New technologies and 21st Century learners and their impact on research in teaching and learning at Unisa #unisa12 Palitha Edirisingha University of Leicester Unisa ODL Research Workshop 11 June 2012, Unisa, South Africa
New technologies: social and parIcipatory media (web 2.0) New technologies: Digital mobile and literacy digital technologies Terms and concepts 21st Century Digital learners: divide broadly deﬁned A ‘digital / net generaIon’
An Learners’ assessment of access to, and An assessment current the use of of learner technologies expectaIons, Conclusions – pedagogies, and learning employer what can we technologies resources. expectaIons take from the and research What are the and session at Unisa, and emerging employability where to research topics prospects next? and problems?
1. AcIvity 1 • An assessment of current pedagogies and technologies at Unisa, and where to next? [10 minutes] • Pedagogy –technology framework (Conole et al (2004) • Photocopies of the framework to be distributed to the parIcipants. • ParIcipants to work in pairs, 3s or small groups
Mapping pedagogies to technologies Social Informa:on Informal Formal Experience (Conole et al. 2004) Individual
AcIvity: Mapping e-‐pedagogies to technologies Pedagogies Technologies • CollecIve group aggregaIon • Social bookmarking • Dialogic Learning (Dial) • Sykpe • DemonstraIon of assessment • ePorolio • DidacIc learning – • InteracIve mulImedia/ reinforcement MCQs • Pick another example • Pick another example (Conole et al. 2004)
Social Informal Formal Experience Individual Informal Formal Informa:on (Conole et al. 2004)
AcIvity 1 Working in your group, please consider: -‐ What are the pedagogies and technologies that you Report back to use in your current teaching? the whole Drawing a group. One key general -‐ What are the assumpIons point from picture and realiIes that underpin your group your choices? -‐ What changes in the next 5 years?
2. PresentaIon [30 minutes] Learners’ access to, and use of technologies and learning resources – an overview Applicability to Unisa and Southern Africa? What are the emerging research topics and problems?
21st century learners, learning and Access to, and competence with, technologies? technologies (web-‐ based parIcipatory media and mobile digital devices) “digital naIves”, “net generaIon” Age-‐related? Economic, other factors? Access to non-‐insItuIonal learning Digital divide? Implica:ons? resources OERs (‘small’, ‘big’) Research? Digital literacy? Skills: employees or Graduate skills employers? AspiraIons, Transferable skills expectaIons; employment; lifelong learning
QuesIons…? • Validity of ‘digital naIve’ claims? • Can we ignore it altogether? • Themes / topics for research? – Digital divide – Digital literacy
A ‘digital / net generaIon’ ‘Digital naIves’ and ‘digital immigrants’
A generaIon? • ‘an age cohort that comes to have social signiﬁcance by virtue of consItuIng itself as a cultural iden:ty’ (Edmunds and Turner, 2002, p. 7). • ‘a cohort of individuals born within a par:cular :me frame’ (Buckingham, 2008, p. 2) • a cohort having a relaIonship with a parIcular traumaIc event’ (Edmunds and Turner, 2002), for example a world war..., a deﬁning moment in the history.
A digital generaIon ‘a genera:on deﬁned in and through its experience of digital computer technology’ (Buckingham, 2006, p. 1).
GeneraIons Genera:ons (according to Tapscoi, 1998) • The Boomers -‐ born between 1946 -‐ 1964. The TV generaIon. conservaIve, hierarchical, inﬂexible, centralised (like the TV medium). ‘incompetent technophobes’. • The Bust -‐ born between 1965 -‐ 1976.
GeneraIons The net genera:on / The Boom Echo -‐ born amer 1977. expressive, savvy, self-‐reliant, analyIcal, creaIve, inquisiIve, accept diversity, socially conscious. possess intuiIve, spontaneous relaIonship with digital technology. ‘using new technology is as natural as breathing’ (Tapscoi, 1998, p. 40). generaIonal diﬀerences are produced by the technology.
Claims about the digital generaIon ‘Although speciﬁc forms of technology uptake are highly diverse, a generaIon is growing up in an era where digital media are part of the taken-‐for-‐granted social and cultural fabric of learning, play, and social communicaIon’ (Ito et al, 2008, p. vii).
Claims about the digital generaIon ‘…those immersed in new digital tools and networks are engaged in an unprecedented exploraIon of language, games, social interacIon, problem solving, and self-‐directed acIvity that leads to diverse forms of learning.’ (Ito et al, p. vii, 2008).
QuesIons for educators … • Can students entering HE be classiﬁed as belonging to a ‘net generaIon’? • Do young people who are growing up with digital media have a diﬀerent orientaIon to the world, a diﬀerent set of disposiIons or characterisIcs? • How do the net generaIon learn? What are the characterisIcs of their learning?
Evidence from UK research Research on ﬁrst year students born amer 1983, both campus and distant learners ‘The generaIon is not homogeneous in its use and appreciaIon of new technologies’ ‘… signiﬁcant variaIons amongst students that lie within the Net generaIon age band’ (Jones et al., 2010, p. 722).
Evidence from South Africa Brown & Czerniewicz, 2008: Students’ use of ICTs in higher educaIon in South Africa. -‐ similar to the ﬁndings in the UK and US. Other? -‐
Digital naIve’s own claims ‘I don’t ﬁnd it hard to use a computer because I got into it quickly. You learn quick because it’s a very fun thing to do.” (Amir, 15, from London). ‘My Dad hasn’t even got a clue. Can’t even work the mouse.... So i have to go on the Internet for him” (Lorna, 17, from Manchester). (Livingstone, 2008).
How true are these claims? ‘While these claims contain a sizeable grain of truth, we must also recognise their rhetorical value for the speakers. Only in rare circumstances in history have children gained greater experIse than parents in skills highly valued by society.’ (e.g., diasphoric children’s learning of the host language before their parents, youthful experIse in music, games, play). (Livingstone, 2008).
Growing up ‘analogue’ Vs growing up digital How far is this true as far as yourself and your students are concerned? Does a ‘digital generaIon’ exist in your context? What is their paierns of access to, and use of technologies?
Digital divide ‘the gap between the technology rich and the technology poor, both within and between socieIes’ (Buckingham, 2008, p. 10) the gap between those who do and those who do not have access to computers and the Internet’ (van Dijk, 2005, p. 1). …access considered as physical access -‐ having personal computer and Internet connecIon (van Dijk, 2005, p. 1).
Digital divide ‘the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at diﬀerent socio-‐economic levels with regard both to their opportuniIes to access informaIon and communicaIon technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of acIviIes’ (OECD, 2001, p. 5)
Closing the digital divide • The ‘trickle-‐down’ principle • What are the problems with the above view/ approach to solving the access problem?
Digital divide – quesIons? a ‘social and poli:cal problem’ (van Dijk, 2005, p. 3), not a technical one.
Digital divide – quesIons? • What are the disadvantages of being in the ‘have not’ side of the digital divide? What are the consequences of digital divide for learners, for teachers, for educaIon as a whole? • Does digital divide intensify the exisIng social inequaliIes (of age, gender, ethnicity, social class, disabiliIes)?
Internet use – world regions World total Ocenia/Australia LaIn America / Carib. Noth America Middle East Series1 Europe Asia Africa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [accessed on 4 June 2012]
South Africa • Literacy rate: 81.8% total (1995 est.) • 6,800,000 Internet users (Dec 2010), 13.9% of the populaIon • 4,822,820 Facebook users (Dec 2011), 9.8% penetraIon rate. Source: hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [accessed on 4 June 2012]
South Africa – internet growth % Penetration of YEAR internet access 2000 5.5 2001 6.2 2002 6.8 2003 7.1 2004 7.4 2005 7.4 2008 10.5 2009 10.8Source: hip://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [accessed on 4 June 2012]
MoIvaIonal Skills access access Material or Usage physical Types of access access access contribuIng to Digital divide (van Dijk, 2005).
Digital divide – stories “India unveils worlds cheapest tablet computer” “Nairobis digital divide “ “Indias government unveiled its ‘… with broadband internet access computer tablet which will sell at cosIng more than the average only $35US. Kenyan annual wage, the digital divide appears set to remain’ (BBC, By oﬀering the Aakash tablet at 2010). highly subsidised prices to millions of students and teachers, oﬃcials says hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ they aim to revoluIonise in_pictures/8259533.stm educaIon.” (BBC, 2011) hip://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐ south-‐asia-‐15192624
Approaches to closing digital divide? Sugata Mitra: Can kids teach themselves? “… Sugata Mitra talks about his Hole in the Wall project. Young kids in this project ﬁgured out how to use a PC on their own -‐-‐ and then taught other kids. He asks, what else can children teach themselves?” hip://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ﬄ2D0 and hip://www.ted.com
Digital naIves, digital immigrants and digital divide Applicability of this discourse to Unisa / Southern Africa.
Percent Missing 0.08% MulImedia Sharing Sites (e.g., YouTube) 25.08% Social Bookingmarking Sites (e.g., del.ici.ous) 1.42% Percent Social Networking sites (e.g., Facebook) 42.08% Wikis (e.g., Wikipedia) 24.08% Blogs 7.25% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% N = 1,200 parIcipants Age range = 16 – 35+ Can you guess which country / world region! Levels of study = CerIﬁcate to Postgraduate
Percent Missing 0.08% MulImedia Sharing Sites (e.g., YouTube) 25.08% Social Bookingmarking Sites (e.g., del.ici.ous) 1.42% Percent Social Networking sites (e.g., Facebook) 42.08% Wikis (e.g., Wikipedia) 24.08% Blogs 7.25% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Munguatosha, G. (2011) A Social Networked N = 1,200 parIcipants Age range = 16 – 35+ Learning Model for Higher Educa9on in Tanzania, Levels of study = CerIﬁcate to Postgraduate MSc Disserta:on, Makerere University.
some fun … • Visualising the internet growth and use • hip://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/ 8552410.stm
Digital literacy UK Policy concerns: • ‘Digital Britain Report’ (DCMS, 2009): – sets out the strategy of the government in placing technology at the centre of the UK’s economic recovery – recognises the importance of people having the ‘… capabiliIes and skills to ﬂourish in the digital economy’ (DCMS, 2009, p. 1).
Digital literacy In Higher EducaIon • Prof. Sir David Melville (2009) Commiiee of Inquiry into learners’ use of Web 2.0 in HE – students in HE may well be pervasive users of social networking sites, blogs, virtual environments and other mulI-‐media forms, but they lacked deep criIcal skills to analyse and validate informaIon on-‐line (Melville, 2009).
Digital literacy • “the ability to access networked computer resources and use them….the ability to understand and use informaIon in mulIple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” (Gilster, 1997, p. 1). • literacy means much more than just reading and requires “a set of core competencies” including, “the ability to make informed judgments” and others that derive from criIcal thinking (ibid, p. 1-‐2).
Digital literacy in HE CapabiliIes which equip an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society (JISC LLiDA, 2009). examples of skills: • the use of digital tools to undertake academic research, wriIng and criIcal thinking • digital professionalism • the use of specialist digital tools and data sets • communicaIng ideas eﬀecIvely in a range of media • producing, sharing and criIcally evaluaIng informaIon • collaboraIng in virtual networks • using digital technologies to support reﬂecIon and personal development planning, and • managing digital reputaIon and showcasing achievements (Knight, 2011, p. 8).
Digital literacy in HE JISC UK context. Funded research since 2001. -‐ ICT / computer literacy -‐ InformaIon literacy -‐ Media literacy -‐ CommunicaIon and collaboraIon -‐ Digital scholarship -‐ Learning skills -‐ Life-‐planning (JISC brieﬁng paper)
Digital literacy is ‘… about mastering ides, not keystrokes’ (Gilster, 1997).
Digital literacy -‐ deﬁniIons ‘… much more than a funcIonal maier of learning how to use a computer and keyboard, or how to do online searches. […] As with print, [students] also need to be ale to evaluate and use informaIon criIcally if they are to transform it into knowledge. This means asking quesIons about the sources of that informaIon, the interests of its producers, and the ways in which it represents the world […]. (Buckingham, 2006: 267, in Ryberg and Dirckinck –Holmsﬁeld, 2010, p. 173)
A Leicester research project on: Learners’ access to, and competence with, technologies and digital literacy skills [PELICANS]
Aims 1. To idenIfy HE students’ access to and the use of digital technologies and web 2.0 tools for their formal and informal learning in HE. 2. To idenIfy their level of digital literacy and to develop strategies for addressing gaps in levels of literacy. 3. To make recommendaIons for supporIng students to further develop their digital literacy skills.
Research design and methodology 2. Focus groups with • to idenIfy students • to develop and students’ validate appropriate ownership of and online acIviIes and use of digital • to gain a deeper learning tools to devices and web insight into their improve their level 2.0 tools use of web 2.0 of digital literacy tools in a learning skills 1. QuesIonnaire context surveys of 100+ undergraduates and 3. Workshops with postgraduates students
Data from the 2010-‐2011 hip://goo.gl/kraQF quesIonnaire survey at The next three slides based on 2011 -‐ 2012 data
Ownership of computer and other digital devices (% reporIng) 2012 data 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Desktop 35 laptop 100 Smartphone 82.5 Phone 17.5 Camera 92.5 MP3Player 87.5 Tablet 42.5 [8% in 2011] eReader 10 [4% in 2011] GameDevice 25 2012 data set 1, n = 40
Devices used to access internet during term-‐Ime (% reporIng) 2012 data 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 UniComputer 85 OwnComputer 100 MobilePhone 77.5 [55% in 2011] iPodTouch 7.5 OtherDevices 10 Tablet 25 2012 data set 1, n = 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Update SNS Watch Television Listen to radio Frequency of using Web 2.0 tools and acIviIes – 2012 data Write blog Use SBMS Contribute to wikis Play video games Download / share music Use 3-‐D virtual worlds Missing Chat (e.g., MSN) Rarely/never VOIP Share digital photographs SomeImes Share videos Record own music Frequently Mix music Make graphic art Contribute to bulleIn boards Microblogging Subscribe to RSS feeds Programming Selling on ebay Online shopping Online banking Use ‘Apps’
2006 data from Impala project (www.impala.ac.uk) Not applicable 1 Both a desktop and a laptop computer 10 Series1 A laptop computer 65 A desktop computer 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 N = 243
2006 data from Impala project Other Studies Listening to podcasts Sharing / broadcasIng video (e.g. YouTube) Sharing bookmarks (e.g. del.icio.us) Sharing photos (e.g. Flickr) ContribuIng to Wikis Series1 Blogging Chat rooms Internet telephony (e.g. Skype) Selling items (e.g. eBay) On-‐line shopping Play games 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 N = 256
Findings … • Students use a range of digital devices to access and organise informaIon and plan their studies. Laptops, smart phones, MP3 players, and e-‐readers. Checking availability of library books, arranging to meet oﬀ-‐line for group work, and many more. seamlessly both in virtual and physical spaces, involving input from their teachers and non-‐formal study groups. • Students’ familiarity and preference for the use of web 2.0 tools and digital devices, and competencies are diverse reﬂecIng the internaIonal and other demographic proﬁle of our students. No homogeneous net generaIon.
Findings … • Students maintain their established virtual structures and ‘aﬃnity spaces’ (Frances, 2010) from their geographical area of origin (naIonal and overseas) that serve as informal sources of support for studies. University, teachers and library are no longer the ‘gate keepers’ of what is deemed ‘expert’ informaIon. • Students engage in a ‘parIcipatory culture’ (Jenkins et al, 2006), for example, reading and contribuIng to book recommendaIon sites.
RecommendaIons and thoughts • The cultural context of digital literacy needs to be focused on more closely. • ParIcipatory cultures vary -‐ Jenkins very much rooted in US and parIcular types of acIviIes online (gaming for example). • As learners and teachers we need to recognise this cultural context. • Provide direcIon and intervenIon (where there is scant access to physical books, the web is seen as a soluIon). Not all students have the ability to determine good quality sources online. • SupporIng students to create their own PLE?
Finally… • VerIcal and horizontal space of the new media environment raises a number of challenges • Expert and ‘non-‐expert’ informaIon • Moving across ‘expert’ or ‘academic’ informaIon that ﬂows downwards: reading lists, Library e-‐link, alongside peer to peer (horizontal) informaIon. • Seamless spaces on-‐line QQ, oﬀ-‐line: group study rooms in the library. • Students have useful mobile technology an iPhone provides mulIple uses: mini photocopier, access web material, arrange group meeIngs etc.
More about Pelicans research project Please contact either: – Pal at firstname.lastname@example.org or – Tracy at email@example.com
3. AcIvity 2 An assessment of learner expectaIons, employer expectaIons and employability prospects [10 minutes] Digital literacy skills in the context of employability in South Africa. How important are digital literacy skills? What are the expectaIons from employers? Professional organisaIons? [5 minutes]
QuesIons for consideraIon • How can universiIes / formal educaIon system help learners growing in a digital age? • How might we deploy new digital technologies to improve learning and studying at our universiIes? • How might we prepare learners work and for lifelong learning?
References and further resources Buckingham, D. & Willei, R. (eds) (2006) Digital Genera,on: Children, Young People, and New Media. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum. Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for eﬀecIve learning design, Computers and Educa,on, 43 (1-‐2): 17-‐33. Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. London: Harvard University Press. DCMS (2009) Digital Britain: Final Report hip://interacIve.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/report/being-‐digital/ge€ng-‐britain-‐online/. accessed 3 Sept 2009. Edmunds, J. & Turner, B. (2002) Genera,ons, Culture and Society. Buckingham: Open University Press. Facer, K. (2011) Learning Futures: Educa,on, technology and social change. London: Routledge. Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlon, R. & Sutherland, R. (2003) ScreenPlay: Children and Compu,ng in the Home. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Frances, R.J. (2010) The decentring of tradi,onal university: the future of (self) educa,on in virtually ﬁgured worlds, Oxford, UK: Routledge.
References and further resources Gill, T. (ed) (1996) Electronic children: How children are responding to the informa,on revolu,on. London: NaIonal childrens Bureau. Gilster, P. (1997) Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley. Hellawell, S. (2001) Beyond Access: ICT and social inclusion. London: Fabian Society. Heverly, R. A. (2008) Growing Up Digital: Control and the Pieces of a Digital Life. In McPherson, T. (ed) Digital Youth, Innova,on, and the Unexpected, pp.199-‐218. Cambridge (Massachuseis): The MIT Press. Holloway, S. L. & ValenIne, G. (2003) Cyberkids: children in the informa,on age. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ito, M., et al. (2008) Foreword. In McPherson, T. (ed) Digital Youth, Innova,on, and the Unexpected. Cambridge (Massachuseis): The MIT Press. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (2006) Confron,ng the Challenges of Par,cipatory Culture: Media Educa,on for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: ComparaIve Media Studies Programme at the Massachuseis InsItute of Technology. hip://www.projectnml.org/ﬁles/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf accessed 2 Nov 2010. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010) Net generaIon or Digital NaIves: Is there a disInct new generaIon entering university? Computers & Educa,on, 54(3), 722 – 732.
References and further resources Livingstone, S. (2008) Internet Literacy: Young People’s NegoIaIon of New Online OpportuniIes. In McPherson, T. (ed) Digital Youth, Innova,on, and the Unexpected,pp. 3-‐36. Cambridge (Massachuseis): The MIT Press. McPherson, T. (ed) (2008) Digital Youth, Innova,on, and the Unexpected. London: The MIT Press. Melville, D. (2009) Higher Educa,on in a Web 2.0 World: Report of CommiYee of Enquiry into the Changing Learner Experience. hip://www.clex.org.uk/CLEX_Report_v1-‐ﬁnal.pdf. accessed 29 May 2009. Munguatosha, G. (2011) A Social Networked Learning Model for Higher Educa,on in Tanzania,MSc DissertaIon, Submiied to the School of CompuIng and InformaIcs Technology, Makerere University. OECD (2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD PublicaIons. Ryberg, T., & Dirckinck–Holmsﬁeld, L. (2010). Analysing Digital Literacy in AcIon: A Case Study of a Problem-‐oriented Learning Process, in Sharpe, R., Beethem, H., & De Freitas, S. (eds). Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How learners are shaping their own experiences. London: Routledge. Sharpe, R., Beethem, H., & De Freitas, S. (eds) (2010) Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How learners are shaping their own experiences. London: Routledge. Tapscoi, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital: Rise of the Net Genera,on. New York: McGrew-‐Hill. van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Informa,on Society. London: Sage. Wilhelm, A.G. (2004) Digital NaIon: Toward an Inclusive InformaIon Society. London: The MIT Press.