Timmis (2012) ‘Constant companions…’

Timmis argues, ‘the ways in which students themselves use and adapt to  technological tools will  be  an  important aspect of developing sustainable studying and support structures for students’ (p.3).

 

The paper suggests students value peer support; Timmis cites NUS research (2008) arguing students regard a peer network as a highly valuable learning resource. However, and as Timmis notes, ‘research involving students in peer support for learning has mainly concentrated on student involvement in formal mechanisms, such as peer assessment, tutoring or mentoring… Peer support is viewed as a designed intervention on the part of the tutor or university team’ (p.4). A problem with existing research, therefore, is that it overlooks informal peer support among students.

 

It is clear that students have a wealth of digital technologies available to them, but less clear whether this is an asset or a burden: ‘Undergraduates have  to manage a plethora of different digital communication tools and spaces. These include university owned spaces such as  virtual learning  environments (VLEs), university email systems and their own personal communications and social media… This  implies continual multitasking across formal and informal settings and boundaries’ (p.4). An alternative to multitasking is demarcation, and it is possible that students are using specific technology tools for specific purposes, thereby managing and sustaining different digital identities, but not necessarily a plethora of digital technologies.

 

A number of interviewees for the research employ a demarcation between technologies for study, and technologies for social life. For example, ‘I use Facebook  (pause) but  not, not  really  to (pause), not  for any  university-based communication, just almost with  friends and  just post  photos and  such  like and  find out  what’s going on’ (p.9). Hence, and as Timmis argues, ‘students wanted  to  maintain the boundaries between their personal and study-related communications’ (pp. 9-10). The research challenges (albeit implicitly) the idea that students use a wide range of technologies to support their learning.

 

The paper as a whole shows that students use digital technologies for formal and informal peer support. However, the research also suggest that there is a tendency to demarcate in the use of technologies, with different technologies being used to sustain and support different aspects of life. Hence, the conception of students as fervent multitaskers is flawed, or at least debatable; a plethora of technologies is available, but students may well value ease of use and convenience (see, Christensen and Raynor, 2003) above plenitude. 

 

 

 

References

Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.

 

Timmis, S. (2012) ‘Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers’ Computers and Education, 59 3-18

Article on Disruptive Technologies in H.E.

I’ve had an article published in Research in Learning Technology: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19184

Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani (2010), ‘Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies.’

Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani survey a range of research, defining mobile technologies (m-technologies) as networked, portable devices that can be used to support learning (which, in turn, becomes m-learning). The significant shift is away from office or classroom bound desktop computers towards small, easily-portable apparatus.

Applying Christensen’s (1997) distinction between sustaining and disruptive technologies, part of what m-technologies enable is sustaining, bringing a range of resources into the classroom, as networked computers do, and thereby offering a marginal enhancement without altering the existing pedagogy. However, part of what m-technologies enable is disruptive, taking learning out of the classroom. Learning per se has never been limited solely to the classroom, but m-technologies make the plastic nature of learning explicit.

In m-learning, informal and incidental learning is enhanced by having classroom materials on tap; the learner can learn when it is most efficacious for them rather than when it is most convenient for their H.E.I.. The authors cite research undertaken by Vavoula (2005), which found that nearly half of all learning episodes within the research sample happened outside the formal learning environment (2010, p. 146).

Christensen (2011) argues that disruption succeeds most when it is positioned against non-consumption. Hence, there is a particular role for m-learning in enabling access to higher education for communities and individuals to whom higher education has previously been unattainable. The authors argue: ‘M-learning presents itself as another form of inclusive education as it widens access to many who have traditionally been excluded from formal education, for example, those unable to attend university due to distance or some other circumstance; those with different types of learning preferences or needs; those without the means to own or access personal computers’ (2010, p. 143). Furthermore, a study by Attewell (2005) of 128 marginalised learners found that ‘m-technologies removed formal appearances of learning that distract hard-to-reach learners, helped raise learner self-confidence and self-esteem, enabled discreet learning in sensitive areas of literacy, and helped combat resistance to the use of technologies by providing a bridge between phone literacy and computer literacy’ (2010, p. 147).

A challenge for m-learning is that it requires the redesign of learning materials to suit the different environment, such as the smaller screen size. This could be viewed as a strictly technical process, but it can also be seen as a pedagogical opportunity, reconfiguring resources to utilise the potential of the learning medium. Furthermore, mobile devices are, primarily, communication devices, rather than content delivery tools (Taylor et al., 2005). Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani argue, ‘mobile devices should not be used to deliver large amounts of content but rather should be used to provide small amounts of summarized and synthesized information. Learners should be directed to computers and laptops for larger amounts of information as required’ (2010, p. 152). Thus, the growth of m-learning does not mean the death of the classroom but, rather, the clear recognition that learning is not classroom bound, and, moreover, the recognition of the value of learning taking place outside of time and space cordoned off by an H.E.I..

A further challenge for m-learning is the ownership of the learning resources. The authors cite Barlow-Zambodia’s (2009) research into 22 m-technology projects, which found that most of the information in the projects was supplied by corporate sponsors, and thus related to selling as well as learning and teaching (2010, pp.144-45). M-learning occurs within established commercial frameworks, because devices, while owned personally, are supplied, in general, by large-scale, global, commercial operators. Therefore, learning materials, and access thereto, may be influenced by commercial constraints, and thus the intersections between commerce and learning and teaching will need to be addressed, though the impact of commerce on learning and teaching is not limited to m-learning.

That said, networked, portable devices are primarily the property of the individual rather than the H.E.I., which may exert its own subtle effect, enhancing the learner’s sense of control and ownership of their learning. To make learners active owners of their learning is to prompt enhanced engagement, and thus m-learning via personally owned, networked devices may be able to capitalise on another area of non-consumption. Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani, citing McNeal and van’t Hooft (2006) suggest ‘portable phones might be the tool that increases inclusiveness and democratizes education by eliminating hierarchy and liberating learning from fixed places, times and resources’ (2010, p. 150). Formal learning has the appearance of placing time and space constraints on learning. M-learning challenges this perception.

Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani close by citing Stead’s (2006) argument, ‘just use it’ (2010, p. 153). Christensen’s disruption theory suggests that disruption emerges from usage rather than being a feature of design. The learning and teaching potential of mobile devices is likely to emerge from usage, and from users. The role for H.E.I.s is to allow m-technologies and m-learning to find an outlet in formal learning, teaching and assessment.

References
Attewell, J. (2005) Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary, London, Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Barlow-Zambodla, A. (2009) ‘Mobile technology for learner support in open schooling’ SAIDE Newsletter, vol. 15, no. 1.

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

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2011) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, New York, McGraw Hill.

Koszalka, T. A. and Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G. S. (2010) ‘Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies’ Distance Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 139-157.

McNeal, T. and van’t Hooft, M. (2006) ‘Anywhere, anytime: Using mobile phones for learning,’ Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 24-31.

Stead, G. (2006) ‘Mobile technologies: Transforming the future of learning,’ in Pinder, A. (ed.) Emerging technologies for learning, Coventry, BECTA, pp. 6-15.

Taylor, J., Bo. G., Bernazzani, R. and Sharples, M. (2005) ‘Best practices for instructional design and content development for mobile learning’ MOBIlearn, http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/public_deliverables/MOBIlearn_D4.2_Final.pdf (accessed 9 March 2011).

Vavoula, G. N. (2005) A study of mobile learning practices, MOBIlearn, http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/public_deliverables/MOBIlearn_D4.4_Final.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011).