the disruptive nature of emerging technologies v0.3

+The disruptive nature of emerging technologies: lecturers’ experiences at a University of Technology in South Africa

Daniela Gachago, Eunice Ivala, Fundani, CPUTAgnes Chigona, Education, CPUT

Presentation

Critique on use of technology in

education

What are emerging

technologies

Can they disrupt teaching practice?

Research aims

Laurillard’s conversational

framework

Research design

Findings: What? How?

Disruption?

Conclusions

+Use of technologies in Higher Education….

+Impact of technologies in education falls short of rhetoric… …when ICTs are adopted by majority of teaching staff,

it is mostly used to support and improve existing practices, rather than to radically change them (Kirkup and Kirkwood 2005)

….lecturers and students use a limited range of technologies for both learning and in social life…(Margyaran and Littlejohn 2011, Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)

…use of technology predominantly to reproduce existing practice as opposed to transforming practice … (Velestianos 2011)

…existing practice: to support passive, teacher-centered, and didactic instruction … (Herrington et al 2009)

+Need to redefine elearning

“As a result of the pervasiveness of technology, the term ‘e-learning’ has come under scrutiny. Personal ownership of technologies coupled with access to social software means that all kinds of learning-related activity can potentially be e-enabled; e-learning can no longer be viewed as a purely institutionally based or narrowly defined set of activities....” (HEFCE paper 2009, 5)

+Emerging technologies…

Emerging technologies may or may not be new technologies

Emerging technologies are evolving organism that exist in a state of “coming into being”

Emerging technologies go through hype cycles

Emerging technologies are not yet fully understood and not yet fully researched

Emerging technologies are potentially disruptive but their potential is mostly unfulfilled (Veletsianos 2010)

+

Johnson and Adams 2011

+Shift of locus of control…

Emerging technologies place the control over teaching and learning process firmly in the hands of students and lecturers as opposed of the institution….

Transfer of authority of knowledge and ownership of technology

Wisdom of the crowd, architecture of participation (Surowiecki 2004)

New issues to consider in terms of privacy, security, authority and control of information

Becta 2008

+Disruptive, emergent, soft, transformative nature of technologies….

+Type I vs Type II technologies

Type I uses of technology replicate existing teaching and learning practice,

while Type II uses of technology allow students and lecturers to do things that could not be done before, changing relationships between students and lecturers in fundamental ways.

(Johnson and Maddux 2005)

+Prescriptive vs emergent…

Prescriptive learning: In predictable domains, knowledge can be created and applied to provide control. The learning that is traditionally associated with predictable domains is typically organised hierarchically within centralised institutions.

Emergent learning: In complex-adaptive domains, knowledge does not provide prospective predictability but, rather, retrospective coherence: “hindsight does not provide foresight” …. The learning that is appropriate is self-organised and typically collaborative. It is open and is created and distributed largely by the learners themselves.

(Williams, Karousou, Macness 2011)

+Hard vs soft technologies

Hard technologies: constraining, e.g. LMS limit the number of choices one can make, relatively easy to use, orchestrated by rules and regulations, risk to stifle creativity

Soft technologies: more freedom to play with, orchestrated by individual lecturer

“Soft technologies need skill and artistry. It ain’t just what you do, it’s the way that you do it. A bad technology, used well, can work brilliantly, while a good technology, used badly, can be useless. Most learning technology research concentrates on technology (including methods and pedagogies) not the talent and skill with which it is applied that is frequently more significant.”

(Dron 2011)

Jon Dron 2011

+Qualities of disruptive technologies

1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and flexible enough to accommodate different styles and interests of students. It should provide necessary support, but require that the student do the work.

2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students, and provide connections to students’ lives, jobs, and communities.

3. It should capitalize on the willingness of lecturers and students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to keep at problems until solutions are crafted.

(Meyer 2010)

+

Research aims

+Research aims

1. To establish the extent to which lecturers are using technologies in teaching and learning and their rational (both institutional technologies and technologies outside the institutions’ control),

2. To explore the use of emerging technologies and how these technologies impact on the range of learning events lecturers and students engage with, and

3. To explore lecturers experiences with the disruptive nature of emerging technologies

+

Conceptual framework

+Laurillard…

“We have begun at last to play with digital technologies as a way of meeting the demands of the digital age, but with an approach still born in the transmission model….. There is no progress, therefore, in how we teach, despite what might be possible with the new technology.” (Laurillard 2002, 141)

+

Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002)

Builds on: social constructivism (Vygotsky)

and conversation theory (Pask)

Argues that complex learning involves: a continuing iterative

dialogue between teacher and student, which reveals the participants’ conceptions and the variations between them… There is no escape from the need for dialogue, no room for mere telling, nor for practice without description, nor for experimentation without reflection, nor for student action without feedback. (Laurillard 2002)

+

Learning conversations consist of…A discursive phase

An interactive phase

An adaptive phase

And a reflective phase

+Mapping media to learning experiences….

Czerniewicz & Brown 2005

Blogs, wikis, Facebook, Mxit, skype, Twitter, gmail….

+Effective practice

Effective and appropriate pedagogical practice is achieved by offering students a wide variety of media forms balanced for their pedagogical value rather than chosen for their novelty or entertainment factor

(Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)

+Research methodology

Mixed method design

2010 CPUT ICT survey: access and use of ICTs for teaching and learning

Survey tool: adapted from tool developed by Czerniewicz and Brown (2005)

In depth follow up interviews with five lecturers selected for their reputation for engaging with emerging technologies (gmail, YouTube, TED talks, Facebook, skype, IM, …)

+

Findings

1. Which technologies are lecturers using in teaching and learning ?

Survey tool

2. How? Linking technologies and learning events….

Survey Based on Laurillard’s learning

events Comparing learning events by

level of emerging technology usage

Fisher exact test to test for statistical significance (p-level 0.05)

3. Can we find qualities of the disruptive nature of emerging technologies ?

Interviews, driven by Meyers qualities of disruptive technologies

+

WHAT?

Use of ICTs in general

Use of LMS as example of institutional technology

Use of emerging technologies

+Use of ICTs for T&L

7%14%

14%

26%

39%

Staff: how many courses use

ICTs ?

nonevery fewabout halfmostall

47%53%

Staff: use of BB for teaching

Yes

No

+Staff: Use of Blackboard for....

95% use it for notes

89% for presentations

86% subject guide

38% video files

30% audio files

73% announcements

73% discussions

61% assignments

60% assessments

50% gradebook

43% groups

Course materials Tools

+Lecturers’ use of emerging technologies

Exte

rnal m

ail

Imag

es a

nd V

ideo

s

Mob

ile te

chno

logies

Wiki

/doc

umen

t sha

ring

Mailin

g lis

ts/n

ewsg

roup

s

Socia

l net

workin

g

Discus

sion

foru

ms

Instan

t Mes

saging

Blogg

ing

Podc

astin

g

Altern

ative

LMS

Twitt

er

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

+Staff: reasons for usage...

access to current, relevant, global, immediate information

adapt to new generation of learners, tools that are already used by students

diversity of learning experiences

independence from CPUT systems

mash up/integration

+

HOW?

1. Czerniewicz and Brown’s learning strategies (21) mapped to learning events

2. Laurillard’s learning events

1. Dialogue

2. Discovery

3. Practice and

4. Production

+Learning strategies

Online

sear

ch

Email

Wor

d es

says

Online

artic

les

Poster

/PPT

Online

note

s

Self

testsCBTs

Data

analys

is

Shar

ing

med

ia

eAss

essm

ent

Datab

ases

Online

colla

bora

tion

Online

disc

ussio

ns

Socia

l net

works

Sim

ulat

ions

/Mod

ellin

g

MultiM

edia P

rodu

catio

nBlo

gs

Podc

asts

CB gam

es0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ICT based learning strategies (n=80)

All users

+

Emerging technologies used

Category

5 or more High level user of ET

1-4 Low level user of ET

0 No use of ET

Mapping use of ET and learning events…

+Comparison learning strategies all users / high level of ET Users

Online

sear

ch

Wor

d es

says

Poster

/PPT

Self

tests

Data

analys

is

eAss

essm

ent

Online

colla

bora

tion

Socia

l net

works

MultiM

edia P

rodu

catio

n

Podc

asts

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

All usersHigh level of ET

+

Learning strategies All usersHigh level use

of ET

Exact Sig (2-sided)

n % n % Word processed essay 67 87% 17 89% 0.493Poster/presentation 60 78% 16 84% 0.485Analyse /represent data 43 56% 13 68% 0.375Create database 31 40% 9 47% 0.39Multimedia production 17 22% 7 39% 0.395Podcast 9 12% 5 26% 0.172

Learning event: practice

+


of ET

Exact Sig (2-sided)

n % n % Self testing 30 62% 10 56% 0.726Computer based tutorials 30 62% 11 61% 0.303Computer based tests for marked assessment 29 40% 9 50% 0.8Simulations or modelling programmes 16 22% 7 39% 0.09Computer based games 18 11% 5 28% 0.017*

Learning event: practice

+


of ET

Exact Sig (2-sided)

n % n % Searching for information on the Internet 76 97% 19 100% 0.766Finding online articles and research reports 64 80% 17 89% 0.468Accessing lecture notes and ppt online 54 70% 15 79% 0.688Sharing resources (images videos, music) 40 51% 15 79% 0.078Online collaboration 30 38% 13 68% 0.028*

Learning event: discovery

+


of ET

Exact Sig (2-sided)

n % n % Email 71 91% 19 100% 1.61Discussion forum 25 32% 12 63% 0.04*Social networks 19 24% 13 68% 0.000*Online journals/Blogs 15 19% 9 47% 0.07*Online chat 8 10% 6 32% 0.032*

Learning event: dialogue

* Statistical significant finding (p-value <0.05)

+

Disruptive nature of emerging technologies




Meyer 2010

“…more self-directed learning...those who want to can learn more than is necessary; it’s not boxed in, it’s not confined. We have outcomes but how they get there, it can be easily navigated...”

“Every second week the students are allowed to or invited to present their own topic and their own TED talk...and then usually chaos erupts because they choose controversial topics that are very close to their heart but not close to anybody else’s”

+





Meyer 2010

+“It’s a way of doing life. It’s a network. It’s not doing computers. It’s not doing mobile learning. It’s just learning – it’s just life.”

“Also continuing the learning beyond the classroom and beyond the studio...you know if you commit yourself to Architecture ... it doesn’t, you can never escape it, it never stops.”

“Our students generally don’t have a wide exposure to life. Their life is you know it’s the townships...its MXit, its TV...its Generations, its Rhythm City and that’s it...they don’t read the newspapers...they don’t listen to the radio...they don’t read...listen to the news...and so part of my TED talks is to expand their horizons....they are usual visual creatures and they want to see what’s going on...”

+





Meyer 2010

+

“We’ve never needed support...you press the help button or you Google it!”

“I mean Twitter...how long had Twitter been out? What’s going to happen at the end of the year? There is going to be another programme...so we can’t say we have reached the end of it. We’ve never. So there will be a new technology, it may be...I mean Whatsapp...all of a sudden they are all on Whatsapp...they actually asked me the other day please can I Whatsapp you? I said no, no, no...I also got a life. But I will have to use Whatsapp as well. That’s what they want to do...”

“It takes hours of preparation…you can ask my husband, you know I used to have a life but my job ate it…I spend hours and weekends at preparing lessons like this. But the thing is once I’ve used it now, that lesson I can use next year again…but then each year there’s something new so then, I change it…”

+

Conclusions

+Conclusions Confirming previous findings we established that majority of lecturers use a

very limited range of learning events

BUT: use of emerging technologies seem to broaden the range of learning events lecturers engage with…especially when it comes to dialogical and collaborative learning events

Evidence of disruptive nature of emerging technologies: focus on opening up boundaries, transferring control and responsibility towards students, providing exciting learning opportunities, enthusiasm!

Recognize champions who use ICTs creatively and widen application of technology in T&L

Create a space to engage in a discussion around the use of institutional and non-institutional technologies to advocate comprehensive of use of ICTs in teaching and learning

+Thank you!

Any questions?

Contact: Daniela Gachago at [email protected] Eunice Ivala [email protected] Agnes Chigona [email protected]

More information on blog www.edutechcput.wordpress.com

We would like to acknowledge the CPUT Riftal fund which funded this project and the NRF project on the use of Emerging Technologies in SA Higher Education for the knowledge shared and gained in this project

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.edutechcput.wordpress.com/

+ReferencesCzerniewicz, L., and C. Brown. 2005. “The uses of information and communication (ICT) in teaching and learning in South African

higher education practices in the Western Cape.” Perspectives in Education 23 (4): 1–18.

Dron, J. 2011. “Soft things, hard things and invisible elephants.” Athabasca University Landing. https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/89415.

HEFCE. (2009). Effective practice in a from Retrieved from digital age. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/effectivepractic edigitalage_textonly.doc

Herrington, J, A Herrington, J Mantei, I Olney, and B Ferry. 2009. Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. ro.uow.edu.au/newtech

Johnson, L, and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Technology. Texas.

Kirkup, G., and A. Kirkwood. 2005. “Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching—a tale of gradualism rather than revolution.” Learning, Media and Technology 30 (2): 185–199.

Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Maddux, CD., and LD. Johnson. 2005. “Type II Applications of Technology in Education.” Computers in the Schools 22 (1&2): 1-5.

Margaryan, A, and A Littlejohn. 2011. “Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning.” Computers & Education 56 (2): 429-440.

Meyer, K E. 2010. “The Role of Disruptive Technology in the Future of Higher Education.” EDUCAUSE Quartely 33 (1). http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRoleofDisruptiveTechnologyi/199378.

Veletsianos, G 2011. “Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies George Veletsianos.” Educational Technology 51 (2): 41-46.

Veletsianos, G 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press.

Williams, R R Karousou, and J. Mackness. 2011. “Emergent Learning and Learning Ecologies in Web 2.0.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12 (3).

https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/89415

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/effectivepractic%20edigitalage_textonly.doc