The disruptive nature of emerging technologies v0.3

1,168 views

Published on

2011 HELTASA presentation

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • On slide 8, you cite emerging technologies. My colleagues and I lecture in ebooks, virtual environments and gaming-related stuff. It's good to see we're keeping up.

    Most of my efforts to utilize the technologies referred to in this presentation have been stifled with (understantable!) corporate policies and a lack of student access to the internet. Let's hope this will change, I've been waiting almost a decade!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,168
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
440
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • New emerging technologies…use in HE on the rise…does this affect how lecturers use technology in T&L
  • Higher Education Funding Council for England
  • Student centeredness
  • Community, opening up boundaries
  • Motivation, enthusiasm, self efficiency….
  • The disruptive nature of emerging technologies v0.3

    1. 1. + The disruptive nature of emerging technologies: lecturers‘ experiences at a University of Technology in South AfricaDaniela Gachago, Eunice Ivala, Fundani, CPUTAgnes Chigona, Education, CPUT
    2. 2. Critique on use of technology in education What are Conclusions emerging technologies Findings: Can they What? disrupt How? Presentation teachingDisruption? practice? Research Research design aims Laurillard‘s conversationa l framework
    3. 3. + Use of technologies in Higher Education….
    4. 4. + Impact of technologies in education falls short of rhetoric…  …when ICTs are adopted by majority of teaching staff, it is mostly used to support and improve existing practices, rather than to radically change them (Kirkup and Kirkwood 2005)  ….lecturers and students use a limited range of technologies for both learning and in social life…(Margyaran and Littlejohn 2011, Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)  …use of technology predominantly to reproduce existing practice as opposed to transforming practice … (Velestianos 2011)  …existing practice: to support passive, teacher-centered, and didactic instruction … (Herrington et al 2009)
    5. 5. +
    6. 6. + Need to redefine elearning  ―As a result of the pervasiveness of technology, the term ‗e- learning‘ has come under scrutiny. Personal ownership of technologies coupled with access to social software means that all kinds of learning-related activity can potentially be e- enabled; e-learning can no longer be viewed as a purely institutionally based or narrowly defined set of activities....‖ (HEFCE paper 2009, 5)
    7. 7. + Emerging technologies…  Emerging technologies may or may not be new technologies  Emerging technologies are evolving organism that exist in a state of ―coming into being‖  Emerging technologies go through hype cycles  Emerging technologies are not yet fully understood and not yet fully researched  Emerging technologies are potentially disruptive but their potential is mostly unfulfilled (Veletsianos 2010)
    8. 8. + Johnson and Adams 201
    9. 9. + Shift of locus of control…  Emerging technologies place the control over teaching and learning process firmly in the hands of students and lecturers as opposed of the institution….  Transfer of authority of knowledge and ownership of technology  Wisdom of the crowd, architecture of participation (Surowiecki 2004)  New issues to consider in terms of privacy, security, authority and control of information Becta 2008
    10. 10. +
    11. 11. + Disruptive, emergent, soft, transformative nature of technologies….
    12. 12. + Type I vs Type II technologies  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)
    13. 13. + Prescriptive vs emergent…  Prescriptive learning: In predictable domains, knowledge can be created and applied to provide control. The learning that is traditionally associated with predictable domains is typically organised hierarchically within centralised institutions.  Emergent learning: In complex-adaptive domains, knowledge does not provide prospective predictability but, rather, retrospective coherence: ―hindsight does not provide foresight‖ …. The learning that is appropriate is self-organised and typically collaborative. It is open and is created and distributed largely by the learners themselves. (Williams, Karousou, Macness 2011)
    14. 14. + Hard vs soft technologies  Hard technologies: constraining, e.g. LMS limit the number of choices one can make, relatively easy to use, orchestrated by rules and regulations, risk to stifle creativity  Soft technologies: more freedom to play with, orchestrated by individual lecturer  ―Soft technologies need skill and artistry. It ain‘t just what you do, it‘s the way that you do it. A bad technology, used well, can work brilliantly, while a good technology, used badly, can be useless. Most learning technology research concentrates on technology (including methods and pedagogies) not the talent and skill with which it is applied that is frequently more significant.‖ (Dron 2011)
    15. 15. + Qualities of disruptive technologies 1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and flexible enough to accommodate different styles and interests of students. It should provide necessary support, but require that the student do the work. 2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students, and provide connections to students‘ lives, jobs, and communities. 3. It should capitalize on the willingness of lecturers and students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to keep at problems until solutions are crafted. (Meyer 2010)
    16. 16. + Research aims
    17. 17. + Research aims 1. To establish the extent to which lecturers are using technologies in teaching and learning and their rational (both institutional technologies and technologies outside the institutions‘ control), 2. To explore the use of emerging technologies and how these technologies impact on the range of learning events lecturers and students engage with, and 3. To explore lecturers experiences with the disruptive nature of emerging technologies
    18. 18. +Conceptualframework
    19. 19. + Laurillard…  ―Wehave begun at last to play with digital technologies as a way of meeting the demands of the digital age, but with an approach still born in the transmission model….. There is no progress, therefore, in how we teach, despite what might be possible with the new technology.‖ (Laurillard 2002, 141)
    20. 20. +  Builds on:  social constructivism (Vygotsky) and  conversation theory (Pask)  Argues that complex learning involves:  a continuing iterative dialogue between teacher and student, which reveals the participants‘ conceptionsLaurillard‘s and the variations between them…conversational There is no escape from the need for dialogue, no room for mere telling, norframework (2002) for practice without description, nor for experimentation without reflection, nor for student action without feedback. (Laurillard 2002)
    21. 21. +Learning conversationsconsist of…A discursive phaseAn interactive phaseAn adaptive phaseAnd a reflective phase
    22. 22. + Mapping media to learning experiences….
    23. 23. Blogs, wikis, Facebook, Mxit, skype, Twitter, gmail….Czerniewicz & Brown 2005
    24. 24. + Effective practice  Effective and appropriate pedagogical practice is achieved by offering students a wide variety of media forms balanced for their pedagogical value rather than chosen for their novelty or entertainment factor (Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)
    25. 25. + Research methodology  Mixed method design  2010 CPUT ICT survey: access and use of ICTs for teaching and learning  Survey tool: adapted from tool developed by Czerniewicz and Brown (2005)  In depth follow up interviews with five lecturers selected for their reputation for engaging with emerging technologies (gmail, YouTube, TED talks, Facebook, skype, IM, …)
    26. 26. + 1.  Which technologies are lecturers using in teaching and learning ? Survey tool 2. How? Linking technologies and learning events….  Survey  Based on Laurillard‘s learning events  Comparing learning events by level of emerging technology usage  Fisher exact test to test for statisticalFindings significance (p-level 0.05) 3. Can we find qualities of the disruptive nature of emerging technologies ?  Interviews, driven by Meyers qualities of disruptive technologies
    27. 27. +   Use of ICTs in general Use of LMS as example of institutional technology  Use of emerging technologiesWHAT?
    28. 28. + Use of ICTs for T&L Staff: how many Staff: us e of BB for courses use ICTs ? te ac hing none Ys e 7% very few No 14% 39% about 53% 47% 14% half most 26% all
    29. 29. + Staff: Use of Blackboard for.... Course materials Tools  95% use it for notes  73% announcements  89% for presentations  73% discussions  86% subject guide  61% assignments  38% video files  60% assessments  30% audio files  50% gradebook  43% groups
    30. 30. Lecturers‘ use of emerging+ technologies 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
    31. 31. + Staff: reasons for usage...  access to current, relevant, global, immediate information  adapt to new generation of learners, tools that are already used by students  diversity of learning experiences  independence from CPUT systems  mash up/integration
    32. 32. Czerniewicz and Brown‘s learning+ 1. strategies (21) mapped to learning events 2. Laurillard‘s learning events 1. Dialogue 2. Discovery 3. Practice and 4. ProductionHOW?
    33. 33. + Learning strategies ICT based learning strategies (n=80) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% All users 10% 0%
    34. 34. +
    35. 35. + Mapping use of ET and learning events… Emerging technologies used Category 5 or more High level user of ET 1-4 Low level user of ET 0 No use of ET
    36. 36. + 100% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% 50% Online search Email Word essays Online articles Poster/PPT Online notes Self tests CBTs Data analysis Sharing media eAssessment Databases Online collaboration Online discussions Social networks Simulations/ModellingMultiMedia Producation Blogs Podcasts CB games users / high level of ET Users Comparison learning strategies all All users High level of ET
    37. 37. + Learning event: practice High level use Exact Sig Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided) n % n % Word processed essay 67 87% 17 89% 0.493 Poster/presentation 60 78% 16 84% 0.485 Analyse /represent data 43 56% 13 68% 0.375 Create database 31 40% 9 47% 0.39 Multimedia production 17 22% 7 39% 0.395 Podcast 9 12% 5 26% 0.172
    38. 38. + Learning event: practice High level use Exact Sig Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided) n % n % Self testing 30 62% 10 56% 0.726 Computer based tutorials 30 62% 11 61% 0.303 Computer based tests for marked assessment 29 40% 9 50% 0.8 Simulations or modelling programmes 16 22% 7 39% 0.09 Computer based games 18 11% 5 28% 0.017*
    39. 39. + Learning event: discovery High level use Exact Sig Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided) n % n % Searching for information on the Internet 76 97% 19 100% 0.766 Finding online articles and research reports 64 80% 17 89% 0.468 Accessing lecture notes and ppt online 54 70% 15 79% 0.688 Sharing resources (images videos, music) 40 51% 15 79% 0.078 Online collaboration 30 38% 13 68% 0.028*
    40. 40. + Learning event: dialogue High level use of Exact Sig Learning strategies All users ET (2-sided) n % n % Email 71 91% 19 100% 1.61 Discussion forum 25 32% 12 63% 0.04* Social networks 19 24% 13 68% 0.000* Online journals/Blogs 15 19% 9 47% 0.07* Online chat 8 10% 6 32% 0.032* * Statistical significant finding (p-value <0.05)
    41. 41. + 1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and flexible enough to accommodate different styles and interests of students. It should provide necessary support, but require that the student do the work. 2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students, andDisruptive nature of provide connections to students‘emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities. 3. It should capitalize on theMeyer 2010 willingness of lecturers and students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to keep at problems until solutions are crafted.
    42. 42. ―…more self-directed learning...those who want tocan learn more than is necessary; it‘s not boxedin, it‘s not confined. We have outcomes but howthey get there, it can be easily navigated...‖ ―Every second week the students are allowed to or invited to present their own topic and their own TED talk...and then usually chaos erupts because they choose controversial topics that are very close to their heart but not close to anybody else‘s‖
    43. 43. + 1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and flexible enough to accommodate different styles and interests of students. It should provide necessary support, but require that the student do the work. 2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students, andDisruptive nature of provide connections to students‘emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities. 3. It should capitalize on theMeyer 2010 willingness of lecturers and students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to keep at problems until solutions are crafted.
    44. 44. + ―It‘s a way of doing life. It‘s a network. It‘s not doing computers. It‘s not doing mobile learning. It‘s just learning – it‘s just life.‖ ―Also continuing the learning beyond the classroom and beyond the studio...you know if you commit yourself to Architecture ... it doesn‘t, you can never escape it, it never stops.‖ ―Our students generally don‘t have a wide exposure to life. Their life is you know it‘s the townships...its MXit, its TV...its Generations, its Rhythm City and that‘s it...they don‘t read the newspapers...they don‘t listen to the radio...they don‘t read...listen to the news...and so part of my TED talks is to expand their horizons....they are usual visual creatures and they want to see what‘s going on...‖
    45. 45. + 1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and flexible enough to accommodate different styles and interests of students. It should provide necessary support, but require that the student do the work. 2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students, andDisruptive nature of provide connections to students‘emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities. 3. It should capitalize on theMeyer 2010 willingness of lecturers and students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to keep at problems until solutions are crafted.
    46. 46. +―I mean Twitter...how long hadTwitter been out? What‘s going tohappen at the end of the year? ―We‘ve never needed support...youThere is going to be another press the help button or youprogramme...so we can‘t say we Google it!‖have reached the end of it. We‘venever. So there will be a newtechnology, it may be...I mean ―It takes hours of preparation…you can askWhatsapp...all of a sudden they my husband, you know I used to have a lifeare all on Whatsapp...they actually but my job ate it…I spend hours andasked me the other day please can weekends at preparing lessons like this. ButI Whatsapp you? I said no, no, the thing is once I‘ve used it now, that lessonno...I also got a life. But I will have I can use next year again…but then eachto use Whatsapp as well. That‘s year there‘s something new so then, Iwhat they want to do...‖ change it…‖
    47. 47. + Conclusions
    48. 48. + Conclusions  Confirming previous findings we established that majority of lecturers use a very limited range of learning events  BUT: use of emerging technologies seem to broaden the range of learning events lecturers engage with…especially when it comes to dialogical and collaborative learning events  Evidence of disruptive nature of emerging technologies: focus on opening up boundaries, transferring control and responsibility towards students, providing exciting learning opportunities, enthusiasm!  Recognize champions who use ICTs creatively and widen application of technology in T&L  Create a space to engage in a discussion around the use of institutional and non-institutional technologies to advocate comprehensive of use of ICTs in teaching and learning
    49. 49. + Thank you!  Any questions?  Contact:  Daniela Gachago at gachagod@cput.ac.za  Eunice Ivala ivalae@cput.ac.za  Agnes Chigona chigonaa@cput.ac.za  More information on blog www.edutechcput.wordpress.com  We would like to acknowledge the CPUT Riftal fund which funded this project and the NRF project on the use of Emerging Technologies in SA Higher Education for the knowledge shared and gained in this project
    50. 50. + ReferencesCzerniewicz, L., and C. Brown. 2005. ―The uses of information and communication (ICT) in teaching and learning in South African higher education practices in the Western Cape.‖ Perspectives in Education 23 (4): 1–18.Dron, J. 2011. ―Soft things, hard things and invisible elephants.‖ Athabasca University Landing. https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/89415.HEFCE. (2009). Effective practice in a from Retrieved from digital age. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/effectivepractic edigitalage_textonly.docHerrington, J, A Herrington, J Mantei, I Olney, and B Ferry. 2009. Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. ro.uow.edu.au/newtechJohnson, L, and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Technology. Texas.Kirkup, G., and A. Kirkwood. 2005. ―Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching—a tale of gradualism rather than revolution.‖ Learning, Media and Technology 30 (2): 185–199.Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Maddux, CD., and LD. Johnson. 2005. ―Type II Applications of Technology in Education.‖ Computers in the Schools 22 (1&2): 1-5.Margaryan, A, and A Littlejohn. 2011. ―Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students‘ use of technologies for learning.‖ Computers & Education 56 (2): 429-440.Meyer, K E. 2010. ―The Role of Disruptive Technology in the Future of Higher Education.‖ EDUCAUSE Quartely 33 (1). http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRoleofDisruptiveTechnologyi/199378.Veletsianos, G 2011. ―Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies George Veletsianos.‖ Educational Technology 51 (2): 41- 46.Veletsianos, G 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press.Williams, R R Karousou, and J. Mackness. 2011. ―Emergent Learning and Learning Ecologies in Web 2.0.‖ International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12 (3).
    51. 51. +

    ×