Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments: a matter of forced compromises away from student-centredness?

ABSTRACT

In this phenomenographic study, we contribute with a critical view on teachers’ understanding of the use of digital technology in education is at the core. By analysing engineering teachers in Sweden’s qualitative different ways of experiencing teaching-learning in virtual learning environments (VLEs) pre-COVID-19 pandemic, we found three different approaches: (A) increased transmission possibilities, (B) outlined trail and (C) forced compromises. Based on our findings, the tensions between the possibilities in the virtual learning environment and teachers’ teaching-learning intentions are discussed, and teachers’ decreased room for action to design for learning is problematised. Notably, teachers with an increased breadth of awareness of teaching-learning appear to experience the greatest tensions, forcing them to compromise their student-centred intentions.

KEYWORDS:

• Approaches to teaching-learning
• virtual learning environments
• phenomenography
• teaching-learning strategies
• tension

Introduction

Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments refers to all those activities when education is mediated via learning management systems and includes, for instance, the curation of resources (Leighton and Griffioen 2021), but also the design, development and selection of teaching-learning materials in addition to communication and assessment as well as implementing and conducting of asynchronous or synchronous teaching-learning events. Since higher education courses are increasingly offered in Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), teachers’ work tasks have been affected (Martin, Sun, and Westine 2020; Collins, Glover, and Myers 2022). Several researchers argue that the use of digital technology makes learning more efficient (see, for example, Lacka, Wong, and Haddoud 2021; Boulton, Kent, and Williams 2018), and that the use of digital technology will lead to student-centred approaches, but the empirical evidence seems lacking (Jump 2011; Kirkwood and Price 2013). Several authors argue, though, that the use of VLEs implies a shift in approach to teaching; from teaching-centred approaches to a more student-centred (Tondeur et al. 2017; Kearns 2016); however, to what extent the use of technology in teaching promote a shift in focus on students’ learning is not evident (Kirkwood and Price 2013). Undoubtedly, teachers’ view of what teaching-learning in VLEs means will have consequences for their teaching, as well as how and what students learn.

Insights into teachers’ approaches to teaching-learning are needed to understand how digital technology adoption in higher education takes place and which learning is enabled. Previous studies on teachers’ use of digital technology in higher education often focus on what teachers do and how the technology is applied at the expense of teachers’ pedagogical thinking, reasoning and understanding of teaching and learning (Caravias 2018; Lai and Bower 2019; Martin, Sun, and Westine 2020). The disciplinary context in engineering is often underpinned by technology optimism and is characterised by an emphasis on how science and technology can be applied to solve problems, in addition to scientific knowledge (De Vries 2016; Mitcham 1994). Teachers in science and engineering generally are reported to adopt content- and teacher-focused approaches to teaching-learning more often than teachers from, for example, the humanities and social sciences (Postareff et al. 2008; Åkerlind 2004) and, thus, a deeper understanding of these teachers’ reasoning is of interest.

In this study, we adopted a phenomenographic research approach (Marton and Booth 2013) to explore the different ways engineering teachers in Sweden experience teaching-learning in virtual learning environments (VLEs), that is, how they made use of digital technology and which pedagogical strategies they applied. We asked the following research question: In what various ways do teachers in engineering sciences experience teaching-learning in virtual learning environments?

Teachers’ approaches to teaching-learning

Teachers’ choices of teaching strategies are influenced by several factors such as the teacher’s perceptions and attitudes, their personal and professional beliefs, and values regarding teaching-learning (Leighton and Griffioen 2021; Collins, Glover, and Myers 2022) as well as their academic identity (Ross et al. 2014). Contextual factors such as material conditions and disciplinary educational traditions also influence teachers’ strategies (Biesta, Priestley, and Robinson 2015; Prosser et al. 2005; Sadler 2012). Furthermore, their pedagogical decisions, for instance, choice of instruction, assessments and students’ self-study tasks, depend on how they conceptualise and approach teaching-learning and their repertoire of teaching methods (Åkerlind 2008). For this study, ‘teaching-learning’ is viewed as one analytical unit, including teachers’ views on how learning takes place and what students’ roles imply.

Approaches to teaching-learning include teachers’ understanding and strategies adopted in practice, and they have been explored extensively in different contexts and with various purposes (Kember 1997; Åkerlind 2004; Englund, Olofsson, and Price 2017; Badia, Garcia, and Meneses 2017). A body of research suggests that teachers’ approaches to teaching-learning vary, in a continuum, from a teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach (Åkerlind 2004). Teacher-centred approaches are recognised as knowledge transfer and coincide with how novice teachers tend to focus solely on content delivery and their performance (Åkerlind 2004). Teaching with student-centredness emphasises students’ conceptual change and development and is connected with high-quality student outcomes (Sadler 2012).

The way that teachers approach teaching-learning is dependent on several factors such as course content, disciplinary knowledge structure, and teachers’ epistemological beliefs and disciplinary ways of thinking (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2002; Matthew and Pritchard 2010). Furthermore, when digital technology is applied, teachers’ digital competence also impacts teachers’ approaches to teaching-learning, and yet, studies regarding teachers’ understanding of teaching-learning in VLEs are lacking (Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw 2021; Rasheed, Kamsin, and Abdullah 2020).

Teaching-learning in the virtual learning environment

Online teaching can allow increased efficiency in facilitating students’ learning and enable greater flexibility with time. Researchers argue that it provides opportunities for teachers to address students’ individual needs and promote students’ higher-order thinking by letting the design of teaching-learning materials and activities inspire students to adopt a deep approach to learning (Lee and Choi 2017; Caravias 2018; Collins, Glover, and Myers 2022). The use of digital technology is suggested to increase student responsibility for their own learning processes (Bennett et al. 2017) and enhance students’ motivation and engagement in teaching-learning (Dhillon and Murray 2021).

Despite the advantages, some of which were mentioned above, several studies have observed that teachers’ adoption of technology for educational purposes is slow (Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw 2021; Dunn and Kennedy 2019). Contrary to what was stated above, digital technology does not seem to contribute to a more student-centred approach to teaching as teacher-focused approaches to teaching-learning are more common in VLEs than in teaching situated on-campus face-to-face (Jump 2011; Kirkwood and Price 2013). In fact, the efficiency and utilisation of digital resources have been questioned regarding their impact on supporting students’ learning (Lacka, Wong, and Haddoud 2021; Boulton, Kent, and Williams 2018) and digital technology (e.g. the structure in a learning management system) is suggested to constitute a replacement for teachers’ pedagogical considerations and teaching strategies (Phillips et al. 2008).

Teaching with digital technology puts other demands on teachers than face-to-face education, for example, to select and develop digital resources, manage copy-rights and apply technology (Leighton and Griffioen 2021). Englund, Olofsson, and Price (2017) suggest that teachers’ competence regarding how and when digital technology should be used to support students’ learning is one critical factor in the successful implementation of digital technology. To accomplish that, teachers need to make pedagogical considerations regarding the purposes of the teaching-learning activity implemented and not only focus on how to use the application (Kirkwood and Price 2013, 2014).

Teachers’ perspectives and practices are among the less researched aspects of online learning (Martin, Sun, and Westine 2020). Studies that explore how learning platform functionality and structure may affect teachers’ reasoning and thinking, and research concerning how teachers develop their teaching practices with the use of digital technology, remain scarce (Jääskelä, Häkkinen, and Rasku-Puttonen 2017). For example, Leighton and Griffioen (2021) could not identify any such study in their literature review investigating teachers’ intentions behind teaching-learning selection.

Theoretical positioning

In the present study, a phenomenographic research approach (Collier-Reed and Ingerman 2013) was applied to explore variation in teachers’ experience of teaching-learning in VLEs. The phenomenographic research approach entails both a methodological framework and theoretical and epistemological assumptions of how humans understand the world (Marton 1981). In phenomenographic research, the term experience is commonly referred to, and here it is used interchangeably with the terms awareness, understanding, and views (in line with Åkerlind 2004).

The phenomenographic research approach prescribes that individuals distinguish, interpret, discern and experience different aspects of phenomena to various degrees and in a limited number of ways. The result shows that people have various breadth of awareness of the same phenomena (Marton 1981; Rovio-Johansson and Ingerman 2016; Åkerlind 2008). Phenomenography allows researchers to reveal how aspects of the world are experienced, that is, to study participants’ mental representations and how their different beliefs are composed (Marton 1981; Ashworth and Lucas 2000). The findings from phenomenographic analysis reveal categories of descriptions (qualitatively different ways of experiencing a phenomenon) based on variations in distinctive features, that is, critical aspects (Rovio-Johansson and Ingerman 2016; Pang and Ki 2016). Such categories of description are understood to be hierarchically included, meaning that an increased breadth of awareness includes aspects identified in less sophisticated categories (Åkerlind 2005). In this particular study, this means that teachers with a more developed understanding of teaching-learning have student-centred approaches to teaching-learning (Åkerlind 2008). In conjunction with the epistemological position in phenomenography, increased breadth of awareness of the phenomenon has more dimensions and perspectives present, and limited awareness of a phenomenon is understood in terms of an incomplete awareness of the phenomenon, in which some key features of the critical aspects are lacking. Increased awareness of a phenomenon allows people to act in ways other than what was previously possible (Booth 1997).

A core position that underpins phenomenography is that the meaning of a phenomenon is constituted in the internal relationship between an individual and the phenomenon, which means that phenomenography seeks to illuminate the study participants’ perceived reality and their interpretation of specific phenomena, that is, with a second-order perspective (Marton 1981; Trigwell 2006). In phenomenography, different ways of experiencing are based on the entire dataset; therefore, one single category of description cannot be attributed to individual study participants. Phenomenography is non-normative, for example, humans cannot experience something in the right or wrong way (Marton and Booth 2013), but norms or indented meaning of the phenomenon implies that a category of description can be valued as more or less correct (Dahlgren and Marton 1978). It is not the intention of the research approach to sort study participants into different categories, nor to distinguish who has the most correct understanding of the phenomenon. Phenomenography is a data-focused and inductive methodology where the categories of descriptions emerge from the analysis of data without theory interference, but as Lunn and Ross (2021) argue, conceptual and theoretical frameworks can be used to interpret and discuss the meaning of what it is to experience something in a particular way.

Method

Study context

The reported study was conducted at two technical faculties in Sweden pre-COVID-19 pandemic (data gathered in spring semester 2018 and fall semester 2019). Engineering education in Sweden has a strong tradition of campus-based teaching-learning. Both faculties of interest in this study require that faculty members are equipped with ten weeks of training in teaching-learning in higher education to pursue academic careers. Overall, faculty development in Sweden has, for the last two decades, been influenced by research suggesting student-centred strategies (Barman 2015).

At the time of this study, before universities’ wide and extensive use of digital resources to facilitate remotely provided education, teachers adopted digital technology, such as learning management systems to different degrees. Still, the widespread use of such resources was less extensive than today. Both technical faculties were included in the study because they had realised the development of massive open online courses (MOOCs) with one of several stated intentions to drive pedagogical development within each institution (Barman, McGrath, and Stöhr 2019). Thereby, it was possible to identify and recruit study participants who had used VLEs in their teaching to a significant extent. The work of curating and developing teaching-learning recourses for MOOCs was done in collaboration between faculty members and pedagogical experts. Furthermore, support was available to reduce technical barriers regarding unfamiliar digital technology but also in terms of pedagogical decisions in the design and implementation of, for example, learning activities and assessments. In contrast to the rapid emergency remote teaching during the pandemic, the MOOC material could be designed and developed in a well-thought-out way as the timeframe for course development was generally much longer.

Sampling and data generation

To enable a wide variety of experiences of the phenomenon, data need to capture participants’ own descriptions of their engagement with the phenomenon (Ashworth and Lucas 2000; Booth and Ingerman 2002; Marton 1981). A purposive sampling of study participants was made in the cohort of academic teachers in engineering education working with the development of large-scale open online courses at the two included faculties. Every teacher engaged in the MOOC development at both faculties was invited to participate in the study. All teachers who, upon written request, agreed to participate in the study were interviewed. In total, data were generated from 16 teachers (4 women, 12 men) with expertise in different higher education engineering subjects including chemistry, computer science and mechanical engineering. They were all involved in teaching and held various academic positions such as PhD candidates, lecturers and researchers, associate professors and full professors and had taught for different numbers of years. In addition to participation in the MOOC projects, the study participants had used other VLEs in conjunction with physically located courses to various degrees, for example, for management and distribution of teaching materials and assessment, or more fully as an integrated part of the course.

Interviews conducted by all three authors were semi-structured (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Åkerlind 2003), asking study participants how they used digital technology in their teaching and their reasoning behind how they work. An interview guide was used to ensure that different topics, such as teaching-learning design and student learning, were covered during the interview. The participants were free to describe and reflect on their teaching-learning practice, decisions, considerations, and choices made and were encouraged to share, show, and discuss concrete examples of their teaching-learning materials. Still, the phrasing of the questions was adapted to the situation (Ashworth and Lucas 2000). The interviews included questions such as: ‘Can you describe your course?’, ‘What have you been doing when designing the course?’ and ‘How is the work with digital teaching and learning related to your work with face-to-face courses offered at your university?’ To gain insight into the participants’ experiences, the researchers focused on listening and showing curiosity about what the study participants discussed with a receptive and open attitude (Ashworth and Lucas 2000). To obtain detailed descriptions and provide additional insights and meaning to the descriptions of design choices, without directing the study participants’ reasoning, probing questions were asked, such as: ‘Can you describe more?’, ‘Why did you … ?’ and ‘Why did you choose to do it like that?’. The interviews lasted 30–70 min each and were transcribed verbatim.

Before the interviews, the respondents were informed, both orally and in writing, about the study’s purpose and their rights as study participants. The study was introduced to investigate how teachers understand and tackle the design and development of teaching-learning material in VLEs from a teacher’s perspective. The researchers followed national ethical guidelines regarding educational research (Swedish Research Council 2017), including voluntary participation, informed consent, regulations regarding data protection and protecting study participants’ integrity. For this reason, fictional names are used when reporting findings.

Data analysis

During the analysis, the interview transcripts were pooled and read through to identify meaning units, that is, passages from the transcripts that included statements relevant to the present study’s purpose. Aspects of variation and different ways of experiencing teaching-learning in virtual learning environments become visible by looking for commonalities and variations in teachers’ statements and by comparing and contrasting statements (Åkerlind 2003). The analysis entailed reading, categorising and comparing meaning units to identify aspects of variation and a consistent description of qualitatively different ways of experiencing the phenomenon (Collier-Reed and Ingerman 2013; Booth and Ingerman 2002). Differences and commonalities in understanding are based on interpretations of the study participants’ statements (latent content) rather than what explicit words were said (manifest content) (Marton and Booth 2013).

To ensure an empathic approach to analysis (Ashworth and Lucas 2000) and minimise the researchers’ own preconceptions to rapidly influence the analysis (Åkerlind 2012), the first author conducted the initial analysis, after which a discussion among all three authors took place. Thus, to ensure credibility, all authors have participated in the analysis. The analysis shifted between each part and the complete transcript to consider the full context of each meaning unit. During the analysis, the authors adopted a reflective approach and adjusted their reasoning and thinking while new perspectives became present (Åkerlind 2012). A logical and empirical structure of how categories of descriptions are interrelated and how the outcome space is constructed was based on variation in the critical aspects (Åkerlind 2008). Here, the hierarchal relationship between the different ways of experience was based on a logical argument about the empirical defined variation in conceptions. NVivio was used during the analysis to support data management.

Methodological limitations

For this study, the participants were recruited based on their involvement in MOOCs, a particular form of VLE. This may potentially limit the variety of experiences identified. However, since the study participants during the interviews also described and discussed how digital learning resources had been used in other contexts, e.g. as part of regular campus base courses, we argue that that our results are transferable to different contexts and situations where VLE is used.

During the analysis, the transcripts were understood based on the researcher’s own understanding of the phenomenon. Our preunderstandings and how we experienced the data, affect the outcome that emerges. The findings were though presented and discussed in different contexts, strengthening the interpretation and trustworthiness.

Findings

The engineering teachers in this study expressed dedication to teaching and the importance of learning their subject, and they were committed to utilising the possibilities that digital technology offered. However, the teachers’ understanding of how learning can be supported in VLEs and, thus, how teaching is performed varied.

We identified three categories of description, demonstrating qualitatively different ways engineering teachers experience teaching-learning in virtual learning environments: as increased transmission possibilities (A) as an outlined trail (B) and as a forced compromise (C); these are summarised in Table 1. Each category is based on the identification of four critical aspects, namely teachers’ conception of the quality of teaching-learning in a VLE (I), learning platforms for teaching-learning (II), teaching (III) and student learning (IV).

Table 1. Summary of the categories of descriptions, illustrating three various ways engineering teachers experience teaching-learning in the virtual learning environment. The columns in the table represent the three qualitatively different ways of experience. The four critical aspects, i.e. the teachers’ conceptions, which vary among the different ways of experience are represented as rows in the table. Aspects of variation illustrate the core of the variation in teachers’ conceptions.

	Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments experienced as …
	(A) increased transmission possibilities	(B) an outlined trail	(C) forced compromises
(I) Conceptions of teaching-learning quality in virtual learning environments
Aspect of variation	Teaching-learning quality in VLE regards the produced learning materials sound and image quality and the teacher’s performance in videos. Quality is clarity in transmission of teaching material.	Teaching-learning quality in a VLE regards students’ opportunity to learn by structured material in an ordered way with a focus on factors known to promote student learning e.g. enable the student to actively engage with the material and social interaction.	Quality is a measure of students’ learning, development and knowledge achievements. Quality in students’ learning is quality in teaching-learning in a virtual learning environment.
	Quality is the teacher’s performance.	Quality is the process of enabling students’ engagement	Quality is students’ learning and development
(II) Conceptions of learning platforms for teaching and learning
Aspect of variation	A platform enables teaching as transmission of knowledge to be made effectively and rigorously. The platform contributes to increased opportunities for transmission as students always have access to the learning material.	A learning platform constitutes an opportunity for the teacher to structure the learning material favourably. Learning activities are made available to the student with logically. The platforms are insufficient to include collaborations and social interaction	A learning platform is an insufficient tool for supporting individuals’ learning and development. The linearity is considered as a constraint to facilitating good learning environments. The use of learning platforms forces teachers to compromise with intention and design of teaching-learning situations.
	Learning platforms enable transmission of knowledge	Learning platform’s structure learning material but present a barrier to social interaction.	Learning platforms are an insufficient environment for teaching-learning.
(III) Conception of teaching and the teacher’s role
Aspect of variation	Teachers structure and deliver content with high quality in the produced material. The teacher transmits knowledge strictly and rigorously to avoid misunderstandings among students.	Teaching entails structuring learning materials logically. The teacher’s role is to create a structure that focusses on essential core content and active engagement. The teacher organises and structures learning opportunities.	Teaching entails facilitating learning opportunities based on the individual’s needs. The teacher’s task is to enable student learning by responding to students’ needs. The teacher is an active agent in the students’ learning process.
	Teaching is transmission of knowledge.	Teaching entails guiding students along an outlined trail of different learning activities.	The teacher facilitates opportunities for the students to learn
(IV) Conception of student learning and student roles
Aspect of variation	Students as recipients of information. Difficulties in understanding are resolved through repetition of transmission. Students are viewed as consumers of teaching-learning situations.	Students as active in the learning process. Students learn by exploring an outlined trail including types of teaching-learning activities	Students as active in the learning process. Learning is the development of an individual’s abilities and competencies. New knowledge is linked to the whole and the individual’s previous experiences, perceptions, and understanding.
	Learning as passive reception of knowledge.	Learning as an active process of developing knowledge, skills and abilities through active engagement.	Learning as an active process of developing the intellect in collaboration between student, teacher, and previous knowledge.

Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments as increased transmission possibilities (Category A) emerged as the narrowest experience. Teaching-learning in a virtual learning environment as force compromises (Category C) holds an increased breadth of awareness. The hierarchical order in the outcome space allows the experience of teaching-learning in VLE as forced compromises (C) also includes the conception that video lectures could be beneficial for transmitting knowledge. An increased breath of awareness recognises that teaching-learning in VLE is a complex and multiphase phenomenon.

Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments as increased transmission possibilities (A)

Experience teaching-learning in VLEs as increased transmission possibilities emphasises the notion that VLE increased opportunities for student learning as teaching materials were available to students’ independent of time, space, and human contact. Teaching-learning was understood as transmission of content knowledge in asynchronous video lectures. By keeping the focus on necessities and excluding extraneous factors in transmitted content, students’ absorption of knowledge was considered to be made more effective, that is, the transmission was more effective. Jacob expresses this advantage:

I think it’s brilliant as it’s typically laid out with slightly shorter versions or episodes […] yes, shorter films. You [the teacher] can include a lot when you think it through and make it so compact. Because then, the students can do it [take part in video content] at their own pace. There is still the opportunity for them [the students] to absorb more, even though it becomes compact. It is an advantage. It’s a, yes, a pedagogical thing, something that can be used to teach.

The VLEs were viewed as an advantage for teaching-learning as knowledge can be packed in strict, distinct, compact units that become accessible to the students. Students’ possibility to access teaching material asynchronously multiple times was considered to enhance their learning. Students learning capabilities were expressed in terms of the ability to digest or absorb knowledge. Learning platforms offered an increased availability for transmission; therefore, students’ learning was considered to be enhanced.

The teaching-learning situation was approached from the teacher’s perspective, and the teacher’s performance was viewed as the most essential component. In this category of description, quality teaching-learning in a VLE entails the teacher’s work and the teaching materials created, for example, video quality (e.g. audio-visual quality), as well as the stringency in the content covered.

Teaching- learning in virtual learning environments as an outlined trail (B)

The experience of teaching-learning in virtual learning environments as an outlined trail captures teachers’ perception of students’ learning as an active process that requires involvement with the material. Teaching was understood as the curation and development of multiple activities. The learning platform was an advantage as one pre-defined process could be structured in an order that enabled the students to actively engage with the teaching-learning material effectively without disturbing elements, that is, following the outlined trail. Every activity (including lectures and assignments) had a purpose and was expected to generate particular knowledge enhancements within the students and future curiosity. Jack describes the idea behind curating an outlined trail of activities to promote learning.

The basic premise is that there are some lessons we want to end up with a student, and we can describe them. What you should be able to do, what is it you should understand, what you should be able to do after a course, then we build a process.

By curating the learning material in a coherent way, student learning outcomes could be defined and predicted in advance. Harry’s perspective shows how certain activities end up in perceived student learning outcomes:

So, this is what the students do, like exercises. We are pretty concrete then. They [the students] run a program in their browser based on the content of the course. […] The first thing the students do when they enter the course is to get in touch with some of these models and how they are relevant in reality. They [the students] can directly run fairly advanced simulations in the browser. Then we [the teachers] have a little presentation about some theoretical concepts connected to it. By that approach, the students can immediately feel that ‘now I can do exciting simulations’ and start asking themselves, ‘I feel this is useful, but how does it work?’

The difficulty of creating social interaction and context was considered a limitation in the VLE as social interaction was considered an important factor in the student learning process. Anna, who tried to use the discussion forum but saw that it didn’t really work for social interaction, described it thus:

We have this interface then. They don’t see us and we don’t see them. It is a matter of sensitivity.

Quality teaching-learning in VLEs was expressed in terms of creating an opportunity for student learning by being engaged in activities offered that is, the quality in the teaching-learning process.

Teaching-learning in a virtual learning environment as forced compromises (C)

Teaching-learning in a VLE experienced as forced compromises emphasises teachers’ consideration of students’ learning and development of knowledge, skills and competencies when designing and implementing teaching-learning situations. Quality teaching-learning in VLEs was noticed as a student learning opportunity. Learning platforms were considered inappropriate to adequately support such desirable practices. Available functionalities in the VLE were expressed as comprising a constraint regarding what the teacher wants to achieve in the teaching-learning situation, which limited their intentions. Foremost, the linear structure in the learning platform was perceived as a hindrance as it was considered too strict and did not, in an adequate manner, make room for a learning process that considers how students act and behave. Students were considered responsible and reflective, able to have an active role in their own learning. Charles describes how the platform did not fit for teaching-learning based on how human learning is considered to take place:

Yes, then you end up in the system, where the course follows a linear order, and it is very linear and conventional […] it is not possible to build good stuff with gamification; for example, it is not technically feasible; you have to force them [the students] into a linear process, and no human follows a linear process.

The shortage in learning platforms required pedagogical adjustments and caused teachers to be forced to make compromises in desirable teaching-learning to make it practically feasible. Teaching-learning was made at the expense of, for instance, difficulty, complexity and scope of tasks. Robert describes how he needs to make pedagogical adjustments, to create an easier task, to be able to implement it in the platform:

This is what the coding task is about. You [the students] should try to implement things that you have learned, and the computer must be able to correct them automatically. Students cannot write code as they like because then we cannot correct it. This means we can only give them certain parts of the code they can write themselves.

The VLE comprised a limitation in terms of the kinds of teaching-learning that was possible to achieve as assessment of students’ work was considered to be defined in advance to be able to be evaluated automatically.

Discussion

The variation in teachers’ experiences of teaching-learning in virtual learning environments identified in our study is in line with previous research, as our findings also identified a range from teaching-centred to student-centred approaches (Kember 1997; Åkerlind 2004; Badia, Garcia, and Meneses 2017). As stated in the introduction to this paper, it is not evident, although it is anticipated, that teachers’ use of digital technology promotes student learning because it facilitates student-centred approaches (Lee and Choi 2017; Caravias 2018; Collins, Glover, and Myers 2022). However, our findings imply that the way teaching-learning is carried out in VLEs is more complex. In contrast to several studies of teachers’ digital competence and perception of the usefulness of technology (see for example; Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022; Anthony Jr. 2022) our findings highlight the need to understand the use of digital technology in relation to, and not separate from, the teacher’s intentions and approaches to teaching-learning. Our findings demonstrate, in contrast to Englund, Olofsson, and Price (2017) discussion of teachers’ propensities to adopt a student-centred approach to teaching with technology, that difficulties also are due to teachers’ conceptions that digital technology has shortcomings and constraints. Dhillon and Murray (2021) identified that teachers relate the benefits of digital technology to its affordances and hindrances related to teachers’ lack of competence and support in how to use technology. However, our findings imply, contrary to what Børte, Nesje, and Lillejord (2023) suggest, that barriers and difficulties to implement student-centred teaching in VLEs cannot be explained be attributed solely to the teacher’s perception of teaching and technical competence. Rather, we should understand teachers’ experiences of teaching-learning in VLEs as an interplay between their approaches to teaching-learning and what is made possible in terms of available technical functionality and resources. This expands previous understanding of barriers to student-centred teaching in VLEs. The findings of this study highlight that teachers’ digital competence and their understanding of possibilities in the VLE matter, but it seems that the design and structure of the VLEs may hinder student-centredness. In fact, teachers with different breadths of awareness of teaching-learning in VLE perceive possibilities and limitations with technology differently.

Bearman, Ajjawi, and O’Donnell (2022) have shown that students understand and act in the digital learning environment based on their perceptions of what digital learning and teaching are and should be. Our study shows that the same seems to apply to teachers. Constraints in the platform have been suggested to become visible when students are engaged with the learning material (Bearman, Lambert, and O’Donnell 2021). However, our study adds to this picture as teachers also perceive and navigate the limitations in VLEs depending on their approaches to what kind of teaching-learning is possible in a VLE. Similar to Hopkins (2021), our findings show that teachers hold an optimistic perspective on what VLEs can achieve in terms of efficiency and flexibility. At the same time, our findings suggest that teaching-learning in VLEs may give rise to frustration among teachers whose intentions are to practice student-centred approaches to teaching-learning. Teachers who experience that the VLE meets their intentions with teaching-learning and that the digital technology provides opportunities – increased transmission possibilities (Category A) seem satisfied. In category B, outline trail, learning platforms are perceived to entail limitations regarding social interaction. However, by adapting teaching strategies, students’ learning could still be facilitated and supported, albeit with less interaction. Our findings raise the question of how we can understand category C, forced compromises, when increased awareness of students’ learning seems to create tensions between the teachers’ intentions and their practices.

In line with Selwyn’s argument (2010), our findings imply that we should problematise the use of digital technology in education and suggest that teaching-learning practices in VLE need to be considered from multiple perspectives. Category C shows how teachers’ professional judgement and know-how are challenged and that the VLE reduces their opportunity to implement what they perceive to be good teaching-learning experiences for the students. The affordances in the VLE communicate a perspective on what constitutes teaching-learning and what education should be and influences teachers’ perceived operating freedom and how they execute professional and subjective judgements. It appears in category C that the pedagogical ideas behind the IT-system reduce teachers’ room to manoeuvre and thus their autonomy and freedom to choose their own teaching-learning strategies. In a previous study, teachers who expressed student-centred awareness were found to comply with regulations using a pragmatic approach to course design, whilst teachers who expressed less awareness of what learning means exercised an instrumental approach to teaching and assessment (Barman, Bolander-Laksov, and Silén 2014). According to Osberg and Biesta (2021), the instrumental purposes present in contemporary education tend to reduce teachers’ opportunities to make professional and subjective judgements in teaching-learning situations. Biesta argues that education’s purpose should be considered and reclaim teachers’ professionalism and their mandate to make professional judgements in teaching-learning (Biesta 2015). Our findings reveal that the VLE constrains what is made possible. The use of digital technology means that the interpretation privilege of how teaching-learning should and can be carried out is moving away from teachers’ agency, and pedagogical considerations are increasingly in the hands of the platform providers (Facer and Selwyn 2021). Thus, technology sets the boundaries for what is possible (and not), and teachers must relate to these (Bearman, Lambert, and O’Donnell 2021). Our results show that teachers understand constraints and possibilities differently in relation to their intentions with teaching-learning. Teachers with increased awareness of teaching-learning are forced to compromise on teaching-learning offered via VLEs. In this way, our results differ from the number of studies whose implicit starting point is perceived to be that the technology is designed to enable a more student-centred approach in teaching. It can be problematic for teachers to adopt student-centred approaches, and it is reasonable to question if future educational technology may provide functionalities that meet the needs for student-centred teaching-learning. Or, as we argue, VLEs are associated with limitations, and we, therefore, need to negotiate what teaching-learning in VLEs with a student-centred approach looks like.

Based on the above discussion, we ask ourselves in what ways technology should (or even could) develop to support student-centred approaches better. Student-centred teaching, as understood from the perspective of campus-based education, may not be conducted in the same way in a virtual learning environment. In our view, with support in our findings, the use of digital technology will inevitably limit teaching strategies. Therefore, we suggest a nuanced debate to discuss how a student-centred approach can be practised in VLEs.

Conclusion and implications

This study illuminates how teachers’ experiences of teaching-learning in virtual environments constitute a range between increased transmission possibilities – an outlined trail – forced compromises. These reflect variations in teachers’ understanding of how students’ learning is supported. Increased awareness of learning and student-centred strategies was associated with the conception that learning platforms insufficiently support their purposes. Conversely, teachers who applied VLE to increase the possibilities for reaching out and understood teaching-learning as a transmission of knowledge seemed satisfied with the affordances provided by the technology. This study implies that teachers’ experience of teaching-learning in VLE is an interplay between their approaches to teaching-learning and conceptions of what technology is made possible. Digital technology affects teachers’ room to manoeuvre. The debate regarding teachers’ design of teaching-learning in VLE should consider the interplay between platform affordances and teachers’ intentions with digital technology. A nuanced debate about how teachers, learning and technology interact and influence today’s teaching-learning practices is needed. Collins, Glover, and Myers (2022) show that digitisation of education can, for the teacher, mean a re-negotiation of the professional identity to meet external demands and perspectives on what education should be. We ask ourselves whether the teacher’s role needs to be re-negotiated or if the general understanding of student-centred teaching in digital environments needs to be developed. The identified tension between the student-centred approach to teaching and what current technologies enables is a serious matter of concern which needs further research. Digital platforms, it seems, may create frustration because teachers are unable to fulfil their intentions with student-centred learning.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the teachers who participated in the study for their invaluable insights into their work and perspectives. The authors also thank colleagues at our respective universities who, on various occasions, have given us valuable input on this work. Special thanks to Professor Arnold Pears for his comments on the paper. Special thanks also to the anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly contributed to our work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research is partly funded through a strategic e-learning initiative by the KTH Department of Learning in Engineering Sciences.