Emerging technologies in SA HEIs: towards a teaching and learning practice framework
Emerging and new are not necessarilysynonomousWhile for example, Twitter may be an emerging technology, various practices on Twitter platform may already be establishedToday’s ET may become tomorrow’s fad – must remain sceptical about sudden transformation. ETs go through cycles of euphoria, adoption, use, maturity, impact, enthusiasm or even infatuation. Some will remain, others fade into backgroundCan’t yet fully understand the implications and what they offer teaching and learning, what they mean for educators and for institutions. It is not predictable we can’t determine in advance what will happen but only make sense of it after the event (Williams et al. 2011).Initial investigations often evangelical and describe superficial aspects of the technology without understanding the affordances of the technology and how these provide different ways to learn. Newer technologies can also be used in old traditional ways.Lack of research impedes disseminationAccording to Veletsianos (2010:17) emerging technologies are ‘tools, technologies, innovations, and advancements utlized in diverse educational settings to serve varied education-related purposes’. We are still learning and still learners with regard to the affordances of ETs. There is an absence of empirical work or practitioner knowledge base to explore enhancement of practice. Veletsianos (2010:17) personal technologies often sit uneasily with institutions; in some cases they are even banned within the university buildings and networks (Parry, 2005).
New Media Consortium
Radical change Is needed in the design and delivery of teaching if HEIs are to be ‘fit for purpose’ for the 21st Century (Bates & Sangra, 2011:4)‘Recognizing the fact that learning is a lifelong process that occurs naturally outside of the classroom, designers are advised to designopportunities for activities that allow learners to engage with course-related topics outside of the classroom. Such activities should occur in open-ended learning environments that allow for learner flexibility, self-direction, and student-centered control of learning (Land & Hannafin,1996), to accommodate learner interests. For instance, introducing learners to communities of practice should be an integral part of higher education curricula’. Veletsianos, 2011)‘transformative learning experiences cannot be “imposed” on learners. Parrish and Wilson (this issue) make a similar argument when they claim that “deeper forms of learning can’t just be made to happen; they are invited, and encouraged, and facilitated. Experience, after all is largely a subjective thing – it’s how real people encounter their worlds, not how they should respond or what the materials are meant to do to them.” This paper is grounded on a similar premise, as technology has been described as an agent of change, as a way to provideopportunities for transformation while sculpting pedagogical practice. Second, since it is not possible to construct transformative experiences but, to provide opportunities for transformation, these learning experiences are bound to encompass unknown outcomes. In other words, the outcomes associated with these opportunities may or may not be transformational. Consequently, the outcomes of opportunities for transformation do not lend themselves well to being evaluated using pre-defined objectives. An added complexity relates to the definition of the term transformation as a personally fulfilling and meaningful outcome. If transformation is a personalized, it is difficult to assess it based on pre-established guidelines. Indeed, individualized assessment may be the only meaningful approach available to evaluate transformative learning.’ (Velestianos,2011)
Parry, W., “School orders students to remove blogs”. USA Today, 26/10/2005. Downloaded from: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-10-26-school-bans-blogs_x.htmThe over-adoption of tools can lead to what has been termed ‘creepy tree house’ syndrome (Stein 2008) when authority is seen to try and invade a young person's social space. There is strong resistance from students to universities and lecturers making formal use of social networks as this is seen as an invasion of their social space (e.g. Madge 2009). When parents and professors start inhabiting these spaces it creates a role conflict (Selwyn 2009) for students, as they struggle to know which face to present and find their communication stifled. These tools may have significant potential for learning, but students don't want them to become the next LMS: organisationally controlled, bland and singular in focus (i.e. teaching). For the teaching function of scholarship then the question is ‘How can educators utilise the potential of these tools without destroying what makes them valuable to students?’ Weller,2011:
Adaptive systems / Assisstive technologies (e.g. Screenreaders) Argumentation Visualisation (debategraph) Augmented Reality (AR) Bibliographic management (e.g. RefWorks, Zotero, Mendeley)5Blogging (e.g. Blogger, WordPress, Live journal)20Concept and Mindmapping (e.g. Bubbl.us, CMap, Freemind, Inspiration)3Context aware environments and devices (e.g. geotagging, data mashups) E-books2Electronic portfolios (e.g. Carbonmade, Exabis, Mahara)2Games and Massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) Instant messaging (e.g. MSN, GoogleTalk, Mxit)7Internet phone (e.g. Skype)3Learning analytics Lecture capturing Microblogging (e.g. Twitter, Statusnet)7Modelling / Simulation tools7Multimedia production; Digital stories (e.g.Photostory, Windows MovieMaker)13Open Educational Resources repositories (e.g. MIT OpenCourseWare - free and open course materials via internet)6Podcasting / Vodcasting (e.g. Podcast Capture, Movie maker, Audacity)20Remote instrumentation (e.g. remote labs) Research databases (e.g. Ebscohost; Academic Premier)9Reusable learning objects RSS Feeds1Screencasting (e.g. Camtasia, Camstudio, Captivate, Wink)12Social bookmarking (e.g. Delicious)2Social media (e.g. Flickr, YouTube, Slideshare, Picasa, Vimeo)18Social networking (e.g. Facebook, MySpace)16Student/Personal response systems / Clickers (e.g. Turning Point)5Tablet computers6Virtual worlds / Immersive technologies (e.g. Second Life) Web-based documents (e.g. Google Docs, Google Forms)8Webconferencing (e.g. elluminate, MS Lync, dimdim, Adobe Connect)3Wikis (e.g. Wikis within an LMS; MediaWiki, Wikispaces, PBWiki)8LMS / CMS59 242
H0w are they using it?
Link to Anderson 2011, examples of replicative uses of technology
New references:Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education. University of Wollongong. Available from http://ro.uow.edu.au/newtech/
2011 11 29 emerging technologies heltasa
Characteristics of ET1. May or may not be new technologies2. Evolving organism, that exist in the state of coming into being3. Go through hype cycles4. They are not yet fully understood5. They are not yet fully researched6. They are potentially disruptive, but that potential is mostly unfulfilled Veletsianos, 2010:13-17
“Emerging ICTs in Higher Education” NRF project, 2011-2013• 8 SA HEIs(SU, UWC, UCT,CPUT, UP, Rhodes, Wits, FortHare)• 1 NGO (Open Courseware Consortium) More information at http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/
Focus of the research1. What are the technologies academics are using?2. How are SA lecturers using these technologies?3. Is the use of these technologies transforming teaching and learning practices?
Current teaching practice in HE• Predominantly teacher centred• Lecture based• Reliance on rote learning• Transmission teaching models• Use of technology often replicates traditional teaching practice: passive, teacher-centered and didactic instruction (Herrington et al. 2009)
Disruptiveness in Education• Type I uses of technology replicate existing teaching and learning practice,• while Type II uses of technology allow students and lecturers to do things that could not be done before, changing relationships between students and lecturers in fundamental ways (Johnson and Maddux 2005)
2011 Emerging Technologies Survey• Part of NRF project• Target group: lecturers that are known to be open to/engaged with technology• Sent by email to contacts in all public HEIs institution, snowball sampling• Content: 3 parts, demographic, tools and open ended questions around practice with ET• Respondents: 262 (by 30 September 2011)• Selection of 15 respondents for in depth analysis based on richness of responses
Respondents by Institution Female Male TotalUniversity of Stellenbosch 28 21 49University of Cape Town 25 10 35 56%University of the Western Cape 21 13 34Cape Peninsula University of Technology 14 16 30Rhodes University 12 3 15University of Fort Hare 7 8 15Durban University of Technology 10 4 14Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 6 5 11University of Johannesburg 4 5 9Walter Sisulu University of Technology & Science 2 6 8University of Limpopo 5 2 7University of the Free State 6 1 7Mangosuthu University of Technology 1 4 5Central University of Technology 1 3 4North-West University 4 0 4Vaal University of Technology 1 3 4University of KwaZulu-Natal 3 0 3University of South Africa 3 0 3University of Pretoria 0 2 2Tshwane University of Technology 1 0 1University of the Witwatersrand 0 1 1University of Venda for Science and Technology 0 1 1Grand Total 154 108 262
• These uses of technology contain – high levels of student-student interaction; – teacher- student interaction, and – student- content interaction.• According to Anderson and Garrison (2004), deep and meaningful learning is supported as long as one of the above mentioned types of interactions is at a higher level.
Conclusions• Definition of Emerging Technologies confirmed that perception of ET is highly context based• Emerging Technologies do not necessarily lead into innovative practices that transform teaching and learning• Interesting examples of use of ET for transformation across all institutions and disciplines• Anderson model was helpful, but missing: student self interaction, community not emphasized
Further research• Agency vs structure• Researching student voices• More in depth case studies
Any questions? See more information on our project on our blog:http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/
ReferencesAnderson, S. 2010. Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press, pp23-40.Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. 2004. Theory and practice of online learning. (T. Anderson & F. Elloumi, Eds.)British Journal of Educational Technology (Vol. 36). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00445_1.x Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education (Vol. 9). Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Retrieved from ro.uow.edu.au/newtechJohnson, L. and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook for UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Austin, Texas: The New Media ConsortiumMaddux, C. D., & Johnson, L. D. 2005. Type II Applications of Technology in Education. Computers in the Schools, 22(1&2), 1-5.Veletsianos, G. 2010. A Definition of Emerging Technologies for Education. . In G. Veletsianos (ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press, pp1-22Veletsianos, G. 2011. Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46.