THE DIGITAL LEARNER AT BCIT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AN E-STRATEGY Mark Bullen, Tannis Morgan, Adnan Aqyyum, Karen Belfer
Background to Research <ul><li>Collaboration between Concordia PhD candidate & BCIT Learning & Teaching Centre </li></ul><...
Digital Learner Characteristics <ul><li>Digitally literate </li></ul><ul><li>Connected </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate </li></...
Net Generation Claims Claim Evidence? Use digital technologies extensively Yes Social, recreational use creates sophistica...
The Literature Authors Comments Oblinger & Oblinger (2005).  Educating the Net Generation <ul><li>unprecendented levels of...
The Literature Authors Comments Oblinger & Oblinger (2005).  Educating the Net Generation <ul><li>Strongest chapter (Kvavi...
The Literature Authors Comments Tapscott (1998) . Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation <ul><li>Force for soc...
The Literature Authors Comments Seely Brown (2000).  Growing Up Digital <ul><li>Anecdotal observations of 15 yr. olds work...
The Literature <ul><li>Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical review of the...
Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Ipsos-Reid Survey – Canada – November 2007, 2,313 Internet users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resu...
Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Australian research – survey of 2588 students at three universities (University of Melbourn...
Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>University of Guelph – survey of 19,316 students, 2706 respondents (14% ) </li></ul><ul><ul...
Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical revie...
Methodology <ul><li>Student focus group interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Interview transcripts and interview notes </li></ul><...
Findings <ul><li>Guiding question </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What do BCIT students and faculty need from technology? </li></ul>...
Findings <ul><li>Limited Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Findings <ul><li>Context Sensitivity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a deep knowledge of technology but have a good understandin...
Implications <ul><li>Digital but not millennial </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication preferences/technology use not age or ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Digital Learner at BCIT and Implications for an E-Strategy

1,503 views
1,377 views

Published on

Presentation made to the EDEN Research Workshop, October 2008, Paris.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,503
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Digital Learner at BCIT and Implications for an E-Strategy

    1. 1. THE DIGITAL LEARNER AT BCIT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AN E-STRATEGY Mark Bullen, Tannis Morgan, Adnan Aqyyum, Karen Belfer
    2. 2. Background to Research <ul><li>Collaboration between Concordia PhD candidate & BCIT Learning & Teaching Centre </li></ul><ul><li>Two studies, one data set </li></ul><ul><li>Guiding research questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How are BCIT learners using ICTs? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there differences in social and educational use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do BCIT learners fit the “millennial learner” profile? </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Digital Learner Characteristics <ul><li>Digitally literate </li></ul><ul><li>Connected </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate </li></ul><ul><li>Experiential </li></ul><ul><li>Social / Interactive </li></ul><ul><li>Teams </li></ul><ul><li>Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Visual & Kinesthetic </li></ul><ul><li>Socially-conscious </li></ul>
    4. 4. Net Generation Claims Claim Evidence? Use digital technologies extensively Yes Social, recreational use creates sophisticated users No Social, recreational use of technology transfers to educational use No Use changes learning approaches, even the brain No Need to change the way we teach, organize our institutions, support our learners No
    5. 5. The Literature Authors Comments Oblinger & Oblinger (2005). Educating the Net Generation <ul><li>unprecendented levels of skills with information technology; </li></ul><ul><li>take technology for granted </li></ul><ul><li>want more of it in their classes, </li></ul><ul><li>postsecondary institutions aren't responding fast enough to meet their needs </li></ul><ul><li>Edited volume of 14 chapters </li></ul><ul><li>Only one is based on empirical research </li></ul><ul><li>Most are speculation or anecdotal observations </li></ul>
    6. 6. The Literature Authors Comments Oblinger & Oblinger (2005). Educating the Net Generation <ul><li>Strongest chapter (Kvavik) actually contradicts main themes of the book </li></ul><ul><li>have basic office suite skills, can use email, Internet with ease but &quot;moving beyond basic activities is problematic ” </li></ul>Howe & Strauss (2000). Millenials Rising <ul><li>focus on teamwork, achievement, modesty, and good conduct </li></ul><ul><li>Based on two surveys: 200 school teachers, 660 students in Fairfax county, VA. </li></ul>
    7. 7. The Literature Authors Comments Tapscott (1998) . Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation <ul><li>Force for social transformation </li></ul><ul><li>Access to interactive, digital technologies is creating a generation of critical thinkers </li></ul><ul><li>Based on discussions with 300 children </li></ul><ul><li>Balanced for gender, geography socio-economic status </li></ul><ul><li>Representative? </li></ul><ul><li>Members of an online discussion group </li></ul>Prensky (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part 1 & 2 <ul><li>Use of technology is changing the physical structure of the brain </li></ul><ul><li>Speculation </li></ul>
    8. 8. The Literature Authors Comments Seely Brown (2000). Growing Up Digital <ul><li>Anecdotal observations of 15 yr. olds working in Xerox Lab </li></ul>Frand (2000). The information-age Mindset <ul><li>Speculation </li></ul>Turkle (1995). Life on The Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet 1995
    9. 9. The Literature <ul><li>Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), 775-786 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ rather than being empirically and theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a `moral panic’” </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Ipsos-Reid Survey – Canada – November 2007, 2,313 Internet users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Results belies a common belief that young people are most at ease in cyberspace, with the study suggesting that not only do teens spend less time than their elders online; they are also more conservative in their use of the technology. </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Australian research – survey of 2588 students at three universities (University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong, and Charles Sturt University) – 2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies low. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ To accept the claims of some of the commentators on the changes needed in universities to cater for this generation of students without undertaking further research is likely to be a substantial mistake. “ </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>University of Guelph – survey of 19,316 students, 2706 respondents (14% ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students reluctant to mix personal and academic use of computers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students may not use technology the way we expect them to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of online social networks for academic use is low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rather than trying to find ways to use technologies, should determine what students need and based decisions on those needs </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The `digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (5), 775-786. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ It is apparent that there is scant evidence to support this idea, and that emerging research challenges notions of a homogeneous generation with technical expertise and a distinctive learning style. Instead it suggests variations within this population, which may be more significant to educators than similarities” (p. 780) </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Methodology <ul><li>Student focus group interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Interview transcripts and interview notes </li></ul><ul><li>Use descriptions of millennials to analyze interview transcripts </li></ul><ul><li>Generate themes </li></ul><ul><li>Distilling themes </li></ul>
    15. 15. Findings <ul><li>Guiding question </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What do BCIT students and faculty need from technology? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do BCIT students fit the “millenial” profile? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What should an e-learning strategy look like at BCIT? </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Findings <ul><li>Limited Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Immediacy </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Findings <ul><li>Context Sensitivity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a deep knowledge of technology but have a good understanding of what it can and cannot do for them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of e-mail </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Relationship of technology needs to the nature of the program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Physical, environmental needs more significant than technology needs </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Implications <ul><li>Digital but not millennial </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication preferences/technology use not age or generation-related </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Selection of tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional infrastructure valued </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But students usually chose not to use institutionally-provided software </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open Access </li></ul>

    ×