Conole et al. (2008) ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’ …

The authors’ research, based on surveys of 427 students, establishes significant differences in uses of technologies, but with use weighted towards students’ own choices: ‘Students appear to place greater value on technologies they have “discovered” or selected for themselves… Personalisation and a sense of control come across as key factors of success in the use of technologies’ (pp. 514, 520). The point is developed later in the article: ‘… individuals adapt their use to suit their individual means of learning. They use technologies for particular purposes, not just for the sake of using them’ (p. 521). Students select a technology tool for each job, a choice rooted in their own experience rather than what the H.E.I. makes available as part of its own resources.

 The meanings and purposes of technologies arise from usage: ‘Very few students appear to have received formal training on how to find and use digital information; instead they tended to use a process of trial and error to refine their web searching skills’ (p. 515). The research further suggests that students have acquired a general level of confidence in technology use enabling them to work with new technologies as those technologies emerge. The easier a technology is to use, the more likely it is to be used, thereby validating one of Christensen’s (1997) core definitions of disruptive technologies, namely that they are often easier to use than the incumbent technology they displace.

The research reinforces many students’ experiences of official discussion forums in H.E.I.’s VLEs: ‘Students appear to be more ambivalent about the value of discussion forums… [M]any stated they preferred to read rather than post messages’ (p. 516). The research therefore underlines the value of lurking or, less pejoratively, legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991).

The authors further suggest, ‘students are creating their own social network to support their learning, tailored to their particularly [sic] needs and using the technologies which suit them rather than being constrained in topic and technology via discussion forums’ (p. 517). If technology-savvy students are self-medicating their learning needs through freely available technologies outside the H.E.I., it poses the question of whether H.E.I.s should supply online forums. However, ‘students who worked part-time, had children, lived some distance from campus or had heavy work placements, really appreciated access to an integrated set of online course-related information and resources’ (p. 518).Consequently, there is an argument for H.E.I.’s VLEs being constructed as bulletin boards and repositories, advising students of key milestones, storing learning resources in one place for ease of access, yet not attempting to galvanise discussions that happen more fruitfully in comparatively unfettered online spaces.

Conole et al. argue, ‘students are beginning to move beyond VLEs as a central resource and… use the VLE only when it meets specific, individual needs’ (p. 518). VLEs are therefore peripheral to many students’ learning experiences, but this is not a problem, because the periphery still provides valuable learning, and, moreover, there is a group of learners to whom VLEs are important. In addition, the size of that group of learners may swell as increased fees compel more students to work alongside study.

Students tend to manage their use of technologies effectively; a range of technologies (not all designed explicitly for learning) are used to support learning and social life, and to blur the boundaries between the two. As Conole et al. argue, ‘The distinction between using technologies for learning as opposed to other purposes is eroding’ (p. 522).  Disruptive technologies occupy a specific place in students’ lives, where study and recreation overlap. Students may opt to have a technology support a particular aspect of their lives (e.g., membership of an online community relating to a specific hobby) or they may multi-task with a technology, thereby melding aspects of separate identities. A blurring of the demarcation between work and leisure represents a departure from the orthodox living patterns of industrialised societies. It is unclear, however, whether the use of computer technologies is shaping change, or whether it is merely articulating changes taking place on economic and social levels. It is in the nature of disruptive technologies to bring about change, but they don’t operate in economic and social vacuums.

The article highlights a problem, namely ‘a mismatch between our current offerings and student use and a further mismatch between institutions’ perceptions of student use of technology and actual use’ (p. 519). A top-down approach to technology-enhanced learning in H.E.I.s can lead to misplaced investment and under-utilised VLEs. Allowing students to shape the agenda of technology-enhanced learning results in the incorporation into H.E.I.s of technologies that students want to use and will use anyway. Students as a group are the most effective change-agents possessed by H.E.I.s when it comes to enhancing learning through networked technologies.

References

Christensen, C. M. (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.

Conole, G., Laat, Maarten de, Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2008) ‘“Disruptive technolgies”, “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology’ Computers and Education, vol. 50, pp. 511-524.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.