Emerging technologies, student engagement and collaborationDaniela Gachago, Fundani, CPUT

ALT C 2009

ALT C 2011

One size fits all vs.Personalised learning

…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….

Johnson et al. (2011)

Johnson & Adams (2011)

Characteristics…1. Tools that use web as a platform2. Built around an architecture of participation3. Data consumptions4. Remixing/mashups from other sources5. Rich interactive, user friendly interface6. Elements of social networking7. Most importantly: change of locus of control

from institutional silos and from lecturer to the students

Image: http://technorati.com/blogging/article/has-social-media-had-its-hey/

Hatzipanagos (2011)

56%

Use of emerging technologies at CPUTTool Frequency Valid percentExternal mail 41 55%

Images and Videos 39 52%

Mobile technologies 26 35%

Wiki/document sharing 25 34%

Mailing lists/newsgroups 23 31%

Social networking 23 30%

Discussion forums 20 27%

Instant Messaging 16 21%

Blogging 14 19%

Podcasting 9 12%

Alternative LMS 7 9%

Twitter 4 5%

N = 105

• \\\\

Table 76: level of emerging technology use * Use of Blackboard for teaching Crosstabulation

Use of Blackboard for teaching

TotalYes NoLevel of emerging technology use

no use Count 4 2 6

% within Use of BB for teaching

10.5% 5.6% 8.1%

little use (1-4 tools)

Count 25 22 47

% within Use of BB for teaching

65.8% 61.1% 63.5%

high use (5 or more 5 tools)

Count 9 12 21

% within Use of BB for teaching

23.7% 33.3% 28.4%

Total Count 38 36 74

% within Use of BB for teaching

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value dfAsymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.234a 2 .540

Likelihood Ratio 1.247 2 .536

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.097 1 .295

N of Valid Cases 74

Replicating practice vs. disruptive technologies

Maddux & Johnson 2005

Reasons for using ET

1. access to current, relevant, global, immediate information (12)

2. adapt to new generation of learners, tools that are already used by students (5)

3. diversity of learning experiences (5)4. independence from CPUT systems (3)5. mash up/integration (1)

Focus at University of Technology

• Which tool to use?• How does it work?

• Need to theorize our research and practice!

Student engagement & academic access

Astin 1984

Student engagement: how to measure?

Wilson 1987

initiative, self-motivation, independent experimentation, spontaneous collaboration and peer coaching, enthusiasm and frustration

Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer 1994

Facebook study

Improving interactions

• 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.

• 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.

initiative, self-motivation, independent experimentation, spontaneous collaboration and peer coaching, enthusiasm and frustration

Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer 1994

Peer support

• I: Facebook [shows us], that we all suffer together. Like one big, happy, sad family.

Student engagement & collaboration

Astin 1987 & Tinto 1997

2010 Clickers in Graphic Design

I like clickers because…

Clickers make the discussion more fun.It is full of energyI find it to be very innovative, exciting and it grabs my attention. (50%)

Student written feedback.

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%)

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%)

Student engagement levels

Gachago , Morris , Simons, 2011

Cooperation is an essential pre-requisite for cognitive growth

Johnson et al. 1998

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.”

Johnson et al. 1998

Student feedback

• When you speak about it, something else comes up and you go deeper into it ...

• Clickers help you gain more information ... it makes you do more research about a topic, to broaden it, know more ...

• When we go out of this class, we end up going to the computer, searching for more information, after using clickers…

Digital story study2010 Education Digital Stories

Interviewer: what part of the digital storytelling do you feel supported your reflection?

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.....

So what’s the point?

Challenge: lack of institutional engagement

Thank you! Any questions?

• I would like to acknowledge all lecturers involved in these research projects, such as Jolanda Morkel, Hermie Voulgarelis, 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!

References• Astin, A.W., 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of University Student

Development 25: 297-308. • Astin, A.W., 1985. Involvement: The Cornerstone of Excellence. Change 17 (4): 35-39.• 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: http://www.col.org/resources/crsMaterials/Pages/edDigitalWorld.aspx [Accessed April 5, 2011].

• Hatzipanagos, S., 2011. Positive disruptive effects of current and emerging technologies in higher education. Presentation at eLearning@Edinburgh 2011. http://www.nesc.ac.uk/esi/events/1132/elearninged2011.pdf [Accessed March 28, 2011].

• Johnson, L. et al., 2011. The Horizon Report 2011 Edition, Austin, Texas. Available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf [Accessed March 28, 2011].

• Johnson, L. & Adams, S., 2011. Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis, Austin, Texas.

• Johnson, D., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A., 1998. Cooperative Learning Returns To College: What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change, 27-35.

• Maddux, C.D. & Johnson, L.D., 2005. Type II Applications of Technology in Education. Computers in the Schools, 22(1&2), pp.1-5.

• Sandholtz, J. H., C. Ringstaff and D.C. Dwyer., 1994. Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich classrooms. Apple Computer Inc.

• Tinto, V., 1997. Classrooms as Communities. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.• Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. • Wilson, R. (1987). Direct observation of academic learning time. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(2), 13–17.