emerge2012 presentation

1. Towards a shared understanding of
emerging technologies: experiences in a
collaborative research project in South
Africa

2. Authors
Daniela Gachago1, Eunice
Ivala1, Judy Backhouse2,
JP Bosman3, Vivienne
Bozalek4, Dick Ng’ambi5,
Kathy Watters4
1 Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town
2 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
3 Stellenbosch University, Cape Town South Africa
4 University of the Western Cape, Bellville
5 University of Cape Town
Presented at emerge 2012 9-20 July 2012

3. What are we hatching?
 Intro
 Background
 More about Emerging Technologies in HE
 How we did the research (Methodology)
 What did we find? (Discussion)
 Conclusion

4. Introduction to the paper
open Real-life
Emerging technologies
on the rise collaboration transform
Large research project
interactions paradigms
Definition!!!
team individual

5. Background to the research
Research = Qualitative empowered freedom
outcomes (Henschke)
< distance partners
262 22 HEIs
Survey (Aug/Sep ’11)
similarities differences
18 8 SA HEIs
Research team
OCW

6. More about emerging technologies
International Uncertainty
interest & confusion
New Media Consortium
Siemens & Tittenberger
Veletsianos

7. New Media Consortium
(www.nmc.org)
“likely to have a large impact on
teaching, learning, or creative
expression within higher education”

8. Siemens & Tittenberger
ET = Social software
Not neutral
Multiple affordances

9. Veletsianos
 “tools, concepts, innovations, and advancements
utilized in diverse educational settings to serve
varied education-related purposes”
 5 characteristics
 Context specific and not necessarily new

10. “we feel that the emerging understandings of this team will provide
valuable insights into the meaning of this concept in the specific South
African context, with its historical intra-institutional disparities”

11. How we did the research
 Interpretative qualitative approach
 March 2012 – n=16 (out of 18)
 Written reflections coded (constant
comparative analysis)
 Wider team discussion (validity)
 Nuances differed from Veletsianos
 Ethical clearance

12. What did we find?
Team members’ individual definitions of
emerging technologies
Closely echoed Veletsianos’ 5
characteristics
Depth of engagement varied

13. [1] Emerging within a context
“the type of technology would NOT need to have been
developed currently /recently but would have been
used for the first time in a context”
“very different contexts in developing countries (as
compared to Europe, Asia, Australasia and the USA for
example) as well as the differentiation in the contexts
of the various South African Higher Education
Institutions”
“So what is emerging in Paris may be some years off
emerging in Parys.”

14. [2] ETs are evolving (state of dev)
“[they are] on the rise, upcoming and
gaining in momentum” …
“changing quickly”

15. [3] Undergo Hype cycles
“new technologies that have not moved
beyond the first two stages (adoption by
“innovators” and “early adopters) of
Everett Rogers’ (1962) Diffusion of
Innovations”
“Sometimes it never will make it as far as
Parys, maybe because Parys hasn’t heard
of it, or doesn’t see the need for it, or by
that time it has been superseded by
something else.”

16. [4] Not fully understood/ researched
“I believe that emerging technologies are
happening in spaces that are not always
accessible to formal education and
educators...I believe that a lot is
happening without us knowing or
realising”.

17. [5] Potential is seldom fulfilled
“Emerging technologies have the potential
to be transformatory and lead to
qualitative educational outcomes but this is
not necessary the case – for
example, Second Life [a virtual world] can
be used to expose students to drill and
practice type of learning that happens in
any event in face-to-face traditional
practice”

18. New [6] Special practitioners & fun
“Only a small proportion of lecturers in HE
are that innovative or interested in using
technology that they have the time,
energy or inclination to investigate cutting
edge technology”
“People need a lot of enthusiasm and time
to keep up...emerging technologies are
fun, so this time is spent effortlessly”

19. New [7] Empowering - Agency
“do not reside in the institutional
domain, but are owned by lecturers and
students alike”.
“The way that people use technology
helps to shape it”

20. Conclusions
 Interrogated emerging understandings of emerging
technologies (ongoing process)
 Collective understanding of the concept evolved
 Heavily influenced by Veletsianos’ definition
 Nuanced layers of understanding
 Potential to transform teaching and learning
practices
 Two additional characteristics (risk-takers & agency)
 Why and how a lecturer appropriates technology
impacts on the emerging nature of technologies – it
is people who make technologies emerging!!!!

21. Conclusions II
“the use of emerging technologies seems
to allow a more flexible, autonomous,
creative and personalised use of these
technologies, which may lead to an
increased sense of ownership and
lecturer’s and student engagement.”

22. Future research
Students’ engagement with technologies
and how it impacts on their learning.

23. Thank you!
Thank you to the NRF for funding this project
as well as all the team members for their
contributions.
See project website on:
http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/
The full data can be found at:
http://www.emergingicts.blogspot.com/p/su
rvey-data.html

24. Bibliography
• Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., & Gachago, D. (2012). Emerging technologies in South
African Higher Education Institutions: Institutional enablers and challenges. South
African Journal for Higher Education (SAJHE).
• Chigona, A., & Dagada, R. (2011). Adoption and use of E-learning at Tertiary
Level in South Africa: A Qualitative Analysis. Global Learn Conference (pp. 93-
101). Melbourne, Australia.
• Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience (CLEX). (2009).
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Hammersley, M. (1981). Self-directed Learning: Its Use and Importance in Nurse
Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Henschke, J. A. (2010). Bringing Together Personal Learning, Higher Education
Institutions Elements, and Global Support for a Re-Orientation towards a Focus on
Lifelong Learning and Education. In V. Wang (Ed.), Encyclopedia for Using
Technology in Adult and Career Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

25. Bibliography
• Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). Using
mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. In J.
Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New
technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education (Vol. 9).
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong. Retrieved from
ro.uow.edu.au/newtech
• Ivala, E. (2011). Implementing eLearning at a University of Technology in South
Africa: A Qualitative Study. The Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on e-Learning. Okanagan, Canada: University of British Columbia Okanagan.
Retrieved from http://academic-conferences.org/pdfs/ICEL_2011-abstract-
booklet.pdf
• Johnson, L. (2012). NMC Horizon Project Preview 2012 Higher Education Edition.
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publications/horizon-
report-2012-higher-ed-edition
• Johnson, L., & Adams, S. (2011). Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-
2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Technology. Austin, Texas.
• Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The Horizon
Report. Austin, Texas. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

26. Bibliography
• Melville, D., Allan, C., Crampton, J., Fothergill, J., Godfrey, A., Harloe, M., Lydon, J.
, et al. (2009). Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf
• Ng’ambi, D., Gachago, D., Ivala, E., Bozalek, V., & Watters, K. (2012). Emerging
Technologies in South African Higher Education Institutions: towards a teaching
and learning practice framework. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on e-Learning. Hong Kong, China.
• Riley, J. (1990). Getting the Most Out of Your Data. Bristol: Technical and
Educational Services.
• Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for
Learning - Emerging Technologies for Learning. Retrieved from
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wikis/etl/index.php/Handbook_of_Emerging_Technologies
_for_Learning
• Snowball, J., & Mostert, M. (2010). Introducing a Learning Management System in
a large first year class: Impact on lecturers and students. South African Journal
for Higher Education (SAJHE), 24(5), 818-831.
• Veletsianos, G. (2010). Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and
Practice. Edmonton: AU Press. Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/99Z_Veletsianos_2010-
Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf