You are here:

Moving Technology-Enhanced-Learning Forward: Bridging Divides through Leadership

, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

IRRODL Volume 18, Number 3, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


A study of academics and professional staff engaged in the emerging field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) reveal three areas of significant difference in reference to perspectives about TEL. These differences rest on the following individual characteristics: 1) research areas and competencies, 2) academic level, and 3) attitudes towards teaching. While the number of respondents is small, the data set is rich due to a diverse group of respondents. Leadership strategy that rests on appreciative inquiry to draw these perspectives together could begin with implementation of five ways of working collaboratively: acknowledge unique skills different from one\u2019s own, understand driving forces from different vantage points, learn enough about other views to show respect, identify common goals and incentives for all, and include people from all relevant groups.


Balter, O. (2017). Moving Technology-Enhanced-Learning Forward: Bridging Divides through Leadership. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community
  2. Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(2009), 421-449.
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. 175
  4. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, (4th ed., pp. 1-20). London: Sage Publications.
  5. Dill, D. (2012). The management of academic culture revisited: Integrating universities in an entrepreneurial age. In B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa, & C. Sarrico (Eds.), Managing reform
  6. Lam, P., McNaught, C., Lee, J., & Chan, M. (2014). Disciplinary difference in students' use of
  7. Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J.W., & Nolan, R. (2005). Experiences of academic unit reorganization:
  8. Orr, T., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2015). Appreciative leadership: Supporting education innovation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4).
  9. Rabak, L., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2006). Acceptance and resistance to corporate elearning: A case from the retail sector. Canadian Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 115-134.
  10. Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on
  11. Tadashi Hora, M. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive perspective. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207-235.
  12. Tedre M., & Sutinen E. (2008). Three traditions of computing: What educators should know. Computer Science Education, 18(3), 153-170.
  13. Wild, F. (2016). Learning analytics in R with SNA, LSA, and MPIA. Berlin: Springer.
  14. Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., & Rader, K. (2010). Leading positive performance: A conversation about appreciative leadership. Performance Improvement, 49(3), 5.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact