Introduction
Higher education globally is widely recognised as a major contributor to societies with many positive direct and indirect benefits identified individually as well as for the wider community and economy. Those benefits, and the institutions that enable them, are facing significant change as a result of a range of drivers including the economic and social impact of the pandemic, shifting political priorities and relationships, changes in the expectations of education as it becomes more widely available, and the impact of technology (Devlin & Samarawickrema, Citation2022; S. J. Marshall, Citation2018; Wheaton, Citation2020).
Technology exercises its influence over higher education both directly through its use in the way we conduct learning, teaching and research and indirectly through its impact on the wider world that we educate students to participate in. The change impact of technology is sometimes direct, such as when a new tool like the digital projector is created to replace the overhead projector, or more often indirect and evolving as we learn and respond to its ongoing change, such as with the World Wide Web.
A journey through the history of technology scholarship in HERD
Higher Education Research & Development (HERD) includes in its scope the past, present and future of higher education, and the current Special Issue was created to solicit scholarly contributions that identify theoretical, pedagogical and organisational insights regarding the interplay of technological and pedagogical change applicable across the national and global higher education environment. The seven papers published in this Special Issue (Arantes & Vicars, Citation2024; Butson & Spronken-Smith, Citation2024; Goulding et al., Citation2024; Jung et al., Citation2024; Noorbhai et al., Citation2024; Selkrig et al., Citation2024; Wise et al., Citation2024) continue HERD’s history of publishing scholarly work in this space over the last 40 years ().
Table 1. Papers published in HERD with a strong technology focus.
The papers listed in show the growing influence of technology on higher education with more papers published in the first four years of the current decade (31) than HERD published in the first three decades of its life (22). It is important to recognise that this list does not encompass the extent of scholarship on educational uses of technology – there are many other journals with that focus – rather it should be recognised as an expression of the way that technology has influenced pedagogical conceptions over time and the associated shifts in the scope and nature of higher education that the HERDSA membership experience and develop.
The 1980s
The shifting conception of higher education in the face of technology and other changes over the life of HERD, first established in 1982, is perhaps best illustrated by the first paper in , which is included as a reference point to the way that higher education framed its context and the priorities for ongoing change (Hore & West, Citation1984). Despite being focused on the future of the Australian higher education system, it was concerned primarily with the declining participation of young people in higher education and the impact on employment – no mention was made at all of technology. Interestingly, forty years later similar concerns are being expressed in some countries as the economic value of university qualifications is less apparent due to over-education, saturation of qualifications and unaffordability.
Issues of employment remain current with Jung et al. (Citation2024) in the current Special Issue exploring through a qualitative scoping review the impact that technology and automation are having on unemployment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the review finds a mixed view of the impact of automation (at large) on graduates’ employability and universities’ mode of forming them. Translating observed requests from the labour market into existing curricula emerges as a valuable and necessary adaptation that universities need to embrace to maintain their relevance in the fast-developing, tech-driven labour demand side of the economy.
Personal computers had started to become available in the late Seventies but many of the technologies we take for granted today had not yet been invented or had only emerged in limited contexts and remained unaffordable to many. In particular, the World Wide Web was more than a decade away and other Internet tools were very much limited in their availability. Consequently, the relatively few papers HERD published with a strong technology focus in its early volumes is perhaps understandable when considering the timeline presented in .
Table 2. Selected highlights of educational technology timeline.
Despite this, later HERD papers very quickly reflected an awareness of the growing importance of digital information technologies as the Apple Macintosh and the new wave of IBM compatible personal computers become widely available. Knapper (Citation1986) was prescient in their assessment of the future implications: ‘An increasingly common practice … is the projection of computer output … [t]here is no reason why this could not take place over great distances so that, for instance, students in one location could have access to a demonstration originating at a far remote point’ (p. 77). While the majority of the technology uses described were small-scale experiments, their potential was recognised as well as the wider impact on what was being taught at university:
Since information technology has immense social, economic, political, and even psychological ramifications, it seems reasonable that the educated citizen should have an understanding not just of how technology works, but of its impact on society at large. This implies that learning about computers may be just as important and learning with and from them. (Knapper, Citation1986, p. 82, emphasis in original)
Surprisingly, some of the earliest papers published by HERD were already considering the implications of artificial intelligence on higher education. Knapper observed:
There is one further type of computer-based instruction that has received a good deal of attention recently, and is thought by some to have the potential for overcoming the limitations of conventional [computer aided instruction]. This involves the incorporation of pedagogical strategies derived from artificial intelligence or ‘expert systems’. The idea here is that the program would actually learn something about the student and adapt its teaching strategy accordingly (hence mimicking a good human instructor). (p. 79)
The Eighties concluded with the fourth technology paper published in HERD, which focused on the impact of the word processor on faculty writing (Teles & Ragsdale, Citation1989). Clearly this technology had been rapidly adopted with 63% of surveyed faculty using word processing. Many of the results reported in this paper mirror contemporary concerns regarding the impact of technology on assessment with comments focused on the way that using a word processor changed the nature of creative and scholarly writing, making it more modular and promoting reuse and constant revision. The paper also provides a window into an earlier age of the university with the observation: ‘adopting word processing prevents the secretary from having access to one’s affairs’ (p. 222).
The impact of technology on scholarly writing remains an important topic with two papers in the current Special Issue returning to consider the intersection of artificial intelligence with writing. Written partly as a dialogue between the two authors, Butson and Spronken-Smith (Citation2024) consider the extent to which digital developments are impacting research writing for scholarly publication. The complementary author voices – one expressing ‘enthusiastic endorsement’, the other ‘cautious scepticism’ – unpack and extend themes identified in a review of existing literature. The dialogue acknowledges the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI): the way AI enables researchers to tackle questions and datasets of increasing complexity at an increasingly larger scale; the expediency that comes with the use of AI; the potential to reduce human error; and the potential to facilitate interdisciplinary research.
The dialogue in Butson and Spronken-Smith also puts forward aspects that need careful consideration before AI is fully embraced as a collaborator, going beyond tasks such as surface proofreading, identifying highly cited published sources, or initial triaging of published studies to review. The article spotlights ethical challenges related to data privacy, informed consent, potential bias towards quantitative research, or perceptions of scientific credibility. Heeding the caveats, the article argues in favour of ‘integrat[ing] AI in a way that aligns with our core academic values and ethical commitments.’ While AI is unlikely to ever replace meaningful connections with peers, the intellectual engagement and the critical analytical dialogue that scholarly writers engage in, the authors argue that it should not be underestimated. When ethically included into the writing process, AI can be a powerful ally that sparks innovative thinking and helps solve real-world problems. Notwithstanding current biases and limitations, AI is learning fast and shaping the future of higher education at an accelerated pace. Ongoing conversations among academics and with AI that are ‘open, critical and informed’ are necessary, so that the reshaped higher education landscape is a truly inclusive and transformative learning and working environment.
Similarly, Wise et al. (Citation2024) engage in a collaborative dialogue, and critically examine the implications of AI on writing scholarship, their stimulating conversations navigating the intricate relationship between generative AI and the quality of student writing in higher education. They dissect the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by AI, advocating for a re-evaluation of writing as a human-centric and complex process. Asserting that writing is an indispensable cognitive process and that AI, despite its advances, cannot replicate the nuanced, critical, and creative thinking integral to human writing, the article urges a reimagined educational approach that values the distinctively human aspects of writing and argues that generative AI transcends traditional concerns of academic integrity, urging educators to critically and creatively adapt their teaching strategies, including reconsidering notions of audience, authorship, and the relational ethics of writing in the digital age.
This contribution encourages a wider conversation on the evolution of writing scholarship in the advent of AI, emphasising the need for writing scholarship to confront and address structural inequalities exacerbated by technological advancements and pushing educators to engage deeply with the transformations shaping writing practices across disciplines.
The 1990s
Following the initial burst of work in the 1980s there was a seven-year gap before HERD published another paper with technology a focus. Perhaps surprising, given that this period covers the creation of multimedia authoring tools and the rise of the interactive CD ROM as well as public access to the World Wide Web, it also reflects the way that technology had become associated with information or content access, rather than being seen as a driver for changes in pedagogical conceptions. The next three papers published in HERD reflect this, with a description of multimedia learning materials (Benson et al., Citation1996), a now rather anachronistic review of a single website (Patrick, Citation1997) that presciently worried about the proliferation of vanity publishing, and a conceptual exploration of the rapidly developing space of information literacy (Bruce, Citation1998).
The West Review actively promoted the importance of technology – ‘Technology will revolutionise higher education’ (West, Citation1998, p. 59) – and the HERD view focusing on the pedagogical value rather than the hype was clearly evident in the 1999 Special Issue on the evaluation of innovations in higher education (Bain, Citation1999). Innovation in this context was dominated by the application of technology but also assessed by analysing curricula implications and learning outcomes and how these were being formally evaluated in the projects reported.
Alexander’s paper (Citation1999) summarising an extensive multi-year project evaluating and assessing 104 funded projects that applied technology to university learning and teaching illustrates the ongoing and as yet unresolved challenge of moving from a perception of the value of a change, to finding concrete evidence of an impact of that change on student learning outcomes. Despite many projects having the major objective of improving the quality of learning and teaching, few were able to show this, instead delivering projects focused on delivery of increasingly interactive media.
This focus on evaluation was also apparent in the SECAL (Situated Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Learning) framework proposed by Gunn (Citation1999) which encouraged the use of qualitative data and observations and triangulation from multiple sources, and that of McNaught et al. (Citation1999) which used a longitudinal analysis of pedagogical change to highlight the importance of integrated curricula change across an entire programme of study rather than in individual units.
The rising awareness of technology as an enabler of student autonomy and interaction online rather than in physical classroom spaces is apparent in three of the other 1999 Special Issue papers. The growing value and importance of technology used by students as cognitive tools supporting their own independent work rather than merely a mechanism for accessing content or a tool for teachers reflected the wider growth in adoption of the WWW and computers throughout society (Reeves & Laffey, Citation1999). Other papers included evaluations of the growing use of email (Boles, Citation1999) and emerging web-based collaboration (Lockyer et al., Citation1999) reflecting the recent invention of the Learning Management System (LMS) with WebCT in 1996 and Blackboard in 1998 (Goldberg & Salarai, Citation1997).
The end of the decade (if not quite the millennium) saw the coining of the term ‘e-learning’ reported by Elliott Masie at TechLearn in 1999 (Masie, Citation1999) but which did not appear in HERD itself until a decade later (Ellis et al., Citation2009).
The 2000s
The first decade of the new millennium saw very few papers with a primary focus on technology published in HERD. The growing importance of the web is seen in the publishing by HERD in 2001 of a paper (Webb, Citation2001) that rather than reporting a research project, provided a survey of resources published on the websites of many universities on the subject of the first-year student experience. This paper, and others published in HERD at this time (Candy, Citation2000), illustrates the way that scholarship was grappling with the emergence of new repositories of knowledge in a time when search engines were still immature and developing and where most people found web materials through curated catalogues or word of mouth from colleagues. The shifts in how information was being accessed and used is also reflected in the use of web-accessible databases as source material for research (Macauley et al., Citation2005) and in the papers that considered how new tools for accessing knowledge needed to be reflected in changes to pedagogy (Candy, Citation2000; Cherry, Citation2005; Ellis et al., Citation2009; Waters & Johnston, Citation2004) and in the physical campus environment in parallel with these changes in use (Jamieson et al., Citation2000).
The dark side of easy access to information and the tools needed to copy and reuse content noted in earlier years (Teles & Ragsdale, Citation1989) saw the growing awareness of the need to engage with necessary shifts in assessment practice rather than depending on detection as a response to plagiarism concerns (Warn, Citation2006). This one paper in HERD is merely the tip of the iceberg of a wider literature concerned with academic integrity which continues to the present day as collaboration tools and artificial intelligence continue to redefine the assessment context.
The 2010s
The second decade of the millennium saw a massive four-fold growth in technology papers in HERD. These papers reflect the widespread normalisation of online technology in higher education anchored by the now ubiquitous if still underutilised LMS (Park, Citation2014; Sinclair & Aho, Citation2018) and led some to question whether the traditionally campus-oriented university understood all of the changes needed to enable learning at a (real or virtual) distance (Forsyth et al., Citation2010). This was also the decade of the MOOC but surprisingly, despite the hype and rise of Udacity, Coursera and EdX, there is only one paper in HERD engaging substantively with the MOOC model and the way that it was being implemented (Literat, Citation2015), although others do note the MOOC as part of the normalised digital learning environment stimulating change in higher education and in relation to the wider topic of microcredentials (Thi Ngoc Ha et al., Citation2023).
Papers published in HERD grappling with that change examined the limited influence of evidence on changes to practice when teaching with technology (Price & Kirkwood, Citation2014), the impact that online tools were having on models of where and how learning occurs (Gibbings et al., Citation2015; King, Citation2016; Swist & Kuswara, Citation2016; Tsai, Citation2015), adoption of technology by students (Iqbal & Bhatti, Citation2017), and how technology could be enacted by universities to create more culturally inclusive learning environments (Dreamson et al., Citation2017). This re-examination of established models included consideration of changing space use at both the micro level of the course (King, Citation2016; Salter et al., Citation2013; Tummons et al., Citation2016) and at the macro level as part of the ongoing consideration of the relevance and evolution of the university campus itself (Fisher & Newton, Citation2014).
An ongoing pedagogical challenge facing higher education is how courses are designed to combine the physical and digital in various forms of blended learning (Burford et al., Citation2015; George-Walker & Keeffe, Citation2010; Kenney, Citation2012; King, Citation2016; Smith & Hill, Citation2019; Tabvuma et al., Citation2022). This includes work on the emerging challenge of translating the invigilated exam into the digital world which saw HERD publish early work on detecting possible cheating via webcam monitoring (Chuang et al., Citation2017) which would subsequently become a major challenge during the pandemic, and the need to reconsider assessment given the new contexts for learning and the opportunities to provide authentic learning with rapid feedback (Muldoon, Citation2012; Thomas et al., Citation2017) including in the context of doctoral supervision (Maor et al., Citation2016). The importance of digital tools for scholarship continued to grow through this decade and with that the need to ensure these tools were actively used in the next generation of scholars and sustained through the ongoing challenges of funding, particularly in the humanities (Abblitt, Citation2019; Kilner et al., Citation2019).
The flipped classroom and active learning models also saw a number of papers addressing the challenges of supporting both staff and students and evaluating the outcomes being achieved through the shifting pedagogical approaches (Abeysekera & Dawson, Citation2015; Chiu & Cheng, Citation2017; Comber & Brady-Van den Bos, Citation2018; Fisher & Newton, Citation2014; White et al., Citation2016).
The impact of technology on people also continued to be important with papers responding to increasing pressure from students to have greater agency and autonomy over where and how learning is experienced in their courses (Eriksson & Vuojärvi, Citation2014; Hamilton & Tee, Citation2013; Zeldenryk & Bradey, Citation2013) and how to ensure that their preferences were shaped by learning design to promote successful outcomes (Tsai, Citation2015). Others considered how to enable academic capability with and adoption of digital technologies for higher education (Englund et al., Citation2017; Kilgour et al., Citation2019; Sinclair & Aho, Citation2018) despite evidence that changes were challenging to many academics (Fisher & Newton, Citation2014). Similarly work by others addressed the reality that students also needed support in developing their digital skills to become effective digital citizens (Blaj-Ward & Winter, Citation2019).
Not all of the papers published in HERD during this time were positive about the impact of technology, with its role regarded as marginal at best by some in the field. The Higher Education Research Archipelago paper (; Macfarlane, Citation2012, p. 129) presents e-learning as a very minor peninsular with a single theoretical perspective noted, that of Diana Laurillard, and fails to acknowledge the role that technology plays in driving shifts throughout higher education.
Figure 1. (Macfarlane, Citation2012, p. 129).
Figure 2. (Macfarlane, Citation2022, p. 108).
The 2020s
In the current decade, digital learning remains marginalised in Macfarlane’s updated map (Macfarlane, Citation2022) , positioned as one of many activities in the ‘pragmatists’ peninsula’ which Macfarlane describes as ‘where the least overtly ideological researchers gather to investigate a range of issues of essentially practical importance to the HE sector’ (p. 108), further noting ‘The most astute or opportunistic pragmatists will spot the latest trend and look to ride the wave for as long as there are funding streams to bid for’ (p. 109). Despite this, in the four years of the current decade HERD has already published nearly as many papers (31) as in the last one.
The experience of students online remains a hot topic of engagement and clearly represents a level of hesitation and scepticism from many educators exacerbated by the pandemic’s rapid shift to emergency online teaching (Attard et al., Citation2023; O’Neill et al., Citation2022; Zainal Badri et al., Citation2022).
The higher education response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been both characterised and criticised (McGaughey et al., Citation2022) for the way that technology dominated the space. Engagement with the experiences of implications of this is reflected in the number of papers already published by HERD (Attard et al., Citation2023; Brown et al., Citation2023; Guo et al., Citation2020; Leask, Citation2020; Littlejohn, Citation2023; McGaughey et al., Citation2022; Ndzinisa & Dlamini, Citation2022; Pham & Ho, Citation2020; Roe et al., Citation2023; Tabvuma et al., Citation2022; Zainal Badri et al., Citation2022). Interestingly, there are parallels with work published nearly twenty years ago (Feast & Bretag, Citation2005) regarding the impact of the SARS pandemic on higher education staff, noting at the time issues of capability development and the tensions between academic and professional groups.
In a contribution to the current Special Issue, Selkrig et al. (Citation2024) continue this exploration of the ongoing impact of the pandemic. The authors focus on the heightened emphasis on quality teaching and the challenges posed by uncertainty, unpredictability, and emotional insecurity. Through data gathered from faculty members in education during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study highlights how academics reflect on their past, present, and future teaching practices. The authors highlight the tension between the consistency demanded by quality assurance mechanisms and the creativity desired by educators, exploring the balance between rigour and freedom in academic teaching.
The article’s contribution underscores the critical need for higher education to foster environments that support innovative and reflective teaching practices in the digital era. It signals a call to action for further exploration into the nuanced effects of collegial relationships and digital transformations on teaching quality. As we consider the future of learning and teaching, Selkrig et al. (Citation2024) offers valuable insights into how academics are poised to meet the ontological and epistemological challenges of our times, suggesting a hopeful yet realistic outlook on adapting to the digital influence in higher education.
These findings are shared with a number of other recent HERD papers addressing shifts in the models of staff support in response to greater dependency on technology (Aitchison et al., Citation2020) including understanding academic needs (Naylor & Nyanjom, Citation2021), and strategies for building staff capability (Evans et al., Citation2020) as the sector continues to change.
Not all of these changes are easy and other papers document the push back from academics regarding the use of technology (Huang et al., Citation2022; McGaughey et al., Citation2022) including those concerned about the impact of inequality of access and outcomes being exacerbated (Kuhn et al., Citation2023; Ndzinisa & Dlamini, Citation2022).
Two papers in the current Special Issue continue to engage with the challenges in technological education. Arantes and Vicars (Citation2024) put academic staff psychosocial wellbeing firmly at the centre of the discussion about digitally reshaped universities. Using a co-auto-ethnographic approach, the authors explore digital fatigue, ‘characterised as feeling overwhelmed and emotionally fatigued from excessive technology use’. They offer six ‘interruptions’, three by each author – written pieces combining narrative, reflection and analysis of how the two authors juggled multiple commitments and struggled to negotiate the boundaries between digital and physical realms. Challenges to work-life balance come both from automated software features which ensure staff are ‘monitored for each keystroke, ZOOM meeting and email’, and from self-imposed expectations that working long hours is necessary in academia. The ‘interruptions’ offer two contrasting perspectives. One author is deeply immersed in a constant buzz of teaching, early career research and family life. The other gradually retreats from the busy-ness, working through tasks in isolation, seeking silence and medical help. The two voices, though quite distinct, converge around the message that universities need to develop workload, wellness and promotion policies which take account of what it means to work in a postdigital environment, under constant pressure to remain connected. To pre-empt universities being reshaped – intentionally or inadvertently – by quiet quitting, the authors highlight the continued relevance of the Slow University approach, which entails mindfulness and explicit attention to sustainability to pre-empt emotional and physical exhaustion.
In contrast to the challenges of coping with the impact of extensive technological change, Noorbhai et al. (Citation2024) provide an analysis of the challenges facing resource constrained higher education systems yet to deploy many contemporary technologies, using the health education sector in South Africa as their focus. Using a survey of the staff perceptions of the challenges they face incorporating e-learning tools, the authors develop a model that captures the multi-faceted complexity posed by intersecting healthcare technology, digital health and medical education, skills development, and curricula change in the middle of a pandemic and with an ongoing problem of systematic and sustained inequality.
Recent engagement with technology in HERD also reflects the awareness that not all outcomes from technology result in positive outcomes for learners (Bernardo et al., Citation2023) including real or perceived increases in cheating resulting from the move to online forms of assessment (Roe et al., Citation2023). Despite this, there are positive outcomes being shown through the student experience of online learning focusing on engagement (Dyment et al., Citation2020), ways of supporting their capabilities for online learning (Khan et al., Citation2023; Schrum & Bogdewiecz, Citation2022; Tabvuma et al., Citation2022), the value of specific tools (Koh & Kan, Citation2021) and the impact of blended learning pedagogies on their success (Han & Ellis, Citation2021; Latorre-Cosculluela et al., Citation2022; Sperl et al., Citation2023), and also from the ways that analytics can enable student success (Brown et al., Citation2022). The recent development of generative AI has seen a growing awareness of the need to explore the pedagogical implications (Cox et al., Citation2023) continuing the engagement HERD has shown with this space over its life.
Ongoing examination of how universities can enact blended learning in different contexts and scales has been a focus of a number of recent HERD contributions (Huang et al., Citation2022; Peters et al., Citation2022; Youde, Citation2020), and this is reflected in the examination of the role played by digital badges and microcredentials in the professional space provided by Goulding et al. (Goulding et al., Citation2024) in the current Special Issue.
Goulding et al. (Citation2024) provide a useful perspective on how better undergraduate student learning journeys and student outcomes can be facilitated through replacing marks for formal summative assessment with digital badges. Rather than reduce student achievement to a number that does not carry sufficiently clearly information about what has been learnt, the authors propose digital badge trees, with badges mapped to specific competencies. The badges offer a more detailed view of what has been gained through learning (from a student perspective) and what a student can potentially offer in the work and life settings they are integrated in or hope to join in the future. Employers and professional bodies also benefit from the more granular detail. Assembling the badges into a tree structure offers clarity on how the learning progresses and potentially offers greater scope for students to exercise autonomy and choice with regard to what, when and how they learn. The intervention that the authors implemented and analysed does highlight positive impact but also cautiously reflects on challenges around designing and implementing a badging intervention. In doing so, it offers a strong basis from which to harness technology effectively and to effect pedagogical change that integrates existing good practice. A message that clearly comes across from the article is that in the reshaped assessment context, badges should be accompanied by developmental feedback, replacing numeric marks but not the dialogue between the students and those who evaluate learning.
Conclusion
This editorial has presented a very high-level overview of the history and current scholarly thinking regarding technology and its impact on higher education and pedagogical change. One observation that can be made is that throughout its life HERD has been slow to publish work on the impact of technology on the field. Papers focusing on tools such as the LMS (Sinclair & Aho, Citation2018), blogs (Wolf, Citation2010), ePortfolios (Faulkner et al., Citation2013; Hallam & Creagh, Citation2010) or digital video (Saunders & Hutt, Citation2015; Tummons et al., Citation2016) appear well after the development and widespread use of these tools.
This follows in part from the desire of the editors to publish work that has a firm foundation in experience with their application in pedagogical contexts. A consequence is that technologies need to be understood sufficiently to generate a learning design aligned to their affordances and then at least one cycle of student use has to occur before any data on outcomes can be collected. In some cases, such as that reported by Kenney (Citation2012), multiple iterations of development have been used to comprehensively analyse the pedagogical impact of technology and other changes to the learning designs.
Another reason however, highlighted in the Wolf paper (Citation2010), is that technologies designed for wider public use are frequently problematic in course contexts. Generic tools can impose significant workload on teaching staff engaging with students and providing feedback or assessment information, and there are the ever present and growing problems of privacy and the frequent need to keep learning environments separate from an increasingly unruly public internet. The complexity of the technological space being explored in the 2010s is evident in papers like Kenney), Citation2012 that, rather than describing a singular technology application, provide an analysis including a range of tools from media, communication and collaboration, LMS support for time management and assessment processes, and a wide selection of tools used by students directly to support their work. This diversity of tools was identified by the author as a feature that enabled diverse student needs and approaches strengthening the constructivist pedagogical approach. It also critically respects the socio-technological position that technology is not deterministic in its form and uses but rather is defined by human expectations, experience and interaction (Pegrum, Citation2009).
The topics covered by the seven papers in this Special Issue indicate that higher education has been ‘reshaping’ by not only technological impacts per se but also our ‘pedagogical’ and ‘professional’ engagement in and interpretations of the tensions between positive and negative impacts of technology. Indeed, the papers enable us to project the future of higher education that digital transformation is a journey, not a destination, which is transforming into a new culture and organisation, and thus it must be based on new values and structures appropriate for it. Many important areas remain to be explored in detail including the ways that higher education addresses equity and inclusion in an increasingly digital space. We thank our contributors, reviewers and colleagues for their ongoing engagement with these important ideas as we travel forward together as explorers.
References
- Abblitt, S. (2019). A postdigital paradigm in literary studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1541313
- Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
- Aitchison, C., Harper, R., Mirriahi, N., & Guerin, C. (2020). Tensions for educational developers in the digital university: Developing the person, developing the product. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1663155
- Alexander, S. (1999). An evaluation of innovative projects involving communication and information technology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180202
- Arantes, J., & Vicars, M. (2024). Always on standby: Reshaping higher education by acknowledging the psychosocial risk of our postdigital presence in online digital labor. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–13.
- Attard, R., Smyth, L., Ollis, L., Valter, K., & Webb, A. L. (2023). Is it the same, socially? Fully online learning and its impacts on social identification, academic performance and confidence. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(8), 1855–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2209521
- Bain, J. D. (1999). Introduction. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180201
- Baker, J. W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management th tools to become the guide by the side. 11 International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL.
- Benson, K., Alison, S., & Arger, G. (1996). Interactive multimedia in introductory accounting: A preliminary analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436960150101
- Bernardo, A. B., Galve-González, C., Cervero, A., & Tuero, E. (2023). Cyberbullying in first-year university students and its influence on their intentions to drop out. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057447
- Berners-Lee, T. (1989, March). Information management: A proposal. Information Management: A Proposal. https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html.
- Blaj-Ward, L., & Winter, K. (2019). Engaging students as digital citizens. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(5), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1607829
- Boles, W. (1999). Classroom assessment for improved learning: A case study in using e-mail and involving students in preparing assignments. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180111
- Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., & Redmond, P. (2022). A conceptual framework to enhance student online learning and engagement in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1860912
- Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Foote, S., Cohen, J., Redmond, P., Stone, C., Kimber, M., & Henderson, R. (2023). Educators’ experiences of pivoting online: Unearthing key learnings and insights for engaging students online. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(7), 1593–1607. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2157798
- Bruce, C. S. (1998). The phenomenon of information literacy. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436980170102
- Burford, S., Partridge, H., Brown, S., Hider, P., & Ellis, L. (2015). Education for Australia’s information future. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.973380
- Butson, R., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2024). AI and its implications for research in higher education: A critical dialogue. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–25.
- Candy, P. C. (2000). Knowledge navigators and lifelong learners: Producing graduates for the information society. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/758484346
- Cherry, N. L. (2005). Preparing for practice in the age of complexity. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284649
- Chiu, P. H. P., & Cheng, S. H. (2017). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1196475
- Chuang, C. Y., Craig, S. D., & Femiani, J. (2017). Detecting probable cheating during online assessments based on time delay and head pose. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303456
- Comber, D. P. M., & Brady-Van den Bos, M. (2018). Too much, too soon? A critical investigation into factors that make Flipped Classrooms effective. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1455642
- Cox, A., Cameron, D., Checco, A., Herrick, T., Mawson, M., & Steadman-Jones, R. (2023). Criteria of quality in fiction-based research to promote debate about the use of AI and robots in Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(3), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2087603
- Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2022). A commentary on the criteria of effective teaching in post-COVID higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2002828
- Dreamson, N., Thomas, G., Lee Hong, A., & Kim, S. (2017). Policies on and practices of cultural inclusivity in learning management systems: Perspectives of Indigenous holistic pedagogies. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 947–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1263830
- Dyment, J., Stone, C., & Milthorpe, N. (2020). Beyond busy work: Rethinking the measurement of online student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1440–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1732879
- Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E-learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902839909
- Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300
- Eriksson, M. J., & Vuojärvi, H. (2014). Different backgrounds – different priorities? Student perceptions of a technology initiative. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.832165
- Evans, J. C., Yip, H., Chan, K., Armatas, C., & Tse, A. (2020). Blended learning in higher education: Professional development in a Hong Kong university. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(4), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1685943
- Faulkner, M., Mahfuzul Aziz, S., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013). Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive development of graduate qualities and professional competencies. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 871–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806437
- Feast, V., & Bretag, T. (2005). Responding to crises in transnational education: New challenges for higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436052000318578
- Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the twenty-first-century campus to enhance the net-generation student learning experience: Using evidence-based design to determine what works and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890566
- Forsyth, H., Pizzica, J., Laxton, R., & Mahony, M. J. (2010). Distance education in an era of eLearning: Challenges and opportunities for a campus-focused institution. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903421350
- George-Walker, L. D., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903277380
- Gibbings, P., Lidstone, J., & Bruce, C. (2015). Students’ experience of problem-based learning in virtual space. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934327
- Goldberg, M. W., & Salarai, S. (1997). An update on WebCT (World-Wide-Web Course Tools)—a tool for the creation of sophisticated web-based learning environments. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/wccce/program97/murray/murray.html.
- Goulding, J., Sharp, H., & Twining, P. (2024). Awarding digital badges: Research from a first-year university course. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–42.
- Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. L. (2015). A systematic review of agent-based modelling and simulation applications in the higher education domain. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011088
- Gunn, C. (1999). They love it, but do they learn from it? Evaluating the educational impact of innovations. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180203
- Guo, F., Hong, X., & Coates, H. (2020). Accelerated transformation: Designing global online higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1322–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1824209
- Hallam, G., & Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: A review of the Australian ePortfolio Project. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903510582
- Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. (2013). Blended teaching and learning: A two-way systems approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 748–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.711301
- Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2021). Assessing the quality of university student experiences in blended course designs: An ecological perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1800597
- Heyward, M., & Krikowa, N. (2023). Embedding Indigenous cultural competencies within a digital media and communication context in Australian higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2063815
- Hore, T., & West, L. H. T. (1984). The future of higher education in Australia: Ten years on. Higher Education Research & Development, 3(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436840030104
- Huang, J., Matthews, K. E., & Lodge, J. M. (2022). ‘The university doesn’t care about the impact it is having on us’: Academic experiences of the institutionalisation of blended learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1557–1571. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1915965
- Iqbal, S., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2017). What drives m-learning? An empirical investigation of university student perceptions in Pakistan. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 730–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1236782
- Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P. G., & Trevitt, A. C. F. (2000). Place and space in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445664
- Jung, J., Wang, Y., & Barrioluengo, M. S. (2024). A scoping review on graduate employability in an era of “technological unemployment”. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–25.
- Kenney, J. L. (2012). Getting results: Small changes, big cohorts and technology. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 873–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.672402
- Khan, T., Kend, M., & Nguyen, L. A. (2023). Social media academic networking – insights from first-year accounting university students’ experiences. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057449
- Kilgour, P., Reynaud, D., Northcote, M., McLoughlin, C., & Gosselin, K. P. (2019). Threshold concepts about online pedagogy for novice online teachers in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1417–1431. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1450360
- Kilner, K., Collie, N., & Clement, J. (2019). Using innovative teaching practices to inspire critically engaged reading and writing in a neoliberal university environment. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1537258
- King, H. (2016). Learning spaces and collaborative work: Barriers or supports? Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1131251
- Knapper, C. K. (1986). Information technology and university teaching(1). Higher Education Research & Development, 5(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436860050106
- Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2021). Students’ use of learning management systems and desired e-learning experiences: Are they ready for next generation digital learning environments? Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949
- Kuhn, A., Schneider, U., & Schwabe, A. (2023). Digital reading and gender inequality in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2019201
- Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Anzano-Oto, S., Lira-Rodríguez, E., & Salamanca-Villate, A. (2022). Facilitating self-efficacy in university students: An interactive approach with Flipped Classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1603–1617. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1937067
- Leask, B. (2020). Embracing the possibilities of disruption. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1388–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1824211
- Literat, I. (2015). Implications of massive open online courses for higher education: Mitigating or reifying educational inequities? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1164–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024624
- Littlejohn, A. (2023). Transforming educators’ practice: How university educators learned to teach online from home during the Covid-19 pandemic. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2073982
- Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., & Harper, B. (1999). Measuring effectiveness of health education in a web-based learning environment: A preliminary report. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180206
- Macauley, P., Evans, T., Pearson, M., & Tregenza, K. (2005). Using digital data and bibliometric analysis for researching doctoral education. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500063076
- Macfarlane, B. (2012). The higher education research archipelago. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642846
- Macfarlane, B. (2022). A voyage around the ideological islands of higher education research. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2002275
- Maor, D., Ensor, J. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Doctoral supervision in virtual spaces: A review of research of web-based tools to develop collaborative supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1121206
- Marshall, S. (1986). An intelligent marking assistant: An application of artificial intelligence in teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 5(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436860050209
- Marshall, S. J. (2018). Shaping the university of the future. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7620-6
- Masie, E. (1999, December 31). Elliott Masie’s learning TRENDS - learning TRENDS - 146 - e-learning term catching on; Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business & Pensare Partner; WAP: Wireless Application Protocol. http://trends.masie.com/archives/1999/10/12/146-e-learning-term-catching-on-duke-universitys-fuqua-schoo.html.
- McGaughey, F., Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Suri, V. R., Knight, C., Crick, T., Hardman, J., Phelan, D., & Chung, R. (2022). ‘This can’t be the new norm’: Academics’ perspectives on the COVID-19 crisis for the Australian university sector. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2231–2246. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1973384
- McNaught, C., Whithear, K., & Browning, G. (1999). Systems not projects: Focusing on evaluating overall student experience, rather than isolated innovations. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180207
- Muldoon, R. (2012). Is it time to ditch the traditional university exam? Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 263–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680249
- Naylor, D., & Nyanjom, J. (2021). Educators’ emotions involved in the transition to online teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1811645
- Ndzinisa, N., & Dlamini, R. (2022). Responsiveness vs. accessibility: Pandemic-driven shift to remote teaching and online learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2262–2277. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2019199
- Noorbhai, H., Sims, D., & Hartman, N. (2024). Multi-disciplinary staff perspectives and consensus on e-learning and mHealth for health sciences curricula. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–34.
- O’Neill, D. K., Reinhardt, S., & Jayasundera, K. (2022). What undergraduates say about choosing an online or in-person course: Qualitative results from a large-sample, multi-discipline survey. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1896484
- Park, J. Y. (2014). Course evaluation: Reconfigurations for learning with learning management systems. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 992–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890564
- Patrick, K. (1997). Web-site review. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436970160211
- Pegrum, M. (2009). From blogs to bombs: The future of digital technologies in education. UWA publishing.
- Peters, M., Guitert-Catasús, M., & Romero, M. (2022). Student learning ecologies in online higher education: A model to support connected learning across contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2307–2323. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2014408
- Pham, H.-H., & Ho, T.-T.-H. (2020). Toward a ‘new normal’ with e-learning in Vietnamese higher education during the post COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1327–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1823945
- Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2014). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841643
- Reeves, T. C., & Laffey, J. M. (1999). Design, assessment, and evaluation of a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate engineering. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180205
- Roe, J., Perkins, M., Chonu, G. K., & Bhati, A. (2023). Student perceptions of peer cheating behaviour during COVID-19 induced online teaching and assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2258820
- Salter, D., Thomson, D. L., Fox, B., & Lam, J. (2013). Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 805–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777033
- Saunders, F. C., & Hutt, I. (2015). Enhancing large-class teaching: A systematic comparison of rich-media materials. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1233–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.911261
- Schrum, K., & Bogdewiecz, S. (2022). Cultivating research skills through scholarly digital storytelling. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2382–2394. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2010667
- Selkrig, M., Dulfer, N., & Smith, C. (2024). Capturing the shifting work of teaching in higher education through postcards of practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–27.
- Sinclair, J., & Aho, A.-M. (2018). Experts on super innovators: Understanding staff adoption of learning management systems. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1342609
- Smith, K., & Hill, J. (2019). Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(2), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1517732
- Sperl, L., Breier, C. M., Grießbach, E., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2023). Do typing skills matter? Investigating university students’ typing speed and performance in online exams. Higher Education Research & Development, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2287724
- Swist, T., & Kuswara, A. (2016). Place-making in higher education: Co-creating engagement and knowledge practices in the networked age. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1128887
- Tabvuma, V., Carter-Rogers, K., Brophy, T., Smith, S. M., & Sutherland, S. (2022). Transitioning from in person to online learning during a pandemic: An experimental study of the impact of time management training. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2441–2457. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2010665
- Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Pearce, J. (2015). Enhanced student learning in accounting utilising web-based technology, peer-review feedback and reflective practices: A learning community approach to assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024625
- Teles, L., & Ragsdale, R. (1989). The impact of word processing on faculty writing behaviour. Higher Education Research & Development, 8(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436890080207
- Thi Ngoc Ha, N., Spittle, M., Watt, A., & Van Dyke, N. (2023). A systematic literature review of micro-credentials in higher education: A non-zero-sum game. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(6), 1527–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2146061
- Thomas, J. A., Wadsworth, D., Jin, Y., Clarke, J., Page, R., & Thunders, M. (2017). Engagement with online self-tests as a predictor of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1263827
- Tsai, C.-W. (2015). The effect of online co-regulated learning in the implementation of team-based learning on improving students’ involvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024631
- Tummons, J., Fournier, C., Kits, O., & MacLeod, A. (2016). Teaching without a blackboard and chalk: Conflicting attitudes towards using ICTs in higher education teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4), 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137882
- Warn, J. (2006). Plagiarism software: No magic bullet!. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610438
- Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). Web-delivered, problem-based learning in organisational behaviour: A new form of CAOS. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000276440
- Webb, J. (2001). Using the web to explore issues related to the first year experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/758483463
- West, R. (1998). Learning for life: Final report. Review of higher education financing and policy. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
- Wheaton, A. (2020). Shift happens; moving from the ivory tower to the mushroom factory. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1670145
- White, P. J., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D. R., Rangachari, P. K., Short, J. L., Exintaris, B., Malone, D. T., Davie, B., Eise, N., Mc Namara, K., & Naidu, S. (2016). Adopting an active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(3), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1107887
- Wise, B., Emerson, L., Van Luyn, A., Dyson, B., Bjork, C., & Thomas, S. E. (2024). A scholarly dialogue: Writing scholarship, authorship, academic integrity and the challenges of AI. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(3), 1–25.
- Wolf, K. (2010). Bridging the distance: The use of blogs as reflective learning tools for placement students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502292
- Youde, A. (2020). I don’t need peer support: Effective tutoring in blended learning environments for part-time, adult learners. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1704692
- Zainal Badri, S. K., Wan Mohd Yunus, W. M. A., Ramos, H. M., & Mahmud, N. (2022). Remote learning and its implications toward study-life conflicts and the mental health of university students: Does studying at home or campus matter? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(7), 2523–2537. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2014407
- Zeldenryk, L., & Bradey, S. (2013). The flexible learning needs and preferences of regional occupational therapy students in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.675572