
identified those uses which were most central, that is they were the dominant
functions. Whereas previous research using network analysis has tended to focus
primarily on observed behaviour (e.g. Stiller & Hudson, 2005) this study is applying
the methodology to the perceived connections between functions.

Analyses
The analyses are presented in two sections: the identification of groups of teachers
based on the perceived limitations and potential functions of their LP. Once such
groups were identified further analyses were undertaken at overall sample and at
group level with respect to the actual use of LPs and the perceived relationships
between functions.
Two key limitations to use of the LP emerged across the sample schools, work-
load issues/ time constraints (M = 4.11; SD = 1.42) and software issues (M = 3.00;
SD = 1.46). However, for a few individuals lack of interest was also identified as a
perceived limitation (M = 2.21; SD = 2.46) even though the schools in this sample
were identified as being technologically engaged. Liu and Szabo (2009) have
previously highlighted teachers’ workload concerns about integrating technology
into their practice.
Defining groups: A cluster analysis (Ward’s Method) was conducted using indi-
viduals’ perceived potential LP uses and the three identified limitation (workload
constraints, software limitations and lack of interest). The internal consistency of
the clustering was checked using a between Groups Linkage cluster technique and
the stability of the clustering was checked by splitting the sample in half and
reanalysing the two sets of data. No significant differences were found from these
reanalyses indicating a table and reliable cluster grouping. Here we report the Ward’s
analysis, which explained 42% of the variance, identified four distinct groups of
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 235

teachers. A further direct discriminant function analysis was performed to validate

the groups (cf. Youngman, 1979). This analysis showed that predicted membership
to each group was 95.7% accurate. This was not a school specific finding all but
one of the eight schools contributed a staff member to this low-user group.
Details of the cluster analysis are presented in Table 1. Descriptions of the four
groups are as follows:

(1) ‘Three limitations’ group (N = 7) a small sub-set of the sample showed little
interest in using the LP, citing both software and workload constraints as
limiting factors. This group recorded few potential uses of the LP (M = 4.86:
SD = 1.68), collectively acknowledging less than 25% of the suggested uses.
The comment ‘I am not a big fan of VLEs, and rarely use them’ typified
these teachers level of engagement. When asked to list innovative practices
using the LP responses included ‘Not aware of any’ and ‘give student hand-
outs.’ The latter response was a graphic indication of this teacher’s non-
engagement with the system.
(2) ‘Two limitations’ group (N = 15) although indicating software and workload/
time constraints hindered their se of the LP nevertheless recorded some 55%
of the potential uses (M = 11.1: SD = 5.42). This group also identified a
variety of innovative functions such as:

Transition for yr6 to yr7 forum where primary school pupils can ask questions and a
group of year 7 student’s answer

Thought for the week, letters for school trips to parents, daily notices

The software issues was reflected in comments such as ‘Due to changing from Moodle
to a different LP only have limited use at moment

(3) ‘One limitation’ group (N = 12) identified the largest number of potential LP
uses (M = 14.92: SD = 2.78), some 75% of those offered. They were not con-
strained by software limitations and lack of interest; however, they did iden-
tify workload and time constraints as a barrier. Innovative practices
included:

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for perceived limitations, potential and actual LP
uses.
Three
limitations Two limitations One limitation No limitations
(N = 7) (N = 15) (N = 12) (N = 13)
Software limitations 4.43 (.79) 4.13 (1.06) 1.67 (.78) 2.15 (.80)

Lack of interest 4.43 (.53) 2.13 (1.51) 1.66 (.98) 1.62 (.96)

Workload and time 4.00 (.82) 4.60 (1.12) 5.33 (.78) 2.46 (.77)
constraints
Potential uses 4.86 (1.68) 11.10 (5.42) 14.92 (2.78) 10.54 (4.16)

Actual uses 1.57 (.53) 7.53 (3.78) 7.64 (5.08) 7.23 (5.10)
236 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

Use for inter-school links and design and technology competitions

I am using it to develop forum skills, not sure how many other teachers are doing this

Flexible learning, 650 students working remotely out of school

(4) ‘No limitations’ group (N = 13) also identified a variety of potential LP

functions (M = 10.54: SD = 4.16) that is 50% of those listed on the diagram.
However, they differed from group 3 in that they saw few constraints to their
use of the system. This group were characterised by very positive forward-
looking comments for example:

I use them as an open door into my topics with links and resources that students can
access anytime

Always looking at new things to include

We use it to reward students by awarding points electronically. If they maintain their

originally given 150 points without any being deducted they are given a prize at the
end of term

Following the creation of the four groups, the actual use of the LP for each group of
teachers was compared. There was a significant effect of cluster group on actual LP
usage (F(3, 45) = 3.75, p = .018, partial eta = .21). Post-hoc tests identified that it
was ‘Three limitations’ group that had a significantly impoverished actual use of LP
functions (p < .05) compared with the other three groups (‘No limitations’, ‘One
limitation’ and ‘Two limitations’ groups). There were no significant differences in
level of use between the three more active groups.

Network properties of LP use

The next analysis tested whether the patterns of use, rather than simple volume of
use, differed between groups by undertaking a network analysis. As we were work-
ing with group not individual data weighted measures of connectivity and betwee-
ness were used throughout the analysis. Teacher reported LP functions were
designated as the nodes in the network, the weight of the links between nodes
reflected the group frequency of potential or actual use of the LP functions. Network
analysis is very different from other methodologies. It assumes the attributes of indi-
viduals or objects are less important than their connections and ties with other actors
or objects within the network. So a network is a map of specified ties or links
between the nodes being studied, such as friendship in a social group or usage of
technology function as here, and is focused on uncovering the pattern of interaction
(Gretzel, 2001).
Three network properties were calculated; the node strength (S), clustering
coefficient (C) and betweeness (B) (Barabási et al., 2002; Wasserman & Faust,
1994):

(1) Node strength is the frequency of identification divided by the number of

participants in the group.
(2) Clustering coefficient identifies how many neighbours that are co-identified
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 237

along with a particular function and whether these functions also share rela-
tionships between each other, i.e. the extent with which the neighbours of
each function in a network are themselves neighbours.
(3) Betweeness refers to the centrality of a particular function within a network
of identified functions, i.e. to what extent a function links the entire network
together.

Tables 2 and 3 show the node strength, clustering coefficient and betweeness for
each LP function for the potential use network and actual use network for the four
groups of teachers.
The ‘Three limitations’ group (Figure 2(a)) showed limited cohesion between the
identified potential uses although the cluster coefficient was still relatively high
(C = .85) but actual use showed no cohesion at all. The network had disintegrated
(C = 0). In this group individual participants identified a maximum of two actual
uses, while the group as a whole used only four functions none of which were
identified by all of the teachers, although six of the seven teachers did use e-mail
(Figure 2(b)). This group is an archetypical example of the laggards from Rogers’
(1995) technology adoption cycle.
Networks of potential and actually used functionalities of LPs by group; Node
size represents the frequency of identification.
For the ‘Two limitation’ and ‘One limitation’ groups the potential network
showed a cluster coefficient of 1, indicating a fully integrated network in which each
function shared common links with every other function in the network (Figures
2(c) and 2(e)). The clustering coefficient for the ‘No limitations’ group was .96
(Figure 1(g)), again showing a highly connected network. All three groups had a
similarly high clustering coefficient for actual use (Figures 2(d), (f) and (h)).
Although in each case there was a small reduction in connectivity compared to the
network of potential functions.
However, while the cluster coefficient is a good indication of cohesion or linkage
it is not an indicator of the importance of a function to a user. Betweeness, a
measure of the centrality of a function in the network, provides this information. As
weighted networks were identified the Bonaich measure of betweeness was used to
identify the functions that showed the greatest level of centrality in each of the
networks (see Tables 2 and 3).
In the ‘Three limitations’ group teachers only identified 12 of the possible 22
potential functions. Of these Email, communications with students, assignment sub-
mission, entering marks, and acting as a repository were the dominant functions
(M = 5.29 SD = 3.51), however, only four of these functions were actually used;
these were Email, communications with students, online repository and registration/
attendance (M = 9.84, SD = 4.92). The overall mean betweeness scores for each
condition show a stark shift in centrality of the functions with a very high betwee-
ness score for actual functions due to the low number of possible connections as
email and communication with students dominated activity. The potential uses were
focused around the day today pragmatics of being a teacher but even essential
activities such as recording marks were absent from these teachers’ repertoires of LP
actual use.
While for the ‘Two limitations’ group the mean network betweeness scores for
potential uses (M = 4.54, SD = 1.19) and actual uses (M = 4.25, SD = 1.98) were
comparable, there was a significant difference between the centrality of individual
 238

Table 2. Node strength (S), clustering coefficient (C) and betweeness (B) for potential uses of LP.
No limitations One limitation Two limitations Three limitations
S C B S C B S C B S C B
Academic discussion groups .38 .95 4.51 .91 1.00 5.28 .53 1.00 4.96
Assessment .46 .95 4.92 1.00 1.00 5.75 .60 1.00 5.65 .29 .71 4.23
Assignment submission .54 .96 4.78 1.00 1.00 5.87 .60 1.00 5.20 .71 .86 9.31
Blogs .15 1.00 2.15 1.00 1.00 5.91 .67 1.00 5.94
Communications with students .69 .95 6.58 1.00 1.00 6.38 .73 1.00 6.33 .86 .64 10.58
Curriculum info .69 .95 6.65 .91 1.00 3.98 .60 1.00 4.66 .14 .95 2.96
Data organisation .62 .95 5.68 .45 1.00 3.15 .40 1.00 3.83 .14 1.00 1.69
Document annotation .31 .97 3.88 .55 1.00 3.86 .40 1.00 4.47
Email .77 .95 6.58 .64 1.00 4.22 .67 1.00 5.35 .86 .55 11.43
J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

Enter marks .62 .95 5.19 .64 1.00 4.22 .53 1.00 4.76 .57 .86 7.62
Feedback .38 .95 4.44 .64 1.00 4.37 .40 1.00 4.27 .29 .73 3.81
Information search .62 .95 6.38 .64 1.00 4.29 .40 1.00 3.24 .14 1.00 .85
Job specification .23 .95 2.29 .27 1.00 1.81 .20 1.00 2.41
Lesson plan .54 .95 5.96 1.00 1.00 6.42 .80 1.00 5.79
Management .31 .98 2.70 .27 1.00 2.01 .20 1.00 2.60
Parental communication .31 .95 3.60 .45 1.00 3.19 .33 1.00 3.29
Registration/Attendance .31 .99 2.15 .27 1.00 1.81 .47 1.00 3.83 .29 .95 2.96
Repository .62 .97 5.68 1.00 1.00 5.87 .80 1.00 6.68 .57 .91 6.35
Skills training .31 .98 3.05 .82 1.00 4.81 .27 1.00 3.04
Student discussion groups .38 .97 4.57 .91 1.00 5.28 .60 1.00 5.60
Technical support .27 .95 3.67 .82 1.00 4.89 .33 1.00 3.53 .00 1.00 1.69
Wikis .15 1.00 2.15 .91 1.00 5.28 .53 1.00 4.42
Mean .44 .96 4.44 .73 1.00 4.48 .50 1.00 4.54 .41 .85 5.29
SD .18 .02 1.52 .26 .00 1.38 .17 .00 1.19 .29 .15 3.51
Note:
C = Clustering coefficient. B = Bonaich betweeness. S = Node strength (Frequency/N).
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 239

Table 3. Node strength (S), clustering coefficient (C) and betweeness (B) for actual uses of
learning platform.
No limitations One limitation Two limitations Three limitations
S C B S C B S C B S C B
Academic .15 1.00 1.95 .36 1.00 5.57 .40 .86 2.29
discussion
groups
Assessment .38 .91 5.73 .18 .99 3.48 .33 .91 1.40
Assignment .31 .95 4.00 .18 1.00 4.87 .27 .96 5.29
submission
Blogs .08 1.00 1.73 .27 1.00 4.53 .33 .94 2.39
Communications .54 .91 7.03 .82 .90 4.64 .60 .88 6.48 .43 .00 14.76
with students
Curriculum info .54 .91 7.03 .36 .90 4.87 .60 .84 .90
Data organisation .54 .91 6.38 .27 .90 3.48 .47 .84 4.99
Document .31 .91 5.08 .36 .90 3.13 .13 .97 3.49
annotation
Email .54 .91 5.30 .36 .96 2.90 .60 .84 1.70 .71 .00 14.76
Enter marks .38 .97 4.00 .18 .99 3.71 .33 .86 7.18
Feedback .54 .91 6.92 .36 .97 3.71 .40 .85 5.19
Information .54 .91 7.25 .45 .90 2.09 .27 .95 2.49
search
Job specification .27 .90 6.03 .07 1.00 2.89
Lesson plan .54 .91 6.92 .64 .90 6.03 .67 .84 5.29
Management .23 .91 4.43 .18 .92 4.87 .07 1.00 6.28
Parental .15 .95 2.92 .18 .96 7.89 .20 .93 7.08
communication
Registration/ .31 1.00 2.49 .27 .90 6.38 .40 .84 6.18 .14 .00 4.92
Attendance
Repository .38 .91 4.65 .64 .90 4.53 .60 .88 2.29 .29 .00 4.92
Skills training .36 .90 2.90 .13 .93 4.49
Student discussion .23 1.00 3.14 .82 .95 6.85 .40 .88 7.38
groups
Technical support .07 1.00 1.30 .36 .90 2.32 .13 .97 3.29
Wikis .08 1.00 1.73 .27 .97 2.90 .13 .99 4.59
Mean .34 .94 4.50 .37 .94 4.44 .34 .91 4.25 .39 .00 9.84
SD .17 .04 1.99 .19 .04 1.51 .19 .06 1.98 .21 .00 4.92
Note:
C = Clustering coefficient. B = Bonaich betweeness. S = Node Strength (Frequency/N).

nodes (that is functions) between these two networks (F(1, 20) = 6.15, p = .009,
η2 = .39). For example, comparing Tables 2 and 3, assessment is central to the
potential use network (M = 5.65) but peripheral to the actual use network
(M = 1.40). Potential activity was centred on five functions; the repository, commu-
nications with students, Blogs, lesson plans and assessment. Actual uses again
included the communications with students alongside student discussion groups and
parental communication followed by the more prosaic tasks of entering marks and
management. While the potential uses included the novel activity of blogging and
also online assessment, actual use focused on communication and information
storage, functions associated with more managerial roles.
 240
J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

Figure 2. Networks of potential and actually used functionalities of LPs by group; node size represents the frequency of identification.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 241

Figure 2. (Continued)
242 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

For the ‘One limitation’ group again the mean network betweeness scores for
potential (M = 4.48, SD = 1.38) and actual use (M = 4.44, SD = 1.51) were compa-
rable, while there was a significant difference between the centrality of individual
nodes (that is functions) between these two networks (F(1, 20) = 3.69, p = .02,
η2 = .47). In the potential network the five central uses were lesson plans, communi-
cations with students, blogs, repository and assignment submission. While lesson
plans, communications with students, repository remained, student discussion groups
and job specification replaced assignment submission and blogs when actual uses
were analysed. The teachers in this group had a strong focus on the day-to-day tasks
of classroom teaching. Again they showed awareness of novel functions such as
blogging (third most frequent potential use) but were disinclined to make use of this
opportunity afforded by the system and blogging had a very low frequency of actual
usage (nineteenth).
As for the other two active groups the ‘No limitations’ group, showed a no
difference between the overall betweeness scores for potential (M = 4.44, SD = 1.52)
and the actual networks (M = 4.50, SD = 1.99), however, there was a significant
difference at the individual function level between the actual and potential use
(F(1, 20) = 35.06, p < .001, η2 = .64). In the potential network the five central uses
were curriculum information, email, communication with students, information
search and lesson plans. The most used functions were similar for actual uses except
that Email was replaced by the critical use of providing feedback. In the potential
uses feedback was ranked the thirteenth most central use as opposed to being the
fifth most central in the actual uses. The actual uses network showed these teachers
had a strong focus on lesson preparation and student feedback.

Discussion
The initial research question asked to whether and to what extent teachers are aware
of the functionalities of the LP in their own schools. The majority of teachers, 41
out of 50, had a reasonable to good grasp of the affordances of the LP. The cohesion
or interrelatedness of knowledge was relatively high for all of four groups, including
the disaffected ‘Three limitations’ group, although the latter focused on pragmatic
classroom needs and their knowledge did not translate into usage. These teachers
showed little enthusiasm for finding out more about the LP and their open comments
often expressed hostility towards the technology. There was little or no curiosity and
the LP can be said to have a low epistemic value for them. Essentially these techno-
phobes are the laggards that are found when any innovation occurs (Rogers, 1995).
The remaining three groups showed an awareness of the range of educational activi-
ties the LP could support. The ‘One limitation’ group stood out from the other two
groups in recognizing some 75% of the potential functions of their school’s LP.
Our second question sought to establish whether knowing about the tool
translated into tool usage. Overall increased knowledge did lead to increased use but
this was not a simple linear relationship. While the ‘Three limitations’ group was less
aware and recorded very low usage, the difference between their knowing and doing
was much larger than for the other three groups. If epistemic value is a guiding
factor, then the actual use of the system should have been moderate but in fact a very
small range of basic functions was actually used. This group characteristically did
not rate the LP as either functional or easy to use hence it was of little interest. Their
behaviour is a verification of both the TTFT of Goodhue and Thompson (1995) and
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 243

the more extended UTAUT model of Venkatesh et al. (2003). Their rejection of the
technology might be viewed as brave as these teachers were out of step with their
schools’ focus on LP usage.
The link between potential and actual use varied across the three more engaged
groups despite recording very similar volumes of actual use. The ‘One limitation’
group had the highest potential use but this did not appear to impact on level of
actual activity. While epistemic value was higher for all three groups compared to
the laggards, it would appear utility rather than epistemic value per se was the main
factor differentiating use by these three groups. Kumar, Rose, and D’Silva (2008)
had previously found that administrative functions dominated teacher use of such
systems. While the defining characteristic between the ‘One limitation’ ‘Two limita-
tions’ and ‘No limitation’ groups was predominantly associated with the ease of use
of the system, there were more subtle possible interpretations of the data. The ‘One
limitation’ group used more functions including the more potentially risky activities
such as blogging. This group was inhibited by time constraints and in their open
responses there is sense of frustration that they were unable to get on with exploring
the system. It could be argued that the ‘No limitation’ group had overcome these
difficulties but the lack of engagement with more adventuress activities suggests
these teachers had reached a level of comfort and saw no need to extend their
repertoire of activities. This suggests that these teachers saw no barriers to
their work because having reached a level of comfort they saw no need to extend
their repertoire of activities. They are using technology to sustain their practice
rather than to disrupt the status quo and produce new pedagogies as defined by
Christensen (1997) in his seminal paper on innovation. This latter group could be
said to exemplify the lack of desire for real pedagogic change recognised by Voogt
and Pelgrum (2005). Although even if change is seen as desirable putting it into
practice can remain elusive. Vratulis, Clarke, Hoban, and Erickson (2011), for exam-
ple, have show that pre-service teachers while on-campus respond positively to tech-
nologies that can be said to disrupt or bring about new pedagogies but that they
become more circumspect when out on practice with few electing to use novel meth-
ods. However, the ‘One limitation’ ‘Two limitations’ groups are better viewed as
teachers desiring change but weighed down by everyday classroom constraints.
They may want to be innovative as Passey (2011) and others have suggested but
their creativity and innovation are stifled by the daily routine.
When initiating this research we did not anticipate that it would have relevance
to the growing literature on cultural differences in the use of technology. It has been
strongly argued by Goodfellow and Lamy (2011) that, as national cultures can be
positioned along as a continuum between modern, individualistic, risk-seeking and
traditional, collectivistic, risk averse societies, these cultural differences make
some societies more able to benefit from online learning. They assert that it is
the Western-Anglo societies that are best suited to the freedoms and risks that come
with online learning. Our own work comparing the texting behaviour of English and
Japanese students failed to find this strong cultural influence (Underwood &
Okubayashi, 2011). Again in this study many of these Western-Anglo teachers
eschewed the use of more innovative and risky functions such as blogs and wikis in
favour of safer everyday tasks such as recording attendance and performance. While
more individualistic approaches to learning were apparent (‘Flexible learning, 650
students working remotely out of school’), the use of the LP as an electronic
244 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

noticeboard (‘Thought for the week, letters for school trips to parents, daily notices’)
is neither individualistic nor transformational although the teacher rated it as such.
In summary, the ‘Three limitations’ group showed little interest in the technology
and failed to integrate it into their pedagogic practice. In contrast the other three
groups were active users of the LP although the functions they chose to use reflected
their core roles of frontline practitioner, administrator or manager. The data highlight
the importance of not seeing teachers use of technology in terms of the number of
LP functions that they use but how they use a variety of functions in conjunction
with each other to fit their roles and ability. The network diagrams illustrate that
different groups of teachers have a specific tool set that suits their role. So managers
focus on the collection, storage and distribution of information to key participants
including the students and their parents while classroom focused staff utilise tools
that facilitate their interaction with the students. While seeing many barriers to use
is associated with minimal actual use, seeing no limitations can be an indication of
safe, comfortable practice. Attempts to move such teachers out of their comfort zone
is likely to be more productive than focusing on the small group of technophobes.
Again we should emphasise that members of these four groups were distributed
across the 8 schools suggesting that the findings reflect personal teaching style rather
than technology or school specific factors. We raise an important caveat. While the
present study assessed actual and not intended use, the authors acknowledge that the
findings are based on self-reports not observed behaviour. Further, the act of taking
part in the survey may have inflated the ‘knowing’ element by encouraging active
reflection. Still the study does highlight how teachers perceive the connectivity and
links of functionalities within a LP with regard to their practice. The ‘Three
limitations’ group clearly demonstrates that perceived fitness-for-purpose remains a
pre-requisite for usage of technology.
LP, whether sited in the school or in the cloud, will need to evolve to accommo-
date the increasing availability of technologies such personal mobile technologies
netbooks or iPads). This in turn will place greater pressure on teachers to embrace
technology in the classroom.

Acknowledgements
With grateful thanks to the eight schools contributing to this study and to members of this
Becta funded project team Phil Banyard, Lucy Betts, Lee Farrington Flint, and Lianne
Kerlin.

Notes
1. http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&Page-
Mode=publications&ProductId=DFES-1296-2005
2. http://moodle.org/stats/

References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Banyard, P., Underwood, J., Kerlin, L., & Stiller, J. (2011). Virtual learning environments:
Personalising learning or managing learners? In M. Thomas (Ed.), Digital education:
Opportunities for social collaboration (pp. 123–142). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 245

Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Nédaa, Z., Ravasza, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolu-
tion of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and its Applications, 311, 590–614.
BESA (2009). School learning platform review. London: British Educational Suppliers Asso-
ciation.
Bryant, S. M., & Hunton, J. E. (2000). The use of technology in the delivery of instruction:
Implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in Accounting
Education, 15, 129–163.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great
firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339.
Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgio, G., Psillos, D., Vlaahavas, L.,
Tsoukalas, I., & Pombortos, A. (2003). Cultures in negotiation: Teachers’ acceptance/
resistance attitudes considering the infusion of technology into schools. Computers &
Education, 41, 19–37.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, R., & Widmeyer, G. (2008). Understanding development and usage of
social networking sites: The social software performance model (1-10). Proceedings of
the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa: IEEE Computer
Society.
Ebner, M., Holzinger, A., Scerbakov, N., & Tsang, P. (2011). EduPunks and learning
management systems – Conflict or chance? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6837,
224–238.
Friedrich, M., Wolpers, M., Shen, R., Ullrich, C., Klamma, R., Renzel, D., Richert, A., &
von der Heiden, B. (2011). Early results of experiments with responsive open learning
environments. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17, 451–471.
Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and teachnological knowledge: A challenge for school curric-
ula. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 14, 3–15.
Goodfellow, R., & Lamy, M. N. (2011). Learning cultures in online education. London: Con-
tinuum IPC.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance.
MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Gretzel, U. (2001). Social network analysis: Introduction and resources. Retrieved November
19, 2011, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/tse-portal/analysis/social-network-analysis/
JISC. (no date). MLEs and VLEs explained. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www.jisc.a-
c.uk/uploaded_documents/bp1.pdf
Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments
of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 197–213.
Kirschenmann, U., Scheffel, M., Friedrich, M., Niemann, K., & Wolpers, M. (2010).
Demands of modern PLEs and the Role approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
6383, 167–182.
Kumar, N., Rose, R. C., & D’Silva, J. L. (2008). Teachers” readiness to use technology
in the classroom: An empirical study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 21,
603–616.
Lin, C., Lai, S., Chu, P., Ma, J., & Hsu, Y. (2009). Could virtual learning communities of
practice outpace tangible learning communities of practice in networked learning environ-
ments? International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 1, 287–306.
Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM
model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community.
Computers & Education, 54, 600–610.
Liu, Y., & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration in schools: A
four year-study. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15, 5–23.
Passey, D. (2011). Implementing learning platforms into schools: An architecture for wider
involvement in learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 367–397.
Pihlstrom, M., & Brush, G. J. (2008). Comparing the perceived value of information and
entertainment mobile services. Psychology and Marketing, 25, 732–755.
246 J.D.M. Underwood and J. Stiller

Pombo, L., Smith, M., Abelha, M., Caixinha, H., & Costa, N. (2012). Evaluating an online
e-module for Portuguese primary teachers: Trainees’ perceptions. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 21, 21–36.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sclater, N. (2010). eLearning in the cloud. International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments, 1, 10–19.
Severance, C., Hardin, J., & Whyte, A. (2008). The coming functionality mash-up in
personal learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 47–62.
Smith, P., Rudd, P., & Coghlan, M. (2008). Harnessing technology: Schools survey 2008.
Coventry: Becta. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/
TSV02/TSV02.pdf
Stiller, J., & Hudson, M. (2005). Weak links and scene cliques within the small world of
Shakespeare. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 57–73.
Tay, L. Y., Lim, C. P., Lye, S. Y., Ng, K. J., & Lim, S. K. (2011). Open-source learning man-
agement system and Web 2.0 online social software applications as learning platforms for
an elementary school in Singapore. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 349–365.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and atti-
tude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation
modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57, 1645–1653.
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Coyne, E., Farrington-Flint, L., & Selwyn, I.
(2007). Impact 2007: Personalising learning with technology. Coventry: Becta.
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L., Hayes, M., …
Selwyn, I. (2010). Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school level fac-
tors. Coventry: Becta. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://www.bee-it.co.uk/Guidance
%20Docs/Becta%20Files/Reports%20and%20publications/03%20Understanding%20the%
20Impact%20of%20Technology%20Learner%20and%20School%20level%20factors.pdf
Underwood, J., & Okubayashi, T. (2011). How technology shapes orthography. International
Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1, 45–57.
van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning
environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of infor-
mation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1,
157–175.
Vratulis, V., Clarke, T., Hoban, G., & Erickson, G. (2011). Additive and disruptive pedago-
gies: The use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation. Teach-
ers and Teacher Education, 27, 1179–1188.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, P., De Lange, P., & Fieger, P. (2008). Integrating a virtual learning environment into a
second-year accounting course: Determinants of overall student perception. Accounting &
Finance, 48, 503–518.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2006). Per-
sonal learning environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems.
Proceedings of the First Joint International Workshop on Professional Learning, Compe-
tence Development and Knowledge Management - LOKMOL and L3NCD, Crete.
Xu, Y. (2007). Relevance judgment in epistemic and hedonic information searches. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 179–189.
Youngman, M. B. (1979). Analysing social and educational research data. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Zimmermann, V. (2008). Corporate universities. In H. H. Aldersberger, J. M. Kinshuk,
J. M. Pawlowski, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for
education and training (pp. 405–422). Berlin: Springer.