Editorial: the role and influence of key
stakeholders in the learning technology
community

In this issue of ALT-J we have six articles that address three broad topics of video, cost-
benefit analysis and the emergent learning technology community. The first two articles
present case studies on the use of video in teaching and learning. Shephard et al. describe
their experiences of re-purposing a back 'care video' for video streaming, and use these
experiences to highlight key challenges that others may face when attempting to re-purpose
a video. Blake and Scanlon use their experiences of analysing video recordings of students,
who were using computers to support their collaboration in solving statistical problems, to
argue that such video analysis provides useful rich data with which to interpret and
understand students' experiences.

The third and fourth articles address the challenging issue of assessing the costs and
benefits of both specific and general learning technologies. Loewenberger and Bull present
the results of a survey that attempted to gather information about the costs and benefits of
computer-based assessment; while Nicol and Coen describe and illustrate a model that has
been developed to enable evaluations of the costs and benefits of ICT.

The final two articles debate issues raised by an article by Lisewski and Joyce, entitled
'Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: designed and emergent practice in the
learning technology profession', published in issue 11.1 of ALT-J. Tompsett and Alsop
present a commentary on this article and offer a reinterpretation of the research by taking
what they call 'a stricter analysis' of the events described by Lisewski and Joyce. In a
response to this reinterpretation Joyce and Lisewski argue that the approach taken by
Tompsett and Alsop is too narrow and runs the risk of not taking into account the whole
context in which learning technology as a profession is emerging.

When I read the six articles, a quote by Frank DeRuyter, an assistive technology researcher
in America, came to my mind. In discussing methods for evaluating the success of assistive
technologies he wrote:

While it is reasonable to assume that each stakeholder desires a successful outcome, it is

2



ALT-J Volume 11 Number 2

unreasonable to assume that each stakeholder desires the same outcome. (DeRuyter,
1995)

Picking up on this idea, it seems to me that one theme that draws all the articles in this
issue of ALT-J together is that of 'stakeholders' and the different views that different
stakeholders may have on the costs, benefits, successes or failures of learning technologies.
In the article by Shephard et al. article the stakeholders can be seen to be the funders, the
lecturers, the media producer, the learning technology coordinator as well as the actors and
patients in the video. The different views and interests of all these stakeholders presented
the authors with a number of challenges when trying to re-purpose a video for video
streaming. For example, the ownership of copyright, creative and moral rights by various
stakeholders in the video meant that the video had to be cut or re-edited in places and that
restrictions were placed on where the video could be accessed. These and other challenges
lead Shephard et al. to conclude: v

streaming existing videos is not for the faint-hearted; a wide range of issues will be
encountered that must either be overcome or circumvented. Deciding which of these
two responses best fits each problem is probably the toughest task, and in each situation
a rigorous cost-benefit analysis will be necessary.

In the Blake and Scanlon article, the stakeholders can be seen to be the different members
of the evaluation team: CAL designers, course developers and educational technologists.
But the use of video analysis to record detailed student behaviours introduces another
stakeholder into the team - the student. Such an introduction is argued by Blake and
Scanlon to enable a wider consideration of the potential benefits of CAL programmes.

In their article, Loewenberger and Bull report two examples in which key stakeholders
influenced their survey. The first example is when staff from two faculties within the
targeted institution resisted efforts to engage them in focus groups and interviews, which
led to a change in methodology. The second example is that the majority of respondents in
the final survey were reported to be those with high levels of seniority or experience. It is
possible to suggest that more senior and experienced people returned the questionnaire
because they had a bigger stake or interest in the relative costs and benefits of computer-
based assessment. In both examples, stakeholders in the survey have exerted their power
and influence in very different ways.

Nicol and Coen identify two key groups of stakeholders in their article: those tasked with
costs analysis and those tasked with benefits analysis. Nicol and Coen note:

within institutions, those tasked with'cost analysis normally have little expertise in
benefits evaluation and those with benefits expertise have little costing experience, and
these groups rarely work together.

The INSIGHT cost-benefit model described by Nicol and Coen can be seen as an attempt
to draw the two sets of expertise together. Nicol and Coen conceptualize the model as a
decision-support tool for senior managers in HE tasked with making investment decisions
about initiatives in technology-supported teaching. They also suggest that a key
stakeholder that will benefit from the application of such a model is the higher education
sector, which will be able to evaluate the benefits of ICT from a wider institutional
perspective.

3



Editorial

Finally, the discussion papers by Tompsett and Alsop and by Joyce and Lisewski challenge
us to think about the learning technology community and the different views that different
stakeholders within that community may hold. Joyce and Lisewski also suggest that some
of these stakeholders represent 'powerful interest groups' from managerial, academic and
political arenas.

Stakeholder diversity within the learning technology means that for those working within
that community life is never dull. Perhaps we need to understand that diversity a little
better in order to ensure that future developments can start from a springboard to success
rather than a quagmire of 'nearly made it'.

References
DeRuyter, F. (1995), 'Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the
commitment?', Assistive Technology, 7 (1), 3-16.

Jane Seale
Deputy Editor

4