transformative learning

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date).

http://www.uj.ac.za/

https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/

COMPUTER-ILLITERATE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS’ INITIAL ENGAGEMENT WITH ICTs

IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

by

ANNA MICHELLE COETZEE

FULL DISSERTATION

submitted in the fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MAGISTER EDUCATIONIS

in

COMPUTER BASED EDUCATION

in the

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Supervisor: Prof. Geoffrey Lautenbach

October, 2013

DECLARATION

I declare that the work contained in this dissertation is my own and all the sources I

have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of

references. I also declare that I have not previously submitted this dissertation or any

part or it to any university in order to obtain a degree.

___________________________

29 October, 2013

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Wendy, and my sister, Claire,

who have found common ground in caring and encouraging me

to complete this task.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to my family for your love, care and sacrifices in tough times; to Leunis, for your

support even when you were not well; to my colleagues at work (especially Bella, Puleng,

Amanda, Mary and Elizabeth) for your encouragement, companionship and good advice – a

friend in need is a friend indeed. May you receive in abundance what you have given

selflessly.

Thanks also to my supervisor, Prof. Geoffrey Lautenbach, for your endless patience and

skills as facilitator; senior management for your interest and Prof. Alan Amory for your

understanding and quiet support, and Alan – thanks for providing nice coffee in the office. It

helped pull me through.

Thank you also to my mother, Dr. Wendy Coetzee, for language editing.

iv

ABSTRACT

Computer-illiterate first year students’ initial engagement with ICTs in teaching and learning

The purpose of this study has been to explore computer-illiterate first year students’

experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at the University of

Johannesburg, by examining meanings they construct for themselves of these experiences.

Pressure on universities to adopt ICTs in educational practice is intensified by South Africa’s

legacy of un- and under-prepared first year students. Many factors impacting first year

students’ transition to university have a direct bearing on their learning. Students who are

able to engage with ICTs during first year orientation seem rapidly to become more confident

and motivated to experiment further with these technologies, while students who struggle to

engage show signs that may be interpreted as fear or lack of confidence to do so. I have

argued that current interventions do not sufficiently support new students in their initial

engagement with ICTs. In some modules, academic tasks are due within the first few weeks

of study, suggesting possible implications for later academic performance.

Eight students without prior experience of ICTs who attended basic computer orientation

sessions during 2011 were interviewed immediately after their sessions, in a basic generic

qualitative study. Interviews were transcribed and analysed. Elements from the taxonomies

of Bloom, Krathwohl, Masia, Anderson and Shulman have been combined into a heuristic to

examine to what extent learning and engagement took place during the sessions. Cultural

Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Engeström’s extended mediational triangle have been

employed as analytical tools to guide me as researcher in an understanding of student

activity, and to help me to interpret students’ stories as they struggled to engage with ICTs.

Tensions that were exposed between the students and different components of the activity

systems (the orientation sessions) have been exposed, and from this a joint account of

students’ experiences has provided a framework for understanding their initial engagement

with ICTs.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION......................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ORIENTATION TO THE ENQUIRY .......... 1

1.1 Introduction: Information and communication technologies and the need for 21st

Century skills ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Background to the study ........................................................................................... 3

1.3 The research problem .............................................................................................. 5

1.4 Aims, objectives and purpose of the enquiry ............................................................ 6

1.5 Current research / Framing the enquiry .................................................................... 6

1.6 Abbreviated research design .................................................................................... 7

1.7 Ethical considerations .............................................................................................. 9

1.8 Trustworthiness of the research ............................................................................... 9

1.9 The outline of chapters ........................................................................................... 10

1.10 Summary................................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 12

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 12

2.2 ICTs in teaching and learning ................................................................................. 13

2.3 The First Year Experience ...................................................................................... 19

2.4 Learning and engagement ..................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Measuring learning and engagement .............................................................. 21

2.4.2 Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy ............................................................... 22

vi

2.4.3 Later revisions to Bloom’s Taxonomy by Lorin Anderson ................................ 23

2.4.4 Shulman’s taxonomy or Table of Learning ...................................................... 24

2.4.5 Taxonomies as a heuristic to examine student engagement ........................... 26

2.5 Sociocultural theory ................................................................................................ 27

2.5.1 Cultural-historical theory and its roots ............................................................. 27

2.5.2 Activity theory and the activity system............................................................. 31

2.5.3 Transformative Learning ................................................................................. 34

2.5.4 Activity theory as a conceptual tool to explore student engagement with

ICTs .............................................................................................................. 34

2.6 Summary................................................................................................................ 37

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

............................................................................................................................................ 38

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 38

3.2 Research design and approach to the enquiry ....................................................... 38

3.3 Data collection ....................................................................................................... 45

3.4 Selection of participants for the study ..................................................................... 45

3.5 Interviews ............................................................................................................... 47

3.5.1 Focus-group interviews ................................................................................... 48

3.5.2 Individual in-depth interviews .......................................................................... 49

3.6 Data analysis and interpretation: Using activity theory as a theoretical lens ........... 51

3.7 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................ 54

3.8 Summary................................................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND FINDINGS ................................ 56

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 56

4.2 Implementing content analysis and interpretation procedures ................................ 57

4.3 Content analysis and interpretation of the data: Identifying tensions between the

components of Engeström’s extended mediational triangle .................................... 58

4.3.1 Tensions between the subject and the mediating artefact (tool) ...................... 60

4.3.2 Tensions between the subject and the rules ................................................... 64

4.3.3 Tensions between the subject and the object ................................................. 70

vii

4.3.4 Tensions between Subject and Community .................................................... 77

4.3.5 Tensions between Subject and the Division of Labour .................................... 81

4.3.6 Summary of tensions experienced by participants .......................................... 88

4.4 Transformative learning .......................................................................................... 91

4.5 Engagement and learning ...................................................................................... 93

4.6 Findings ................................................................................................................. 94

4.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 97

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 98

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 98

5.2 Overview of the enquiry .......................................................................................... 98

5.3 Discussion of the findings ..................................................................................... 101

5.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 102

5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 104

5.6 Contribution of the study to the existing body of research on the subject ............. 105

5.7 Recommendations for further research ................................................................ 105

5.8 Limitations of the study......................................................................................... 105

5.9 The trustworthiness of the research ..................................................................... 107

5.10 A final word .......................................................................................................... 109

LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 110

APPENDIX A: ETHICS CLEARANCE APPLICATION ....................................................... 119

APPENDIX B: ETHICS CLEARANCE ................................................................................ 124

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ........................................................................... 125

APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ............................... 129

APPENDIX E: CODE FAMILIES EXPORTED FROM ATLAS.TI ....................................... 187

APPENDIX F: CODE SUB-THEMES ................................................................................. 193

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Categories in Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. ....................................... 23

Figure 2.2 Lorin W. Anderson’s revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy as applied to this study. 24

Figure 2.3 Shulman’s Table of Learning.. ....................................................................... 25

Figure 2.4 Vygotsky’s model of mediated act (A) and (B) its common reformulation ..... 32

Figure 2.5 Graphic representation of Vygotsky’s mediational triangle ........................... 32

Figure 2.6 The structure of a human activity system ..................................................... 33

Figure 2.7: Diagram of Engeström’s extended mediational triangle as it relates to this

study ............................................................................................................. 35

Figure 2.8 Transformative stance perspective: Implications for the notion of learning .... 36

Figure 3.1 Knowledge claims, strategies of inquiry, and methods leading to

approaches and the design process . ............................................................ 42

Figure 3.2 Conceptualisation and design of this study .................................................. 43

Figure 4.1 Engeström’s extended mediational triangle as a tool for data analysis

showing codes and sub-themes .................................................................... 59

Figure 4.2 Tensions between the subject and other components of the system ............. 60

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Stetsenko’s Transformative stance perspective as applied to this study ........ 93

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ORIENTATION

TO THE ENQUIRY

1.1 Introduction: Information and communication technologies and the need for 21st Century skills

Information and communication technology (ICT) plays an increasingly critical and central

role in daily life. Modern societies are becoming increasingly information and knowledge

driven, requiring workforces equipped with ICT skills to manage information, and have the

ability to reflect, be creative and adept at solving problems for knowledge generation

(UNESCO, 2011:3). ICTs are expanding worldwide and driving changes in society and

human activity in what is now generally acknowledged as the ICT revolution.

Locally, the South African Government Department of Education (DoE) White Paper on e-

education (Republic of South Africa. DoE, 2004:8-11) makes the point that the ICT revolution

has impacted on curriculum development and delivery, and it continues to pose new

challenges for education and training systems worldwide. Such challenges include the ability

to participate in the information society, the impact of ICTs on access, cost-effectiveness and

quality of education, and ways to integrate ICTs into the learning and teaching process. In

this respect, developing countries should consider the need for increased access, equity and

redress (ibid.).

Logically, ICTs offer benefits to those who are able to access and utilise them. However, it is

ironic that precisely those who would benefit the most from these technologies (less-

developed countries and communities) experience the greatest challenges in this regard.

The difference in access to – and use of – ICTs in developing versus developed nations, and

rich versus poor, is known as the digital divide. In Africa, lack of infrastructure as well as

trained individuals to use these technologies poses a challenge to bridging this digital divide.

In the South African context, inequalities in society (emanating from the disparities of the

past) “also find expression in ICT integration into education” (Republic of South Africa. DoE,

2004:9-13). Great disparities are reflected in our schools. The South African Government has

been challenged by factors such as accurate profiling of ICT integration in schools, finding an

ICT roll-out that is suitable for African conditions, financial constraint, lack of trained staff,

and numerous other issues in its attempts to provide schools with access to ICTs (ibid.).

Chapter 1: Introduction and general orientation to the enquiry 1

The inadequacy of the ICT skills of school teaching staff in South African schools impacts on

learners. As such, the National Development Plan aims to improve the professionalism,

teaching skills, subject knowledge and computer literacy of teachers and to increase access

amongst learners to a wide range of media, including computers (Republic of South Africa.

Department of the Presidency. National Planning Commission, 2011:261-294). The South

African Department of Education values the development of ICT skills in both teachers and

learners, since ICTs are seen as a means of driving transformation and development in

education and in the country as a whole, and it is seen as important for equipping pupils with

21st century skills.

ICTs as digital enhancements or extensions to cognitive capacity are fast becoming an

integral part of human existence (Prensky, 2009). ICTs improve the ability to access data,

conduct deeper analyses, plan and prioritise, access alternative perspectives and insights

and a myriad of other essential life skills and abilities. Skills such as problem-solving and

critical thinking skills form the basis of 21st Century skills (Republic of South Africa. DoE,

2007:1-5). 21st Century skills is one of the most ubiquitous terms used in today’s education

debates (Dede, 2009; Silva, 2009). There is a new workforce reality that demands a next

generation of graduates who are independent thinkers, problem solvers and decision makers

(Silva, 2009:630).

There are many diverse definitions of exactly what is meant by the term 21st Century skills.

Dede (Dede, 2009:1-3) maintains that 21st Century skills differ from 20th Century skills

mainly due to the development of sophisticated information and communication technologies.

He notes that the types of labour done by humans (as opposed to those performed by

machines) are continually changing as computers and telecommunications technologies’

capabilities increase to accomplish human tasks. In effect, since computers are taking over

more routine cognitive and manual labour functions, the human labour force are increasingly

occupied in jobs that require higher or more expert thinking skills such as metacognition,

judgment, communication and other skills that may be usefully applied in many differing

contexts. He refers to these skills as perennial skills, skills that are not sufficiently

emphasised in today’s schools, in his opinion, when considering the needs of the 21st

Century labour market. Significantly, these skills are largely dependent on access to ICTs.

According to the National Development Plan, by 2025, amongst other considerations, the

Department of Basic Education (DoBE) has envisaged that all learners will have access to

computers. Furthermore, with regard to learning and teaching materials, the DoBE envisages

that both learners and teachers will know how to use these computers in the schools in order


to access the information that they require (Republic of South Africa. DoBE, 2011a:1 &

2011b:21). The recognition by educationists of the importance of these skills is not universal,

since critics decry them as a distraction from the more important task of teaching core

content. They further argue that assessment of such higher-order skills cannot be measured

reliably, easily or cost-effectively. As such, pressure on institutions of higher learning

worldwide to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning (often at great expense) has led to a need

for more research on the application of ICTs for the purpose of teaching and learning (Amiel

& Reeves, 2008:29).

The University of Johannesburg (UJ) where I have conducted this enquiry can be no

exception, with lecturers employing more and more varied ICTs for student learning on a

daily basis. As a result of South Africa’s political legacy, the university bears the added

burden of students who are un- or under-prepared for university studies. In response to this

challenge, in November, 2008, Senate approved the First Year Experience (FYE), an

initiative of the Division of Academic Development and Support (ADS), aspects of which are

incorporated into the university’s Teaching and Learning Strategy. This initiative seeks to

utilise best practices in the creation of “an overarching and coherent transitional experience

for incoming students” (UJ. ADS, 2009:1). The initiative also endeavours to address issues

such as un- or under-preparedness, diversity, differing prior levels of achievement, affective

and other factors impacting on a first-year students’ transition into university life (ibid.). These

are ultimately factors that impact directly on their learning.

1.2 Background to the study

At the beginning of each academic year, before lectures begin, the University conducts

compulsory orientation for all its first year undergraduate students over a two-week period.

This first year student orientation (named O! Week, during the period of this investigation, but

subsequently renamed the First-Year Seminar), while offered as a cooperative effort by the

different faculties and support divisions at the university, is coordinated by ADS and the First

Year Experience Committee at the institution.

The orientation welcomes new students, introduces and orientates them to university

services, resources, support systems, faculty staff and programmes for which they have

been accepted, as well as university procedures and conventions. It also includes training in

the basic skills required by students in their university environment. In this respect the

orientation provides an important initial foundation for their studies.


Students each receive an orientation booklet for their faculty, containing faculty-specific detail

and schedules for the orientation period. The sample below, drawn from the Faculty of Art

Design and Architecture O! Week Brochure (UJ, 2011:4) shows what a typical orientation

schedule includes:

• Confirmation that your National Senior Certificate results meet the programme

entrance requirements and that you have written the National Benchmark

Test.

• Dean’s Welcome (academic orientation, introduction to your programme

modules, information on how to register and an overview of campus services).

Very important information and documentation will be provided during this

session.

• A computer and student profiling questionnaire (c-tag, part 1) is to be

completed in a computer laboratory and is compulsory for all students.

• Computer training sessions (c-tag, part 2) to be completed after the computer

and student profiling sessions for students who are not yet computer proficient.

• Please note: additional computer training on 5 and 12 February (from 8:00-

13:00) is scheduled for students who, after the computer training sessions, are

still not computer proficient.

• Edulink training (e-tag) will enable you to access and use the UJ online

learning environment, e.g. to complete online assessments and submit

assignments. This training is compulsory for all first-year students.

Orientation took place in January in the two weeks before classes commenced. Online

registration and collection of student cards also took place during this period. Basic computer

orientation training forms part of this process, and this study is focused on the computer

orientation component of the orientation. My interest in this study arises from my own

experiences and observations as a facilitator and presenter of first-year Basic Computer

Orientation over four consecutive years (2006 to 2010) across the various campuses of the

university. My informal observations show that students who are able to engage with ICTs

seem to rapidly become more confident and motivated to experiment further with these

technologies; whilst students who struggle to engage show signs that may be interpreted as

fear or lack of confidence to do so.


I argue that the interventions currently employed do not sufficiently support new students in

their initial engagement with ICTs. It is within the first few weeks of their studies that the first

online learning activities, assignments and/or assessments may already be due in some

modules. This has implications for later academic performance.

As a staff member, I have been involved in the orientation training and support of students in

basic computer skills and the use of the Learning Management System (LMS) annually since

2006. Thus, as researcher I am familiar with the context of the study and possess insight into

issues surrounding computer-illiterate students undergoing computer orientation. It is these

experiences that have provided me with the motivation and inspiration for embarking on this

study.

My own experiences and observations of students during this period, as both presenter and

facilitator of this first-year Basic Computer Orientation during 2011 and for the previous four

consecutive years (2006 to 2010) across the various campuses of the university have

therefore informed this study. The research conducted for this study took place in computer

laboratories that offered seats for between 30 and 60 students. Sessions were presented by

a staff member or student assistant with one or two more staff members or student

assistants offering additional support in each session. A day of computer orientation

consisted of an online computer literacy test (named c-tag 1) for one hour (8am to 9am)

followed by a compulsory basic computer training session (named c-tag 2) for all candidates

who did not pass the computer literacy test with a score of at least 80%. (Those who did not

pass repeated this course until they could do so). A third session of Learning Management

System training (e-tag) in the afternoon from 1pm to 3:30pm took place for all the students

who had passed the computer literacy test.

1.3 The research problem

In practice, some students arrive at university still completely computer-illiterate. As a

consequence, these students are unable to engage with the technologies introduced to them

in training sessions and fall behind even before they have begun their studies, despite

attempts by many universities to provide additional support and tuition for the first year

intake. One has to ask whether this support is always appropriate for students such as these.

Furthermore, in my opinion, an ethical imperative on the part of a tertiary institution would

exist to offer appropriate support to any student once he or she has been accepted by that

institution.


Given the rationale described above, this study asks the following question: How do computer-illiterate first year students experience initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university?

The primary research question can better be answered by addressing the following

secondary questions:

• What experiences do first year students mention with regard to initial engagement

with ICTs?

• What meaning do these students construct for themselves about their initial

engagement with ICTs?

• What tensions (in Activity Theory terms) drive or inhibit the activity of engaging with

ICTs?

1.4 Aims, objectives and purpose of the enquiry

The aim of this study is to explore computer-illiterate first year students’ experiences of initial

engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university. In order to achieve this aim

it is necessary to state the following objectives:

• To describe student experiences with regard to initial engagement with ICTs using

the activity system as a conceptual tool;

• To explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about their

initial engagement with ICTs;

• To identify tensions (in Activity Theory terms) that drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs.

1.5 Current research / Framing the enquiry

Since this study seeks to explore the experiences of students at a South African university, a

search on South African studies was performed on the EBSCO (Africa-wide) and Eric

databases as well as on the University of Johannesburg’s digital repository, UJDigispace.

Key words and phrases used were: computer literacy of students, students’ experience of

computer/ICTs and digital divide. A number of studies of first year or novice students focus

on success or skills in the use of ICTs, rather than on the meaning-making of their first

experiences with computers. Only a small number of South African studies were found which

dealt with students’ initial engagement with ICTs. Of these, none focused exclusively on

students’ actual engagement and meaning-making of the engagement process. Furthermore,

no studies of first year students’ engagement with ICTs employed Activity Theory as a lens


through which to examine this process. The studies located are listed and discussed below.

The following South African studies were found:

• Introducing Technikon students to computers: an action research approach by P.

Callaghan. While this study examines first year students’ initial encounters with

computers, it does not focus exclusively on computer-illiterate student engagement

with ICTs. Rather, it employs Action Research as a means with which to discover

factors that specifically hamper student progress in mastering ICTs early in their

studies, rather than on the meaning-making by students of their experience of the

engagement process.

• The role of digital literacy in the academic performance of first year students in the

National Diploma: Information Technology at the University of Johannesburg by G

Barlow-Jones. Although this study incorporates interviews with first-year students on

their experiences of initial engagement with ICTs, it does not focus exclusively on the

engagement of computer-illiterate students with ICTs. The study additionally explores

other factors, such as socioeconomic background, that impact on digital literacy and it

examines specifically those that show a correlation with academic success in a

specific ICT course. This study does not focus on describing first year students’ initial

experiences with ICTs in a bid to understand engagement with ICTs as such.

• Adults' engagement with computers in an adult basic education and training (ABET)

programme by N L Nevondo. This study focuses on ABET learners’ engagement with

ICTs while attending a course at the University of Johannesburg. As such the study

does not deal with first year students, but with older adult learners only.

No other related studies were located.

1.6 Abbreviated research design

A generic qualitative mode of enquiry with an interpretivist approach will be followed since

qualitative research “in its broadest sense refers to research that elicits participant accounts

of meaning, experience or perceptions … [and] … involves identifying the participant’s beliefs

and values that underlie the phenomena” (McRoy, 1995 in De Vos, Strydom, Fouché &

Delport, 2002:79). McMillan and Schumacher (2001:35) describe interactive qualitative

enquiry as “…an in-depth study using face-to-face techniques to collect data from people in

their natural settings” and that “the researcher interprets phenomena in terms of the

meanings people bring to them.”


Creswell (2008:2) highlights the need to be able to provide a voice to those who have not yet

been heard in educational research. To make these voices heard, I have sought to describe

the unique meaning revealed by each student in his context of place, time and culture. In this

enquiry, Cultural Historical and Activity Theory (CHAT) will guide the interpretation of the

participants’ stories and will be used as an analytical tool to interpret and better understand

student initial engagement with ICTs. CHAT will be described in more detail later.

Purposive sampling has been employed to select students with no knowledge or previous

experience of ICTs. This was done just before the orientation sessions started at the

beginning of the academic year. Sample size did not need to be large, since this is a

descriptive-exploratory study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:404), and for this reason an

initial group of at least 35 students from diverse backgrounds was selected. From those who

were willing to be interviewed, the experiences of eight students were explored in more

detail.

De Vos et al. (2002:292) state that “one interviews because one is interested in other

people’s stories. Stories are a way of knowing ... Telling stories is essentially a meaning-

making process”. In this enquiry I portray narration as a complex social process (Lautenbach,

2005:183). Chase (2003:290) points out that many researchers who study narratives

produced during interviews concur that it is possible to learn about general social processes

through analysis of specific narratives. Students’ experiences of initial engagement with ICTs

are explored in interviews in order to understand the meaning they make from these

experiences. Getting participants to tell their stories, and not to merely provide reports

(Riessman, 2001:696), lies in the questions we ask and the orientation to others embedded

in these questions (Chase, 2003:275).

Interviews began with an informal conversation to establish rapport with the interviewees (De

Vos et al., 2002:292). The difference between the standard practice of research interviewing

on the one hand and the “life world of naturally occurring conversation and social interaction”

on the other has become apparent (Riessman, 2001:696). For this reason a narrative

interview technique has been used, since it leaves space for the students to tell their own

stories. This type of interview can be seen as a “conversation with a purpose” which is

“focused and discursive and allows the researcher and participant to explore an issue” (De

Vos et al., 2002:298). A broad outline with a more general exploratory open-ended question

may act as an initial prompt. This has helped to structure the interviews, while still allowing

space for further investigative probing, follow-up questions and discussion which have

sought greater detail, depth, meaning or rich description from students’ personal accounts.


McMillan & Schumacher (2001:446) note that in-depth interviews are known “more for their

probes and pauses than for their particular question formats” and that it is more important for

a researcher to “hear” and “connect” with the participant in a non-rigid way in order to obtain

more reliable data.

Data analysis involves transcriptions of interview data of eight students who described their

individual meanings of their experiences and social interactions during initial engagement

with ICTs. Segments of text from the different interviews were labelled, coded and sorted into

categories that relate to a component of the activity triangle (Engeström, 1999:19-38). These

components are: the subject (in this study it is the student), the object (initial engagement

with ICTs), the tool (ICTs), the rules (policies, written and unwritten rules), the community

(others involved in the context of engagement), and the division of labour (responsibilities

and functions that exist in various hierarchies).

Basic content analysis, using descriptive verbs for initial codes, was used. These codes were

structured into tables using the six main components of the activity system as a heuristic and

a joint account of the findings has been written up. The codes from each interview have been

grouped together according to these categories into themes and written into an account of

student engagement that has meaning and that addresses the research question, while at

the same time allowing for its analysis by using an activity theoretical lens. Tensions between

the different components have been exposed by this process.

1.7 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations constitute “…general agreements about what is proper and improper

in the conduct of scientific inquiry” (Babbie, 1995:448). I have conducted this study in a

proper and principled way, with due consideration to ethical issues in the social sciences,

and also with regard to the non-damage of human beings. More detail in this respect is

provided in Chapter 3.

1.8 Trustworthiness of the research

“The researcher working from a qualitative approach must state the logical connections

between the research question, the research goal and objectives, and the methods selected

as most appropriate” (De Vos et al., 2002:121). It is also important to have established that

the account given of the data is valid (well-founded and sound) and that the thorough

research methods used were reliable (that thorough and consistent methods were used to

produce a trustworthy outcome) and that each step in the research process was documented


and could be justified (Richards, 2005:139-143). The methods employed to ensure

trustworthiness are discussed in Chapter 5.

1.9 The outline of chapters

The research takes the form of a qualitative study, and has been structured as follows:

• Chapter 1: Introduction and general orientation to the enquiry: This chapter

provides an introduction, background, rationale and overview of the study

undertaken, in order to orientate the reader to the enquiry.

• Chapter 2: Review of the literature: A discussion and review of the most relevant

theory and literature which support the exploration of student engagement with

ICTs undertaken in this study, takes place in this chapter. The aim is to provide

the reader with an overview of literature related to the topic. Furthermore,

selected theoretical constructs that are used as conceptual tools and lenses to

explore the concept of engagement are explained and discussed.

• Chapter 3: Research design and methodology: In this chapter, the chosen

research paradigm is outlined, a research design and methodology chosen, and

the decision for their use justified. Data collection techniques, analysis methods,

and measures to ensure credibility and ethical practice are set out.

• Chapter 4: Data reporting and analysis, results and findings: Data analysis is

undertaken in this chapter, and the findings reported in relation to the research

problem.

• Chapter 5: Conclusions, limitations and recommendations: This chapter provides

an overview of the study: conclusions are drawn from the results and findings in

the previous chapter; the limitations and trustworthiness of the research are

identified and recommendations for future research are made.

1.10 Summary

This chapter has presented the reader with an introduction and orientation to the enquiry and

has outlined the background, conceptual framework and rationale underlying the study. A

problem statement has been made and the aims, objectives and purpose of the enquiry have

been described. The research design has offered the reader an insight into how the research

was conducted. Finally, a brief outline of the general structure of the dissertation has helped

the reader to form an overview of study as a whole.


The following chapter, Chapter 2, offers a literature review and detailed discussion which will

focus on how computer-illiterate first year students experience initial engagement with ICTs

in their first weeks of study at the university. The chapter provides the reader with greater

insight into different views and theoretical constructs underpinning the research, some of

which have been used as conceptual tools with which to explore the phenomenon under

investigation.


CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

This chapter offers a review of literature which will help to frame and define the research

problem: How do computer-illiterate first year students experience initial engagement with

ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university? “Literature reviews help researchers limit the

scope of their enquiry, and they can convey the importance of studying a topic” (Creswell,

2003:27). The purpose of a literature review is also to contextualise a study within an existing

body of theoretical knowledge, thus enabling a researcher to relate the research findings to

previous knowledge and possibly make use of insights gained in this literature to put forward

suggestions for further research (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:110). In this light, literature

reviews allow researchers “...to build a body of accepted knowledge” on a given topic.

(McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:108). In qualitative research the literature review may serve

the purpose of relating the study to an “on-going dialogue in the literature about a topic”,

allowing its findings to be benchmarked against those of other findings (Creswell, 2003:30).

Since, in a qualitative exploratory enquiry, researchers aim to learn from the experiences of

participants, the literature review will also be used to frame the research problem (Creswell,

2003:30-31). A further function of the literature review that has been used in this study, is to

clarify selected existing theoretical constructs which have been used (and in some cases

adapted for use) as a heuristic, conceptual tool or “analytical strategy” (Creswell,

2007:54-55).

The aim of this enquiry, as set out in Chapter 1, is to explore computer-illiterate students’

experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university and,

as such, its sub-aims are:

• to describe student experiences with regard to initial engagement with ICTs using the

activity system as a conceptual tool.

• to explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about their

initial engagement with ICTs.

• to identify tensions (in activity theory terms) that drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs.

Chapter2: Theoretical perspectives and a review of the literature 12

As such, in this study, the literature review has served the following purpose: to frame the

enquiry by assisting me as researcher to contextualise it within theories of learning and

engagement. Furthermore it has been used to define and clarify these theories and related

theoretical constructs such as activity theory and tool mediation that have been used (or

adapted for use) as a heuristic/theoretical lens/conceptual tool or ‘analytical strategy’ for

examining initial student engagement with ICTs in this study and addressing the aims of the

research, as stated above.

In order to do this, the literature review in this chapter covers the following: firstly a brief

overview on the role of information and communication technologies in teaching and learning

has been provided and placed in the context of the university where this study has taken

place. Some background on first year university students and the First Year Experience at

the university has also been included. This has been followed by a discussion of learning and

engagement and the use of tools with which they may be measured and used as a heuristic

to examine student engagement in this study. A number of taxonomies of learning form part

of this discussion, in particular those of Benjamin Bloom and Lee Shulman. Finally,

sociocultural theory, which forms the focus of this chapter, is discussed. Firstly its origins and

theoretical foundations are explored. Then its component theories and the theoretical

constructs which are pertinent to this study, such as cultural historical activity theory, activity

theory, tool mediation and transformative learning, have been employed as a conceptual tool

with which to analyse computer-illiterate first year students’ initial engagement with ICTs in

their first year computer orientation sessions.

In the light of the above, the aim of this chapter is to orientate the reader to the study by

providing a theoretical framework for the enquiry and to offer different perspectives on the

topic in an overview of relevant literature. It is hoped that this will guide the reader in an

understanding of the problem under discussion.

2.2 ICTs in teaching and learning

Information and communication technology plays an increasingly critical and central role in

daily life. ICTs as “digital enhancements or extensions to cognitive capacity” are fast

becoming an integral part of human existence (Prensky, 2009:1-2). ICTs improve one’s

ability to access data, conduct deeper analyses, plan and prioritise, access alternative

perspectives and insights and they demand a myriad of other essential life skills and abilities.

Prensky elaborates as follows: “Digital cognitive enhancement, provided by laptop

computers, online databases, three-dimensional virtual simulations, online collaboration

tools, PDAs, and a range of other context-specific tools, is a reality in every profession, even


in non-technical fields such as law and the humanities”. He points out that society has

become dependent on these technologies to increase understanding, capacity to

communicate, access to information and a myriad of other valuable uses. As such, fluency in

technology is now a fundamental requirement in today’s workplace. Tracey Wilen-Daugenti

(2009:56-57) describes the situation in the USA to illustrate this very point:

“Two-thirds of America’s economic growth in the 1990s resulted from the growth

in new technologies. This continuous process of innovation and technological

change has resulted in jobs that demand ever higher skill levels. The U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics (BLS) projections for 2004 through 2014 indicate that 63% of

all new jobs of the twenty-first century will require some postsecondary education.

In today’s global economy, creating the demand for transferable, basic IT skills

and competencies among new hires and incumbent workers at almost all levels of

employment… presents a cross-industry workforce challenge that is, simply

stated, to prepare an adaptable workforce with the requisite basic IT skills.”

The impact of this phenomenon on higher education institutions worldwide has been

profound. Amirau and Visser (2009:64) state that the current “technological revolution, with

its order of magnitude advances that have left little of common life unchanged, presents an

open challenge to the university to…'reinvent’ itself” and that “it could be argued that the

pressure for change placed on the university today is greater than any it has faced in any

previous historical epoch” and that in response these institutions are challenged to transform

their services and resources (ibid.). Pressure to adopt ICTs in teaching and learning (often at

great expense) has led to a need for more research on the application of ICTs for this

purpose (Amiel & Reeves, 2008:29).

The university where I have conducted this enquiry can be no exception, with lecturers

employing more and more varied ICTs for student learning on a daily basis. This fact is

recognised in the Institutional Teaching and Learning Strategy, a document that outlines

principles on which teaching and learning at the institution should be based, as well as

strategic objectives through which the university seeks to apply them in practice through the

Senate Committee for Teaching and Learning that has since been established (UJ, 2008:5).

The strategy is underpinned by a teaching philosophy that “seeks to situate university

education in the complex world of the 21st century… [in order to respond] …to current

insights into processes of learning, and… [to find]…ways of accommodating the needs and

learning habits of our 21st Century students” (UJ, 2008:3). One of the main foci of this


document is on how ICTs should feature in the context of the new institutional teaching and

learning strategy, suggesting that “…it should extend contact teaching in digitally rich and

innovative ways… [and an argument is made that] …ICT management should support free

access and optimal utilisation” of these technologies (Amory, Gravette & van der

Westhuizen, 2008:1).

The UJ teaching and learning strategy also states that: “The University recognizes the

importance of Information and Communication Technology to the teaching and learning

process… and is committed to providing dedicated academic development and support to

lecturers in respect of technology-assisted learning within modules, through the Centre for

Technology-Assisted Learning (CenTAL)” (UJ, 2008:5). This document also makes mention

of a longer-term rollout of an ICT strategy with a plan to enhance resources in this respect

(UJ, 2008:10).

In the Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training, the Department of Higher

Education and Training (DHET) acknowledges that considerable challenges exist for the

South African post-school education and training system (Republic of South Africa. DHET,

2012:7-18), listing these challenges as:

• historical burdens

• inequalities and discrimination

• inadequate quality, quantity and diversity of provision

• lack of coherence and articulation in the post-school system

challenges with regard to the regulatory system (ibid.).

Historically, black South Africans were excluded from access to educational opportunities.

Despite progress since South Africa’s transformation to a democracy, the DHET states in this

report that many inequalities reminiscent of the apartheid era are still perceptible in our

higher education and training environment and these need to be addressed if the tertiary

education system are to offer an equitable and quality education to the majority of young

citizens:

“Deeply rooted and intractable historical inequalities still determine patterns of poverty

and wealth in our society. They also determine the patterns in which formal education

is distributed, and therefore the patterns in which families reproduce educational

achievement. The system continues to produce and reproduce gender, class, racial


and other inequalities of access to educational opportunities and success.”

(Republic of South Africa. DHET, 2012:7)

It is further noted in this report that after seventeen years of democracy, the divisions of the

past are still discernable in South Africa’s education system, continuing to disadvantage

previously disadvantaged groups in the same way as had occurred in the past. Given this

fact, there is an imperative for an improvement in quality within educational institutions today:

“Even the institutional landscape is reminiscent of apartheid, with the disadvantaged

institutions, especially those in rural areas of the former bantustans, still

disadvantaged in terms of infrastructure, teaching facilities and staffing. The “opening

up” of the former whites-only institutions – schools, colleges and universities – has

been essential to providing opportunities to at least some from among the previously

disadvantaged to gain a relatively good quality of education. Even here, though, black

students have often been victims of racism and discrimination, and poorer students

have found themselves having to fit in with a system which was designed for students

from relatively privileged backgrounds. In any case, these privileged parts of the

system were initially designed to cater largely for the white minority, and so did not

have the capacity to serve the majority of the black population – the working class

and the poor.” (ibid.)

In response to addressing these challenges, the DHET states that it has prioritised access

and equity issues, while working to maintain high-level excellence and innovation, in a

pledge to uplift formerly black and poor institutions while strengthening centres of excellence

(ibid.).

The diverse South African university system itself reflects many of these inequalities, given

its origins as a product of the apartheid education system. “While our leading universities are

internationally respected, our historically black universities continue to face severe financial,

human, infrastructure and other resource constraints. Universities of Technology are in some

instances experiencing mission drift, losing focus on their mission of producing technicians,

technologists and other mid-level skills at undergraduate level. This problem is also evident

in the comprehensive universities” (Republic of South Africa. DHET, 2012:11). The university

where this study has been conducted is such a comprehensive university.

“Our universities are in general characterised by low success rates and therefore low

throughput rates… Many universities do not see student support services as part of


their core role. Many forms of discrimination remain part of the experience of students

after they have been accepted by universities, and this inhibits their academic

progress. While the enrolment patterns indicate that social exclusion on the basis of

race and gender is decreasing, class exclusion clearly still remains an issue, along

with access to students with disabilities or from rural areas. The academic profession

is aging and requires renewal if our universities are to expand or compete on the

knowledge production front. There is a shortage of academics, especially in scarce

skill areas and at particular universities.” (Republic of South Africa. DHET, 2012:11).

South African universities bear the burden of students who are un- or under-prepared for

university studies as a result of past political inequalities under the apartheid regime. The

DHET note that all post-school institutions are faced with a situation where they must support

large numbers of students who are not adequately prepared for tertiary studies. Since the

poor quality of schools is a fact that the Department of Basic Education and provincial

education departments are well aware of and in the process of addressing, the DHET report

indicates that it is important to recognise the fact that the process of improving the school

system is mid- to long term. Thus, the implication is that ways should be found in the short

term to facilitate students’ transition to tertiary studies. (ibid.)

Ahmed Essop, CEO of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) describes what he calls a

‘revolving door’ syndrome in higher education, where increased access to tertiary institutions

is not matched by an associated increase in student success rates. He notes that while

enrolment headcounts in this sector increased by 14% between 2005 and 2009, the student

success rate showed an increase of only 2%. He attributes the low throughput and

graduation figures to a variety of factors, among which he identifies “poor schooling and the

resulting under-preparedness of students to pursue higher education, lack of fluency in the

language of instruction, inadequate access to financial support and student support services”

(Strydom, Basson & Mentz, 2012:i).

The South African Government Department of Education 2002 cohort study (Scott, Yeld &

Hendry, 2007:12) shows that across all South African universities, only 38% of first-time

entering students in 2002 graduated within five years, and that 45% left the institution without

graduating. The greatest attrition occurred after the first year of study, with previously

disadvantaged groups in the majority – groups earmarked for redress and social inclusion by

the DoE. The report states that there are strong indications that the patterns shown are

reliable and will persist, and this has, in fact happened. In an article in the Mail & Guardian of

October 12 to 18, 2012, Yeld and Prince had the following to say:


“Last month the national benchmark tests initiative, designed to address the

alarming failure rates in higher education, found it necessary to reset its standards.

This move reveals increasing concerns about the educational needs of students as

they enter higher education and a growing acceptance that educational

disadvantage is a common phenomenon in the system. Higher Education South

Africa, the vice-chancellors’ representative body, commissioned the national

benchmark tests project in 2005 to provide information about the levels of

knowledge in core areas of incoming students. It is generally acknowledged that

South Africa’s education system is in trouble. Historically, the lightning rod for this

has been matric, which until recently has been the only externally moderated

national examination in the South African education system. However, there are

indications of serious problems at all levels of schooling and higher education... For

example, the basic education department’s report on last year’s assessments

indicates that less than a third of all grade six learners perform at a level that

indicates even partial achievement of curriculum competencies. This dismal level of

performance continues into higher education, where about 40% of registered

students drop out of their studies during or at the end of their first year and only

about 15% obtain their degrees in the minimum time. (Prince & Yeld, 2012).

The gravity of this situation has led to the Council on Higher Education to shift its focus

towards improved student throughput rates, and also towards more serious consideration to

the acceptance of four-year degrees (ibid.).

The article concludes by saying that two things were obvious: the schooling system still does

not properly prepare students for the demands of higher education. Furthermore, curriculum

structures do not address the needs of most students wishing to embark on tertiary study.

Figures for the University of Johannesburg students show similar trends in failure rates (UJ.

ADS, 2009:2). The reasons for poor student performance given in this report (2009:3), as

quoted from the Scott et al. cohort study, are: “due to a complexity of factors…of which many

(for instance, the unsatisfactory performance of many secondary schools) …are undoubtedly

outside the control of higher education.” The report claims, however, that there are a number

of other factors that do lie within its control, and that strategies need to be developed to

improve the effectiveness of the educational process in higher education. In support of this,

in November, 2008, the UJ Senate approved the First Year Experience (FYE) initiative, (De

Kadt, 2013; UJ. ADS, 2009) aspects of which have since been incorporated into the

university’s overall Teaching and Learning Strategy (These documents are not final policy

documents, and as such still subject to change).


2.3 The First Year Experience

The concept or approach of a First Year Experience has been effectively implemented in the

United States of America and Australia for a number of years to assist students in

successfully managing the transition from secondary to tertiary education (UJ. ADS, 2009:4).

Most South African universities now have similar initiatives and policies under development

or in place, no doubt in line with their unique challenges and students’ profiles. Aims and

principles for which strategies are needed to improve the effectiveness of the higher

education process (based on the Scott report) are listed in the UJ First Year Experience

document as follows:

a) Improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning: performance is

unsatisfactory right across the spectrum;

b) Catering for different degrees of preparedness;

c) Catering effectively for student diversity…, for students from different

cultural contexts, and for different approaches to learning;

d) Managing the affective factors which also impede learning: demotivation,

demoralisation, alienation;

e) Creating an accommodating institutional culture.

(UJ. ADS, 2009:3)

Among the most significant issues surrounding the underperformance of South African

students (based on the Scott report) are: “the nature of prior educational experience as well

as the level of achieved performance, and language background in relation to the medium of

instruction…The under-preparedness associated with disadvantaged educational

backgrounds often involves a complex combination of factors such as conceptual

development, academic language proficiency and approach to learning, as well as subject

knowledge. …A key feature of successful approaches is that they… in various ways

recognise and build on the capabilities that students bring with them into higher education,

rather than being bound by traditional assumptions about what these capabilities should be”

(Scott et al., 2007:42).

A further significant point made in the Scott report and raised in the ADS document is that

there is precious little knowledge about the underlying causes of dropout across the sector,

even though a wide variety of factors (material, affective, academic and so forth) are

generally accepted as being responsible for this phenomenon. This suggests that research

on these causes is of strategic importance in dealing with the student attrition rate.


2.4 Learning and engagement

Since this study is focused primarily on student engagement, it will be necessary to

understand and be able to define engagement, as well as to understand its relationship to

learning for the purposes of answering the research question. In the context of existing

literature, first the concepts of learning and engagement are explored, followed by ways in

which these phenomena are measured and examined.

There is consensus among theorists that learning’s long-term goal is to achieve lasting,

deep, meaningful and accessible change in knowledge, skills and attitudes (Anderson, 2005;

Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, Englehard, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Merriam,

Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006; Shulman, 2002). Significant engagement with knowledge

and concepts is central to the learning process and can enhance such deep and meaningful

learning (Biggs & Moore, 1993).

Shulman’s view is that engagement is perhaps the most important aspect of learning

(2002:40). He defines engagement as to “grab” and to “hold” the interest of the student, and

that it is intimately connected with - and critical to - learning, particularly in the sense of the

current focus in higher education on active learning. It is generally agreed that individuals

who learn actively combine and synthesise knowledge, understanding and skills gained,

which they then apply and modify for use in new contexts or situations.

Kuh and Vesper (quoted in Strydom et al., 2012:3) offer the following definition for

engagement: “…student engagement can be defined by two key components: first, what

students do (the time and energy they devote to educationally purposive activities) and

second, what institutions do (the extent to which they employ effective educational practices

to induce students to do the right things)”. However, the authors suggest that there is more to

student engagement than just this: student engagement occurs when both students and staff

take responsibility to devote time and effort to issues such as “student-staff interaction,

cooperation between students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high

expectations of students, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning”. They claim

that if these widely researched principles are respected by both faculty staff and learners,

student learning and success will improve.

For the purposes of this study, the above definition is useful, since engagement is viewed in

this enquiry as a social, collaborative and active phenomenon. It matches well with the

activity theoretical perspective on learning, which is discussed in more detail later on in this

chapter. The Vygotskian process of pedagogy as explored by Harry Daniels who regards


learning and development as being born out of social interaction, and therefore: “pedagogies

arise and are shaped in particular social circumstances”. Different pedagogies are therefore

possible where one finds different cultural practices (Daniels, Cole & Wertsch, 2007:5).

The results of the two South African Surveys of Student Engagement (SASSE) in 2009 and

2010 have been useful in providing data on the student experience in higher education,

namely in terms of how students approach their studies and also how institutions help

students to engage in meaningful learning activities. This could be useful in assisting tertiary

institutions in identifying interventions to improve their teaching practice and student learning.

Strydom et al. (2012:3) explain that instruments such as these that are used to measure

student engagement are useful in providing institutions with data on how students are

learning, as well as the extent to which they are employing effective methods to help

students engage in activities that are educationally purposeful.

2.4.1 Measuring learning and engagement

Shulman offers a useful explanation for the value of using taxonomies in Education. The

drive in humans to categorise and make distinctions in our world is the result of a natural

need to make sense of experiences as well as being a tool with which to think and manage

or even change our environment. In education a taxonomy may provide educators with a

common language, or terminology with which to understand their sphere of endeavour. It can

also offer them greater efficiency, consistency and help align various functions in the

discipline. “The function of a taxonomy is to make sense of experience (a tool for thought): to

categorise, make distinctions, define hierarchies, sequences of merit or maturity”. In

Shulman’s view, taxonomies may be utilised in a variety of useful ways to enhance our

understanding of educational practice (Shulman, 2002: 37-39).

Taxonomies that will be useful to provide assistance in answering the research question for

the purposes of this study include the cognitive domain taxonomy of Bloom, Krathwohl and

Masia (Bloom, et al., 1956), Anderson’s revision of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson, 2005), and

Shulman’s taxonomy or Table of Learning (Shulman, 2002). In Shulman’s opinion, the most

valuable use of a taxonomy is as “an extended metaphor… an explanatory principle or story”.

Similarly, he explains, Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy tells a story of how learning develops

from the less-developed functions until it reaches high-order reasoning. In his view,

taxonomies may be utilised in a variety of useful ways to enhance our understanding of

educational practice (Shulman, 2002:37-39).


2.4.2 Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy

Traditionally, taxonomies have measured learning within specific domains or types of

educational activity, such as the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The affective

domain taxonomy of Bloom, Krathwohl and Masia (Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia, 1973) can be

used to examine the process of affective internalisation of learning, which includes

development of consistent emotional attitudes, values, motivation and responses, and also

categorises conducive behaviours from simple to complex.

It utilises the following categories: receiving (willing and focused awareness and attention to

phenomena); responding (active and motivated participation, attending and reaction to a

phenomenon); valuing (from mere acceptance to total commitment to an object, behaviour or

phenomenon); organisation (creating a value system by actively prioritising values over

others); and internalising values (characterisation - having a value system that controls,

pervades and characterises behaviour and personal, social, emotional adjustment to

learning).

On the other hand, Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) is the most

widely used and easily understood taxonomy for measuring learning in the cognitive domain.

It is concerned with intellectual development and the appropriation of knowledge. It uses six

consecutive levels of difficulty or complexity: knowledge (recall of data or information);

comprehension (understanding or ability to interpret meaning); application (ability to abstract

or use concepts in new situations); analysis (understanding organisational structure,

distinguishing between facts and inferences); synthesis (ability to structure and create new

meaning from diverse elements); and evaluation (the ability to make value judgments).

Learning is measured in terms of the learner first needing to attain a lower level before the

next level up. In other words, in order to comprehend something, it must first be

remembered. In order to apply knowledge or concepts one needs first to understand them,

and so forth (see Figure 2.1). Each category is stated as a noun. For the purposes of this

study, Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy has some value, since it is concerned with

measuring cognitive processing in a range of classification from lower to higher order

thinking skills and objectives of learning.


Figure 2.1: Categories in Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. (Adapted from Bloom et al,. 1956)

2.4.3 Later revisions to Bloom’s Taxonomy by Lorin Anderson

Revisions to Bloom’s taxonomy by Lorin Anderson (Anderson, 2005; Anderson & Krathwohl,

2001) included renaming categories from nouns to verbs, as well as effecting minor changes

to their order (see Figure 2.2). In changing nouns to verbs, each category may be seen as a

behaviour, which implies that the categories denote activity on the part of the learner.

Learning is, therefore, conceptually viewed as being active by nature. Since this study seeks

to measure engaged learning using an activity-theoretical construct as a heuristic to do so,

using Anderson’s revisions to Bloom’s taxonomy to inform this study would be preferable to

that of Bloom alone.


Figure 2.2 Lorin W. Anderson’s revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy as applied to this study. (Adapted from Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.), 2001)

2.4.4 Shulman’s taxonomy or Table of Learning

Shulman’s taxonomy, his Table of Learning is drawn from a number of well-known

taxonomies such as those of Bloom, Krathwohl and Masia. It has the advantage that it is not

situated in any specific learning domain, but rather examines learning as a holistic process.

The central role of engagement in the taxonomy makes it a useful tool for examining

engaged learning (see Figure 2.3). The taxonomy consists of a repeating cycle of six

interchangeable stages of learning which lead to complex and higher order thinking and

which culminate in the internalisation of learning into the learner’s own identity and value

system.

The six stages are: engagement and motivation; knowledge and understanding; performance

and action; reflection and critique; judgment and design; and commitment and identity.

Shulman views the learner’s construction of new knowledge as being “enriched and

elaborated by social interactions … so that it can be tested, examined, challenged, and

improved before we internalise it”. In such analysis and synthesis, new understandings and

application of knowledge in new situations are allowed. (Shulman, 1999:11)


Figure 2.3 Shulman’s Table of Learning. Adapted from Shulman, L.S.,2002:36-44.

Significant to Shulman’s taxonomy is the fact that it is flexible. His view is that not only is

engagement central to learning, but that all learning begins with engagement. Shulman

discusses his view of engagement as follows:

“Engagement is one of the most interesting and important aspects of learning. We

rarely paid attention to it in the past, but higher education is now much more

focused on ‘active learning’ and on evidence that students are engaged in

worthwhile educational experiences. …One of the instruments receiving the most

attention in the last couple of years has been the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE)… [which is]…an extended antidote to the reputational

ranking systems that many of us find so infuriating.

The argument NSSE makes is that we want to know about student engagement

because it serves as a proxy for learning, understanding, and post-graduation

commitments that we cannot measure very well directly… I would argue that

engagement is not solely a proxy; it can also be an end in itself. Our institutions of


higher education are settings where students can encounter a range of people and

ideas and human experiences that they have never been exposed to before.

Engagement in this sense is not just a proxy for learning, but a fundamental

purpose of education.” (Shulman, 2002:40)

2.4.5 Taxonomies as a heuristic to examine student engagement

In this study, I have used the various taxonomies discussed above to assist as heuristics or

tools to measure engaged learning, (if learning has taken place, and if so, how it has

developed). In order to address the aims of the research, it is important to see if engagement

(as a component of learning process) has taken place. In examining the various taxonomies

in the search to measure engagement, Shulman’s Table of learning was found to be the

most useful. Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy measures learning on an individual

cognitive level, but views the learner as a passive recipient of knowledge. Anderson’s

revision of this taxonomy presents the learner as an active participant in his or her learning,

and so measures learning as a phenomenon requiring or involving action. As such, in

combination with CHAT as a heuristic and analytical tool in the study, Anderson’s taxonomy

could be useful. However the conception of learning in this taxonomy is as an individual

rather than social activity.

The preferred taxonomy for the purposes of this study is that of Shulman’s Table of Learning.

It is able to examine learning as an active phenomenon, making it a suitable tool to use in

conjunction with activity theory which is also employed in this study. Shulman’s table also

has the advantage of drawing on many aspects from the other taxonomies, with which it has

much in common. However, it is more flexible and not situated within any specific domain

(cognitive, affective and so forth) – but sees learning as holistic, including cognitive, affective

and social aspects. Furthermore, the component Engagement and motivation is seen by

Shulman as an essential and central feature of his table, and a prerequisite for learning to

take place. Finally, this taxonomy may measure the learner’s construction of new knowledge

as a social activity. In this respect it is a suitable tool to use in conjunction with CHAT, which

will be discussed in the sections below.

In the following section, Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory, the theoretical construct of tool

mediation and activity theory are discussed. Their role in the study will also be clarified and

justified.


2.5 Sociocultural theory

Cultural-historical theory as posited by Vygotsky and, in particular, his concept of tool

mediation was, in his view, the basis of the cognitive development process in humans as

born out of social interactions and mediated cultural tools such as language. I examine his

concept of tool mediation and further developments of activity theory by later generations of

activity theorists such as Yrgö Engeström, Harry Daniels and Anna Stetsenko. In so doing, I

wish to demonstrate how their theories have served to inform this study, and how the activity

system and its various components are valuable as a heuristic for examining learning

(including engagement as a component of learning) within the context of this study.

2.5.1 Cultural-historical theory and its roots

The pioneering work of Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978), and further developments of his variety of

theories, are drawn on to this day by researchers and scholars in a diversity of fields, among

them education, psychology, sociology, communication and so forth (Daniels et al., 2007:3).

Among such scholars whose work has been drawn on for the purpose of this study are: Anna

Stetsenko (Education, Developmental Psychology), Harry Daniels (Education and

Educational Psychology) and Yrgö Engeström (Education, Communication, Human

Development and Cognition).

In a brief career spanning around 20 years or less (Vygotsky died at age 38) he had

effectively developed and transformed the study of the human mind from a discipline still

strongly rooted in the philosophical domain (as seen as separate from the human body or

physiological domain) into the birth of Psychology as an independent discipline in its own

right (Vygotsky, 978:2-3). In Vygotsky’s view, “none of the existing schools of psychology

[had] provided a firm foundation for the establishment of a unified theory of human

psychological processes” (Vygotsky, 1978:5).

2.5.1.1 Learning as a cultural, historical and social phenomenon

Among the many theories and theoretical constructs posited by Vygotsky, for the purposes of

this study, I am concerned with those known as sociocultural or cultural-historical theory and

the closely associated activity theory, “…traditions [that] are historically linked to the work of

L.S. Vygotsky and [which] provide an account of learning and development as [culturally]

mediated processes.” (Daniels, 2001:1). Vygotsky believed that human cognitive

development is based on the fact that “humans shape and are shaped by social, cultural and

historical conditions”, and that “in order to understand the mature human mind, we must

comprehend the processes from which it emerges”, the social, cultural and historical context


of the individual being studied. Daniels draws a distinction between sociocultural theory and

activity theory as follows:

“...‘sociocultural theory’ and its near relative ‘activity theory’…both attempt to

provide an account of learning and development as mediated processes. In

sociocultural theory the emphasis is on semiotic mediation with a particular

emphasis on speech. In activity theory it is activity itself which takes the centre

stage in the analysis. Both approaches attempt to theorise and provide

methodological tools for investigating the processes by which social, cultural

and historical factors shape human functioning. Neither account resorts to

determinism in that they both acknowledge that in the course of their own

development human beings also actively shape the very forces that are active

in shaping them”. (Daniels, 2001:1)

These theories originate from ideas that arose from Vygotsky’s work during a period of

profound social change and hardship in Russia in the wake of the Russian Revolution.

Vygotsky had been tasked to develop a Marxist-inspired social system for educating large

numbers of homeless, “pedagogically neglected” children and marginalised members of

soviet society “who had profoundly different cultural experiences from ‘mainstream’ members

of society” (Daniels et al., 2007:1-2). René van der Veer (in Daniels et al., 2007:23) notes

Vygotsky’s involvement in finding a solution for a situation where “…millions of children lost

their homes (the so-called bezprizorniki) and roamed the streets, causing inconvenience in

the form of begging, theft and prostitution…”, and due to the fact that around two million

Russians had fled or been expelled from the country, job vacancies and lack of job

competencies to fill these had occurred. He would be “among those who tried to fill the gaps

in the [Russian] educational system by, for example, teaching evening courses to labourers”.

It was within this context that Vygotsky had developed his Cultural-historical Theory, that in

order to comprehend the inner cognitive processes of human beings, it is first necessary to

examine them in their sociocultural context (Van der Veer in Daniels et al., 2007:21-23).

Daniels (2001:2) notes the potential importance that these theories could have in the current

educational context. Since Vygotsky’s own environment or the context which gave rise to it,

was a period of intense social upheaval in which his work’s purpose was to address urgent

educational change, so also, today’s educators

“…are witnessing a period of very rapid social change. Transformations in the

means and patterns of communication lie at the heart of fundamental changes


in the labour market and social relations. These transformations have created

new demands and also offer new possibilities for teaching and learning. At such

a time the received wisdom or ‘common sense’ of education as it was practised

when we were at school may no longer be appropriate” (Daniels, 2001:2).

2.5.1.2 Cultural-historical Theory and the concept of mediation

Vygotsky (1978) theorised that all learning is a dialectical and social phenomenon, that, “for

him, pedagogies arise and are shaped in particular social circumstances” (Daniels, 2001:5)

and as such are born out of social interaction. Vygotsky’s central concern was not so much

with the products or achievements of learning which he called the “higher mental processes”

(Vygotsky, 1978), but with the learning process itself: how learning is mediated. His concern

was how an individual, faced with a problem in a given context, is able to solve the problem

by means of a given or self-constructed physical or internalised psychological tool, and the

role of social mediation in this learning process. He viewed the basis for cognitive

development in humans from child- to adulthood as taking place through mediated

engagement with cultural tools such as written language (Vygotsky, 1992).

Vygotsky describes the learning process within a cultural context as being “first, on the social

level, and later on the individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological), and then

inside (intra-psychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978:57). The learning process of an individual is

contextualised within his or her entire sociocultural and historical context, as an individual

learns new cultural tools from others. Learning then, as posited by Vygotsky, is a culturally

mediated process, and it is the mediation itself which forms a link “between social and

historical processes, on the one hand, and individuals’ mental processes on the other”

(Daniels et al., 2007:178) Vygotsky illustrates this phenomenon as follows:

…children confronted with a problem that is slightly too complicated for them

exhibit a complex variety of responses including direct attempts at attaining

the goal, the use of tools, speech directed toward the person conducting the

experiment or speech that simply accompanies the action, and direct, verbal

appeals to the object of attention itself.

“If analyzed dynamically, this alloy of speech and action has a very specific

function in the history of the child’s development; it also demonstrates the

logic of its own genesis. From the very first days of the child’s development

his activities acquire a meaning of their own in a system of social behavior

and, being directed towards a definite purpose, are refracted through the


prism of the child’s environment. The path from object to child and from child

to object passes through another person. This complex human structure is the

product of a developmental process deeply rooted in the links between the

individual and social history” (Vygotsky, 1978:30).

Vygotsky’s concept of tool mediation may be described as the process whereby an individual

who attempts to overcome a learning obstacle (an “object” of learning), will employ a tool

(either a tool appropriated from others from whom the individual is learning, or else one

created afresh) as an assistive device in successfully overcoming the learning challenge.

Early in an individual’s cognitive development (for example, early childhood) these tools may

be external or physical objects. Vygotsky cites an example of a child who uses a chair and

stick (the mediational tools) in order to be able to reach a cupboard where cookies are kept

(the learning task or ‘object’ of learning). However, as the individual’s cognitive development

becomes more sophisticated, so do the individual’s cognitive tools, and, importantly, the ability

to not only generate new tools for his or her own purposes, but to internalise them into a

symbolic abstracted format in the mind as “psychological tools” or “signs” such as language.

This “transformation of sign-using activity - the history and characteristics of which are

illustrated by the development of practical intelligence, voluntary attention and memory - is

important for “the development of higher mental processes” (or cognitive development). It

culminates in the reconstitution of existing or the creation of new inner symbolic systems

over time that effectively lead to the individual’s ability to internalise culturally produced

knowledge and socially mediated symbolic systems, as well as to externalise and share this

understanding of common experience within a social group (Vygotsky 1978, 19-57).

Vygotsky referred to signs as “artificial formations… [that] are social, not organic or

individual” which included “language; various systems for counting; mnemonic techniques;

algebraic symbol systems; works of art; writing; schemes, diagrams, maps and mechanical

drawings; all sorts of conventional signs” (Vygotsky in Daniels et al., 2007:178). Thus,

according to Vygotsky, all learning is active, social and cultural by nature and in this respect

it also has a history.

Vygotsky distinguished between two fundamental types of mediation: Explicit mediation and,

implicit mediation. Daniels refers to this distinction being less about actual differences in their

forms and more about “different disciplinary lenses”, or different perspectives he adopted for

each. He describes mediation as being explicit in two ways. Firstly “…in that an individual, or

another person who is directing this individual, overtly and intentionally introduce a “stimulus


means” into an ongoing stream of activity. Second…in the sense that the materiality of the

stimulus means, or signs involved, tends to be obvious and nontransitory”, and its purpose is

to organise memory and cognitive processes. Implicit mediation by contrast, would be

“…less obvious and, therefore, more difficult to detect...for example Vygotsky’s concept of

“the role of social and inner speech in mediating human consciousness”. This type of

mediation “need not be artificially or intentionally introduced into on-going action. Instead it is

part of an already on-going communicative stream ... its primary function is communication”

rather than organising human action (Daniels et al., 2007:180).

The implication of this theory for learning is that learning is viewed not as an individual, but

as a social activity. In the present study, where the focus is on first year students’

engagement (as a component of learning) with ICTs, as researcher, I cannot exclude or

ignore the reality of their own sociocultural or historical contexts (past or present) or the

social context of their first year computer orientation sessions, as having a potentially

significant bearing on their ability to engage with these technologies. Students’ backgrounds

such as their schooling, prior experience with ICTs, friends and family members, and others

present during their computer orientation sessions, would all have had an impact on their

ability to engage. I will explore students’ experiences and actions using activity theory, in

particular, as seen within an activity system, which will be the primary unit of analysis in this

study. Vygotsky’s mediational triangle will be used as a heuristic to do so. For this reason,

activity theory and the activity system will be discussed in the following section.

2.5.2 Activity theory and the activity system

In this enquiry Cultural Historical Activity Theory will be used as a conceptual tool to explore

and analyse students’ experiences of engagement with ICTs. CHAT’s strengths include its

use as a tool to simultaneously analyse both individual and broad contextual issues related

to learning in a social context. The activity system (the computer orientation sessions)

includes the subjects (computer-illiterate first year students), their initial engagement with

ICTs (the object) and their computers (the tool). I have thus used CHAT as both an analytical

tool and heuristic to explore how the participating students reflectively appropriated tools and

sought possible courses of action to solve problems in attempting to engage with ICTs.

Cultural-historical activity theory was initially conceptualised by Vygotsky, but developed

further by his colleague, Leont’ev, and later by other theorists (Kaptelinin, 2013) through

three generations of activity theory. Vygotsky’s first generation activity theory was based on

the concept of mediation: “…a mediated act…cultural mediation of actions…commonly

expressed as a triad of subject, object and mediating artefact” which was a further


development of “the conditioned direct connection between stimulus (S) and response (R)”

and “...the individual could no longer be understood without his or her cultural means; and

the society could no longer be understood without the agency of individuals who use and

produce artefacts. … Objects became cultural entities and the object-orientedness of action

became the key to understanding human psyche” (Engeström, 2001:134). This is illustrated

in Figure 2.4.

A

B

Figure 2.4 Vygotsky’s model of mediated act (A) and (B) its common reformulation (Engeström, 2001:134)

However, this generation of activity theory, says Engeström, was limited by its focus on the

individual. This changed in second generation activity theory of which Leont’ev was the main

exponent. He drew the significant distinction between individual action and collective activity

and saw the individual as having a complex relationship with his or her community

(Engeström, 2001:134-5) as depicted in a graphic representation of Leont’ev’s idea in

Figure 2.5:

Figure 2.5 Graphic representation of Vygotsky’s mediational triangle (Vygotsky 1978)

Outcome


Figure 2.6 The structure of a human activity system (Engeström, 2001:135)

The more complex expansions of the activity system came to include rules, community and

division of labour as postulated by theorists such as Wersch (Engeström, 2001; Wersch,

1981) and Engeström (Engeström, 2001). Concepts that may become apparent from an

analysis of the aforementioned components of the extended activity system (Figure 2.6) may

include ‘multivoicedness’ (dialogues, multiple viewpoints, traditions, interests, cultural

diversity).

“[Engeström] …emphasizes that activity systems contain a variety of different

viewpoints or “voices,” as well as layers of historically accumulated artefacts, rules,

and patterns of division of labor. This multi-voiced and multi-layered nature of activity

systems is both a resource for collective achievement and a source of

compartmentalization and conflict. Contradictions are the engine of change and

development in an activity system as well as a source of conflict and stress”.

(Cole, Engeström. & Vasquez, 1997:4)

Other concepts that could emerge include, historicity (history of an activity system), and the

dynamics of power relations (Daniels & Warmington, 2007:377-385). However, the one

aspect that I will focus on in this study is the notion of transformative learning.


2.5.3 Transformative Learning

Stetsenko’s notion of Transformational Learning (Stetsenko, 2008:471-491) draws on

different sociocultural approaches and, in effect, completes CHAT’s dialectical view on

human development and learning. She posits that “collaborative purposeful transformation of

the world is the core of human nature and the principled grounding for learning and

development” (Stetsenko, 2008:471). Not only are individuals transformed by learning, but in

return they transform their world. Transformative Learning is a process of development

beginning with acquisition (an individual rather than collaborative activity); moving toward

participation (learning through participation as a member of a community), then contribution

(transformative action that contributed through self-development and community

development). Contribution leads to transformative learning where the individual is able to

transform his or her environment in addition to him or herself in a dialectical process. For the

purposes of this study, the principles set out in Stetsenko’s table in Figure 2.8:

Transformative stance perspective: implications for the notion of learning (Stetsenko, 2008:

489) will be used in order to see if participants were able to complete the process of learning

from acquisition through to contribution, and to ascertain if transformed learning took place.

2.5.4 Activity theory as a conceptual tool to explore student engagement with ICTs

Engeström’s extended mediation triangle (Figure 2.2) has been adapted for the purposes of

the present study. The computer orientation sessions that the students attended are

represented as the entire triangle, in other words, the activity system as a whole and unit of

analysis in this study. The function of the activity theory in this study has been to expose the

struggle that the students encountered with their ability to come to terms with the challenge

of engaging with ICTs for the first time, and to perceive the processes involved in each

student's experience of initial engagement with ICTs more clearly. This activity system, as

applied to the context of the study, includes the following: the subject (in this study, the

student); the object (initial engagement with ICTs); the tool (ICTs in the orientation session –

the mediating artefact); the rules (policies, written and unwritten rules); the community

(others involved in the context of engagement during these sessions – instructors, tutors,

fellow students); and the division of labour (responsibilities and functions that exist in various

hierarchies within and surrounding these orientation sessions).

The result is Figure 2.7 which was adapted from Figure 2.6. Its use as a heuristic to examine

the conflicts and contradictions in students’ experiences of their struggle with initial

engagement with ICTs is described in more detail in Chapter 3. In using it to examine

students’ initial engagement with ICTs, the contradictions (tensions between the different


components of the activity system) experienced by students in the orientation sessions as

the ‘engine of change and development’ in being able to initially engage with ICTs, were

exposed.

Figure 2.7: Diagram of Engeström’s extended mediational triangle as it relates to this study (Adapted from Engeström, 2001:135)


Figure 2.8 Transformative stance perspective: Implications for the notion of learning (Stetsenko, 2008:489)


Finally, for the purposes of this study, I have adopted Stetsenko’s concept of an activist

transformative stance or Transformed Learning (Stetsenko, 2008:471-491) to enable me to

describe how individuals learn and become human only “in and through (not in addition to)

the processes of collaboratively transforming their world” (ibid.).

2.6 Summary

This chapter has served to orientate the reader to the study by providing a theoretical

framework for the enquiry and to offer different perspectives on the topic in an overview of

relevant literature in order to guide the reader in an understanding of the research problem.

In order to do this, a brief overview on the role of ICTs in teaching and learning, was provided

and placed in the context of the university where this study took place. Some background on

first year university students and the First Year Experience at the university was included.

This was followed by a discussion of learning and engagement, and the use of tools with

which they may be measured and used as a heuristic to examine student engagement in this

study. A number of taxonomies of learning formed part of this discussion. Finally,

sociocultural theory which formed the focus of this chapter was discussed as well as the

adaptation of some of its associated constructs which have been employed as a conceptual

tool with which to measure first year students’ initial engagement with ICTs in their first year

computer orientation sessions. In the following chapter, the research design and

methodology will be outlined and discussed.


CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY AND

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the design of this study. It also describes my philosophical and

theoretical approach to the enquiry as researcher. This is followed by an exposition of the

research strategy, together with a description of the process and methods of data collection

and analysis used. Considerations around ethical non-damage to participants are also

discussed, and the measures and procedures followed to ensure the ethical integrity of the

study are described.

The research design and procedures set out in this chapter explain how, as researcher, I

selected and interviewed participants, and collected and processed this data for the purpose

of exploring their experiences in attempting to engage with ICTs within the social setting of

these computer orientation sessions. I wanted to better understand the meanings that they

constructed from their experiences.

3.2 Research design and approach to the enquiry

Since a constructivist knowledge claim is associated with meanings that individuals construct

in engaging with their world, a qualitative approach to the enquiry was found to be most

suitable for this study. Qualitative research “in its broadest sense refers to research that

elicits participant accounts of meaning, experience or perceptions … [and] … involves

identifying the participant’s beliefs and values that underlie the phenomena” (McRoy, 1995 in

De Vos et al., 2002:79). As a result, I have approached the study from a phenomenological

perspective. Phenomenology is “both a philosophy of science and a mode of inquiry” and is

concerned with describing “the meanings of a lived experience. The researcher…puts aside

all prejudgements and collects data on how individuals make sense out of a particular

experience or situation” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:36).

Interactive qualitative enquiry may be described as “…an in-depth study using face-to-face

techniques to collect data from people in their natural settings” where “the researcher

interprets phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (McMillan &

Schumacher, 2001:35). Denzin & Lincoln (1994:3-4) view qualitative research as consisting

Chapter 3: Research design, methodology and ethical considerations 38

of “a set of interpretative practices” employed by the researcher that emphasise the value

and meaning of social experience rather than the “measurement and analysis of causal

relationships between variables” as found in quantitative approaches. They distinguish what

they call the “socially-constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the

researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry” found in

qualitative research from the emphasis on rigor, measurement and analysis of causal

relationships found in quantitative enquiry. In this sense, qualitative researchers believe they

may obtain a closer view of a participant’s perspective acquired, for example, through

interviewing and observation, than through the more objective, empirical, inferential and

remote methods of quantitative researchers (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994:5).

In this study, student accounts of meaning, experience and perceptions regarding the

phenomenon of their experiences of initial engagement with ICTs during orientation

sessions, were sought. In order to achieve this, face-to-face methods in the form of

interviews were employed to collect data which could provide a closer view of participants’

perspectives and experiences.

I have also approached the study with a constructivist and interpretivist knowledge claim (or

philosophical assumption about knowledge creation) which, according to Creswell (2003:8-9)

aims to rely as much as possible on the views of participants regarding the situation being

studied. In this type of research, broad, general or open-ended questions are useful in

eliciting meanings that participants construct for themselves of the situation under scrutiny.

Meanings are generated from discussion or interaction between people, and a researcher

will listen to these subjective meanings that are socially negotiated (hence the term ‘social

constructivism’) and which occur within the participants’ historical and cultural settings.

The historical distinction between qualitative and quantitative research has become

somewhat blurred in recent years, since they are increasingly viewed as complementary

rather than incompatible (Bryman in Alasuutari, Bickman & Brannen, 2009:13-17), and

researchers now more frequently employ elements associated with both in their research.

Yet there is reasonable agreement on a number of basic distinguishing characteristics of

qualitative research that identify its nature as having a strongly interpretative focus as well as

recognition of the social, political and cultural context of the research and researcher

(Creswell, 2007:37-39). Creswell’s list of characteristics of qualitative research drawn from a

number of authors is applied to this study in order to justify it as a qualitative study:


• Natural setting: Data collection tends to take place primarily in the field, for example,

observing or talking to the subjects of the research in their natural settings rather than

using instruments or contrived situations to collect data. In this study participants

were interviewed at the computer orientation venues, immediately after the sessions

had ended, while their experiences were still fresh in their minds.

• Researcher as a key instrument: The researcher is the gatherer of information and

situated within the research, rather than relying on others or on artificial means to do

so. As researcher, I conducted the interviews with the participants myself.

Furthermore, my own experiences as a staff member participating in the sessions has

contributed to my insights and interpretations of the data collected.

• Multiple sources of data: It is common for qualitative researchers to collect and use

multiple data sources or data collection methods rather than a single source. Data are

then organised or sorted into themes or categories. Data from a variety of students

were obtained in both focus group and individual interviews. Another source of data

was my own perspective as a staff member, drawn from experience of first year

computer orientation training over the years.

• Inductive data analysis: Raw information gathered in the field is systematically

assembled and organised into more comprehensive and abstract themes. Interview

data from open-ended questions was coded ‘on the fly’ and sorted into tentative- and,

later, more final categories as themes began to emerge.

• Participants’ meanings: The meanings that participants hold about issues in the

research are regarded as key by the researcher throughout the research process. I

have regarded the meanings that students held about experiences of initial

engagement with ICTs as key throughout the process of my research, since the

specific aim of the research is to explore them through the lens of activity theory.

• Emergent design: Research proceeds from a plan which is not strictly defined,

allowing for shifts or changes in processes as new data comes to light, allowing the

researcher to learn more about the issue under investigation. Research in this study

proceeded from a plan which was not strictly defined. Interview schedules contained

open-ended questions allowing me, as interviewer, to probe deeper into students’

experiences. As data emerged from more students, new codes were created and

categories expanded. As researcher, I was able to learn more about students’

meanings and perceptions of their experiences as this process continued.

• Theoretical lens: The researcher’s view of a study through a theoretical lens, a

philosophical paradigm, a social, political or historical context is common in qualitative

research. In this study, as researcher, I have viewed the study through the theoretical


lens of activity theory which has assisted me in understanding a social, political and

historical context around students’ experiences of their initial engagement with ICTs

at university.

• Interpretive enquiry: The researcher’s interpretation of a subject cannot be

detached from backgrounds, contexts and perceptions. As researcher, my

involvement in first year computer orientation sessions at the university since 2006

has had a bearing on my interpretation of students’ initial engagement with ICT’s in

this study.

• Holistic account: Researchers form a composite view of a multitude of factors and

perspectives in their interactions, rather than an account of simple cause-and-effect

relationships common in quantitative studies. By interrogating the data from a number

of students, and in using activity theory as a theoretical lens, I was able to form a

more composite view of the students’ initial engagement with ICTs.

The study has an exploratory and descriptive focus. In contrast to an explanatory study, a

good descriptive study “provokes the ‘why’ questions of explanatory research. ... But before

asking ‘Why?’ we must be sure about the fact and dimensions of the phenomenon...” (De

Vaus, 2001:2). A properly focused study can serve this purpose. In this study, I seek to

explore and understand more about first year student participants’ experiences of their initial

engagement with ICTs, which is the focus of the study.

My position as researcher may be seen as that of a key instrument in this investigation. This

is not only through interviewing students and interpreting what they have said, but by being

immersed or situated within the context of the research itself. I am more than an objective

observer, but also a staff member with six years’ experience in training and observing

computer-illiterate students during their first year computer orientation sessions as they were

exposed to ICTs for the first time.

Since research is a scientific and disciplined enquiry “a systematic process of collecting and

logically analysing information (data) for some purpose” must be employed (McMillan &

Schumacher, 2001:6-10). For this reason, it is important that it be properly designed. In

designing research, Babbie (1995:83) describes two major aspects of a research design.

Firstly, researchers must use it to determine what they want to find out, and secondly, find

the best way to do this. The purpose of a research design is to answer the research

questions and to address the aims and objectives of the research. This study has as its aim

as the exploration of computer-illiterate first year students’ experiences of initial engagement


with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university, and it has the following objectives which

were stated in Chapter 1, both of which must be addressed by the research design:

• To describe student experiences with regard to initial engagement with ICTs using the

activity system as a conceptual tool

• To explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about their initial

engagement with ICTs

• To identify tensions (in activity theoretical terms) that drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs

McMillan and Schumacher (2001:166) further explain the purpose of a research design as:

“...a plan for selecting subjects, research sites, and data collection procedures to answer the

research question(s). The design shows which individuals will be studied, and when, where,

and under which circumstances they will be studied. The goal of a sound research design is

to provide results that will be judged to be credible.” Creswell (2003:3) suggests that the

following three important components of a framework to be used by a researcher for

conceptualising and designing research: “…[the researcher’s] philosophical assumptions

about what constitutes knowledge claims; general procedures of research called strategies of

inquiry; and detailed procedures of data collection, analysis and writing, called methods”.

These give rise to interrelated levels of decision-making that form part of the design process,

as set out in Figure 3.1.

Elements of inquiry

Alternative Knowledge claims

Strategies of Inquiry

Methods

Conceptualised by the researcher

Approaches to research

Qualitative

Quantitative

Mixed method

Translated into practice

Design processes of research

Questions

Theoretical lens

Data collection

Data analysis

Write-up

Validation

Figure 3.1 Knowledge claims, strategies of inquiry, and methods leading to approaches and the design process (Crotty cited by Creswell, 2003:5).


Figure 3.1 describes how the researcher chooses a suitable approach to the research

(qualitative, quantitative or mixed method) and then operationalises the design by deciding

on one or more research questions, a theoretical lens through which to examine the object of

his research and the various methods and processes through which practical application of

the research, will take place. These would include data collection, data analysis, write-up,

and validation. All components of the research design are related in speaking to the research

question, and in so doing serve the aims of the research.

In order to address the aims of this enquiry, this study has been conceptualised and

designed as shown in Figure 3.2.

Elements of enquiry

Alternative Knowledge claims: Phenomenological

Constructivist

Interpretivist

Strategies of Enquiry: A basic generic qualitative study with a constructivist interpretivist focus.

Methods:

An in-depth descriptive and exploratory study using face to face data collection methods to obtain richly descriptive data of students’ experiences. Analysis involving categorisation of data through the theoretical lens of activity theory (Engeström’s extended mediational triangle) in order to examine socially constructed knowledge within the cultural and historical context in which the participants find themselves.

Conceptualised by the researcher

Approach to

research

Qualitative

Approach

Translated into practice

Design processes of research

Questions:

Primary question: How do computer-illiterate first year students experience initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university?

The primary research question includes the following secondary questions:

• What experiences do first year students mention with regard to initial engagement with ICTs?

• What meaning do these students construct for themselves about their initial engagement with ICTs?

• What tensions (in Activity Theory terms) drive or inhibit the activity of engaging with ICTs?

Theoretical lens: Activity Theory (Engeström’s extended mediational triangle)

Data collection: Focus group interviews, Individual in-depth interviews with purposive sampling.

Data analysis: open coding and categorising data into themes using Engeström’s extended mediational triangle as a guide.

Write-up will be a joint account of students’ experiences of engagement with ICTs in terms of the tensions encountered between the various components of the mediational triangle, as exposed by the data.

Validation:

Ethical treatment of students and non-abuse of researcher’s position with respect to students

Sound adherence to research procedures to ensure integrity of data and findings.

Figure 3.2 Conceptualisation and design of this study (adapted from Fig 3.1)


The design processes of the research

Although there is no acknowledged fixed structure or procedure for doing qualitative research

(Creswell, 2007:41; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994:3; De Vos et al., 2002:270-271), some

methodologies and data collection techniques are more suitable to a qualitative approach,

and therefore more commonly associated with it. For this reason multi-method strategies are

also not uncommon in qualitative research (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:428). Denzin and

Lincoln (1994:2) suggest that the choice of tools, strategies and techniques to be employed

by the qualitative researcher depend on the research questions being asked, as well as the

context of the research: for example, “…what is available in the context, and what the

researcher can do in that setting”. However, each methodology also possesses its own

unique perspectives and procedures, which will, in turn, have an influence on the research

process in general.

A generic, interpretive, qualitative method was found to be most suitable for this study. In

basic interpretive qualitative studies researchers are concerned with discovering “(1) how

people interpret their experiences, (2) how they construct their worlds and (3) what meaning

they attribute to their experiences”. In this regard the present study draws on phenomenology

(individuals’ interpretations of everyday experience in terms of the meaning it holds for them)

and Symbolic Interactionism (individuals’ meaning-making of experience in interactions with

others within broader society, in which they may come to grow, learn and redefine

themselves)(ibid.).

However, this study is primarily constructivist in nature, since meaning is constructed by

individuals. Meaning “…is not discovered but constructed. Meaning does not inhere in the

object, merely waiting for someone to come upon it… Meanings are constructed by human

beings as they engage with the world they are interpreting” (Merriam, 2002:37-38). Merriam

adds that a qualitative researcher attempts to see a phenomenon from the perspective of

those involved. The research question posed in this study is: “How do computer-illiterate first

year students experience initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a

university?” In order to address this I am, as researcher, attempting to interpret the meaning

that students have constructed of their experiences from their own unique perspectives

rather than from the perspective of others (for example presenters or assistants or those who

planned the sessions), so that their unique voices may be heard. Creswell (2008:651-679)

highlights the need to be able to provide a voice to those who have not yet been heard in

educational research, and this is for me an additional motivating factor and partial justification

for embarking on this study.


Merriam (ibid.) notes that basic interpretative qualitative studies are to be found in most

disciplines. However, in the field of education they are probably most commonly used and

“may draw on concepts, models, and theories in educational psychology, developmental

psychology, cognitive psychology or sociology to frame the study. Data are collected through

interviews, observations, or document analysis… depending on the theoretical framework of

the study”. This is also the case in the current study, which draws on a number of theoretical

constructs to help define and clarify concepts, or to act as a heuristic or theoretical lens with

which to examine the phenomenon under investigation. In this study, the taxonomies of

Bloom, Krathwohl, Masia, Anderson and Schulman have assisted in defining the concepts of

learning and engagement; and activity theory – in particular, tool mediation and Engeström’s

model of the extended mediational triangle – have been used as a heuristic to examine the

initial engagement of computer-illiterate first year students with ICTs in computer orientation

sessions at university.

In this study, data are collected through interviews with first year students. The qualitative

data collection methods selected for this study will be discussed in the section below.

3.3 Data collection

Interactive qualitative researchers often employ more than one data collection technique, but

there is typically one predominant method employed (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:41;

Merriam, 2002: 38). Furthermore, qualitative data are collected primarily in the form of words,

and frequently interactively (for example, in interviews where the researcher interacts with

the participant in order to collect the information) rather than non-interactively (for instance,

where documents are studied by the researcher). Creswell (2003:179) notes that the

knowledge claims and strategies of qualitative enquiry have a strong influence on the way

data are collected. Since the purpose or aim of this study is to explore computer-illiterate first

year students’ experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a

university, face-to-face data collection through qualitative interviews has been used as the

data collection method. The following section deals with selection of suitable participants for

these interviews.

3.4 Selection of participants for the study

In quantitative research, sampling comprises the selecting of a portion of the population for

its ability to represent and generalise to the population as a whole, which is its focus.

However, in qualitative research, the focus is on inductive theory-building. Here

representation of concepts rather than individuals is of key importance in the sampling


process, and so samples are selected accordingly for their information-richness. The

researcher seeks “events or incidents that are indicative of phenomena… each observation,

interview, or document may refer to multiple examples of these events (Strauss & Corbin,

1998:214). Merriam (2002) adds:

“…since you are not interested in ‘how much’ or ‘how often’, random sampling

makes little sense. Instead, since qualitative inquiry seeks to understand the

meaning of a phenomenon from the perspectives of the participants, it is important

to select a sample from which the most can be learned. This is called a purposive

or purposeful sample…you first determine what criteria are essential in choosing

who is to be interviewed or what sites are to be observed.”

In selecting participants for the study, I purposefully chose students who had no (or very

little) previous experience in using computers. In this study, I aim to represent participant’s

concepts of initial engagement with computers and related technologies. It is important for

the qualitative researcher “to purposefully select participants or sites (or documents or visual

material) that will best help the researcher understand the problem and the research

question. Furthermore, in interviewing, “where the emphasis is placed on collecting of

individual, detailed and in-depth information, the qualitative rather than the quantitative

element of the information is important” (De Vos et al., 2002:334).

The participants in this study were a small group of first year students who had attended

computer orientation. Those students who had had no previous training or computer skills

(that is, they were computer-illiterate before coming to university) were easily identified when

they failed the initial computer literacy test during the basic computer training sessions at the

beginning of the year. Sample size need not be large for descriptive-exploratory studies

(McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:404) hence the relatively small sample as described above.

35 students from diverse backgrounds were purposively selected as noted above, and were

willing to be interviewed. They subsequently participated in four focus group interviews. From

these, eight participants were again selected as key informants to take part in individual in-

depth interviews that followed in order that their experiences could be explored in detail.

Their selection was based on their participation in the focus groups and in particular their

potential to provide rich data about their learning. These students had - by their own

admission - been computer-illiterate before attending the sessions. Each claimed not to have

received computer training at school or anywhere else. The computer test and training

sessions had constituted their first engagement with ICTs within their first two weeks of

study.


Sampling and interviewing took place at the end of the day, immediately after the computer

orientation sessions had ended, while the experience of the sessions was still fresh in the

students’ minds. As a final session ended, I entered the venue and requested that those with

no previous experience of computers, or computer training at school, should remain

voluntarily after the class. These willing students were then briefed on the purpose of the

research (see Appendix A) and offered a small incentive (a MacDonald’s burger voucher) for

their participation. This was not coercion but rather an attempt to compensate for the late

hour at which the interviews were conducted (over dinner time). Those who accepted

participated in one of four focus group interviews that took place as follows: on Day one the

group was so large it had to be split up into two focus groups of eleven and eight participants

respectively. On Day two there were twelve participants. The last focus group interview

comprised four participants. A day later, one student was briefly interviewed individually and

found to be a suitable candidate for eliciting information in an in-depth individual interview.

Johnson (2004:538-539) explains the role of key informants in research, by distinguishing

them from other types of interviewees found in social science research, as follows:

“Subjects are generally individuals interviewed in the course of a social experiment.

Respondents are individuals who are interviewed in the course of a social survey.

Finally, informants are individuals who are interviewed in a more in-depth, less

structured manner (semi-structured, unstructured interviews), most often in a field

setting. In any given study, individuals can move from the role of an informant to

respondent to subject depending on the interviewing context (e.g., survey, in-depth-

interview). Key informants are a subtype of informant in which a special relationship

exists between interviewer (e.g., ethnographer) and interviewee.”

Informants, Johnson notes, are selected for their characteristics, knowledge and rapport with

the researcher, and can be useful in determining validity and reliability of data. In all, eight

individual interviews took place.

3.5 Interviews

Since the aim of this study is to explore and describe the meanings that students construct

for themselves of their experiences during computer orientation sessions, data gathering

took place in the field, immediately after the computer sessions where students were

interviewed at the location of their sessions. Open-ended questions were asked in an

inductive process of exploration of the meaning they made of their experiences of initial

engagement with ICTs.


Two types of interviews were conducted in this study, namely focus group interviews and

individual interviews. The focus group interviews took place directly after the orientation

sessions and the individual interviews were conducted immediately thereafter. The interviews

took place in the vacated lecture venues after orientation sessions, as well as in a small,

private entrance foyer with closing doors when lecture venues were not available.

Prior to the interviews, the candidates were informed both verbally and in writing about the

background, rationale, purpose and process of the research and their role as participants.

They were also informed – in the event of their participation – of the following: the time it

would take to be interviewed; that they would be free to withdraw at any time without reason;

ethical implications of the research, and that they could be interviewed in English or

Afrikaans. It was explained to them that the interviews would be recorded, and that they

would have access to the recordings, transcriptions and results of the research. Each student

who at this point consented to being interviewed was asked to sign an informed consent form

(see Appendix A) from the Faculty of Education in which they consented to be a participant in

the research and for the interview to be audio-recorded.

In the interviews themselves, the interviewer made informal conversation to establish rapport

with the interviewees (De Vos et al., 2002:292), after which the interviews commenced. They

were conducted in the following way:

3.5.1 Focus-group interviews

Participants in a focus group interview are selected for the reason that they possess similar

characteristics in terms of the topic under discussion, and it is ‘focused’ in the sense that it

“involves some kind of collective activity”. The role of the interviewer may be likened to a

moderator or guide in a joint discussion where individual views, experiences, perceptions or

concerns are shared among all participants. Focus group interviews are frequently used to

supplement other primary sources of data used in a research study (De Vos et al., 2002:305-

306). In this enquiry the participants were focused in a joint discussion of their initial

experiences of ICTs in the preceding computer orientation sessions that all of them had

attended.

Focus group interviews may be used as an option to individual interviews for the purpose of

providing another level of data-gathering (Fontana & Frey, 1998:53-54). Focus group

interviews were used in this enquiry primarily for sampling purposes, but also to provide the

interviewer with clues for further exploration in the individual interviews. As such, focus group

interviews cannot be described as in-depth. They consisted of the interviewer asking the


participants a few random open-ended questions drawn from the interview schedule (see

Appendix C) that was to be used in the individual in-depth interviews to be conducted

immediately thereafter. These questions, as well as follow-up questions, were used as

prompts to assist the interviewer to ascertain which of the candidates were more forthcoming

or could be more readily drawn out on the subject of their initial experiences with ICTs during

their respective orientation sessions. The interview schedule and questions asked are dealt

with under individual interviews in the following section.

3.5.2 Individual in-depth interviews

Semi-structured in-depth individual interviews were chosen as the primary data collection

technique for this study. Consenting students were interviewed on a one-on-one basis for the

purpose of obtaining detailed information about his or her individual experience of initial

engagement with ICTs in the orientation sessions. In-depth interviews are described by

Macmillan and Schumacher (2001:443) as: “open-response questions to obtain data of

participant meanings—how individuals conceive of their world and how they explain or ‘make

sense’ of the important events in their lives” and that such interviews may take on different

formats depending on specialised applications, question content, question sequence, and the

logistics of conducting and recording interviews.

In this study, the individual interviews took on a semi-structured format of standardised open-

ended interviews. In this format, each participant is asked the same questions in the same

order (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2001:444). However, semi-structured interviews allow

participants the freedom to have a bearing on the direction the interview will take, or even

introduce new topics (De Vos et al, 2002:302). Although each student was asked questions

following the same interview schedule, the schedule functioned as a guide to provide focus

for each interview, but also to ensure that the different individuals provided data on the same

areas of content to address the research question. Although the use of an interview schedule

may be perceived as a rigid process, the questions were general and open-ended, acting

only as initial prompts for students to tell their individual stories or provide extra detail in

order to address the research question.

The schedule contained a broad outline with more general exploratory open-ended

questions. This helped to structure the interviews, whilst still allowing space for further

investigative probing, follow-up questions and discussion in order to obtain greater detail,

depth, meaning or rich description from students’ personal accounts. McMillan and

Schumacher (2001:446) note that in-depth interviews are known “more for their probes and

pauses than for their particular question formats” and that it is more important for the


researcher to ‘hear’ and ‘connect’ with the participant in a non-rigid way in order to obtain

more reliable data.

The difference between the standard practice of research interviewing on the one hand and

the “life world of naturally occurring conversation and social interaction” on the other has

become apparent (Riessman, 2002:696). For this reason a narrative interview technique was

used, since it left space for the students to tell their own stories. This type of interview can be

seen as a “conversation with a purpose” which is “focused and discursive and allows the

researcher and participant to explore an issue” (De Vos et al., 2002:298). Conversations

themselves are, in essence, an everyday phenomenon that possess a linear nature and in

this respect function as narratives. For this reason they are privy to rules and conventions

that require cooperation and effort in keeping the conversation running between the

participants, as each party takes turns in steering the conversation around or away from a

given topic (Berger, 1997:168).

In managing the interview process, I employed the following techniques to elicit further in-

depth detail on each student’s narrative around the topic of their initial experiences of ICTs:

• Pauses were used to maximum effect to allow the participant to be relaxed rather

than rushed, as well as having a chance to think and speak about his or her

experience.

• Continuous probing was used to prompt each student to elaborate, clarify or provide

explanations on detail provided.

• Active demonstration of listening and attentive behaviour encouraged the interviewee

to elaborate on his or her statement.

• Re-stating of what the interviewees said could confirm the accuracy of their

statements or evoke more data.

(Guidelines provided by Macmillan & Schumacher, 2001:448)

Having employed the above techniques to achieve maximum detail, a line of questioning

would come to an end once data saturation was reached, or when an individual had no more

to say. As each interview ended, the, participant was thanked, given the opportunity to

comment on the interview, and debriefed where necessary. Details of interviews were noted

for record purposes. Once the interviews were concluded, the interview data were

transcribed (see Appendix D for individual in-depth interview transcripts). The information

was then analysed and interpreted, using activity theory as a theoretical lens. Methods used

for analysis and interpretation of the interview data are discussed in the section that follows.


3.6 Data analysis and interpretation: Using activity theory as a theoretical lens

Data analysis is the term used for the single integrated process of organising, analysing and

interpreting data, and it is an essential ingredient for the qualitative researcher to be able to

interpret his data (Macmillan & Schumacher, 2001:466). Creswell views the processes of

data analysis and interpretation as mutually complementary elements in a single plan where

“data analysis involves making sense out of text and image data… [that] …involves

preparing the data for analysis, conducting different analyses, moving deeper and deeper

into understanding the data, representing the data, and making an interpretation of the larger

meaning of the data” (Creswell, 2003:190). De Vos et al. describe qualitative data analysis

as a “messy, ambiguous, time-consuming, creative and fascinating” process which

nevertheless gives order, structure and meaning to a body of collected data. Within this

process, the researcher “…moves in analytical circles rather than using a fixed linear

approach”. They describe qualitative data analysis as “a search for general statements about

relationships among categories of data” (De Vos et al., 2002:339-340). Effectively, what

these authors agree on is that data analysis and interpretation gradually allow the researcher

to make more sense and derive more meaning from the data they have collected, forming a

deeper understanding of what the data is conveying and, it is hoped, contributing to the

findings.

Since the aim of qualitative research is to produce findings, it is essential to plan for data

analysis and interpretation in order to extract the necessary information to produce answers

to the research question. In qualitative research, richly descriptive data are a prerequisite for

drawing an understanding of the meaning of the experience or phenomenon being studied

and data analysis is the process whereby this understanding may be achieved.

McMillan and Schumacher (2001:466-7) describe the process of qualitative data analysis as

consisting of “organizing, analysing and interpreting” into what is effectively a classification

system for the data collected. They have identified five sources that researchers use to

classify or organise their data:

1. The research question and foreshadowed problems or sub-questions

2. The research instrument such as an interview guide

3. Themes, concepts, or categories used by other researchers in prior studies

4. Prior knowledge of the researcher

5. The data itself


In this study, Points 1, 2, 4 and 5 were sources used to classify and organise the data. The

interview guide questions were formulated to correspond with segments of Engeström’s

extended mediational triangle.

Strauss and Corbin (1998:58-59) refer to the important role of the researcher throughout the

data analysis processing - that it is preferable to self-consciously bring disciplinary and

research experience into the analysis but to do so in ways that enhance the creative aspects

of analysis rather than drive the analysis. Experience and knowledge are what sensitise the

researcher to significant problems and issues in the data and allow him or her to see

alternative explanations and to recognise properties and dimensions of emergent concepts.

In this study, my experience of over six years of computer orientation has enabled a better

understanding of the students’ experiences and obstacles to engagement with ICTs which

are encountered during the orientation sessions.

Creswell (2003:190-191) suggests that the following processes generic to qualitative data

analysis be used. Firstly, a continual process of analytical and reflective activities that is not

separate from other activities such as data collection or formulation of the research question.

The process of coding and grouping the codes in this study was a process of discovery,

learning and reflecting upon what the data was exposing as it was interrogated using various

heuristics or tools for analysis such as CHAT. Secondly, using open-ended data is achieved

by asking general questions and developing an analysis from information provided by

participants. Since interview questions were open-ended, this allowed participants the

freedom to provide information that they felt was important about their experiences, and the

meanings they constructed for themselves. And thirdly, tailoring the data analysis beyond the

generic, towards the specific research strategy used in the study is recommended.

Depending on the strategy used, specific steps, processes and terms may be involved in

analysis specific to that strategy, for example, different techniques of coding data, describing

the setting, analysing data for themes or issues, and so forth. Interview questions on the

schedule had initially been set up in categories (or paradigmatic themes) based on activity

theory and specifically on segments of Engeström’s extended mediational triangle. This

enabled the researcher, during the analysis phase of the research, to code the text segments

according to these themes, and then continue to develop an interpretation and understanding

of tensions driving and inhibiting students’ engagement with ICTs, as viewed through an

activity-theoretical lens of the mediational triangle. This also provided a composite or holistic

view of participants’ experiences within the social context of their activity within the

orientation sessions as the activity system.


Engeström’s extended mediation triangle was adapted for the purposes of this study (see

Chapter 2: Figure 2.7). The computer orientation sessions that the students attended are

represented as the entire triangle, in other words, the activity system as a whole, and unit of

analysis in this study. The function of the activity theory in this study has been to expose the

struggle that the students encountered in coming to terms with the challenge of engaging

with ICTs for the first time, and to perceive the processes involved in each student's

experience of initial engagement with ICTs more clearly.

The data analysis in this study was performed on transcriptions of individual in-depth

interview data of eight students. Basic content analysis, using descriptive verbs for initial

codes, was used. Students’ interview transcriptions of their experiences and actions as they

tried to engage with the technologies were imported into Atlas.ti for coding and analysis.

Text segments from the different interviews were coded (assigned code words) using action

verbs that conformed to actions directed at achieving engagement with the ICTs (Friese,

2012:21-34). Process coding (Saldana, 2012:1-15), that shows or captures action in the

data, was used for this. Using the family manager, codes were then compared and clustered

into categories or families, as they are known in Atlas.ti (Friese, 2012:39-43; Smit, 2013a &

Smit, 2013b). Each family corresponded to a component of Engeström’s triangle in Figure

2.7: The subject (in this study, the student), the object (initial engagement with ICTs), the tool

(ICTs in the orientation session – the mediating artefact), the rules (policies, written and

unwritten rules), the community (others involved in the context of engagement during these

sessions – instructors, tutors, fellow students), and the division of labour (formal or informal

divisions between groups of individuals, in terms of the activities they engage in within the

system). Code families were then exported from Atlas.ti into Ms Word using the simple

retrieval function in Atlas.ti (Friese, 2012:49). Since the families contained so many codes,

they were grouped into sub-categories in order to manage them more easily. Text segments

were also exported separately for each family. Families (including their codes and text

segments) were then checked for areas where students experienced difficulties in engaging

with the object (ICTs). Once this was done, it was possible to write up accounts of the

various areas where students experienced problems engaging with the technologies. The

decision to provide a collective account of the findings was based on the fact that students’

experiences during the sessions were too similar for a meaningful account of each individual

student’s experience to be provided.


3.7 Ethical considerations

Although ethical issues in the social sciences can frequently become complex, there is

agreement on a proper and principled manner of conducting research, also with regard to the

non-damage to human beings and sufficient information needs to be provided to subjects on

the research conducted (De Vos et al., 2002:62-63). The research was conducted according

to the following ethical measures:

• The participants were invited to sign a generic consent form with conditions of

participation, before being allowed to participate. Permission for their participation

was obtained from the university.

• The participating students were all consenting adults and informed consent was

ensured by constantly reminding participants of the nature of the research. In

other words, informed consent was not a once-off event.

• Eight computer-illiterate first-year students participated in individual interviews for

a minimum of 30 minutes, but not longer than 45 minutes. Interviews were to be

tape recorded for data analysis. After transcription the students would be asked to

verify their transcriptions to which corrections were made.

• The students were assured that their identities would be protected. They were

allocated pseudonyms and references to personal information were removed prior

to release or publishing of such information to external parties. Transcriptions of

interviews were to be stored in a locked facility for at least five years, and then be

destroyed.

• All means were employed to ensure that participants were not compromised in

any way by their participation: They were not pressurised or manipulated in any

way during the interviews to provide information that was inaccurate, created

discomfort or violated their privacy. They were free to withhold information if they

so desired. A choice between English and Afrikaans was offered, and sensitivity

to dignity, cultural, religious and other beliefs was shown.

• It was explained to participants that their participation was voluntary and that they

had the freedom to withdraw at any time without giving reasons or suffering

negative consequences to themselves.

• Participants were informed that they would benefit from privileged access to the

results of the research as they emerge.

• The students were informed of the background rationale, the purpose and

process of the research, the use of the data and to whom it would be made

available, as well as the potential contribution of the research.


3.8 Summary

This chapter has outlined the framework and context of this enquiry as well as the theoretical

perspective with which it was conceptualised. The research design and methodology, as well

as processes and methods of data collection and analysis used in this study, have been set

out and justified. Measures and procedures to ensure that research is conducted ethically

have been described. In the following chapter: Reporting and analysing data / results and

findings the data produced according to the principles and processes provided in this

chapter, will be analysed. Finally, the findings in relation to the research problem will be

reported on, and conclusions drawn.


CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND

FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter reports on the data collected from the transcripts of individual in-depth

interviews with eight students and specifically on the analysis and interpretation of this data.

The purpose of this analysis is to address the aims and objectives of this enquiry, which, as

outlined in previous chapters, is: To explore computer-illiterate first year students’

experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university. In

order to achieve this aim it was necessary to state the following objectives:

• To describe student experiences with regard to initial engagement with ICTs using the

activity system as a conceptual tool

• To explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about their initial

engagement with ICTs

• To identify tensions (in Activity Theory terms) which drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs

In this enquiry, Cultural Historical Activity Theory has been used both as a conceptual and

analytical tool to examine first year computer-illiterate students’ initial experiences of

engagement with ICTs during initial computer orientation sessions. CHAT’s strengths as a

tool to simultaneously analyse both individual and broad contextual issues related to learning

in a social context make it ideal for this purpose. As such it provides a means of

understanding participants’ engagement with ICTs within the social context rather than from

an individual perspective alone.

For the purposes of analysing the data, the activity system is employed as the unit of

analysis. Eight students (the subjects) who were computer-illiterate initially engaged with

ICTs (the object). The ICTs are seen as the mediating artefacts (the tool). Furthermore, the

more complex expansions of the activity system to include rules, community and division of

Chapter 4: Data analysis, interpretation and findings 56

labour as postulated by theorists such as Wersch (1981) and later by Engeström (2001) have

been included. Findings have been drawn from an analysis of the aforementioned

components of the expanded activity system in this enquiry by examining their relationships

and, specifically, tensions that have come to light between the subjects (the students) and

the other components of the activity system. By using an activity theoretical lens, it is hoped

that engagement with ICTs (the ‘object’ of the activity) may be exposed and thus better

understood as students reflectively appropriate tools and seek possible courses of action to

solve problems. In the process, concepts such as multivoicedness (dialogues, multiple

viewpoints, traditions, interests, cultural diversity), historicity (history of an activity system),

and the dynamics of power relations (Daniels & Warmington, 2007:377-385) have come to

light. In addition, I have adopted Stetsenko’s concept of an activist transformative stance to

enable me to ascertain whether - and to what extent - the participating students have been

able to learn transformatively: to become human only “in and through (not in addition to) the

processes of collaboratively transforming their world” (Stetsenko, 2008:471).

This chapter covers the following: Firstly, a brief account is given of the methods used to

analyse and interpret this data. This will be followed by the interpretation of the eight

students' collective experiences of initial engagement with ICTs during their orientation

sessions. Tensions between components of the activity triangle arising from this analysis will

be exposed.

4.2 Implementing content analysis and interpretation procedures

As described in Chapter 3, content analysis was conducted in Atlas.ti using process coding

in order to describe the individual actions of students directed towards attaining the goal of

engaging with ICTs for the first time. As discussed, codes relevant to a given aspect of

Engeström’s expanded activity triangle (Figure 2.6 and 2.7 in Chapter 2), were clustered into

categories or families, as they are known in Atlas.ti (Friese, 2012:39-43) to correspond with a

relevant component of the triangle.

As such, the families were given the following names: Subject, Object, Mediating artefact,

Rules, Community and Division of labour. Once exported, each family was listed in a table as

shown in Appendix E, Tables 1 to 6. Each family was re-examined to find relationships or

affinities that could be seen between codes, and accordingly grouped into sub-themes to

reflect student experiences with similar content (see Appendix F, Tables 7 through 12).


It was decided to analyse students’ experiences collectively as a group rather than

individually. This culminates in findings in the form of a joint account of the experiences of

the eight student participants. The content analysis and findings that follow are therefore

focused on students as a collective subject in activity system terminology. Furthermore,

student experiences refer collectively to all computer orientation sessions where they

experienced ICTs for the first time and these, collectively, will represent the activity system.

Student names in this section have been replaced with pseudonyms for ethical reasons.

Tensions between the subject and each component in the activity system are briefly

summarised. From this interpreted data, the researcher has written up a list of findings of

students’ experiences for the purposes of addressing the research question. In the following

section the analysis and interpretation of participant statements are set out.

4.3 Content analysis and interpretation of the data: Identifying tensions between the components of Engeström’s extended mediational triangle

This section focuses on the tensions experienced by students as they engaged with ICTs for

the first time. As mentioned before, tensions are indicative of internal contradictions in the

system as the subjects (computer-illiterate students) seek to achieve their desired goal or

object (engaging with the ICTs) during the computer orientation sessions. Problems,

frustration or discomfort may indicate tensions in the system that impact on their ability to

achieve the object. In examining these tensions it is possible to locate the source of internal

contradictions in the system and so better understand the underlying phenomena inhibiting

or driving the mechanisms of students’ ability to engage with ICTs for the first time, as well as

the driving forces of change and development in the activity system (Engeström, 2001:135).

As the coding progressed, and as codes were placed in respective families and sub-themes,

a preliminary picture began to emerge of the various dilemmas and issues with which

students were grappling as they attempted to engage. Similar experiences seemed to be

repeated over and over by different students, and it was clear that some of these caused far

more powerful emotional responses from students, than others did. In mapping these new

sub-codes to the mediational triangle, a preliminary view of the data could be obtained (see

Figure 4.1).


Figure 4.1 Engeström’s extended mediational triangle as a tool for data analysis showing codes and sub-themes

As mentioned earlier, the focus in interpreting the data is specifically on the students’

experiences as such, and their experiences of engagement with the object of the activity

system. For this reason, I will focus specifically on tensions in the activity system between

the student and other parts of the system. Figure 4.2 shows these tensions that will be

examined and reported on in the rest of this chapter.


Figure 4.2 Tensions between the subject and other components of the system

4.3.1 Tensions between the subject and the mediating artefact (tool)

On examination of codes relating to the subjects’ (the computer-illiterate students)

engagement or interaction with the mediating artefact or tool (the computer) in the computer

orientation sessions, most students acutely felt their “computer-illiteracy”, and expressed it in

terms of previous lack of exposure or lack of access to computers, as well as lack of skills.

“We are not used to computers” and “I never touched a computer before”. Another

reiterated: “…I couldn’t use a computer and I couldn’t even go to [an] Internet café”. One complained: “…we had no computers… It felt bad. As a new student it also felt as if I cannot do anything with a computer. It felt like I should have my computer so that I could use it, so that I could get used to using a computer. It was going to be a little bit better if I had my computer…”


Students’ experiences of physically interacting with a computer for the first time were quite

varied. Most students initially seemed excited and looked forward to the experience. One

commented: “I was… nervous and excited” and another viewed the opportunity of

interacting with a computer as something that would have a positive effect on his life, or

something that could help him be successful in his studies, saying: “To me, I was not scared…because we were dealing with real situations that we have to deal with: something that you have to write or type, something that will help us… succeed in getting good marks in assignments or assessments”. While all eight students

experienced difficulty and discomfort during the actual process of interacting with a computer

for the first time, a few students found their overall experience reasonably comfortable: Ya, it was comfortable… A computer is just a normal thing. It’s technology”. However, most

students found their interaction ranging from difficult to traumatic.

The difference in students’ comfort levels appeared to be less when they were able to relate

a computer to technologies used previously. A number of students mentioned that previous

experience with computers or other digital devices had assisted them in feeling more

comfortable in their interaction with a computer to the extent that some of them didn’t feel

they saw anything new in the technologies.

One student said that using a computer felt “comfortable” and “normal” to him and added that

the experience was “…just like using my cell phone”. Another found that experience of

typing on a computer keyboard at primary school made his experience less scary and more

comfortable: “To me I was not scared. To me, it was like a reflection of something that I did before”. Another student felt privileged in having friends and family to offer some prior

exposure to computers, and he seemed to feel more confident overall. He mentioned having

cousins who “had some computers, so they told me how does it work. So [in the

computer orientation sessions] I just implement[ed] when I hear[d] something: ‘Right-click... Left-click’… and then there’s something like a dashboard… So I just implement what they told me… Yes, I feel great, because at least I know something about the computer…” and “I felt that at least my mind can implement something that I learned a long time ago”. He also mentioned that technologies other than computers had been helpful

in making his interaction with the computer easier for him: “It’s not that hard, because my cousin has a phone with this keyboard, so, yes, I’ve seen it before. And then this CD thing – I’ve seen it before, like DVD players, and how to use it.”

Although students who benefited from some prior experience felt confident and comfortable;

most students found their initial interaction with a computer difficult and uncomfortable,


experiencing feelings of fear, confusion, awkwardness and embarrassment. In some cases

this was so bad that it caused a kind of mental paralysis that made it difficult for students to

interact properly with the tool. When asked how it felt touching a computer for the first time,

one student said: “No I never touched a computer before… I was shaking… I was shaking, and then they asked me to relax. You know what: the way I was shaking, I was very confused. I couldn’t even read the questions from the screen... [laughs

nervously] I was very scared… I couldn’t think. Everything felt difficult, you know”. Another student also found the experience difficult. She said: “I was not used to computers… [I had] … to memorise all that I was told – this is for this… this is for this. In fact I was forgetting… because I was not used to computers.”

Some participants suffered embarrassment and low self-esteem or felt really awkward or

stupid interacting with a computer for the first time. One found the experience humiliating:

“My IQ in Maths is very high… but I only have a problem with the computer”. Another

exclaimed: “For me it felt awkward, embarrassing… and… I was also nervous and excited. I was excited that I could actually use the computer. I was nervous – how to use it, and I was like OK fine, I’m gonna use the computer, but I don’t know how to use it, I don’t know where to press, and I was also embarrassed… ‘cause it was like … looking at other people… and I saw… that they were all busy! ... It even makes me feel like: ‘I wonder how I passed my Matric!’ ” Similarly: “In the class I was very confused…. You know what? … I even became shy to call the assistant… or [to] be looking at other people’s computers. You see, I was confused.” These feelings of awkwardness and

embarrassment, particularly in front of more competent students who were not struggling as

they were in the sessions let some feel out of place: “It feels like you’re out of place. You don’t belong here. You belong somewhere else… we had no computers… It felt bad”.

What was interesting, in terms of the physical interaction of the students with the hardware

components of the computer, is that they clearly enjoyed this. However, the fact remains that

they could not operate the hardware in order to engage effectively with ICTs. The almost

contradictory statements made by students further indicate tensions between themselves

and the tools. “…For me it felt awkward, embarrassing… and… I was excited that I could actually use the computer… I was nervous too”. Student3 went on to say: “It felt good…I enjoyed it very much. … It was like – wow! – I wish I could do this more often”. Student4 also seemed to contradict herself when saying “everything felt difficult… I couldn’t type” but went on to say: “For me I don’t think the computer is very difficult, ‘cause it has instructions. You just need to follow the instructions.” Both these

statements express, on the one hand, excitement and enjoyment in interacting with the


computer, but on the other, difficulty and emotional stress in doing so – certainly a conflict

that seemed to exist in these students’ minds. There also seems to be a desire to practice (“I wish I could do this more often”), and belief that they will eventually be able to use them

better.

In examining students’ experience of the specific components of the computer, the keyboard

was found to be the most challenging, and using it to do elementary typing was the most

frequently cited problem. Struggling to use it also slowed students down, making it more

difficult for them to keep up in the sessions. Even so, Student3 expressed enjoyment at using

it: “I liked using the keyboard… Writing numbers... It was quite easy! [Laughing]”. She

hastened to add: “…using my keyboard… I wish I could be more [sic.] quicker and faster in using it”. Another student noted: “Other learners are so fast on these keys; but I’m like… one button at a time…” This difference in speed will be discussed in more detail

in the section Tensions between the subject and the division of labour further on.

Apart from being challenged with slow speed, students experienced the following problems

with the keyboard. Struggling to memorise where the keys were seemed to be most

frustrating: “Ya – it was really a mix-up” and “the problem comes… to master the keys”. One found “the way they put the alphabet…” to be a problem. Student4 stated that she

“had to look for ‘M’... go around! ... look for ‘C’. It’s not like ‘ABCDE’. ‘A’ is there. ‘B’ is there. You see [laughs]… That’s why I took almost an hour to type a short piece”. However Student4 experienced added anxiety as a challenge in mastering the keys, saying

“I was very scared, shaking…I couldn’t type”. Student 5 exclaimed: “… there is nothing that you could see to press”.

Use of the specialised keys such as SHIFT and CAPS LOCK to access upper case or

special characters, such as quotation marks posed specific difficulty for the students.

Student2 expressed this as follows: “… and so we found something like – a button has two sides – maybe inverted commas and a full stop… so maybe I took five minutes busy checking each and every button. Ya, [it took] too much time. So eventually I got the right thing: press ‘Shift’ and then another button”...because we find a button did two things” Student6 said: “The problem with the keys is to know how to use each and every key. If it is the ‘Shift’ key – how to use it; if it is the ‘Backspace’ – how to use it; and ‘Numlock’… how to use it… all those… I was confusing myself on the keys, especially the Caps Lock and the Shift”.


Another component that posed some challenges to the students was the mouse. However,

these were minimal as compared to those experienced with the keyboard. Student8

explained that “The problem was the mouse, because then the cursor was missing on the screen. I don’t know where it went. And then sometimes the mouse was not connected by the program – or whatever – to the cursor”. Most students seemed to have

no problems with the mouse, finding it easy. Student3 enjoyed using it: I liked using … the mouse – moving the mouse- it was very nice”. Student5 said that she found the mouse

“so easy” and Student6 seemed to have no problems with the mouse, and said simply that

she enjoyed it. In the next section, tensions that were exposed between the subject and the

rules, will be set out and discussed.

4.3.2 Tensions between the subject and the rules

The students, as subjects, experienced a number of tensions as a result of the rules in the

activity system. Many of these such as the speed of the sessions, the students’ feelings of

embarrassment and discomfort, and their need for more reinforcement and repetition of the

material learned, that have emerged in this section overlap with those mentioned in the

previous section. I have grouped the tensions that emerged between the students and the

rules as follows: The general (formal) logistics of the sessions including timing, duration and

order of the sessions, as well as the rules within the sessions themselves. These include

English as the language of instruction, the speed of delivery and amount of information

disseminated, the amount of support provided and finally, the expectation or pressure on

students to pass or master the technologies. These all had a bearing on their ability to

engage with the tools.

In expressing their opinion on the fact that computer orientation sessions were offered by the

university, most students felt positive and were very appreciative of the trouble taken to

assist computer-illiterate students. They felt that the sessions were important and relevant to

their needs: “…I’d like to thank UJ for offering the first year students such a great experience, as others have not been doing computers… and others do not have even computers at home... So UJ did a great thing by offering some courses … for people who don’t know anything about a computer.” Being made to do the course was seen as

beneficial: “… if we didn’t have this programme, I don’t think we were going to cope in this university. So it’s going to help us a lot – I hope so, and I think they should keep on, and they should not give up on the students like us who don’t know anything about a computer”.


However, when it came to more specific details concerning the logistics of the sessions,

students expressed some serious frustrations and difficulties. In terms of the order of the

sessions, the computer literacy test was the first item on the programme, and this produced

the greatest challenge to most students, as it meant they were expected to do a test before

computer training could take place. This caused emotional distress and difficulties for many

of the participants.

As mentioned in previous chapters, the computer-illiterate students were required to

complete an online test (c-tag 1) before being allowed to attend the other computer

orientation sessions, the purpose being to ascertain their computer proficiency levels so that

those with insufficient computer skills could be identified to attend the computer training

(c-tag 2) sessions. The students experienced two principal issues with this test. Firstly, they

had practical difficulty in completing it, particularly within the one-hour timeframe. Secondly, it

would appear that it was not clear to many of these participants what the purpose of the test

was. Most participants believed that it counted for marks, and that this constituted their first

indication of academic success or failure at university. They associated the term test with

their experience of a typical test at school level, and not simply as a measure of skill to

ascertain whether or not they required computer training. Only one of the participants

appeared to understand the purpose of having the test before the other sessions. “The way it was organised: … it was good… because they wanted to see… do you know a computer or do you not. Because, if they teach – then they come and test you … They will be able to see the things that you lacked the experience from. So it was very, very good…” On the other hand, the rest all disagreed… One student who repeated the test a

number of times expressed frustration regarding the order in which the sessions occurred.

Her distress was due to repeatedly failing the test, and inability to understand what to do in

order to cope when information was not provided until after the test: “…I tried every time I came to write the test, but I failed and never passed. She suggested: “I think it would have been better if they had started [the computer orientation sessions] by explaining everything.

Most of the students were upset or traumatised by their experiences of the computer literacy

test. Their feelings ranged from being embarrassed and humiliated (in some cases

repeatedly) by poor marks, worrying about failing at university before they had even started

their studies, disappointment, despondency, and outright distress and trauma. In many cases

students had to repeat it. Having had no idea what to do in order to pass constituted an

emotionally difficult introduction to computer orientation: “I think it’s not good because when you are attending c-tag 1, you fail. You attend c-tag 2, you fail… There’s no one


who helps you in the class. You have to attend this one… fail… attend this one… fail… attend this one… fail… so I don’t think I… it’s… [Student becomes distressed]... I feel like I’m stupid… like failing and like I’m stupid. I feel even like that I don’t belong here.” Another noted how worried she was: “It was a little bit difficult, because the first time when I attended this class, it was a test for the marks – whether I pass or not. Yes, I was so worried…The training should have been first, and then the test after that.” Student3 explained her confusion, disappointment and frustration: “And I saw... for the first time I got 17 and for the second time I got 26!... and when I finished it, I told myself that yes I’d passed it, but only to find out that I’d got 26...Ya.”

Furthermore, the time allocated for the test (one hour) was said to be insufficient for Students

to complete in time. Having been forced to rush the test, one reports: “I would just jump the question and move to the next... Similarly: “Just, it [the test] was hard. The things we do

[sic.]. We had to take some time to answer all the questions. It was hard to decide. You don’t know the files, which one is for which...which one is to identify what?... Eish, it [the time] was too short.”

Another problem with the overall logistics of the sessions that students experienced was that

they felt that the time (a single day) allocated by the university for computer orientation was

insufficient for computer-illiterate students, and that more time for reinforcement was needed

to absorb the volume of information disseminated: “I think they were supposed to do the c-tag the whole day. Then the following day, they do the e-tag... You get confused. You are not used to it... the keys...! - but they have to keep on teaching them up until they are coping up.” Student2 expressed this in a similar way, saying that it was impossible to

retain such a huge volume of information when it was disseminated in only one day: “I would have emphasised… Wednesday, Thursday, Friday [referring to the rest of the

orientation period used for other types of orientation] - not do everything one day. Because doing everything one day … maybe some people wouldn’t remember what they did before. That’s why - because, we just gave these people two hours, 30 minutes, so... it was so much... so much and big... [It] was so huge”. This issue of time was also

aggravated by learners arriving late for sessions: “They were all in a hurry because they saw that the learners came late and they had to push this whole e-tag thing so that they can do something [other sessions] here tomorrow”.

Some student’s proffered suggestions as to how this problem might be overcome. A second

day for reinforcement was mentioned: “Yes, lots of information, that someone couldn’t remember what you did, so if we did something today, then tomorrow we could do a


revision”. Time was needed between sessions too: “The time between the sessions – there must be a break… to refresh my mind”. Some students who had difficulty learning

the material were allowed by staff to return on other days to repeat the c-tag 2 and e-tag

sessions. Student6 was grateful that she had been allowed to attend the sessions multiple

times, saying: “Ya. I think the university is treating me ok, because I was allowed to come again in different sessions… to learn more.” However not all students were

prepared or motivated to do this. Student2 who repeated sessions explained his motivation: “Someone who wants to... who has the willingness to learn would even come tomorrow, and do the very same test that we have done today.” Student2 suggested

that perhaps some of the information disseminated in the sessions could be removed, and

sufficient breaks provided for students for rest: “Maybe we would do 45 minutes this … and then you break to refresh and then another process 45 minutes... another process - not everything [at once].”

It would appear as though English as the language of instruction in the computer orientation

sessions (another rule) posed problems for most of the students. Some did not experience

problems with understanding presenters’ language in general: “The lecturers – those that were teaching us – it wasn’t difficult I could understand when the person is speaking English” and “I don’t have a problem with… understanding English. I even know a little bit of Afrikaans. Yes, and even TshiVenda. I am multi-lingual.”

In general, the level of English used in the sessions was not perceived as difficult to follow

(and seemingly similar to what most students would have experienced at school level).

However, when more complex terminology was employed, students did experience

challenges. Student3 explained that if such words were spoken or explained in their own

(vernacular) language, they would be easier to understand: “I would understand everything… So… some of the words – you are not used to them. So you’ll find a word that… it’s new…You don’t understand what does it mean… So maybe if they’d been speaking in my language, the language that I understand, I will understand each and every word that the person is talking.” Student2 noted: “I didn’t find it that much difficult, because they used basic English…”

It seems that more difficult concepts were mostly explained in the vernacular at school level

for most of these students, so this is what they were used to. They were also far less used to

spoken English, which was used as the language of instruction in the sessions. Students

explained this as follows: Student1 echoed this, saying that although he found the English

used in the computer orientation sessions understandable, “…it was very challenging,


because the way we are speaking English here is very different from the way we are speaking English at schools … we are not used to speaking English with other learners. At schools, we are used to speaking vernacular”. Student4 similarly explained:

“You know what? At our schools, all the time, they communicate in Zulu. The teacher will be explaining everything in Zulu. We find it difficult to speak English. We can read and write in English, but when it comes to speaking it, it becomes difficult, ‘cause the school… - the teacher would stand in front explaining in Sotho or Zulu.” Student8

raised a similar point, noting that at his school the language of instruction was mostly

English, so he was familiar with English (“I am used to English”), however “…when it was hard, they used Tswana somewhere, somehow, but not so much.” The implications of

students struggling with English in the sessions were that they battled to assimilate

necessary content, and fell behind. Student3 explained that more spoken English in school

would have helped them to cope in the sessions: “…I think… what is making us to be left behind…’cause …we lack more English because they are using more African Languages [in school] than English… I think… they should use more English in school.”

Getting behind in the sessions was a general problem for the students. Tensions that were

exposed by rules associated with the fast speed of delivery as compared to the large amount

of content disseminated in sessions seemed to be the cause. This seemed to go hand in

hand with students requiring more explanation of content because they could not keep up

with the pace of teaching or were unable to cope with the level of language or content taught

given their prior experience. On the one hand facilitators were pressured to cover the

necessary content within the time available, and on the other, most participants felt that they

could have slowed the pace, and spent more time explaining or reinforcing content. Many

students complained that the speed of teaching did not allow them the chance to understand

all the content and many struggled as a result. Student4 said: “maybe, let’s say, you don’t understand the other part. You’ll call an assistant to help you. And then the lecturer is going on. He’s not waiting for you. So by the time he is moving to another chapter, or what - already you are lost. You don’t know how to get in. The assistant will be helping you with this problem, but you won’t be able to get in to the second part, because the lecture(r) has already gone. She added: “I felt bad, ‘cause I didn’t know how to enter into the next section, ‘cause I was still trying to know the first one. So it became very difficult for me again to understand the second section”. Therefore, having missed out

on a section of content, this student found it difficult to engage with subsequent sections of

content. As the content became more complex the situation was exacerbated: “It’s because, by not understanding, I was lagging behind. ...what the instructor says. I forget


everything, and then I get bored and... thinking: How am I going to catch up? [voice

rises with emotion]... How am I going to improve myself? ... How am I going to get into this - to be used into these computers? So ... it was hectic… up to the point that I think maybe I will not catch up. I will not do exactly what the lecturers will want me to do, by using the computers; how to search information, how to type it… and send to them. I was feeling that: ‘How am I going to do this?’ Yes, I was very worried. … I got really, really behind on the Edulink session. ” She explained the reason why she was unable to

keep up as: “There was a lot of information written … so I didn’t know where to click...Too much information, and I didn’t [sic.] able to read fast. This student clearly

struggled to read the text in English quickly enough to keep up with the speed required in the

session. I was busy searching where they are - where they are saying I have to click. So there was too much information, and I was running short of time. … Ahh, so it was confusing me: Time, and a lot of information to read”.

Students tried to help themselves in the following ways to try to keep up with the pace of the

sessions: Besides asking presenters or assistants for help, some students also asked other

students to assist them: Student1 noted: “Ya, someone sitting next to me I just asking him – him or her… ‘What’s going on?’, ‘Where am I supposed to go?’ We were just helping each other”. Student 5 explained: “I just asked my fellow student and she helped me. Then I got there and there and there.” Student2 considered a more long-term

solution for his typing speed that was slowing him down in the sessions: “Now I’ve been thinking that I should, when I get time, go to an Internet cafe, type something, or go to a friend - just exercise my typing skills, because most of our assignments - it will not be like school that we have to scribble or do something - I may have to finish, many - maybe three or more papers of typing. So I’ll do some chores at home when I’m not with friends or I get excess time”.

Other tensions arose due to the need to follow the rules related to time allocation and

allocation of assistants. Many of the participants felt that although support was available, it

was inadequate, mainly because the instructors and assistants seemed more concerned with

covering the necessary material quickly within the allotted time than with offering sufficient

explanation of content: “He didn’t… explain from the start. He just took my mouse and then continued with all the stuff without explanation” and “…The assistant came… he didn’t even explain everything. He just took my mouse – continued everything – just to catch up… to the other students…” Student7 felt that had there been more teaching

assistants, they could have managed in the available time: “No, the time was enough, but just… there were just a few assistants. So they were helping a lot of us.” The lack of


help in the form of assistants left students feeling alone: “I was feeling that: “How am I going to do this? Who is going to help me? ... We were told that we will be typing our assignments on the cyber web. So I was feeling that ... Is there anyone who is going to help me on this if I don’t catch up with theses lectures that I’m having now? ... Yes, I was very worried.”

The rules dictated that students simultaneously operated the computer, followed the

presenter, and read printed notes. Some found this overwhelming: “They were saying you have to click on such and such a place... so I was busy looking away to click - reading where exactly he said I have to click. Then I got lost there ... I was busy searching where they are - where they are saying I have to click. So there was too much information, and I was running short of time.” Students seemed generally to be

overwhelmed in coping with the speed of dissemination on the one hand, and the amount

and variety of sources of information on the other, finding it difficult to follow or understand

what was taught in the sessions as a result.

A final tension exposed between the subject and the rules relates to the pressure on

students to pass. In this regard a number of students felt under pressure to perform during

the sessions fearing that inability to master the technologies could lead to academic failure.

Fear of failing frequently caused students much distress. Student7 feared that there would be

only one chance for him to master the technologies, or fail, saying: “I’m scared. They say … you only have one chance … If you make a mistake, then there’s no turning back… I feel scared because I don’t want to fail… because failing, for me, is not an option… so I’m willing to try my best… I felt I had to do these things… I felt like I didn’t have a choice… so I had to do it or else I’m going to fail at the end of the day”. This student

also felt that his inability to master the technologies would disappoint his family: “I got behind and … I was scared that I’m going to fail my first year here, because I’m not computer-literate. So, like I’m going to disappoint my family because I don’t have a proper computer literacy. It was terrifying”. In the following section, the tensions exposed

between the subject and the object (initial engagement with ICTs) will be discussed.

4.3.3 Tensions between the subject and the object

It appeared that the majority of the computer-illiterate participants experienced difficult initial

encounters with the introduction to ICTs (the object). Reasons for this were firstly, that many

participants experienced fear, nervousness and difficulty in operating the tool itself, and also

having to do an online computer test before being taught basic computer literacy. Having

found the test extremely difficult, and having to do it in the presence of more computer-


literate students in the sessions, caused the participants considerable emotional distress.

Fear of failure, embarrassment, self-esteem and motivational or morale issues seemed to

plague many participants, leading them to feel that they would not be able to engage with the

technologies - this before they had even started ICT training. These affective reactions in

themselves may well have constituted an initial psychological or emotional barrier to

participants’ engagement with the object.

Due to the fact that the participants were struggling so much with being able to understand

content or keep up in the sessions, the tensions mentioned in this section reflect the

obstacles they that faced in trying to understand the teaching in the sessions far more than

their actual interaction with the technologies (the object). It is also appropriate here to

describe the eight cases of engagement individually, as their experiences followed a similar

pattern to each other, initially being overwhelmed and emotionally stressed, then difficulty in

following the teaching, with very limited success in being able to acquire or retain the

necessary content to be able to engage with the technologies.

Engaging with ICTs was quite overwhelming: “Everything… [was] difficult…Ya… I was very slow, very slow” and “It’s quite difficult. Everything you have to do with the computer and then yet you have no computer background. It’s difficult… it’s going to be difficult adjusting to being at university because it’s quite difficult with everything you have to do with the computer. You have to type, write your assignments. Everything! Difficult… Ya.” Whereas some began to doubt their ability to engage

successfully with the technologies as a result of a previous lack of access to these

technologies others were emotionally upset by having to first encounter ICTs in the form of a

test. They seemed to compare their ability to engage with that of others: “I was so worried... because people worked so fast. The person I came with here worked faster than me. He even finished in less than twenty minutes. And then I was so under pressure. I just wanted to go out with him.” Fear was the biggest barrier to true engagement: “I was very scared, shaking. I couldn’t think. Everything felt difficult” and “I was just only scared. I had no other feelings [laughs]. I felt scared about the computer - how to use the... keys, and to memorise all that I was told - this is for this...this is for this. In fact I was forgetting how to use this, how to start, ...how to take it off... because I was not used to computers. So I felt scared.” Engagement demanded learning basic procedures and

skills: “There’s a lot of things to remember... So it was difficult for me to remember all of those things...the things which I forgot on the computer are: How to save the document... I repeated it... time and again.” Student5 also found her initial engagement


difficult: “For the first time [interacting with ICTs] it’s nice but then, it’s difficult. It’s not simple like, to know… where to go, where to do that stuff.”

Having experienced a difficult introductory encounter with ICTs, students attended the

computer orientation training, where they were offered the chance to learn and engage in

earnest with the technologies. Their renewed attempts at engagement are set out in the

following section.

Students’ ability to engage with ICTs during the sessions met with many obstacles, making it

more difficult for the computer-illiterate participants to fully benefit from what was taught. All

participants were frustrated at their inability to keep up with the pace of the sessions and

speed of presentation, requiring more explanation of content than was provided by the staff.

As mentioned in the previous section, it appeared that although assistance was available, it

primarily served the purpose of showing the participant students where to go or what to do

(where to click), without the necessary hands-on assistance to help them perform a task or

understand necessary content. Nevertheless, many students persisted in attempting to

overcome these obstacles in order to engage with the object. Their experiences are

described below.

Even though Student3 found her initial engagement with the object difficult, she felt that she

had been able to improve her skills to some extent: “Ya, I kind of… adapted… Everything… [was] difficult…ya… I was very slow, very slow … but when time goes on, I adjusted a little bit – not like – ya, I couldn’t, like, be excellent, but I was a little bit adjusted.” Her experience during the computer literacy sessions had been difficult due to

the speed of presentation: “The lecturer was fast. I couldn’t understand him clearly. Most of his words were like quick... and then they were like... un-understandable... or even like... when you were trying to find him, he was like... moving on, without even asking questions like: who doesn’t understand him...” However, she found the LMS (e-

tag) session easier to deal with: “It was like relaxing. Everything was explained clearly. Ya, I kind of like adapted.”

Student4 – having found her first engagement with ICTs very difficult - did her best and

persisted, with modest results: “It was very difficult for me...but I tried by all means, but by the end of the session, at least I gained something, but...every time [I wrote] the test... I failed and never passed”. She also overcame embarrassment to ask for support: “I called an assistant many times. So I didn’t become ashamed to - I thought maybe he’d become bored or what... Every time I’d be raising my hand for assistance. So I even


became shy to call the assistant... or be looking at other people’s computers... I tried to raise my hands, whenever I couldn’t understand, and they would come and assist me. However, she was challenged in catching up after receiving support, since the presenter

continued apace with the session, causing her to miss content that was necessary for

understanding another part of the session: “You’ll call an assistant to help you. And then the lecturer is going on. He’s not waiting for you. So by the time he is moving to another chapter, or what - already you are lost. ... So it became difficult for me ... to understand the second section.” However, she did eventually manage to learn something

from the sessions: “But at least, by the end of the day I did understand some things.” Having gone through this process, she felt more confidence in her potential abilities to

engage with ICTs, saying: “I’m not used to it [ICTs], but ... when the time goes on; I think I’ll be used to it.”

She noted that it would have been easier for her to engage with the content in the sessions if

the instructor had been prepared to wait for all students to catch up and understand before

moving forward to new material.

Student5, found her initial experience difficult and, having had to overcome fear and nerves,

continued to have difficulty in following instructions from the presenters in the c-tag sessions

due to the speed of teaching, even though she did not experience the actual content as

difficult, as she explained: “For me, it was simple to follow that instruction, but then the guy, he was so fast - but it was so simple. Like, if I followed the computer it was so simple, but the lecturer - when he’s saying this and this and this and this - it’s so difficult...” She was unable to follow as a result. She found the e-tag session easier to cope

with, but still struggled with the speed: “I think the Edulink... it was better, but... he was so fast.... I didn’t catch up all the stuff that he was saying”. In asking for assistance, neither

the presenter nor assistant were prepared to explain the material to her. When she was lost,

she called the presenter for assistance, but he “didn’t ... explain from the start. He just took my mouse and then continued with all the stuff without explanation...” An

assistant “didn’t even explain everything. He just took my mouse - continued everything – just to catch up, like to the other students.” As a result, she missed some

of the content, and found it difficult to understanding what was going on: “Ya, I just lost it... some of the instructions I do remember, but some, I don’t remember. I just lost it... Yes. I misunderstand the whole thing.” She was able to obtain some assistance from a

fellow student: “I just asked my fellow student and she helped me. Then I got there and there and there”. Another student assisted her with submitting an assignment: “He helped me to attach my assignment and to submit it”.


Student7, who initially battled low self-esteem, fear of failure and despondency after the

computer literacy test, was still willing to try his best claiming that: “because failing, for me, is not an option... so I’m willing to try my best”. Having also been left behind, he had

been able to receive assistance from one of the presenters: “... I was a little bit behind, but... there was a lady there who helped me... She helped me to go into some sites that I didn’t understand...how to go back...how to go forward...” This helped him to catch up

a little: “I was adjusting, but I was not that fast enough... but I did adjust. But I was a little bit behind”. However, he still missed out on some content, experiencing gaps in his

knowledge. He explained: “She was explaining, so like, I got a little bit there and there... but there were still gaps where I’m missing, so I had to fill up those gaps... Ya, some of them I was able to, but some of them I didn’t understand.” Apart from these challenges,

his typing speed in comparison to other faster learners in the sessions was still too slow:

“Other learners were so fast on the keys; but I’m like...one key at a time, so, like it was hard...” Another challenge he experienced was the way that the presenters taught: “I think the lecturer assumed that we knew everything. So... then he thought that the only problem was to show us where to access, not how to access. This statement shows that

the student was aware of his computer-illiteracy and that he was at a disadvantage in the

session as a result of this, and that insufficient explanation of content for him as a computer-

illiterate student was an obstacle to his initial engagement with ICTs. Nevertheless, he

indicated a desire to persist in his learning, saying: “Ya, definitely... [I want]... to study computers more. I want to know. I want to be able to do it.”

Student8, had initially been upset by the computer literacy test and embarrassed in the

presence of other more competent students in the class, experiencing low self-esteem, fear

of failure, and also struggled to keep up with the pace of the sessions. Some previous

experience of digital technologies other than computers, and tips from cousins about ICTs

had assisted him to some extent in coping in the sessions and helped boost his self-esteem:

“I have cousins there. They had some computers, so they told me how it works. So I just implement when I hear something... what they told me... Yes, it’s not that hard...” Apart from emotional challenges Student8 also struggled with the speed at which the

sessions were presented complaining that there was not enough time to cope with following

or understanding the content: “It [the time] was too short... Just the lecturer... he was going with the majority of the students, so some of us, we didn’t understand computers. So we had to ask for help now and then ... as the lecturer is moving on”. One problem he experienced was trying to follow the cursor on the screen at the front of the

class, saying: “It was just tough...Just when they act fast ... on the monitor... I can’t see where he clicked... somewhere - when he moved the cursor towards something.” He


was able to obtain some support from the assistants when the presenter was not available:

(“When the lecturer was stationed there, they showed me how to do it; and where do you click”).

Student6 experienced initial fear or nerves that caused her to struggle to focus mentally.

Consequently she struggled to memorise commands or sequences of actions needed to

engage with the technologies. She felt that, with more practice she could overcome this

problem (“Yes, I think ... by practising – you remember”), since a once-off experience

interacting with the technologies did not afford her the opportunity to engage properly with

them, but if more time were available, she would eventually master the technologies. She

explained: “Yes...if you do it once and for all, I don’t think I’ll remember; but I need more time to do practising how to use the computer itself - the keys, how to save... how to type, how to - all the things which I wanted to do them on the computer... I need to practise... I will be able... If I have time, I need to practise.” The number of steps

involved in an activity (such as when saving files) made it more difficult to remember, she

said: “Yes. It had a lot of steps to follow, so it was difficult for me to know how to save...”

For her, too, the speed of the sessions was too fast, and she felt it was not geared to her

needs with step-by-step explanations she felt were required by first-time computer users

such as herself. She explained: “...if someone is experienced with something ... he just does it fast ... Some ... take people step-by-step when they are teaching - slowly, making sure that they are understanding. But here ... they were very fast - most of them, very fast, at the point that I was missing some of the points they were explaining ... they were saying: ‘If you have questions, you have to ask’... But then, sometimes you can see that you are dragging other people...So if you ask... they were saying: ‘We have run short of time’... then sometimes we just keep quiet, and then you say: ‘I’ll catch it up next time’.”

This student, too, missed out on content required to understand and therefore engage with

the ICT skills being taught. When instructors or assistants were not available for help, she

asked fellow students for assistance, saying that “other guys were helping, and others were not”. However, it appears that this form of help served her merely to catch up if she

was left behind, without helping her to understand the material (“I was just asking: “From here... from this point, where can I click to get to where you are?” So he just shows me: “click here”, and that’s where I am”). By not understanding the content, she became

even more behind (“It’s because, by not understanding, I was lagging behind”) thus


further compounding an initial problem. As a result she became upset and very despondent:

“The problems I faced when I get left behind: I forget what they say...what the instructor says. I forget everything, and then I get bored... thinking: “how can I get into this? How am I going to catch up? ... I think maybe I will not catch up...not do exactly what the lecturers want me to do, using the computers; how to search information, how to type it... and send to them. ... We were told that we will be typing our assignments on the web... I didn’t believe... that I was going to manage”.

Another problem she experienced was struggling to read instructions first and then work on

the computer. The amount of information that needed to be read in a short time made it

difficult for to perform the necessary tasks. The problem was compounded by the speed of

delivery in the sessions: “I was busy looking away to click - reading where exactly he said I have to click. Then I got lost there... There was a lot of information written... so I didn’t know where to click... Too much information, and I didn’t [sic.] able to read fast. I was busy searching where they are - where they are saying I have to click. So there was too much information, and I was running short of time... so it was confusing me: Time, and a lot of information to read.”

Apart from seeking assistance from instructors, assistants and fellow students, this

participant elected to repeat quite a number of computer literacy sessions (four in all), for

which she was grateful, but even after attending these, she still felt the need for more

reinforcement after the sessions had ended: “One.. two... three... four... but they have to keep on teaching students, for those who don’t know [are computer-illiterate] – but for those who know it’s ok – but they have to keep on teaching them until they are coping up” adding that a single day of computer orientation was insufficient for her as a computer-

illiterate student, in order to master the required material: “I think they were supposed to do the c-tag the whole day. Then the following day, they do the e-tag. For us - it was better for some of us that don’t know how to operate the computers.”

Student1, who seemed to experience the least problems of all the participants, said he

experienced “only small problems. I think I can handle it”. However he too was left

behind, and asked a fellow student for assistance: “Someone sitting next to me. I [was]

just asking him … ‘What’s going on?’ Where am I supposed to go?’ We were just helping each other”. Student2 was not shy in asking for help from staff when he struggled,

saying: “When I didn’t understand, I’d call a lecturer” and “I don’t think some people got the same information we got, because we asked a lot”. He also expressed the need

to practise when time permits to reinforce the skills learned, having realised that academic


demands could require large volumes of typing: “I want to practise, because then I don’t get ignorant – that I know everything… it won’t be like school… - I may have to finish many – maybe three or more papers of typing. So I’ll do some chores at home when I’m not with friends or I get excess time”.

Few students felt comfortable in engaging with the object, although a one or two felt that they

had achieved some success in overcoming obstacles to engaging with the technologies and

were able to feel somewhat positive about their efforts:

Student2 was clearly focused on why he wanted to be successful in the computer orientation:

“Everything wants computers, so we must engage ourselves in improving our skills… typing… etc.” He felt motivated at having gained some ‘sharable’ value from the training

sessions, saying: “I think now we can be ready to do anything… we’ll be able to share… Yes, I would say it was positive, because I enjoyed… doing the computers, because I like something that is really challenging, something that will help me in future… maybe to do an assignment”. Student7 noted that he did manage to improve in terms of

his speed to some extent, but still was left somewhat behind in the sessions: “No, I was adjusting, but I was not that fast enough... but I did adjust. But I was a little bit behind”.

Notwithstanding these positive statements, the data has shown that the students all admitted

to having missed out on important content throughout the sessions, and had not been able to

master the technologies fully by the time the sessions ended. In the next section, tensions

between the subject and the community will be discussed.

4.3.4 Tensions between Subject and Community

The community in the activity system consisted of family and friends at school level,

presenters, assistants as well as other students present in the sessions. The effect that their

activities, thoughts or opinions (as perceived by participants) had on the participants’ ability

to engage with the object, were exposed by tensions as discussed in this section.

Since none of the participants owned or had access to computers prior to being students at

university or possessed any ability to operate a computer; they were dependent on those

around them who did, often when they needed something requiring ICTs. This is how most of

them experienced prior exposure to ICTs. In some cases, friends or family would do useful

tasks for them such as access the Internet, download, type or print material using a

computer. However, participants were generally not allowed to operate these computers, but


were often allowed to watch others doing so. Over and above this, the participants did not

speak of much support from friends or family at school level. In some cases, friends who

knew that they were coming to university had given them some verbal tips in advance, but no

further assistance was spoken of. In some cases students would visit Internet cafes, but for

those in rural areas, these were often very far away. One participant spoke of a friend who

owned a computer, and who would do useful tasks for her that she was unable to do for

herself: “He has two laptops and he has a computer at his place. He usually downloads music for me, but then he couldn’t allow me to use his computer”. This was because he

was afraid she would cause damage or delete important information. He also did not offer

any assistance in teaching her about ICTs.

Ons student’s parents seemed to realise that there was a need for her to become computer-

literate. They suggested that she consider doing a computer course: “Yes, my mum’s boss usually encouraged me to go for computer lessons. There are six-month courses; I think… she said I should start it next year. But of which I think I should do it this year, and part time, but if it’s part time, I have to do it for a full year.”

One participant managed to learn a bit from interactions in an Internet café. She said: “We used to go to the Internet cafe. There was my friend, who was doing the computer at school. It was her who was doing, like… all that stuff… download… We were just there watching, like… what is she doing. Ya…. It was an assignment. Ya, she was downloading an assignment… just [to] print it out”.

Student6 had a husband who owned a laptop and was computer-literate. However, she had

not been staying with him in Johannesburg, but living in Zimbabwe prior to joining the

university: “…We were not staying together. He was staying here. Me, I was staying home... So it’s only now we are now together here... it’s now three weeks.” When she

joined her husband in Johannesburg, he had not at that point offered any actual hands-on

support or training on his laptop, and she had not expressed any interest in learning. She

explained: “...He wants me to use it [his laptop], but since I wasn’t being exposed to computers … I wasn’t interested”. However he did encourage her to consider learning:

“we discussed about it, and he encouraged me to learn, and he was saying: ‘Where in the world can you go and work without computers? It’s today’s technology, so you have to learn it”.

As previously mentioned one student had received assistance from cousins: “They had some computers, so they told me how it works.”: “…they are very supportive of me …


When I was just at home - it was... four years ago. The first year they taught me how to use the computer. Then they went to varsity. Then I left home...” Given that this

assistance had been a number of years earlier, their help had assisted him only slightly in the

computer orientation course at university.

Some had used a computer far back as primary school for a typing class only, but most had

no further access to computers in high school. One recalled some of the earlier experiences

with computers: “To me it was a reflection of something that I did before... but it’s more challenging, because we are dealing with real situation things....something that will help us undergo your mind mentality so that you can succeed in getting the good marks in our assignments or assessments... Ya.”

Presenters in the course were also part of the community. As noted before, all the students

experienced problems with the speed at which presenters taught, struggling to follow or

grasp content: “…they were very fast - most of them, very fast, at the point that I was missing some of the points they were explaining.” Some students complained that

presenters just wanted to ‘get there’ – to cover all the content by the end of the session, and

to keep up with the speed at which the other more computer-literate students in the sessions

were comfortable. Furthermore, most participants complained that presenters did not explain

content sufficiently for them to understand content, but merely to assist slower students to

catch up to the majority of the more computer-literate students. Some students complained

that presenters ‘did’ the tasks they were struggling with ‘for them’, rather than explaining the

how and why of the material. As a result some students could not understand content or gain

all the required skills to master the technologies. Student3 explained: “...he won’t like tell you what to do. He will just do it for you so you can be where the others are at. ...They should have told us and explained: ‘You should do this... do that... but then they couldn’t just explain. They would just do it for us.” Student5 had a similar experience:

“He just came, and I asked him... ‘I am lost’ and... He just took my mouse – continued everything – just to catch up, like to the other students… they were not helping at all...They don’t explain like everything: ‘You should go there… and go there…’ They don’t explain. … Yes, I misunderstand the whole thing.”

Some students thought the reason for this may have been that presenters were did not

realise how little knowledge the students had of ICTs: Student7 said: “I think the lecturer assumed that we knew everything. So, like, then he thought that the only problem was to show us where to access; not how to access”. This student clearly felt that this

presenter did not understand his needs as a computer-illiterate student. Other students, such


as Student6, conversely believed that presenters in the sessions did understand their needs

in this regard and sometimes offered encouragement: “He understood my needs. In fact, he encouraged me to come for other sessions, to learn more… so that I understand”. Most participants, however, felt neglected or passed over by the presenters (“He was like... moving on, without even asking questions like: Who doesn’t understand him? … He was rude. He even chased the other one out, of which...I felt like...it was rude. I couldn’t even raise my hand. I was also scared. Maybe he could chase me out as well!” This dissuaded students from requesting assistance. In most cases, presenters

seemed simply to be challenged in completing content within session time, and helping the

slower computer-illiterate students keep up with the rest of the class. Student4 suggested

that: “...it would be better if [the presenters] could wait for us – all of us to get on the same page – all of us to understand. Then from there you can move to the next part...”

Teaching assistants formed another important part of the community. Generally speaking,

students felt that the assistants were there to support them when needed: “Yes, they came. I got assistance” and “They were supportive to me…” Despite this, the students were

less comfortable with the manner in which they were supported. Problems experienced with

assistants seemed to echo those found with presenters. The support was too fast for them to

follow, and insufficient explanation of content was given: “…the assistance was fast”. As

found with the presenters – explanations by assistants were not sufficient for students to be

able to grasp all the required content, but merely geared to helping students catch up to the

rest of the class: “…I was a little bit behind, but... like, there was a lady there who helped me… She helped me to go into some sites that I didn’t understand… how to go back… how to go forward… she was explaining, so … I got a little bit there and there… but there were still gaps where I’m missing, so I had to fill up those gaps… Ya, some of them I was able to, but some of them I didn’t understand.” Some assistants appeared

to be more patient than others in supporting the participants: “Ok - this is what you have to do. Now I’m going to leave you”. When you raise your hand... like... for me I felt that they had no interest in helping you… it was a bit harsh.” Effectively, while assistants

were available to support the students, support was not always effective in helping the

struggling computer-illiterate students to engage with the technologies, but more often simply

geared to helping students catch up to where the other students were.

Other students in the sessions also played an important role in the community. The

participants were aware that students present in the sessions fell into one of two

predominant groups: those who were computer-illiterate who were struggling and falling

behind in the sessions; and those who had limited knowledge of ICTs and were able to cope


to some extent. What others think seemed to play an important role: “I am not used to them. So you will become shy to ask for assistance from somebody else, maybe the other learners… You’ll think, maybe, that they’ll laugh at you or what, or think that you are stupid”. However, the struggling participants did often resort to help or ask for

assistance from other students: “We were just helping each other” and “I just asked my fellow student and she helped me.” Another student who was himself struggling helped

her too: “He helped me attach my assignment and submit it… he was struggling [too]

because he was raising up his hands, asking for help”.

Collaboration with fellow students when the presenters were not close by was also evident:

“There’s a time when you want to ask him something, and maybe the instructor is away from me. And so other guys were helping, and others were not”. Providing

assistance to other struggling students exacerbated some participants’ problems in keeping

up with the pace of teaching, thus jeopardising their own ability to learn the technologies:

“People were scared to ask. So, you’d find someone, when he’s supposed to ask the lecturer for something, he’d come next to you: What is this..? …and that time you’re busy… he’s putting some pressure on his friend and they are losing out on the class”. Another example: “They [fellow struggling students] asked a lot, so I was left behind… - because I didn’t fear that people would laugh at me because I didn’t know anything - I had to call a lecturer and say: “I’m here. I’m stuck. I couldn’t press...” I made lies, because I wanted to get where they were, because my friend was taking time and he asked many things, so I’d be left behind and say “I didn’t know which button to press”, and “come and do it for me”, which I didn’t like.” In the next section, tensions

between the subject and the division of labour will be discussed.

4.3.5 Tensions between Subject and the Division of Labour

The division of labour includes both formal and informal divisions between groups in the

activity system which have exerted an influence on the subjects’ (students’) ability to follow or

benefit from the teaching in the sessions, and so engage with the ICTs. In the computer

orientation sessions, a number of significant divisions emerged from the interview data,

which may have influenced student’s ability to engage with the object. The first and most

prevalent division was the technological division. It emerged initially for the participants as

technological exclusion by computer-literate friends, family and others at school level and

then continued at university in the computer orientation sessions as they experienced it from

presenters, assistants and other students. Students were aware that their lack of access to


computers was a cause of this division. Academic (including linguistic) division was the next

division which also appeared to impact students’ engagement with the object. A division of

age of participants emerged as an interesting (but less prevalent or significant) division, both

in terms of the age of some students being very close to that of the presenters and

assistants, as well as one of the participants who was far older than the other students. Both

may have constituted a barrier for the participants to engage with the object. A final division

found was that of motivated versus non-motivated students in the sessions. The non-

motivated students were experienced as disruptive by some computer-illiterate participants

who were trying hard to follow what was being taught in the sessions, making it difficult for

them focus on the teaching. Each of these divisions will now be discussed in detail below.

Divisions in technology access are important here. Technological exclusion at school level

was perceived by the participating students as placing them at a disadvantage to students in

the sessions who had been lucky enough to have prior experience of ICTs at school, feeling

it would have assisted them in coping in the sessions. Many participants mentioned that they

came from rural or under-resourced poorer township areas, where access to computers or

ICTs was limited or not available to them, and they believed that this had an impact on their

performance in the sessions. Some of these participants explained their exclusion from the

technologies: “Others do not have even computers at home. So we have a gap between the rural learners who don’t have computers as much at school and the other learners who live in town.”

Student3 said that she had spent her school years in a rural area: “We’re coming from the Eastern Cape, originally from Eastern Cape, Bizana - a little place called Casino, next to the Wild Coast Casino... Ya, we’re from there… I couldn’t use a computer and I couldn’t even go to Internet cafe.” Student7 described his experience of technological

exclusion in the sessions as scary, saying: “maybe it’s just because I come from a rural area ... so I didn’t have - my lack of access to computers - it affected me a lot… There were learners, who, at their homes…had computers, but I didn’t have one. So, like, it was very difficult. I had to go to town – to Groblersdal – to get to an Internet café, because I didn’t know how to use a computer, so I couldn’t… From where I come from, computers are still a fancy thing to own. So people are still getting used to them.” He

later said: “I did adjust, but I was a little bit behind”.

In terms of more general technological exclusion at school level, one complained that only

some of his fellow students at school had access to computers: “We had computers, but we didn’t have a chance to use them. Only those who did computers at school… they


could use them” and “They had computers but it was just for the commercial students, like doing accounting, some stuff, technical students… - who were doing computers”. Another explained her technological exclusion as follows: “Ya, we had computers but we didn’t have access to them, and they even stole those computers. Then last year they bought new ones and I think they’re also going to get stolen ... 'cause no learners are allowed to go to the computer lab to use the computers. It’s quite bad, ‘cause there are computers. We are looking at the computers, but we don’t have access to those computers...” She felt that this really disadvantaged her in the computer orientation

sessions saying: “It felt bad. As a new student it also felt as if I cannot do anything with a computer. It felt like I should have my computer so that I could use it, so that I could get used to using a computer. It was going to be a little bit better if I had my computer.”

Student2 wished that he had a computer at home as this might have helped him work a bit

faster in the sessions: “I wouldn’t say I’m 100% at [the required] standard, because I don’t have a computer at home. So, some other things I wouldn’t click much in finishing them.” Student4 explained how she suffered technological exclusion at school

level: “We didn’t have computers at school. From primary I never had a computer. High school, I didn’t have a computer. Even at home, there was no computer… We did have an Internet cafe, but I could not go to the Internet cafe, because I didn’t have a computer. I didn’t know how to use a computer, so there was no use for me to go to the Internet cafe. The people who go to Internet cafe are the people that they know computers. Because you’ll find that in the Internet cafe - you’ll only pay there. They’ll show you: “Go and sit there... you’ll use that computer”. There’s no assistance there.”

Student5 was similarly excluded at school level. She said: “No, we didn’t have it [computers]. It was only one computer at the library...There was the lady there at library who helped children… like students, ya. But she doesn’t allow you to go there and sit… press the computer, go to the Internet or Facebook or whatever. She’s just helping you. She is doing that for you.” Student3 protested that her friend, who owned a

number of computers and assisted her with downloading information among other tasks,

would not allow her to use it or teach her to do so saying: “You don’t know a computer”, “You don’t have any background for computer”, “You’re going to damage my computer”, or “You’re going to erase...or delete my stuff”. When these students

attended the orientation sessions, their technological exclusion did not end, and this had an

effect their ability to perform in the sessions, jeopardising their ability to engage with ICTs.


Technological exclusion at university, in the computer orientation sessions was also evident

and an important division of labour to consider. Student3 expressed her experience shortly

after the computer literacy test, as follows: “It’s difficult. It feels like you’re out of place. You don’t belong here. You belong somewhere else … When you’re busy raising your hand it’s like… you’re stupid or it’s like you know nothing – nothing at all. It even makes you feel like: ‘I wonder how I passed my Matric!’, and of which I understand we had no computers… It felt bad. As a new student it also felt as if I cannot do anything with a computer…When they say that for everything you need to use it – computerise – it’s very difficult”.

All participants experienced technological exclusion from the presenters, whose teaching

was directed at a pace that was suited to the more computer-literate students in the class.

This made it very difficult for the students to follow and engage with the technologies: "It’s like the majority of students here are computer-literate and using computers. So he [the presenter] was going with the majority of the students, so some of us, we didn’t understand computers. So we had to ask for help now and then ... as the lecturer is moving on…” Student6 thought the reason for the fast pace was presenters’ familiarity with

the technologies – their experience of ICTs made them less sensitive to the needs of those

who did not have the experience: “…They were very fast. …You know, if someone is experienced on something, if he or she is teaching someone, he just do it fast - in a fast way.” Student7 also realised that the presenter was not teaching at the level of first-time

computer users: “I think the lecturer assumed that we knew everything. So … then he thought that the only problem was to show us where to access; not how to access”.

This student perceived the presenter as assisting the slower computer-illiterate students in

catching up to the rest of the students, without explaining the content sufficiently. Student5

shared a similar experience: “It was clear but he was too fast… I think that he realised, because I asked him to come to help me. Then he came… but I didn’t…use my hands. He just used his hands…They were too fast. They were not helping at all, because they were helping themselves – just to make you at the level of the other students….Ya, just to get there…They don’t explain. As a result she said that she could

not understand the content, and was unable to catch up with the other students, thereby

defeating the presenter’s purpose in helping her, entirely. When Student3 couldn’t

understand what the presenter was saying, because he spoke too quickly, she found that he

wasn’t checking to see if he had left anyone behind. She complained: “...when you were trying to find him, he was... moving on, without even asking ... who doesn’t understand him. And he was rude. ...I couldn’t even raise my hand. I was also scared.”


Student4 voiced a similar complaint: “the lecturer is going on. He’s not waiting for you. So by the time he is moving to another chapter, or what - already you are lost. An

experience that the students seemed to share was that presenters were not properly aware

of – or focusing on the needs of first-time computer users.

The students seemed to experience that the majority of students in their sessions had some

experience with ICTs and were coping far more effectively than they as first-time computer

users were able to do. Participants were aware of the fact that they were slower than the

other students. Referring to the computer literacy test, one participant said that his poor

technological skills made him feel inferior to the other students: "It’s like the majority of students here are computer-literate and using computers… …because people worked so fast. The person I came with here worked faster than me. He even finished in less than twenty minutes. And then I was so under pressure. I just wanted to go out with him… They saw me there, and I felt like I was inferior to all the students around me.” Others realised that they were slowing down the rest of the class: “We were not given a chance to...They were saying: “If you have questions, you have to ask”...” But then, sometimes you can see that you are dragging other people, because others will be ahead of you. So if you ask, and then they were saying: “We have run short of time... “Where are you?” and then “We have to do this and that...”

The result was that many of these students lost confidence in asking for assistance for

reasons such as fear of looking stupid in front of the other students, slowing down the class

or being conspicuous when they were struggling: “Then sometimes we just keep quiet, and then you say: “I’ll catch it up next time”. This led to the students who needed

assistance the most, not receiving it, and missing out on the much-needed information. On a

more serious note, the division of labour regarding technological skills is widened when

weaker students feel that they dare not ask for help from the assistants or presenters for fear

of exposing themselves and their inadequacies.

Weaker students preferred to ask fellow students nearby for assistance in order to remain

inconspicuous and avoid embarrassment in front of the more experienced students. This

caused more students to become left behind by the presenter, and miss out on content. He

explains: “You’d find someone, when he’s supposed to ask the lecturer for something, he’d come next to you …maybe he was scared…” On the other hand, some were not

afraid to ask for assistance: “I didn’t fear that people would laugh at me because I didn’t know anything. I had to call a lecturer and say: ‘I’m here. I’m stuck... ” He described

how it benefited him and some like-minded fellow students: “I don’t think some people got


the information we got, because we asked a lot, that maybe some others didn’t ask because they were a bit shy, but us – we asked a lot.” Student6 considered spending

more time on practice after the sessions to overcome the problem of his slowness in

operating a computer: “I need more time to do practising”.

A linguistic division of labour is also evident. Linguistic exclusion was less a problem in terms

of written language of English than with spoken English, although problems were

experienced with both. The division lay in the difference between spoken language that most

students had been familiar with at school and that used in the sessions by the presenters.

The difference was firstly in the pace of the spoken English, and secondly the use of

unfamiliar or more complex terminology by presenters. This was discussed in detail in the

section earlier: Tensions between the subject and the rules where the rule stipulates that

classes will be conducted in English. Students sometimes experienced problems

understanding the language, but were often too embarrassed to ask the meaning of words

for fear of prejudice: “…we see people keeping quiet, not knowing the word, but you’ll be scared to raise your hand because someone will think: ‘Hey - this guy. Where’s he from?’ No, I don’t think it’s being afraid… So he takes, maybe, the easy way, ignoring when we are keeping quiet - not knowing that this name is a name that will help you. So everyone, when they are asked one by one, then we witnessed that everyone didn’t know this word.” Problems with the speed of the English in the basic computer literacy

session made it difficult for some to follow: “Most of his words were like, quick... and then they were like... un-understandable...” Some solutions were offered by the participants:

“...they should use more English in school…‘cause, I think that is... what is making us to be left behind...‘cause... we lack more English because they are using more African languages than English [in school].” Student2 believed that students should overcome their

reticence in asking for help in the sessions, saying: “I don’t think some people got the information we got, because we asked a lot, that maybe some others didn’t ask because they were a bit shy, but us – we asked a lot – even about the [difficult] words.”

Less-reported on was a division in terms of age, which was mentioned by only two students:

“I think most of the lecturers and the students were at a similar age, so maybe this one didn’t want to help the other that much, because they’d say: ‘Who’s this, at my age, knowing so much information’ … So some didn’t want to ask much because the age gap was not that much between them and the lecturers, so they didn’t want to ask that much.” One student was far older than any of the other students, most presenters and

most assistants. Having found the speed of the sessions extremely fast, she asked the

presenter to slow down, and protested that she felt discriminated against by him on the basis


of her age: “Ya, he just took us as older people, who won’t know... He was saying: “We are not here to be at high school... This is a university... You must learn very fast.” [Laughs] So if we’ve never come across such computers, even if you are old - you can’t master anything. You don’t even know how to operate this; how to do this; how to do this.” However, she fought back, saying: “Even if I’m old, just tell me slowly!” noting good-naturedly that “He’d come to know that I’m old. He must teach me slowly [Laughs]”.

A division of motivated, interested and focused students, versus those who were not,

emerged from the data. This division of interested and disinterested students in the sessions made it more difficult for the computer-illiterate students to engage in the sessions. Some

expressed annoyance that they attended sessions to have their names appear on the

attendance register, lacking interest in what was taught, fidgeting and wanting the sessions

to go quickly and in the process, compromising the opportunity of those such as himself to

make the most from the teaching: “... Some people decided they did not want to see… so people want the lecturers to come and do everything for them. They wanted to just sit there (seeing, writing, fidgeting or whatever). I would reckon that if tomorrow, they could say: ‘Come, you are writing a test’, without the lecturers being there, no one would pass, because everyone was...thinking: ‘When am I finishing… when am I going home?’ …They would say ‘Oh, I need to show I was in there…’ So some people were ignoring [what was being taught] ...they [the presenters] would ask: ‘Can you go on?’ and some would say: ‘Yes’ ‘Yes’ thinking – maybe … that the time is going, that they should leave – and some others [the struggling students] would say: ‘No, I don’t understand this’.”

This student is effectively explaining the sharp contrast between interested and disinterested

students. “When there was too much information - someone like me ... would repeat himself tomorrow - even say: “I didn’t understand this.” Then I’d come tomorrow, get into the e-tag class, and repeat what they did yesterday. But some of them [the

disinterested students] - I don’t think some of them would come back, because they would say: “I’ve already did this". Why are we repeating what we did?” So ...someone ... who has the willingness to learn would even come tomorrow, and do the very same test that we have done today… Because I’d put my concentration on what I was doing – not that I was doing it because it was compulsory, but for in future”.


4.3.6 Summary of tensions experienced by participants

In summary, the tensions between the subject (the students) and the mediating artefact or

tool (the computer itself), in relation to the object (engaging with ICTs) may be described as

follows: While students felt positive and enjoyed the experience of interacting with the tool,

as well as understanding its value for their study and lives; they were all acutely aware of

their own computer-illiteracy and of being at a disadvantage compared to other students.

Once students began to interact with the technologies, their experiences became

increasingly stressful and emotional. Students expressed feelings that included fear,

confusion, awkwardness and embarrassment, low self-esteem and / or trauma that made it

difficult for them to focus or memorise necessary operations to interact properly with the tool.

In terms of the students’ physical interaction with the hardware of the computer, the almost

contradictory statements made by those interviewed in this regard show how they enjoyed

part of the experience, but that they also found it very difficult and emotionally distressing.

Notwithstanding the obstacles experienced, students actively worked to overcome them in

trying to engage with the object. Most students believed that if they were able to become

familiar with the tool and how to use it, they could eventually master the technologies, and

seemed to view interacting successfully with the tool as the beginning of an exciting, dynamic

process, however traumatic. Their overall desire was to engage with ICTs, (the object).

Participants were very grateful in general for the fact that computer orientation was offered,

many fully understanding the relevance of the sessions for their studies. However, when it

came to the specific logistics of the orientation sessions, students’ experiences were less

positive. Tensions arose from the timing, duration and order of the sessions. Having to

complete a computer literacy test before computer literacy training caused difficulties and

considerable emotional distress for almost all the participants. Practical difficulty in

completing this test within the one-hour timeframe, not understanding that it did not count for

marks and that this was not a first indication of academic failure, caused much confusion and

distress. Emotions ranged from embarrassment and humiliation (for some students this

continued as the test was repeatedly failed and re-taken) disappointment, lack of confidence,

despondency and outright trauma. Given these levels of distress it seems difficult for a

student to be able to focus properly or generate the confidence for engagement with new

technologies.

By far the most prevalent tensions exposed by rules were the fast speed of delivery

combined with the large volume of information disseminated. In most students’ view, this was


compounded by inadequate explanation of content. Support was geared to helping students

catch up only, not to helping them understand content. Instructors did not wait for students to

catch up when they did not understand and so getting left behind in the sessions as a result

posed a serious challenge to the participants. Students complained that they required more

time, reinforcement, step-by-step explanations and support in order to be able to understand

the content. This had implications for the students’ ability to engage with the object. The

students who were allowed by staff to repeat sessions, clearly found this helpful.

A final rules-based tension relates to the pressure on students to pass or be successful

academically, as opposed to failing. In this regard a number of students felt under pressure

to perform during the sessions, fearing that inability to master the technologies could lead to

academic failure. Fear of failing frequently caused them much distress, which was not

conducive to focusing on learning the new technologies. Conversely, many students didn’t

seem to realise the implications of their not having understood, or having been able to cover

all the work in the sessions - that skills learned would be critical later on for studies.

Since participants (the subject) were primarily challenged in following the teaching in the

sessions, tensions exposed reflect these obstacles far more than their actual interaction with

the technologies (the object).

It appeared that the majority of the participants experienced difficult initial encounters with

ICTs. This constituted an initial psychological or emotional barrier for most participants to

their engagement with the object. Any other challenges that students experienced initially

seemed to be exacerbated by this emotional stress. The worst emotional distress was

reported at the time of the computer literacy test – right at the beginning of the computer

orientation. However, problems persisted during the c-tag 2 and e-tag training sessions.

Some students’ lack of exposure to ICTs at school level also caused them to be disinterested

in the object. As with presenters, assistants frequently assisted by doing tasks ‘for’ students

rather than helping them understand and perform operations themselves and so master the

technologies.

Beyond the pace of presentation, the quick English speech of some presenters at times

made session content unnecessarily difficult to understand for some students. One student

found the quick movements of the presenter’s cursor on the monitor difficult to follow, losing

track of where the lecturer was. As a result of the above challenges, most students were left

behind, and missed or did not understand the content required to engage with the ICTs that


they were being taught. Students found assistants generally attentive (although at times

impatient) but were unhappy with the quality of support. Content was not always sufficiently

explained.

The following divisions emerged from the interview data and bore an influence on the

subject’s ability to engage with the object:

Technological division started at school level and was also present in the sessions at

university. This division was experienced by participants from presenters and assistants, as

well as from other students. It seemed to be strongly linked to their lack of access to ICTs,

and to the locations where participants had been to school (mainly rural areas or poor

townships where ICTs were not available). At school level, none of the eight students had

had access to computers at school. Once these students attended the orientation sessions,

their technological exclusion continued, and this affected their ability to perform in the

sessions.

All the students experienced technological exclusion from the presenters. A number of

students felt that the presenters’ teaching was not directed to the level of first-time computer

users. Presenters’ pace of presentation and apparent assumption that all students had prior

knowledge of the technologies were cited as problems by most students in this regard. In

cases where a presenter or assistant was impatient or even rude, students became reluctant

to ask for help.

Some comments made earlier about the speed at which the sessions were presented may

also have been as a result of academic division. One participant was told by a presenter:

“We are not here to be at high school... This is a university... You must learn very fast”. Comments about academic division, as experienced by the participants in this study,

were primarily centred on the English used in the sessions. Linguistic division was less a

problem in terms of written language of English than with spoken English. The division lay in

the difference between spoken language that most students had been familiar with at school

and that used in the sessions by the presenters. The difference was firstly in the pace of the

spoken English used by presenters (exacerbated when they spoke quickly), and secondly in

the unfamiliar or more complex terminology employed. Often students were too embarrassed

to ask for assistance for fear of prejudice (on linguistic grounds) from fellow students.

A division on the basis of age was mentioned by two students: The first student’s age was

very close to that of the presenters and assistants, and the other participant was far older


than the other students, as well as most of the presenters and assistants. These limitations

constituted a barrier for the participants to engage with the technologies. The first student

was uncomfortable in asking for help from presenters or assistants due to their similar age.

The other, older student experienced a division of age in her ability to keep up with the

younger students.

There was a point at which students became more comfortable in engaging with the object or

overcoming obstacles to it.

The data has, however, shown that students all admitted to having missed out on important

content throughout the sessions, and had not been able to master the technologies fully by

the time the sessions ended.

4.4 Transformative learning

Stetsenko’s Transformative Stance perspective on learning (Stetsenko, 2008:471-491) has

been used in this study as another analytic lens, since it conceptualises learning and

development as developing in a dialectic way within a social context (a development from

Vygotsky and CHAT). Stetsenko offers a useful measure of the effectiveness of learning as a

socially constructed activity, which, she says, culminates in ‘transformed learning’ which is

successful in its fully dialectical nature. (This has been discussed in some detail in

Chapter 2). In this study, Stetsenko’s table explaining transformative learning (Stetsenko,

2008:489) as shown in Figure 2.8, is employed as a heuristic to ascertain whether students

have successfully engaged with ICTs and transformed their learning in any way. A simplified

version of the table has been applied to the students in this study in Table 4.1 below.

As described in Chapter 2, Stetsenko’s theory of Transformative Learning is based on the

notion that “Collaborative purposeful transformation of the world is the core of human nature

and the principled grounding for learning and development” - not only are individuals

transformed by learning, but in return they transform their world. Transformative Learning is a

process of development beginning with acquisition (an individual rather than collaborative

activity); moving toward participation (learning through participation as a member of a

community), then contribution (transformative action that contributed through self-

development and community development). Contribution leads to transformative learning

where the individual is able to transform his or her environment in addition to himself or

herself (Stetsenko, 2008:471-491). In applying Stetsenko’s model, as discussed above, to

participant accounts of their experiences of engagement with ICTs stated earlier, the

following perceptions may be put forward.


Stetsenko describes the first stage of learning as acquisition, which she maintains is an

individual rather than collaborative activity. In this study, students in attempting to engage

with and learn about ICTs, were primarily concerned with acquiring the necessary knowledge

and skills, but experienced too many obstacles to manage to assimilate the necessary

content. Participants were primarily challenged in following the teaching in the sessions.

There were a number of reasons for this why this was the case including lack of computer

literacy (primarily their typing speed) slowed students down, and they could not keep up with

the rest of the class. They also encountered emotional challenges, constituting initial

psychological barriers primarily focused around the computer literacy test, causing them to

struggle to focus or memorise information. Other factors include low motivation, more

computer-literate students in same sessions made them embarrassed to ask for help,

presenters and assistants in the session were geared towards the more computer-literate

students moving at a faster pace, resistance to waiting or explaining content, and information

overload in limited time frame (no rest; all in one day). As a result students all admitted to

having missed out on important content throughout the sessions, and for this reason were

unable to master the technologies fully after the sessions had ended, even though they had

received support from staff. Most learning took place on an individual level, and not

collaboratively.

Stetsenko’s model explains participation as learning through participation as a member of a

community. This stage of learning can be seen as not an individual, but rather a dialectical

and collaborative activity. The students in this study mentioned only two types of dialectical

or collaborative activity as they attempted to learn about ICTs: requesting assistance from

presenters, assistants and fellow students, and providing fellow students with assistance, but

under duress. Sadly, both these activities had the result of merely assisting students to catch

up to other students, or the pace of the sessions. Also, they took place at a cost to the

student, since they caused students to be left behind. This activity is a very limited form of

participation if it can be called that, at all.

Stetsenko describes contribution as transformative action that is contributed through self-

development and community development. It is through such contribution that transformative

learning may be achieved. When this point in learning is reached, an individual is able to

transform his or her environment in addition to him or herself in a positive way. In this study,

as can be seen in Table 4.1 below, students were unable even to acquire the necessary

information, and so were unable to master the technologies to a point where they were able

to share and build knowledge collaboratively which would be required to in turn transform the

learning of others in the sessions. As such, no contribution can be said to have taken place.


Table 4.1: Stetsenko’s Transformative stance perspective as applied to this study

Acquisition Participation Contribution

Students were primarily concerned with obtaining knowledge and skills, but did not manage to assimilate the necessary content. This was due to the speed of presentation, insufficient explanation of content, embarrassment in asking questions and information overload.

Students’ only dialectical or collaborative activity was limited to requesting assistance from presenters, assistants and fellow students. This cannot really be regarded as participation.

No contribution to others took place. All action on the part of participants was focused on attempting to assimilate information from others. In some cases students assisted other struggling students, but this did not have the effect of bringing about change in the community.

4.5 Engagement and learning

Successfully committed people are more disposed to engage (Shulman, 2002:42) and one

would assume that this applies to the students in this study too. Commitment engenders new

engagements, which in turn engender new understandings, and so on (Lautenbach, 2008).

In line with Lautenbach’s view (ibid.), I see engagement as inherently collaborative in nature,

where commitment involves in individual’s development of ̶ and involvement in ̶ healthy

communities. For this reason, if students are presented with ICTs as a meaningful whole

within a healthy community of practice over an extended period of time, I argue that this will

help them accept the value of the ICTs before they shift their focus to the appropriation and

the ability to use the tools at their disposal.

Shulman (2002) maintains that learning always begins with engagement, which in turn leads

to knowledge and understanding. In Shulman’s own words:

“Once someone understands, he or she becomes capable of performance or

action. Critical reflection on one’s practice and understanding leads to higher-

order thinking in the form of a capacity to exercise judgment in the face of

uncertainty and to create designs in the presence of constraints and

unpredictability. Ultimately, the exercise of judgment makes possible the

development of commitment. In commitment, we become capable of professing

our understanding and our values, our faith and our love, our skepticism and our


doubts, internalizing those attributes and making them integral to our identities.

These commitments, in turn, make new engagements possible—and even

necessary. (Shulman, 2002:38)

The phases of Shulman’s Table of Learning start with engagement and motivation and

unfortunately this is where the participants in this study seemed to get stuck. Engagement

was the key problem… they were not truly engaged. Very few students progressed to the

level of knowledge and understanding with even less going on to display evidence of

performance and action. A fundamental problem with the course as presented to the

participants is that it lacked opportunities for reflection and critique and for this reason;

students could never get to the level where they had to make judgments and design. In the

following section, the findings of this study will be set out and discussed.

4.6 Findings

As noted earlier, the objectives, aims and purpose of this enquiry are:


the activity system as a conceptual tool.

• To explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about

their initial engagement with ICTs.

• To identify tensions (in Activity Theory terms) which drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs.

In the previous sections of this chapter, Cultural Historical Activity Theory was used as a

conceptual tool with which to analyse participants’ experiences of engaging with ICTs in their

computer orientation sessions. CHAT’s strengths as a tool to simultaneously analyse both

individual and broad contextual issues related to learning in a social context has enabled a

view of this phenomenon as it occurred within the context of the computer orientation

sessions. By exposing tensions between the various components of the activity system (the

orientation sessions) as they relate to students’ experiences it has been possible to identify

factors both driving and inhibiting their ability to engage with the technologies, which is the

outcome of this study.

The purpose of this discussion of the findings is to reconcile them with answering the

research question: “How do computer-illiterate students experience initial engagement


with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university?” In this respect, group findings

have been summarised in point form below:

1 Missing important content: All students interviewed admitted to having missed out on

important content throughout the sessions, which prevented them from mastering the

technologies fully. (Most students said that they had needed more support,

reinforcement and explanations of content).

2 Technological unfamiliarity: As a result of lack of access to (and knowledge of)

computers/ICTS at school level, participants felt overwhelmed and excluded in

computer orientation sessions.

3 Finding the speed of delivery too fast: Students had issues with the speed of the

presentations. They started to panic when they began to fall behind and suffered

embarrassment at slowing down the class. It appeared that presenters moved at the

speed of what appeared to be the majority of more computer-literate students in the

classes. Their slow typing speed also contributed significantly to the problem.

4 Experiencing reduced self-esteem and emotional issues in the presence of computer-

literate students: It became an emotional issue which in turn was an impediment to

learning, particularly when they were often too inhibited to ask for support, and some

students experienced perceived prejudice from these students.

5 Inadequate provision for computer-illiterate students in teaching: Although support

was available, explanations by presenters and assistants were either not forthcoming

or totally insufficient for the needs of the computer-illiterate students – often sufficing

only to assist the student to catch up with the rest of the class, instead of checking

that students understood the content. The assumption appeared to be that all

students could manage the level of teaching or skills required to cope in the sessions.

6 Wrong perceptions of testing: Students misconstrued the purpose of the initial

computer literacy testing, seeing it as a measure of their academic adequacy before

they had even started class. Fear of failure and subsequent condemnation by the

university, family or peers loomed large on the horizon.

7 Doing a computer test before training: Repeated failure of the computer literacy test

by some students who were totally unprepared, and before any training had been

given, was experienced by most students as extremely confusing, difficult and

emotionally traumatic, particularly since many were already initially nervous and

afraid of the new technologies. Many students lost confidence in their own ability to

master the technologies, so that they developed a low morale and/or felt excluded.

This was further aggravated by the presence of computer-literate students, and it may


well have constituted a psychological or emotional barrier to some participants in their

engagement with the technologies.

8 Information overload: The amount of information presented was too much for the time

allocated for the computer orientation in a single day. Inadequate provision was made

for practice, reinforcement, or repetition, and there were no breaks within sessions.

Although participants tried to memorise as much content or instructions as they were

able, they still lost much information. The situation was exacerbated by their inability

to keep up in the sessions as well as the presenters speeding up towards the end of

sessions in order to cover all the content in the required timeframe.

9 Language limitations (spoken English). At school level, participants had more

exposure to written English than to spoken English. When explanations were needed,

the rule appeared to be that verbal explanations in the vernacular were provided.

Many participants complained of the speed of spoken English presented in the

sessions. The implications of students struggling with English in the sessions were

that they were unable to understand or obtain all the information they needed, and

they were thus falling behind.

10 Unfamiliarity with general academic language: Students became stuck when

encountering unfamiliar words, technical terms, or words at a higher academic level

of English. As such, some students missed out on the content.

11 Students did not reach the outcome, transformed learning, in their efforts to attain the

object – to successfully engage with ICTs: This was because they encountered too

many obstacles to engagement in the orientation sessions.


4.7 Conclusion

This chapter has provided a brief account of data analysis and interpretation procedures,

followed by the interpretation and findings of the eight students' individual in-depth interview

data, and their collective experiences of initial engagement with ICTs during their orientation

sessions. CHAT was used as a heuristic to guide the interpretation of the participants’

accounts. Specifically, Engeström’s extended mediational triangle was employed as an

analytical tool to interpret and better understand student initial engagement with ICTs.

Stetsenko’s table measuring transformative learning was employed to ascertain to what

extent the participants achieved the outcome, transformed learning. The identification of

tensions experienced by students during their orientation sessions (or activity systems) has

contributed to our understanding of students’ experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in

their first weeks of study. The most significant tensions were then distilled into a list of

findings. These will be contextualised and discussed in the following chapter, where

limitations of the study will also be outlined, conclusions drawn and recommendations for

further research made.


CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a brief overview of the enquiry, followed by a discussion of the

findings. Thereafter the limitations of the study will be noted, as well as measures taken to

ensure the trustworthiness of this study. Suggestions for addressing some of the important

issues emanating from the findings will then be made, after which recommendations for

further research will be set out. Finally the contribution of the study will be examined.

5.2 Overview of the enquiry

Pressure on universities to adopt ICTs in educational practice is compounded by South

Africa’s legacy of un- and under-prepared first year students. Many dynamics influencing

first-year students’ transition to university have a profound effect on their learning. My

experience as a staff member observing computer-illiterate students over six years of

computer orientation has shown that students who are able to engage with ICTs during this

orientation seem rapidly to become more confident and motivated to experiment further with

these technologies, while students who struggle to engage show signs that may be

interpreted as fear or lack of confidence to do so. In the light of the findings reported in

Chapter 4, I will argue that current interventions do not sufficiently support new students in

their initial engagement with ICTs. This would suggest implications for these students’ later

academic performance, since ICTs are essential to their studies.

The purpose of this study has been to obtain information in the form of findings to address

the aims and objectives of this enquiry, which are re-stated here, since it will be established

in this chapter whether the findings addressed these aims and objectives:

The aim of the research has been to explore computer-illiterate first year students’

experiences of initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university. In

order to achieve this aim the following objectives were stated:

Chapter 5: Conclusions, limitations and recommendations 98


the activity system as a conceptual tool.

• To explore the meaning that first year students construct for themselves about

their initial engagement with ICTs.

• To identify tensions (in Activity Theory terms) that drive or inhibit the activity of

engaging with ICTs.

In order to address these aims and objectives, the enquiry took the following course:

In Chapter 1, Introduction and general orientation to the enquiry, the reader was presented

with an introduction and orientation to the enquiry, and the background, conceptual

framework and rationale underlying the study was outlined. A problem statement was made

and the aims, objectives and purpose of the enquiry were described. The research design

offered the reader an insight into how the research was conducted, which included a brief

introduction to issues of ethics and trustworthiness. Finally, a brief outline of the general

structure of the dissertation helped the reader to form an overview of the study as a whole.

Chapter 2, Computer-illiterate first year students’ initial engagement with ICTs: Theoretical

perspectives and a review of the literature served to contextualise the study by providing a

theoretical framework for the enquiry and to offer different perspectives on the topic in an

overview of relevant literature in order to guide the reader in an understanding of the

research problem. A brief overview on the role of ICTs in teaching and learning was provided

and placed in the context of the university where this study took place. Some background on

first year university students and the First Year Experience at the university was included.

This was followed by a discussion of learning and engagement and the use of tools with

which they may be measured and used as a heuristic to examine student engagement in this

study. A number of taxonomies of learning formed part of this discussion. Finally,

sociocultural theory, which formed the focus of this chapter, was discussed, as well as the

adaptation of some of its associated constructs which were employed as a conceptual tool

with which to measure first year students’ initial engagement with ICTs in their first year

computer orientation sessions

Chapter 3, Research design and methodology, outlined the framework and paradigm of the

enquiry as well as the philosophical perspective and conceptual framework of the researcher.

The research design and methodology, with associated processes and methods of data


collection and analysis for the study, were set out and justified. Measures and procedures to

ensure the trustworthiness of the research, as well as ethical considerations, were described.

In Chapter 4: Data reporting and analysis, results and findings, data analysis was undertaken

and the findings reported on. The chapter provided a brief account of data analysis and

interpretation procedures, followed by the actual analysis, interpretation and findings drawn

from the in-depth interview data of the eight individual students. CHAT was used as a

heuristic and analytical tool to guide the interpretation of the participants’ accounts.

Specifically, Engeström's extended mediational triangle was employed as an analytical tool

to interpret and better understand the dynamics within of the orientation sessions from an

activity system perspective. Tensions exposed by data as the participant students attempted

to engage with these technologies for the first time were distilled into a list of findings. These

findings provide a more detailed understanding of the various factors that either inhibited or

assisted students in their engagement with these technologies while learning in the social

context of their orientation sessions.

Stetsenko’s notion of transformative learning was then employed to ascertain the extent to

which the participants transformed their learning. Detail of the main findings can be found in

Chapter 4. These findings offer another account of students’ experiences of initial

engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study where they reflect on the most common

challenges encountered during this process. These findings will be contextualised and

discussed in the following section, where conclusions will also be drawn and

recommendations made.

Shulman’s Table of Learning was used to examine to what extent the students were

engaged and motivated. As noted in Chapter 4, successfully committed people are more

disposed to engage (Shulman, 2002:42) and one would assume that the participants in the

study would be too. The phases of Shulman’s Table of Learning start with engagement and

motivation, and it is precisely here where the participants became stuck. As Shulman states:

“Once someone understands, he or she becomes capable of performance or action”

(Shulman, 2002:38), and this is where the problem exists for these students. They were not

truly engaged. Very few students could therefore progress to the level of knowledge and

understanding with even fewer going on to display evidence of performance and action. A

fundamental problem with the computer orientation course that was presented to the

participants is that it did not provide opportunities for reflection and critique and for this

reason, students can never get to the level where they have to make judgments and design.


5.3 Discussion of the findings

In response to the research question: “How do computer-illiterate students experience initial engagement with ICTs in their first weeks of study at a university?” the findings

generated in Chapter 4 are now placed in context and related to the aims and objectives of

the research. These findings comprise the experiences of computer-illiterate participants’ in

engaging with ICTs for the first time. Their experiences reflect the tensions exposed in

activity-theoretical terms that either drove or inhibited their ability to engage with the

technologies.

All participating students had suffered technological exclusion from ICTs at school level – all

being from either poorer townships or rural communities where access to ICTs was limited or

unavailable to them. Having neither access to the technologies, nor the skills to use

them, these students were computer-illiterate on being admitted to university (see

Section 4.3.1).

The most significant finding of this enquiry, as reported by all participants was their inability to engage fully with ICTs (see Section 4.3.6) because they did not manage to acquire or understand all the content (see Section 4.3.3). This was not only because they were

technologically unfamiliar with ICTs, but because they felt overwhelmed and excluded in

the orientation sessions. A main reason for this was the speed of content delivery being too fast for them (see Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5), which was compounded by their slow

typing speed (see Section 4.3.1) and insufficient explanation of content by presenters and

assistants (see Section 4.3.5). In addition, many students experienced challenges with spoken English (see Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.5), particularly when presenters spoke quickly,

when academic language, or unfamiliar or complex terminology was used (see Sections

4.3.2 and 4.3.5). Also, students complained of too much information being imparted in too

short a time for each session, and only a single day for the intensive computer-orientation

sessions, which resulted in information overload (see Section 4.3.2). Students struggled to

memorise content and instructions as a result, but many also struggled to focus because of

nervousness interacting with the technologies for the first time, or due to emotional stress or trauma (see Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.4). This was the result of two factors. Firstly

having to complete a computer proficiency test before the training was given, was found

by most participants to be very difficult and some felt disheartened by repeatedly failing it. A

wrong perception of the test as an early indicator of academic performance was a worry for

many participants. Secondly, the students suffered self-esteem issues and were

embarrassment by being in the same sessions with (what frequently seemed to be the


majority in a given class) more computer-literate students who were coping where these

students were struggling and slowing down the rest of the class (see Sections 4.3.2 and

4.3.5). Many students believed that even though support was forthcoming and that staff was

sympathetic to their needs; the teaching and the structuring of the sessions did not cater for their needs as computer-illiterate or first-time computer users. Rather, they were more

geared to the needs of these other students (see Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5).

Some students tried hard to overcome all these obstacles, doing their best to acquire the

content so that they could master the technologies. They risked embarrassment by asking

presenters, assistants and fellow students for assistance. They tried to memorise content,

sequences and instructions. Others simply persisted and tried their best to keep up as best

they could. Some students requested to attend repeat sessions whilst others considered

practicing to master their ICT skills as soon as they could after the sessions. However, all

students missed out on content and were unable to learn what was required in the time

provided, despite their best efforts to cope. This was also in spite of the efforts of staff at their

disposal, some of whom were clearly aware of their situation whilst others were additionally

sympathetic to their predicament.

5.4 Conclusions

The conclusions that may be drawn from the findings are that computer-illiterate first year

students in their initial encounters with ICTs at the university were not able to properly

acquire knowledge from their sessions, let alone reflect or act on what they had learned and

so were unable to transform their learning. What could the reasons be behind this and what

should be done to overcome obstacles encountered by these students in their ability to

engage with ICTs in their first weeks of study at university?

The participants who came from under-resourced schools in poor or rural areas were not

prepared by their schools for ICTs, which are essential for university study. These are un- or

under-prepared students. Many factors impacting first year students’ transition to university

have a direct bearing on their learning. Their lack of access to ICTs (technical exclusion) at

school level had a direct bearing on their ability to learn to use ICTs at university. Students

lost confidence, were embarrassed and traumatised and so did not manage to engage with

the technologies. I believe that current interventions do not sufficiently support these new

students in their initial engagement with ICTs. The computer orientation sessions were

clearly not designed for computer-illiterate students or first-time computer users, who are

generally in the minority. Staff appeared unprepared for the challenges faced by having first-

time computer users or computer-illiterate students in the same sessions as the more


advanced students. As a result, the computer-illiterate participants were unable to be

successfully prepared for academic studies using the technologies. Since, in some modules,

academic tasks are due within the first few weeks of study, it is possible that this would have

had implications for their later academic performance.

The reasons why the university is not supporting these students are not known, but in the

light of limited evidence, perhaps one may suppose or guess at a number of them, as

follows:

1 The university policy supports un- and under-prepared students, both via the First

Year Experience as well as via the UJ Teaching and Learning Strategy. However,

clearly this does not appear to be sufficiently implemented in the first year computer

orientation sessions.

2 The university system provides for orientation of students (an activity that requires

much coordination across university departments and faculties) to be completed

within a specific timeframe. As such, the institution places pressure and time

constraints on those involved to produce the necessary knowledge to prepare

students for their studies, which may be insufficient for the needs of all students.

3 There may be unawareness of these students’ problems by the university or persons

in management positions, for example, regarding computer-illiteracy or English

language proficiency, and this may be exacerbated by the fact that these students

seem to be in the minority.

4 Staff is sometimes not committed to this particular group of students. Computer

orientation staff rarely see them more than once or twice leaving insufficient time to

understand their problems, or bear further responsibility for them after orientation.

Faculty staff may later be unaware of computer literacy problems among their students.

Some computer orientation staff appear to blame the school system for problems of

under-preparedness, and may shirk responsibility for students in this way. Others have

been overheard saying that these students should not have been accepted at

university, that they are ‘slow’ or not suitable in some way for university study.

5 Staff deployed for computer orientation are often young and inexperienced. Most are

themselves still students. As such, it may be challenging for them to handle large

classes with a diversity of student competencies, and/or to be pressured to cover

large volumes of content in a limited timeframe.


5.5 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

1. The university should be clear on its decision to accept computer-illiterate students. If

computer literacy is not an entry requirement and computer-illiterate students are

accepted, the university has a responsibility to train them in an ethical way, in line

with constitutional and university policies towards students as well as FYE guidelines.

2. It would be considerate to separate these first-time computer users from other

students who have previous computer experience to prevent embarrassment or

unnecessary emotional stress at a time when students are struggling to adjust to

university. (This should also be the case where computer literacy testing and initial

computer training is conducted.)

3. If a computer literacy test is used, the purpose of the test should be clearly

communicated to the students in advance so that they fully understand its purpose.

The sooner the test is performed, the more time will be available to train these

students before the academic year begins, since they appear to need more time for

training than the other more computer-literate students. The duration of the test

should be sufficient to allow first-time computer users to complete it comfortably. The

test should be simple, clear to understand and as short as possible, with simple

language (avoiding or else explaining any technical terminology or academic jargon).

4. Initial computer training for these students should perhaps be re-examined in terms of

its suitability or customisability for computer-illiterate students. They require training to

be conducted at a slower speed with reduced content (to prevent information

overload), using clear unambiguous language, with more thorough explanations of

content than is the case with the current format. A step-by-step format ensuring that

students understand each step before moving on to new material would be helpful.

More (possibly individualised) support in smaller class-sizes than the current class

size of up to around 50 students may be more effective for providing the added

support that these students require. More time for training with more breaks between

content delivery over a longer period (multiple days at least) with added time for

reinforcement, repetition and practice; would greatly benefit their ability to engage

with the technologies. Training in typing would be very beneficial in preparing these

students for their first assignments.


5. The university may focus attention on the preparation of staff to be aware of the

needs of computer-illiterate students, and perhaps adjust their training accordingly.

5.6 Contribution of the study to the existing body of research on the subject

This qualitative study was conducted with eight participants on one campus at one university,

and in this sense it cannot be representative in any way. However, given the degree of

consensus found amongst the students, this study has highlighted some of the factors that,

in their experiences have influenced their ability to engage with ICTs for the first time in a

higher education context. My hope is that this study will create awareness among university

staff, both those in policy making positions as well as those involved in first year computer

orientation, of the experiences that computer-illiterate students may have when they engage

with these technologies for the first time, and the factors (including the staff’s own activities)

that may impact on these experiences, as well as on the students’ ability to engage with the

technologies.

5.7 Recommendations for further research

Studies should be carried out on a larger number of computer-illiterate students to determine

their first time experiences of ICTs. An investigation into the problems which staff have in

terms of logistical issues, the amount of content required to be delivered and the session

duration allocated, would also be extremely useful.

5.8 Limitations of the study

The data collected from eight students does not necessarily represent the experiences of all

first year students. Furthermore, since this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative study, it

cannot be projected to a larger population of first year computer-illiterate students at UJ.

However, it needs to be emphasised that there was a surprising degree of consistency

across the reported experiences of the participating students in this study, which tends to

suggest that the findings may, to a certain extent, be generalisable.

The conditions under which the individual in-depth interviews were held could have had an

impact on student responses since they were held at the very end of the day, when students

had concerns about finding transport home. A number of them needed to travel quite far,

coming from places such as Tembisa. Some had travel companions not participating in the

study, waiting for them. This may have influenced the quality of some of the information that

the interviewees provided.


The students identified were very fatigued in the interviews and somewhat impatient after the

challenges of having to concentrate for a full day of intensive computer testing and training,

as well as having to assimilate large volumes of information in a limited space of time. They

may have been in a position to provide more detail or been able to think more deeply about

issues discussed if they had had more time to rest before the interviews.

Some students were clearly emotionally upset, despondent, or concerned about possible

failure at university, as they commenced with the interviews. Some became even more upset

during the interviews themselves. Students’ emotions may have had an effect on their ability

to focus properly on what was being asked.

The acoustics (echoes) of the classrooms where the interviews took place may have had an

effect on students’ responses. In one instance, the laboratory staff insisted on locking up the

room and slamming the windows closed towards the end of an interview, causing the

recordings to become inaudible in places. Furthermore, some students spoke softly or

inaudibly due to shyness, or moved away from the microphone, making their responses

difficult to hear. Pronunciation issues were also sometimes problematic, due to the fact that

the students were not being interviewed in their mother tongue.

Because I am familiar with many of the venues that were used during the computer

orientation sessions, I am estimating that possibly the students sitting closer to the back of

the classrooms in the sessions may have had difficulty in hearing what the presenters were

saying. It is possible that this contributed to the difficulties experienced by participants in

following what was taught in the sessions. Some students may have missed, for instance,

explanations of the purpose of the computer test, important instructions or information that

could have assisted them in understanding the material or operating the computer or

applications.

As a novice interviewer, I did not ask the students to clarify the terminology that they were

using in their responses. For example the respondents didn’t always distinguish sufficiently

well between the computer as an object and ICTs as such and this posed a challenge when I

was carrying out the data analysis. At times it was not clear what a student was referring to.

In some cases, for instance, in saying ‘computer’ it was later discovered that the student was

referring also to software applications running on the computer. This may have been the

result of linguistic limitations, since the students were not being interviewed in their home

language. Furthermore, as a novice interviewer, I did not have the skills to probe students

more when they were not sufficiently forthcoming in answering some of the interview


questions. This may have led to insufficient data being gleaned from some of the students.

The interview of Student1 was found to be of particular concern in this respect. A final error

made as a novice interviewer was asking too many leading questions. This may have caused

the students to be less spontaneous in their responses and to focus on what was on the

researcher’s mind more than on providing a faithful account of their own experiences.

It was discovered, after the data had been collected, that one participant had gained some

limited computer experience (for typing purposes only) on a computer keyboard at primary

school level. As such, questions may be asked as to whether he could be classified as a

computer-illiterate student, forming part of this study. As researcher I decided to include him

in the study, since it soon became clear that he was unable to operate a computer. He had

stated that the period between primary school and his arrival at university had been too long

to remember what he had been taught: “Some buttons – some I could use them, and some I forgot, because I can’t remember everything that is done on a computer”. Furthermore he admitted to not to have had access to computers at all during his period at

high school.

Some difficulty was experienced during data analysis – both with the coding of data itself, as

well as later on when quoted statements by students were to be grouped into codes. In

coding the data, it was found that a single comment by a student could be linked to quite a

number of codes. The reason for this may have been that some of the statements made

were vague or difficult to make sense of. It could be that, as interviewer, I should have

exercised more probing in order to seek clarity when open-ended questions were asked. The

ability of students to express themselves succinctly or the poor acoustics could also have

had an influence on the grouping into codes.

My own position as researcher, as well as my involvement as a staff member for a number of

years in first year computer orientation support and instruction, could have clouded my vision

in interviewing the students and in the analysis and/or writing up of the research itself.

5.9 The trustworthiness of the research

Creswell (2003:195-196) suggests that the validation of qualitative research in terms of

accuracy, consistency (alternative terms abound, such as trustworthiness, authenticity,

credibility…) is important throughout all phases of the research. Notwithstanding different

terminology and views on their use, trustworthiness in qualitative research most commonly

refers to reliability and validity. Golafshani (2003:597-607) holds the view that reliability and

validity in qualitative research are not viewed separately as they are in quantitative research.


Rather, they reflect the aims and nature of qualitative research which seeks “to understand

phenomena in context-specific settings… producing findings arrived at from real-world

settings where the phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally”. The credibility of a qualitative

study depends very much on the efforts of the researcher. Golafshani mentions the value of

using multiple perspectives or probing for deeper understanding rather than surface features

in ensuring greater reliability and validity (Golafshani, 2003:597-607). Triangulation is a

valuable and commonly used measure of ensuring reliability and validity in qualitative studies

and it has also been used in this study. Its value lies in its combination of different methods

or types of data to interrogate the same phenomenon.

In this study the trustworthiness of the research and data were ensured as follows:

• Trustworthiness was insured by strict adherence to the research design and

methodology as set out in earlier in this chapter.

• The triangulation of the data was effected by the use of multiple theoretical

lenses or heuristics: That of CHAT – used both as theoretical lens as well as

heuristic; Stetsenko’s measure of transformative learning, and Shulman’s Table

of Learning), as described earlier in this chapter and applied in Chapter 4.

• As researcher, I was constantly aware and vigilant of my own perceptions and

views as a person (including my perspective as a person already successfully

engaged with ICTs). As a consequence, I tried to minimise their effect when

conducting the interviews or interpreting the stories of students whose

perspectives may have been different from my own, since “All interviews are

interactional events and interviewers are deeply and unavoidably implicated in

creating meanings that ostensibly reside within participants” (De Vos et al.,

2002:292).

• Participants were given the opportunity to comment on their interview.

Corrections were made to ensure that the data collected reflected the true

meaning that the participants intended. This helped to ensure the structural

coherence of the data.

• I have undertaken to provide as comprehensive a report on the findings as is in

my power to do, and to ensure that the findings are distributed for the benefit of

those who participated. Furthermore, it is hoped that the findings may generate

information that is relevant to the needs of first-year students and to the

university.


Throughout this study, as researcher, I was constantly aware and vigilant of my own

perceptions and views as a person (as a person already successfully engaged with ICTs; as

a staff member at the university involved in student orientation and training, and as a person

who is ethnically, linguistically and culturally from a different group than the students who

participated). I endeavoured to minimise the effect of these considerations when the

interviews were conducted, or when the students’ contributions were interpreted, in

consideration of the fact that their perspectives may have been be different from my own. “All

interviews are interactional events and interviewers are deeply and unavoidably implicated in

creating meanings that ostensibly reside within participants” (Manning, in Holstein & Gubrium

in De Vos et al., 2002:292). As such, the participants were given the opportunity to comment

on their interview. Corrections were made to ensure that the data collected was interpreted

as the true meaning intended by the participant. This helped to ensure the structural

coherence of the data.

As researcher, I undertook to provide as comprehensive a report on the findings as possible

and to ensure that these findings were distributed for the benefit of those who participated.

Furthermore, it is hoped that the findings may generate information that is relevant to the

needs of first-year students and to the university as a whole.

5.10 A final word

As ICTs become more critical and central to our lives, driving changes in the way humans

handle information and generate knowledge, pressure on tertiary institutions to assist

students to participate in the information society is stronger than ever. Locally, the South

African Department of Education is pursuing the development of ICT skills in both teachers

and learners, since equipping young people with 21st Century skills is seen as a means of

driving transformation and development not only in education, but in the country as a whole.

This is also an important focus area of the National Development Plan (Republic of South

Africa. DoE, 2004:9-13). In the South African context, inequalities in society (emanating from

the disparities of the past) have impacted on ICT integration into education (ibid.). Given the

history, it is my belief as researcher and staff member at a university, that tertiary institutions

have a moral obligation towards un- or under-prepared students from disadvantaged

backgrounds who are attempting to traverse the digital divide; particularly after a decision

has been taken to accept them for tertiary studies.


LIST OF REFERENCES

Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L. & Brannen, J. (Editors). (2009). The SAGE handbook of social

research methods. London: Sage.

Amiel, T. & Reeves, T.C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology:

rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational technology & society,

11(4):29-40.

Amirau, R.J. & Visser, Y.L. (2009). The University in periods of technological change: a

historically grounded perspective. Journal of computing in higher education, 21(1):62-79.

Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12528-009-9016-5#page-1

(Accessed 30 October, 2013).

Amory, A., Gravett, S. & van der Westhuizen, D. (2008). Teaching and learning at the

University of Johannesburg: a position paper. Unpublished manuscript.

Anderson, L.W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education.

Studies in educational evaluation, 31(2005):102-113.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Editors). (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching,

and assessment: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:

Longman.

Babbie, E.R. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

Baumgartner, L. & Merriam, S.B. (Editors). (2000). Adult learning and development:

multicultural stories. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Berger, A.A. (1997). Narratives in popular culture, media and everyday life. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Biggs, J.B. & Moore, P.J. (1993). The process of learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bloom, B.S., Englehard, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Editors). (1956).

Taxonomy of educational objectives I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

List of references 110

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12528-009-9016-5%23page-1

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Editors). (2000). How people learn: brain,

mind, experience and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Chase. S.E. (2003). Taking narrative seriously: consequences for method and theory in

interview studies. In Turning points in qualitatative research: tying knots in a handkerchief

:273-296. Edited by Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Cole, M., Engeström, Y. & Vasquez, O. (Editors). (1997). Mind, culture and activity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, D. & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Available

from: http://www.qualres.org/HomeRefl-3703.html (Accessed 30 October, 2013).

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London:

Sage.

Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. New York: Routledge.

Daniels, H. & Warmington, P. (2007). Analysing third generation activity systems: labour-

power, subject position and personal transformation. Journal of workplace learning,

19(6):377-391.

Daniels, H., Cole, M. & Wertsch, J.V. (2007) The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.


http://www.qualres.org/HomeRefl-3703.html

De Kadt, E. (2013). Proposal to STLC. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the University

of Johannesburg Senate Teaching and Learning Committee.

Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for “21st Century skills”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects.

Berkshire: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects.

Buckinghamshire: Open University Press.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Editors). (2003). The Landscape of qualitative research:

theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Editors). (1999). Collecting and interpreting qualitative

materials. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Editors). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage.

De Vaus, D.A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage.

De Vos, A.S. (Editor), Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. (2002). Research at

grass roots for the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1):133-156.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In

Perspectives on activity theory:19-38. Edited by Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and

Punamäki-Gitai, R.L. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In Collecting and interpreting

qualitative materials: 47-78. Edited by Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friese, S. (2012). ATLAS.ti 7 Quick Tour. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development.


Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 8(4):597-607.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). iste.nets.cse: Advancing

digital age computer science teaching. Available from: http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-

cse.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (Accessed 27 September, 2013).

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). iste.nets.t: Advancing

digital age teaching. Available from: http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-

standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (Accessed 27 September, 2013).

Johnson, J. (2004). Key informant. In The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research

methods: 538-539. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Edited by Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A. &

Liao, T.F. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n463 (Accessed

15 October, 2013).

Kaptelinin, V. (2013). Activity Theory. In The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction.

Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Edited by Soegaard, M. and Dam,

R.F. Available from: http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/activity_theory.html


Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives:

the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change

35(2): 24–32.

Lautenbach, G.V. & Batchelor, J. (2013). “You are poisoning us” and other myths of

technology integration: Professional development of the pre-service teacher. Paper

presented at the ISTE Conference: Kruger Park, South Africa.

Lautenbach, G.V. (2008). Stories of engagement with e-learning: revisiting the taxonomy of

learning. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education,

4(3):11-19.


http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-cse.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-cse.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n463

http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/activity_theory.html

Lautenbach, G.V. (2005). Lecturers’ changing epistemologies and pedagogies during

engagement with information and communication technology in an education faculty.

Doctoral Thesis available from: http://www.uj.ac.za/Portals/79/docs/Complete

%20thesis%20Sept%202005.pdf (Accessed 5 October, 2009).

Lautenbach, G.V., & Van der Westhuizen, D. (2005). Hybridising methods towards narratives

in an educational ICT inquiry. (Special Issue: ICT in Education). Education as Change, 9(2),

46–73.

McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: a conceptual introduction.

New York: Longman.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. & Baumgartner, L.M. (Editors). (2006). Learning in Adulthood:

a comprehensive guide. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. & Knox, A.B. (Editors). (1991). Learning in adulthood: A

comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B., (Editor). (2002). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and

analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory.

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89 (Spring):3-13.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Partners in Learning. (n.d.). 21CLD learning activity rubrics.

Available from: http://www.pil-network.com/pd/21CLD/Overview (Accessed 27 September,

2013).

Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: from digital immigrants and digital natives to digital

wisdom. Innovate, 5(3). Available from:

http://ww.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 (Accessed 5 October, 2009).


http://www.pil-network.com/pd/21CLD/Overview

http://ww.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705

Prince, R. & Yeld, N. (2012, October 12-18). A bridge too far for school leavers. Mail &

Guardian. Available from: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-10-12-a-bridge-too-far-for-school-

leavers/ (Accessed 27 September, 2013).

Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. In

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications

and Technology, Research and Theory Division: 459-470. Edited by Simonson, M.R. &

Anderson, M. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and

Technology.

Reid, J., Forrestal, P., & Cook, J. (1989). Small group learning in the classroom.

Scarborough, Australia: Chalkface Press.

Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education (DoBE). (2011a). Action plan to

2014: towards the realisation of schooling 2025. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education (DoBE). (2011b).Strategic plan

2011-2014. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

Republic of South Africa. Department of Education (DoE). (2007). Guidelines for teacher

training and professional development in ICT. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Republic of South Africa. Department of Education (DoE). (2004). White paper on

e-education: transforming learning and teaching through information and communication

technologies (ICTs). Pretoria: Department of Education.

Republic of South Africa. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). (2012).

Green paper for post-school education and training. Pretoria: Department of Higher

Education and Training.

Republic of South Africa. Department of the Presidency. National Planning Commission.

(2011). National Development Plan: Vision for 2030. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Available from: http://www.npconline.co.za (Accessed 28 April, 2012).

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. London: Sage.


http://mg.co.za/article/2012-10-12-a-bridge-too-far-for-school-leavers/

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-10-12-a-bridge-too-far-for-school-leavers/

http://www.npconline.co.za/

Riessman, C.K. (2001). Analysis of personal narratives. In Handbook of interview research:

Context and method:695-709. Edited by Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage. Available from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7364656/Reissman-CK-2000-

Analysis-of-personal-narratives (Accessed 5 October, 2009).

Rugg, G. & Pretre, M. (2007). A gentle guide to research methods. Maidenhead: Open

University Press and McGraw-Hill.

Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-Century learning. Phi Delta Kappa International,

90(9):630-634. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27652741 (Accessed 7 February,

2013).

Scott, I., Yeld, N. & Hendry, J. (2007). A case for improving teaching and learning in South

African higher education. Higher Education Monitor, 6. Research paper prepared for the

Council on Higher Education (CHE). Available from:

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/higher-education-monitor/higher-education-

monitor-6-case-improving-teaching (Accessed 6 October, 2012).

Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F. & Silverman, D. (Editors). (2004). Qualitative research

practice. London: Sage.

Shulman, L.S. (2002). Making differences: a table of learning. Change, 34(6):36-45.

Available from: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/making-differences-table-learning


Shulman, L.S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4):10-17.

Smit, B. (2013a). An introduction to Atlas.ti. Slide presentation presented at the University of

South Africa (UNISA): Pretoria.

Smit, B. (2013b). Qualitative data analysis: coding. Slide presentation presented at the

University of South Africa (UNISA): Pretoria.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/7364656/Reissman-CK-2000-Analysis-of-personal-narratives

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7364656/Reissman-CK-2000-Analysis-of-personal-narratives

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27652741

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/higher-education-monitor/higher-education-monitor-6-case-improving-teaching

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/higher-education-monitor/higher-education-monitor-6-case-improving-teaching

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/making-differences-table-learning

Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on

development and learning: expanding Vygotsky’s CHAT project. Cultural Studies of Science

Education, 3:471-491.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Strydom, J.F., Basson, N. & Mentz, M. (2012). Enhancing the quality of teaching and

learning: using student engagement data to establish a culture of evidence. (Report on

SASSE 2010 project for the South African Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE) and the

Council on Higher Education (CHE)). Council on Higher Education: Pretoria.

University of Johannesburg (UJ). (2011). Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture: O! Week

2011 Orientation Programme (Brochure). Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

University of Johannesburg (UJ). (2008). UJ Teaching and learning strategy. Johannesburg:

University of Johannesburg.

University of Johannesburg. Division of Academic Development and Support (ADS). (2013).

Terms of reference for the First Year Experience programme (FYE). Unpublished

manuscript.

University of Johannesburg. Division of Academic Development and Support (ADS). (2009).

Proposal to Senate: a first-year experience at the University of Johannesburg. Unpublished

manuscript.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011).

UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris: UNESCO.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1992). Thought and language. Edited by Kozulin, A. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.

Edited by Cole, M., Steiner, V.J., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. Cambridge, Masssachusetts:

Harvard.


Wersch, J.V. (Editor). (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY:

ME Sharpe.

Wilen-Daugenti, T. (2009). .edu: Technology and learning environments in higher education.

New York: Peter Lang.


APPENDIX A: ETHICS CLEARANCE APPLICATION

Appendix A 119

Appendix A 120

Appendix A 121

Appendix A 122

Appendix A 123

APPENDIX B: ETHICS CLEARANCE

Appendix B 124

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

INTERVIEWEE_______________________________

Date: ____________________ Time: ___________________Venue:

__________________________________________________________

QUESTION 1: Please tell me about your experience of engaging with computers and

other technology for the first time at UJ?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 2: How did you experience using a computer for the first time?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 3: Is there anything you did to help yourself cope or overcome any

challenges you faced? What, how?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix C 125

QUESTION 4: Did you collaborate with any other students to improve your/their

engagement with computers? How?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 5: Do you think you changed anything or changed the way things were

done in future by the way you participated?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 6: Tell me about the computers you used. Were some aspects more

challenging/motivating/enjoyable than others – which were they?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix C 126

QUESTION 7: Tell me about the people who played a role in your engagement with

computers? [other students, lecturers, assistants - anyone you discussed it with in

past, or who played a role somehow]

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 8: How did you experience the lecturer’s role and teaching?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

The teaching assistants?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

How did you experience the other students in your class?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix C 127

QUESTION 9:

The whole process of getting to know computers. How did you find it? [the way it

happened, was organised, how time was organised, how the teaching was organised,

restrictions, the way everything went –– the whole process and how it affected your

experience of getting to know computers? How were you treated?]

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix C 128

APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

Appendix D 129

Appendix D 130

Appendix D 131

Appendix D 132

Appendix D 133

Appendix D 134

Appendix D 135

Appendix D 136

Appendix D 137

Appendix D 138

Appendix D 139

Appendix D 140

Appendix D 141

Appendix D 142

Appendix D 143

Appendix D 144

Appendix D 145

Appendix D 146

Appendix D 147

Appendix D 148

Appendix D 149

Appendix D 150

Appendix D 151

Appendix D 152

Appendix D 153

Appendix D 154

Appendix D 155

Appendix D 156

Appendix D 157

Appendix D 158

Appendix D 159

Appendix D 160

Appendix D 161

Appendix D 162

Appendix D 163

Appendix D 164

Appendix D 165

Appendix D 166

Appendix D 167

Appendix D 168

Appendix D 169

Appendix D 170

Appendix D 171

Appendix D 172

Appendix D 173

Appendix D 174

Appendix D 175

Appendix D 176

Appendix D 177

Appendix D 178

Appendix D 179

Appendix D 180

Appendix D 181

Appendix D 182

Appendix D 183

Appendix D 184

Appendix D 185

Appendix D 186

APPENDIX E: CODE FAMILIES EXPORTED FROM ATLAS.TI

Table 1: Code Family for Subject

Code Family: SUBJECT Codes (25): [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Admitting to learn mostly in vernacular/home language] [Admitting to learning in English previously] [Admitting to some learning at school level in vernacular] [Appreciating learning that relates to real-life situations] [Assuming that learning will be easy] [Being a person who enjoys a challenge] [Being willing to put in extra time/effort to conquer the technology] [Claiming never to have touched a computer before] [Claiming not to be used to computers] [Expecting to find learning technologies easier over time] [Expressing confidence in own ability to master learning technologies] [Fear that there will be only one chance to master the technologies, or fail] [Feeling apprehension/fear of engaging with learning technologies] [Feeling hopeless and unsure of being able to cope with the technologies in future] [Feeling more confident with technologies over time] [Feeling positive that the sessions being offered by UJ are important/relevant] [Finding it expedient to learn without collaboration] [Finding it expedient/valuable to learn collaboratively] [Indicating determination/willingness to persevere to rise to the challenge of mastering the technologies] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)] [Seeing ICTs as relevant/useful for life and academic studies] [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] Quotation(s): 93

Appendix E 187

Table 2: Code Family for Tool Code Family: TOOL Codes (16): [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Claiming never to have touched a computer before] [Claiming not to be used to computers] [Experiencing difficulty in concentration, mentally paralysed when using a computer for the first time] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Feeling comfortable with the computer] [Feeling comfortable with the keyboard] [Feeling comfortable with the mouse] [Feeling scared and confused touching a computer for the first time] [Finding that some experience of a computer in primary school made the experience less scary, more comfortable] [Not being able to relate computer to technologies used previously] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)] [Struggling with computer: not keyboard or mouse] [Struggling with the computer keyboard] [Struggling with the computer mouse] Quotation(s): 51

Appendix E 188

Table 3: Code Family for Object

Code Family: OBJECT Codes (49): [Admitting to ask questions in front of peers in spite of prejudice/awkwardness] [Admitting to avoiding/skipping learning/assessment tasks that cannot be completed/understood] [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Appreciating learning that relates to real-life situations] [Being willing to put in extra time/effort to conquer the technology] [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Considering new ways to manage available time to master the technologies] [Expecting to find learning technologies easier over time] [Experiencing benefits in learning collaboratively] [Experiencing challenges due to insufficient explanations for content in sessions] [Experiencing challenges in obtaining information in sessions] [Experiencing challenges to learning collaboratively] [Experiencing difficulty in concentration, mentally paralysed when using a computer for the first time] [Experiencing difficulty in simultaneously operating pc, following lecturer, viewing printed notes etc.] [Experiencing difficulty in understanding content] [Experiencing very great difficulty mastering the technology initially] [Expressing confidence in own ability to master learning technologies] [Feeling apprehension/fear of engaging with learning technologies] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Feeling comfortable with new learning technologies] [Feeling comfortable with the Internet] [Feeling hopeless and unsure of being able to cope with the technologies in future] [Feeling more confident with technologies over time] [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Feeling the need for practice to mastering learning technologies] [Feeling traumatised by failure to perform or follow instructions] [Finding doing a computer test before training difficult and traumatic] [Finding interaction with learning technologies enjoyable/exciting/positive] [Finding interaction with learning technologies negative/unpleasant/very hard] [Finding own progress very slow] [Finding that some experience of a computer in primary school made the experience less scary, more comfortable] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] [Indicating determination/willingness to persevere to rise to the challenge of mastering the technologies] [Not being able to relate computer to technologies used previously] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)] [Relying on other learners for support] [Relying on teaching assistants for support] [Relying on the lecturer for support] [Struggling to memorise the functionalities of the new technology (subsequent anxiety)] [Struggling to save files] [Struggling with the spell-checker] [Taking initiative and reaping benefits for learning new technologies] [Taking initiative or doing things differently to overcome learning obstacles] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] [Worrying about enough time/opportunity to practice with computers/learning technologies in future] Quotation(s): 216

Appendix E 189

Table 4: Code Family for Rules Code Family: RULES Codes (29): [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Comparing academic English and school English] [Comparing learning at school level to academic learning] [Experiencing challenges due to insufficient explanations for content in sessions] [Experiencing challenges in obtaining information in sessions] [Experiencing difficulty in simultaneously operating pc, following lecturer, viewing printed notes etc.] [Experiencing difficulty in understanding content] [Experiencing embarrassment/disappointment/despondency by a poor score on the computer literacy test] [Experiencing English as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing lack of support in general in the session] [Experiencing the English used in the sessions as understandable] [Experiencing trauma/despondency: overwhelmed by volume/pace of teaching] [Expressing concern that there may not be support in future - after the sessions] [Fear that there will be only one chance to master the technologies, or fail] [Feeling fear that inability to use technologies can lead to academic failure] [Feeling positive about the logistics of the sessions] [Feeling positive that the sessions being offered by UJ are important/relevant] [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Feeling that inability to master technologies will disappoint the family] [Feeling the need for a break between sessions] [Finding doing a computer test before training difficult and traumatic] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] [Finding too few teaching assistants for too many students] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] [Questioning the logistics(rules) of orientation sessions] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] [Worrying about enough time/opportunity to practice with computers/learning technologies in future] Quotation(s): 147

Appendix E 190

Table 5: Code Family for Community Code Family: COMMUNITY Codes (32): [Admitting to having a friend/family was willing to perform computer tasks on respondent's behalf, at school level] [Admitting to having friends/family at school level that provided some information about computers] [Admitting to having friends/family at school level who knew computers, who could be watched] [Admitting to having friends/family who supported/encouraged learning how to use a computer] [Being aware of other struggling students who were left behind] [Experiencing challenges to learning collaboratively] [Feeling that inability to master technologies will disappoint the family] [Finding barriers to collaboration imposed by the lecturer] [Finding fellow students' activities a challenge to learning] [Finding it difficult to approach other students for support/collaboration] [Finding it expedient/valuable to learn collaboratively] [Finding teaching assistants' activities satisfactory] [Finding teaching assistants sympathetic to computer-illiterate students] [Finding the assistants' support harsh] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the lecturer assuming that students knew/understood everything even if they didn't] [Finding the lecturer had some understanding/empathy towards computer-illiterate students] [Finding the lecturers' activities satisfactory] [Finding the lecturers' activities unsatisfactory] [Finding the lecturers' teaching a challenge] [Finding the lecturers' teaching understandable/clear] [Finding the teaching assistants' activities unsatisfactory] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] [Identifying challenges in lecturers' teaching] [Identifying student resistance to available support due to perceived prejudice/peer pressure/exclusion] [Identifying student resistance to teaching in sessions] [Identifying the age-gap between lecturer and students as a barrier to learning] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] [Relying on other learners for support] [Relying on teaching assistants for support] [Relying on the lecturer for support] [Stating community support for learning how to use computers at school level] Quotation(s): 117

Appendix E 191

Table 6: Code Family for Division of Labour Code Family: DIVISION OF LABOUR Codes (47): [Admitting to ask questions in front of peers in spite of prejudice/awkwardness] [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Admitting to learn mostly in vernacular/home language] [Admitting to learning in English previously] [Admitting to some learning at school level in vernacular] [Being aware of other struggling students who were left behind] [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Comparing academic English and school English] [Comparing learning at school level to academic learning] [Considering learning in the vernacular as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing embarrassment/disappointment/despondency by a poor score on the computer literacy test] [Experiencing English as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing feelings of inferiority compared to other students who were seen as coping in the sessions] [Experiencing no problems/exclusion by those in the session] [Experiencing support from lecturers in overcoming linguistic division] [Experiencing support from student assistants in overcoming linguistic division/challenges in sessions] [Experiencing the English used in the sessions as understandable] [Experiencing trauma/despondency: overwhelmed by volume/pace of teaching] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Feeling traumatised by failure to perform or follow instructions] [Finding it difficult to approach other students for support/collaboration] [Finding teaching assistants sympathetic to computer-illiterate students] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the lecturer assuming that students knew/understood everything even if they didn't] [Finding the lecturer had some understanding/empathy towards computer-illiterate students] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] [Identifying a division of interested/disinterested students in sessions] [Identifying a division of rich/privileged vs poor/underprivileged at university level] [Identifying a division of rich/privileged vs poor/underprivileged at school level] [Identifying a division of rural/urban at school level] [Identifying a division of where one comes from/geographical location at university] [Identifying a division of young/old] [Identifying a technological division/exclusion (also fast vs slow; experience/inexperience) at University level] [Identifying a technological division/exclusion at school level] [Identifying linguistic division at school level] [Identifying linguistic division/challenges at University] [Identifying technological exclusion from spous' laptop at home] [Identifying student resistance to available support due to perceived prejudice/peer pressure/exclusion] [Identifying the age-gap between lecturer and students as a barrier to learning] [Overcoming prejudice in requesting/accepting support] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] Quotation(s): 208

Appendix E 192

APPENDIX F: CODE SUB-THEMES

Table 7: Code sub-themes for family: Subject Experience of language in learning [Admitting to learn mostly in vernacular/home language] [Admitting to learning in English previously] [Admitting to some learning at school level in vernacular] Seeing value of learning [Appreciating learning that relates to real-life situations] [Feeling positive that the sessions being offered by UJ are important/relevant] [Seeing ICTs as relevant/useful for life and academic studies] Feelings about learning ICTs for the first time [Assuming that learning will be easy] [Being a person who enjoys a challenge] [Indicating determination/willingness to persevere to rise to the challenge of mastering the technologies] [Being willing to put in extra time/effort to conquer the technology] [Expecting to find learning technologies easier over time] [Feeling more confident with technologies over time] [Expressing confidence in own ability to master learning technologies] [Fear that there will be only one chance to master the technologies, or fail] [Feeling apprehension/fear of engaging with learning technologies] [Feeling hopeless and unsure of being able to cope with the technologies in future] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Finding it expedient to learn without collaboration] [Finding it expedient/valuable to learn collaboratively] [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] Relating ICTs to previous experience [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Claiming never to have touched a computer before] [Claiming not to be used to computers] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)]

Appendix F 193

Table 8: Code sub-themes for family: Tool The role of previous experience in interacting with the computer [Claiming never to have touched a computer before] [Claiming not to be used to computers] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] [Not being able to relate computer to technologies used previously] [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Finding that some experience of a computer in primary school made the experience less scary, more comfortable] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)] How it felt to interact with a computer and its components for the first time [Experiencing difficulty in concentration, mentally paralysed when using a computer for the first time] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Feeling scared and confused touching a computer for the first time] [Finding that some experience of a computer in primary school made the experience less scary, more comfortable] [Feeling comfortable with the computer] [Feeling comfortable with the keyboard] [Feeling comfortable with the mouse] [Struggling with computer: not keyboard or mouse] [Struggling with the computer keyboard] [Struggling with the computer mouse]

Appendix F 194

Table 9: Code sub-themes for family: Object Feeling challenged in coping with the sessions: [Feeling traumatised by failure to perform or follow instructions] [Finding doing a computer test before training difficult and traumatic] [Finding interaction with learning technologies negative/unpleasant/very hard] [Finding own progress very slow] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] [Feeling apprehension/fear of engaging with learning technologies] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Experiencing challenges due to insufficient explanations for content in sessions] [Experiencing challenges in obtaining information in sessions] [Experiencing difficulty in concentration, mentally paralysed when using a computer for the first time] [Experiencing difficulty in simultaneously operating pc, following lecturer, viewing printed notes etc.] [Experiencing difficulty in understanding content] [Experiencing very great difficulty mastering the technology initially] [Feeling hopeless and unsure of being able to cope with the technologies in future] Feeling challenged in coping with the technology itself: [Struggling to memorise the functionalities of the new technology (subsequent anxiety)] [Struggling to save files] [Struggling with the spell-checker] Feeling that more training/reinforcement/support was needed to cope with the sessions: [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Feeling the need for practice to mastering learning technologies] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] [Worrying about enough time/opportunity to practice with computers/learning technologies in future] Trying to relate their experience with ICTs to previous experience [Finding that some experience of a computer in primary school made the experience less scary, more comfortable] [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Not being able to relate computer to technologies used previously] [Relating computers to technologies used previously (cell phone)] [Not seeing anything new in the learning technologies] Seeking strategies in order to cope: [Admitting to ask questions in front of peers in spite of prejudice/awkwardness] [Admitting to avoiding/skipping learning/assessment tasks that cannot be completed/understood] [Being willing to put in extra time/effort to conquer the technology] [Considering new ways to manage available time to master the technologies] [Experiencing benefits in learning collaboratively] [Experiencing challenges to learning collaboratively] [Indicating determination/willingness to persevere to rise to the challenge of mastering the technologies] [Taking initiative and reaping benefits for learning new technologies] [Taking initiative or doing things differently to overcome learning obstacles] [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] Seeing the possibility of coping with the new technologies [Appreciating learning that relates to real-life situations] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Expecting to find learning technologies easier over time] [Feeling more confident with technologies over time] [Expressing confidence in own ability to master learning technologies]

Appendix F 195

Feeling comfortable engaging with the technologies: [Finding interaction with learning technologies enjoyable/exciting/positive] [Feeling comfortable with new learning technologies] [Feeling comfortable with the Internet]

Appendix F 196

Table 10: Code sub-themes for family: Rules General: [Feeling positive that the sessions being offered by UJ are important/relevant] [Feeling positive about the logistics of the sessions] [Questioning the logistics(rules) of orientation sessions] Information overload /Fast speed of delivery: [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Experiencing trauma/despondency: overwhelmed by volume/pace of teaching] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] Lack of support / reinforcement: [Experiencing lack of support in general in the session] [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Finding too few teaching assistants for too many students] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] [Worrying about enough time/opportunity to practice with computers/learning technologies in future] [Expressing concern that there may not be support in future - after the sessions] How sessions were taught (method of delivery, style or level of teaching): [Comparing learning at school level to academic learning] [Experiencing challenges due to insufficient explanations for content in sessions] [Experiencing challenges in obtaining information in sessions] [Experiencing difficulty in simultaneously operating the pc, following lecturer, viewing printed notes] [Experiencing difficulty in understanding content] Language of teaching in sessions: [Comparing academic English and school English] [Experiencing English as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing the English used in the sessions as understandable] Time between sessions for rest: [Feeling the need for a break between sessions] Order of sessions (e.g. doing test first and training later): [Finding doing a computer test before training difficult and traumatic] [Experiencing embarrassment/disappointment/despondency by a poor score on the computer literacy test] Pressures on students (expectation to pass): [Fear that there will be only one chance to master the technologies, or fail] [Feeling fear that inability to use technologies can lead to academic failure] [Feeling that inability to master technologies will disappoint the family]

Appendix F 197

Table 11: Code sub-themes for family: Community PREVIOUSLY, WHILE AT SCHOOL Teachers/friends/family: [Admitting to having friends/family at school level that provided some information about computers] [Admitting to having friends/family at school level who knew computers, who could be watched] [Admitting to having friends/family who supported/encouraged learning how to use a computer] [Admitting to having a friend/family was willing to perform computer tasks on respondent's behalf, at school level] [Stating community support for learning how to use computers at school level] [Feeling that inability to master technologies will disappoint the family] IN THE SESSIONS Presenters: [Finding barriers to collaboration imposed by the lecturer] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the lecturer assuming that students knew/understood everything even if they didn't] [Finding the lecturer had some understanding/empathy towards computer-illiterate students] [Finding the lecturers' activities satisfactory] [Finding the lecturers' activities unsatisfactory] [Finding the lecturers' teaching a challenge] [Finding the lecturers' teaching understandable/clear] [Identifying challenges in lecturers' teaching] [Identifying the age-gap between lecturer and students as a barrier to learning] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] Assistants: Finding teaching assistants' activities satisfactory] [Finding teaching assistants sympathetic to computer-illiterate students] [Finding the assistants' support harsh] [Finding the teaching assistants' activities unsatisfactory] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] Fellow students: [Being aware of other struggling students who were left behind] [Experiencing challenges to learning collaboratively] [Finding it expedient/valuable to learn collaboratively] [Finding it difficult to approach other students for support/collaboration] [Finding fellow students' activities a challenge to learning] [Identifying student resistance to available support due to perceived prejudice/peer pressure/exclusion] [Identifying student resistance to teaching in sessions]

Appendix F 198

Table 12: Code sub-themes for family: Division of Labour Students who request assistance versus those who do not [Overcoming prejudice in requesting/accepting support] [Admitting to ask questions in front of peers in spite of prejudice/awkwardness] [Comparing learning at school level to academic learning] [Experiencing no problems/exclusion by those in the session] [Finding it difficult to approach other students for support/collaboration] [Identifying student resistance to available support due to perceived prejudice/peer pressure/exclusion] Students who have some computer literacy versus those who do not (technological division): [Admitting to benefiting from previous knowledge of computers (but not hands-on)] [Admitting to feeling low self-esteem due to inability to master technologies] [Being aware of other struggling students who were left behind] [Experiencing embarrassment/disappointment/despondency by a poor score on the computer literacy test] [Experiencing feelings of inferiority compared to other students who were seen as coping in the sessions] [Feeling awkward/embarrassed/stupid in using the technologies for the first time] [Feeling that more training/support was needed to master the technologies] [Feeling traumatised by failure to perform or follow instructions] [Finding teaching assistants sympathetic to computer-illiterate students] [Finding the lecturer had some understanding/empathy towards computer-illiterate students] [Identifying a technological division/exclusion (also fast vs slow; experience/inexperience )at University level] [Identifying a technological division/exclusion at school level] [Identifying technological exclusion from spous' laptop at home] Students who can keep up with pace of sessions versus those who struggle: [Challenged in needing more time (vs less information or less speed) to learn from sessions] [Claiming to manage to cope with speed of the sessions to some extent] [Experiencing trauma/despondency: overwhelmed by volume/pace of teaching] [Finding the lecturer's talking/teaching too fast] [Finding the teaching assistants' support too fast] [Getting left behind and not being able to acquire/understand content of the sessions] Experiencing Linguistic division [Admitting to learn mostly in vernacular/home language] [Admitting to learning in English previously] [Admitting to some learning at school level in vernacular] [Comparing academic English and school English] [Considering learning in the vernacular as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing English as a barrier to learning] [Experiencing support from lecturers in overcoming linguistic division] [Experiencing support from student assistants in overcoming linguistic division/challenges in sessions] [Experiencing the English used in the sessions as understandable] [Identifying linguistic division at school level] [Identifying linguistic division/challenges at University] Experiencing academic division [Wanting to overcome the limitations of school learning as a barrier to learning ICTs] [Finding the lecturer assuming that students knew/understood everything even if they didn't] [Receiving support as instructions (do this, click here) without explanation] [Wanting more repetition/reinforcement to gain necessary information in sessions] Experiencing a division of age: [Identifying a division of young/old] [Identifying the age-gap between lecturer and students as a barrier to learning]

Appendix F 199

Students who are interested / focused in the sessions versus those who are not: [Identifying a division of interested/disinterested students in sessions] Students with rural versus urban origins: [Identifying a division of rural/urban at school level] [Identifying a division of where one comes from/geographical location at university] Students who are rich / privileged versus those who are not: [Identifying a division of rich/privileged versus poor/underprivileged at school level] [Identifying a division of rich/privileged versus poor/underprivileged at university level]

Appendix F 200

transformative learning

Documents