JOHN D. BAIN, CARMEL MCNAUGHT, COLLEEN MILLS AND GILLIAN LUECKENHAUSEN DESCRIBING COMPUTER-FACILITATED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Received 18 December 1997; accepted (in revised form) 22 March 1998 ABSTRACT. The research reported here is part of a study of the ways in which univer- sity academics design and incorporate computer-facilitated learning (CFL) environments into their courses. This study was based on archive material only (the initial application and final report) for 36 externally-funded technology-based projects from a number of disciplines. Projects were sorted into categories based on educational assumptions and practices. Categories were then compared and refined so as to reveal their major sources of similarity and difference. The resulting framework is one in which the use of educa- tional technology in higher education can be interpreted in terms of several key qualitative dimensions which reflect academics’ beliefs about the origin of knowledge, the learning framework, control of the direction of learning, and the nature of the knowledge and of the learning process. KEY WORDS: computer-facilitated learning, document analysis, educational technology, higher education, learning environment One motivation for the present research derives from the urgent need to understand the influence of computer-facilitated learning (CFL) environ- ments on student learning (Laurillard, 1993; Wills & McNaught, 1996), acknowledging that the evaluation of any educational innovation is com- plex (Reeves, 1997) and is not adequately addressed by methods designed to establish that CFL is superior to conventional techniques (which may be difficult if not impossible to demonstrate – Clark, 1994). Although the research reported here is not directly concerned with the evaluation of learning outcomes, it is concerned with the educational context in which technology is used, because, as many have observed, the impact of tech- nology cannot be understood without reference to its place in the whole teaching/learning environment (Crook, 1994; Elton, 1988; Laurillard, 1993; Reeves, 1997; Wills & McNaught, 1996). We have drawn on recent work exploring pedagogical frameworks for interpreting and evaluating the role of CFL environments in education (e.g. Perkins, 1991; Reeves, 1992). There is now a wealth of sophisticated analysis of educational tech- nologies (e.g. Boyle, 1997; Crook, 1994; Dills & Romiszowski, 1997; Jonassen, 1996; Khan, 1997; Laurillard, 1993; Müldner & Reeves, 1997). Many writers contrast instructional and constructivist approaches to CFL Learning Environments Research 1: 163–180, 1998. © 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.