Margaryan et al., (2011) ‘Are digitial natives a myth or reality?…’

People who work in technology-enhanced learning are aware of the latest technologies to support learning and teaching. However, this awareness may not be reflected in the day-to-day practices of the majority of users. Margaryan, Littlejohn and Vojt argue students use a narrow range of technologies to support learning, and that students’ use of technologies is largely passive.

The article argues that one of the factors influencing students’ use of technologies is the lecturer’s teaching approach (p.429). Hence, if the teacher uses traditional classroom pedagogies, the technology is unlikely to be used in innovative ways.

The article further argues that research in the field has tended to exclude variables such as the users themselves, and their socio-economic backgrounds (p.431). Previously, Hargittai (2002) argued that technical access per se was not the way to address any perceived digital divide, as people also required effective access, meaning the skills to make the most of online resources. Hence, there may be grounds for training and development for students in how to use technologies to support learning.

Eight students were interviewed for the research, and stated they used their institution’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as a repository from which to access learning materials. However, this was not perceived negatively by the students; they did not lament the fact that the VLE did not exploit the creative possibilities of online learning. Instead, they were satisfied with the VLE as a repository. Similar findings emerged from a larger study of 427 students undertaken by Conole et al., (2008).

The specific technologies used by the interviewees included Google, Google Scholar, Wikipedia, and course websites. However, two of the participants had not heard of Google Scholar, two had not heard of Wikipedia, and two did not know what a podcast was (not the same two interviewees each time). Furthermore, five did not know what a blog was, and had never written or read a blog entry (p. 436).

The main technology used for recreation by the interviewees was YouTube, but the students’ use of it was passive, as none of them had uploaded content.

The study as a whole may argue for further training and development for academics in technology-enhanced learning, as the pedagogy selected by the lecturer appeared to be a factor influencing the students’ uses of technology to support learning. The article further suggests that students use technologies passively rather than interactively. The creative and disruptive potential of technologies to support learning and teaching is not fully happening yet, and researchers may be disconnected from the practice of users.

References

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2008) ‘“Disruptive technologies”, “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.

Hargittai, E. (2002) ‘Second-level digital divide,’ First Monday, vol. 7, no. 4, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864 (accessed 17 November 2011).

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. and Vojt, G. (2011) ‘Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies,’ Computers and Education, vol. 56, pp. 429-440.

Engestrom (1996) ‘Development as breaking away and opening up…’

Engestrom (1996) challenges the idea of development as, metaphorically, a process of vertical ascent. Hence, ‘Traditional developmental theories are about progress, about climbing upward on some developmental ladders… [M]ovement happens along a vertical dimension, from immaturity and incompetence toward maturity and competency.’

Engestrom also critiques an influential theory of learning and development, Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:  ‘It is depicted as the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development reachable under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. “Level” and “more capable” are vertical notions.’

Engestrom views learning and development as a more turbulent process, a position that counters the idea of apprenticeship as the gradual, incremental acquisition of mastery in a particular field. For Engestrom, learning and development entails destruction of the old. Therefore, relationships in learning and development entail tension, as existing knowledge and understanding is tested and then accepted, adapted or rejected, depending on its relevance and use value in the circumstances prevailing at the time.

If development is, as Engestrom argues, ‘significant and relatively long-term qualitative change in the way we relate to the world,’ then it is dependent on its context for meaning and relevance, and hence development is only useful if it remains relevant. As contexts do not remain static, so knowledge does not remain static.

Arguing from an Activity Theory perspective, Engestrom stresses the importance of learning and development occurring via tools (mediating artefacts), through which people render their environments sensible, in the sense that they construct a purpose for each tool, which is utilised to achieve an outcome in goal-directed activity. Through the use of tools, people create new meanings and new possibilities: ‘The mediating artifact not only amplifies, it opens up new possibilities that lead to surprises.’

Therefore, for Engestrom, subjects use tools in ways that do not necessarily conflate with the tool’s design. Instead, they use the tools at their disposal innovatively, to achieve outcomes. The use of tools is necessarily creative because contexts do not remain static, and hence the purpose for which a tools was designed may no longer be applicable. Learning and development, therefore, are ongoing, quotidian and creative: ‘Development emerges as everyday creation or construction of the new in zones of uncertainty riddled with contradictions and surprises and heavily dependent on re-mediation by cultural artifacts.’

Reference

Engestrom, Y. (1996) ‘Development as breaking away and opening up: a challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget,’ http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/Engestrom.html (accessed 31 October 2011)