ECP Keynote: Emerging technologies, student engagement and collaboration


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ECP Keynote: Emerging technologies, student engagement and collaboration

  1. 1. Emerging technologies, student engagement and collaboration<br />Daniela Gachago, Fundani, CPUT<br />
  2. 2. ALT C 2009<br />
  3. 3. ALT C 2011<br />
  4. 4. One size fits all vs.<br />Personalised learning<br />
  5. 5. …emerging technologies are technologies likely to have a large impact on teaching, learning, or creative inquiry on college and university campuses within the next five years…. <br />Johnson et al. (2011) <br />
  6. 6. Johnson & Adams (2011) <br />
  7. 7. Characteristics…<br />Tools that use web as a platform<br />Built around an architecture of participation<br />Data consumptions<br />Remixing/mashups from other sources<br />Rich interactive, user friendly interface<br />Elements of social networking<br />Most importantly: change of locus of control from institutional silos and from lecturer to the students<br />Hatzipanagos (2011) <br />Image:<br />
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11. 56%<br />
  12. 12. Use of emerging technologies at CPUT<br />N = 105<br />
  13. 13.
  14. 14. <br />
  15. 15. Replicating practice vs. disruptive technologies<br />Maddux & Johnson 2005<br />
  16. 16. Reasons for using ET<br />access to current, relevant, global, immediate information (12)<br />adapt to new generation of learners, tools that are already used by students (5)<br />diversity of learning experiences (5)<br />independence from CPUT systems (3)<br />mash up/integration (1)<br />
  17. 17. Focus at University of Technology<br />Which tool to use?<br />How does it work?<br />Need to theorize our research and practice!<br />
  18. 18. Student engagement & academic access<br />Astin 1984<br />
  19. 19. Student engagement: how to measure?<br />Wilson 1987<br />
  20. 20. initiative, self-motivation, independent experimentation, spontaneous collaboration and peer coaching, enthusiasm and frustration<br />Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer 1994<br />
  21. 21. Facebook study<br />
  22. 22. Improving interactions<br />B: The thing is, just coming back to the whole communication that you actually …know your fellow students…actually you can go to for advice…not just highlighting the top students in the class…gaining confidence in your fellow students not just asking [the lecturer] all the time.<br />A: And the other thing I will say it created that relationship with the lecturers so I believe after this whole Facebook thing I understand like my lecturers better than I thought, you know. And know I am free, I am free like to chat to them….it created that.<br />
  23. 23. initiative, self-motivation, independent experimentation, spontaneous collaboration and peer coaching, enthusiasm and frustration<br />Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer 1994<br />
  24. 24. Peer support<br />I: Facebook [shows us], that we all suffer together. Like one big, happy, sad family.<br />
  25. 25. Student engagement & collaboration<br />Astin 1987 & Tinto 1997 <br />
  26. 26. 2010 Clickers in Graphic Design<br />
  27. 27. Student written feedback<br />.<br />You will feel like you have said something because you voted ... you know the answer as to why you wouldn’t agree or disagree but you don’t feel like saying it in such a way that people will understand it. (29%)<br />Clickers make the discussion more fun.It is full of energy<br />I find it to be very innovative, exciting and it grabs my attention. (50%)<br />I like clickers because…<br />You hear other people’s opinions and then you can weigh it up with your own ... and with that you can formulate a better answer.You hear different explanations from other people about the things that you don’t even know about.The more people speak out their ideas, the more I think on adding to what they have said. (71%)<br />
  28. 28. Student engagement levels <br />Gachago , Morris , Simons, 2011<br />
  29. 29. Cooperation is an essential pre-requisite for cognitive growth<br />Johnson et al. 1998<br />
  30. 30. Controversy Theory: “…students need to be confronted with opposing points of views, leading to uncertainty or conceptual conflicts, for students to re-conceptualize and look for more information, which then in turn leads to more refined and thoughtful conclusions.” <br />Johnson et al. 1998<br />
  31. 31. Student feedback<br />When you speak about it, something else comes up and you go deeper into it ... <br />Clickers help you gain more information ... it makes you do more research about a topic, to broaden it, know more ...<br />When we go out of this class, we end up going to the computer, searching for more information, after using clickers…<br />
  32. 32. Digital story study<br />2010 Education Digital Stories<br />
  33. 33. Interviewer: what part of the digital storytelling do you feel supported your reflection?<br />Student: okay, it was when we doing the sound recording…because I was working with my group…so when we were singing that gospel song, it was when I started to reflect back to my teaching practice…things that I helped the children to improve.....<br />
  34. 34. So what’s the point?<br />
  35. 35. Challenge: lack of institutional engagement<br />
  36. 36.
  37. 37. Thank you! Any questions?<br />I would like to acknowledge all lecturers involved in these research projects, such as JolandaMorkel, HermieVoulgarelis, Bruce Snaddon, Marie-Anne Ogle, Dr Janet Condy, Dr Agnes Chigona, Edwine Simon, Amanda Morris, Veronica Barnes and all their students! And in particular my colleague Dr Eunice Ivala who has been an amazing mentor and collaborator in the research we have been doing!<br />
  38. 38. References<br />Astin, A.W., 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of University Student Development 25: 297-308. <br />Astin, A.W., 1985. Involvement: The Cornerstone of Excellence. Change 17 (4): 35-39.<br />Delich, P., Melly, K. & McIntosh, D., 2008. Emerging Technologies in E-learning. In S. Hirtz & D. Harper, eds. Education for a Digital World. Commonwealth of Learning, pp. 5-22. Available at: [Accessed April 5, 2011].<br />Hatzipanagos, S., 2011. Positive disruptive effects of current and emerging technologies in higher education. Presentation at eLearning@Edinburgh 2011. [Accessed March 28, 2011].<br />Johnson, L. et al., 2011. The Horizon Report 2011 Edition, Austin, Texas. Available at: [Accessed March 28, 2011].<br />Johnson, L. & Adams, S., 2011. Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis, Austin, Texas.<br />Johnson, D., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A., 1998. Cooperative Learning Returns To College: What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change, 27-35.  <br />Maddux, C.D. & Johnson, L.D., 2005. Type II Applications of Technology in Education. Computers in the Schools, 22(1&2), pp.1-5.<br />Sandholtz, J. H., C. Ringstaff and D.C. Dwyer., 1994. Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich classrooms. Apple Computer Inc. <br />Tinto, V., 1997. Classrooms as Communities. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.<br />Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. <br />Wilson, R. (1987). Direct observation of academic learning time. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(2), 13–17. <br />