2011 HELTASA presentation

1. +
The disruptive nature of
emerging technologies:
lecturers‘ experiences at a
University of Technology
in South Africa
Daniela Gachago, Eunice Ivala, Fundani, CPUT
Agnes Chigona, Education, CPUT

2. Critique on
use of
technology in
education
What are
Conclusions emerging
technologies
Findings: Can they
What? disrupt
How? Presentation teaching
Disruption? practice?
Research Research
design aims
Laurillard‘s
conversationa
l framework

3. +
Use of technologies in Higher
Education….

4. +
Impact of technologies in education
falls short of rhetoric…
 …when ICTs are adopted by majority of teaching staff, it is
mostly used to support and improve existing practices,
rather than to radically change them (Kirkup and Kirkwood
2005)
 ….lecturers and students use a limited range of technologies
for both learning and in social life…(Margyaran and Littlejohn
2011, Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)
 …use of technology predominantly to reproduce existing
practice as opposed to transforming practice …
(Velestianos 2011)
 …existing practice: to support passive, teacher-centered, and
didactic instruction … (Herrington et al 2009)

5. +

6. +
Need to redefine elearning
 ―As a result of the pervasiveness of technology, the term ‗e-
learning‘ has come under scrutiny. Personal ownership of
technologies coupled with access to social software means that
all kinds of learning-related activity can potentially be e-
enabled; e-learning can no longer be viewed as a purely
institutionally based or narrowly defined set of activities....‖
(HEFCE paper 2009, 5)

7. +
Emerging technologies…
 Emerging technologies may or may not be new technologies
 Emerging technologies are evolving organism that exist in a
state of ―coming into being‖
 Emerging technologies go through hype cycles
 Emerging technologies are not yet fully understood and not yet
fully researched
 Emerging technologies are potentially disruptive but their
potential is mostly unfulfilled (Veletsianos 2010)

8. +
Johnson and Adams 201

9. +
Shift of locus of control…
 Emerging technologies place the control over teaching and
learning process firmly in the hands of students and lecturers
as opposed of the institution….
 Transfer of authority of knowledge and ownership of technology
 Wisdom of the crowd, architecture of participation (Surowiecki
2004)
 New issues to consider in terms of privacy, security, authority
and control of information
Becta 2008

10. +

11. + Disruptive, emergent, soft,
transformative nature of
technologies….

12. +
Type I vs Type II technologies
 Type I uses of technology replicate existing teaching and
learning practice,
 while Type II uses of technology allow students and lecturers
to do things that could not be done before, changing
relationships between students and lecturers in fundamental
ways.
(Johnson and Maddux 2005)

13. +
Prescriptive vs emergent…
 Prescriptive learning: In predictable domains, knowledge can
be created and applied to provide control. The learning that is
traditionally associated with predictable domains is typically
organised hierarchically within centralised institutions.
 Emergent learning: In complex-adaptive domains, knowledge
does not provide prospective predictability but, rather,
retrospective coherence: ―hindsight does not provide foresight‖
…. The learning that is appropriate is self-organised and
typically collaborative. It is open and is created and
distributed largely by the learners themselves.
(Williams, Karousou, Macness 2011)

14. +
Hard vs soft technologies
 Hard technologies: constraining, e.g. LMS limit the number of
choices one can make, relatively easy to use, orchestrated by
rules and regulations, risk to stifle creativity
 Soft technologies: more freedom to play with, orchestrated by
individual lecturer
 ―Soft technologies need skill and artistry. It ain‘t just what
you do, it‘s the way that you do it. A bad technology, used well,
can work brilliantly, while a good technology, used badly, can
be useless. Most learning technology research concentrates on
technology (including methods and pedagogies) not the talent
and skill with which it is applied that is frequently more
significant.‖
(Dron 2011)

15. +
Qualities of disruptive technologies
1. It should be student-centered, with learning put first, and
flexible enough to accommodate different styles and
interests of students. It should provide necessary support,
but require that the student do the work.
2. It should be designed to offer options, motivate students,
and provide connections to students‘ lives, jobs, and
communities.
3. It should capitalize on the willingness of lecturers and
students alike to experiment and fail, to improve, and to
keep at problems until solutions are crafted.
(Meyer 2010)

16. +
Research aims

17. +
Research aims
1. To establish the extent to which lecturers are using
technologies in teaching and learning and their rational
(both institutional technologies and technologies outside the
institutions‘ control),
2. To explore the use of emerging technologies and how
these technologies impact on the range of learning events
lecturers and students engage with, and
3. To explore lecturers experiences with the disruptive nature
of emerging technologies

18. +
Conceptual
framework

19. +
Laurillard…
 ―Wehave begun at last to play with digital
technologies as a way of meeting the
demands of the digital age, but with an
approach still born in the transmission
model….. There is no progress, therefore, in
how we teach, despite what might be
possible with the new technology.‖ (Laurillard
2002, 141)

20. +  Builds on:
 social constructivism (Vygotsky) and
 conversation theory (Pask)
 Argues that complex learning involves:
 a continuing iterative dialogue
between teacher and student, which
reveals the participants‘ conceptions
Laurillard‘s and the variations between them…
conversational There is no escape from the need for
dialogue, no room for mere telling, nor
framework (2002)
for practice without description, nor for
experimentation without reflection, nor
for student action without feedback.
(Laurillard 2002)

21. +
Learning conversations
consist of…
A discursive phase
An interactive phase
An adaptive phase
And a reflective phase

22. +
Mapping media to learning
experiences….

23. Blogs,
wikis,
Facebook,
Mxit, skype,
Twitter,
gmail….
Czerniewicz & Brown 2005

24. +
Effective practice
 Effective and appropriate pedagogical practice is achieved by
offering students a wide variety of media forms balanced for
their pedagogical value rather than chosen for their novelty or
entertainment factor
(Czerniewicz and Brown 2005)

25. +
Research methodology
 Mixed method design
 2010 CPUT ICT survey: access and use of ICTs for teaching
and learning
 Survey tool: adapted from tool developed by Czerniewicz and
Brown (2005)
 In depth follow up interviews with five lecturers selected for
their reputation for engaging with emerging technologies
(gmail, YouTube, TED talks, Facebook, skype, IM, …)

27. + 1.

Which technologies are lecturers using
in teaching and learning ?
Survey tool
2. How? Linking technologies and learning
events….
 Survey
 Based on Laurillard‘s learning events
 Comparing learning events by level of
emerging technology usage
 Fisher exact test to test for statistical
Findings significance (p-level 0.05)
3. Can we find qualities of the disruptive
nature of emerging technologies ?
 Interviews, driven by Meyers qualities
of disruptive technologies

28. + 

Use of ICTs in general
Use of LMS as example of institutional
technology
 Use of emerging technologies
WHAT?

29. +
Use of ICTs for T&L
Staff: how many
Staff: us e of BB for
courses use ICTs ?
te ac hing
none Ys
e
7% very few No
14%
39% about
53% 47%
14% half
most
26%
all

30. +
Staff: Use of Blackboard for....
Course materials Tools
 95% use it for notes  73% announcements
 89% for presentations  73% discussions
 86% subject guide  61% assignments
 38% video files  60% assessments
 30% audio files  50% gradebook
 43% groups

31. Lecturers‘ use of emerging
+
technologies
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

32. +
Staff: reasons for usage...
 access to current, relevant, global, immediate information
 adapt to new generation of learners, tools that are already used
by students
 diversity of learning experiences
 independence from CPUT systems
 mash up/integration

33. Czerniewicz and Brown‘s learning
+ 1.
strategies (21) mapped to learning
events
2. Laurillard‘s learning events
1. Dialogue
2. Discovery
3. Practice and
4. Production
HOW?

34. +
Learning strategies
ICT based learning strategies (n=80)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% All users
10%
0%

35. +

36. +
Mapping use of ET and learning
events…
Emerging technologies used Category
5 or more High level user of ET
1-4 Low level user of ET
0 No use of ET

37. +
100%
0%
10%
20%
40%
60%
70%
80%
90%
30%
50%
Online search
Email
Word essays
Online articles
Poster/PPT
Online notes
Self tests
CBTs
Data analysis
Sharing media
eAssessment
Databases
Online collaboration
Online discussions
Social networks
Simulations/Modelling
MultiMedia Producation
Blogs
Podcasts
CB games
users / high level of ET Users
Comparison learning strategies all
All users
High level of ET

38. +
Learning event: practice
High level use Exact Sig
Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided)
n % n %
Word processed essay 67 87% 17 89% 0.493
Poster/presentation 60 78% 16 84% 0.485
Analyse /represent data 43 56% 13 68% 0.375
Create database 31 40% 9 47% 0.39
Multimedia production 17 22% 7 39% 0.395
Podcast 9 12% 5 26% 0.172

39. +
Learning event: practice
High level use Exact Sig
Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided)
n % n %
Self testing 30 62% 10 56% 0.726
Computer based tutorials 30 62% 11 61% 0.303
Computer based tests for
marked assessment 29 40% 9 50% 0.8
Simulations or modelling
programmes 16 22% 7 39% 0.09
Computer based games 18 11% 5 28% 0.017*

40. +
Learning event: discovery
High level use Exact Sig
Learning strategies All users of ET (2-sided)
n % n %
Searching for information on
the Internet 76 97% 19 100% 0.766
Finding online articles and
research reports 64 80% 17 89% 0.468
Accessing lecture notes and
ppt online 54 70% 15 79% 0.688
Sharing resources (images
videos, music) 40 51% 15 79% 0.078
Online collaboration 30 38% 13 68% 0.028*

41. +
Learning event: dialogue
High level use of Exact Sig
Learning strategies All users ET (2-sided)
n % n %
Email 71 91% 19 100% 1.61
Discussion forum 25 32% 12 63% 0.04*
Social networks 19 24% 13 68% 0.000*
Online journals/Blogs 15 19% 9 47% 0.07*
Online chat 8 10% 6 32% 0.032*
* Statistical significant finding (p-value <0.05)

42. + 1. It should be student-centered, with
learning put first, and flexible
enough to accommodate different
styles and interests of students. It
should provide necessary support,
but require that the student do the
work.
2. It should be designed to offer
options, motivate students, and
Disruptive nature of provide connections to students‘
emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities.
3. It should capitalize on the
Meyer 2010
willingness of lecturers and
students alike to experiment and
fail, to improve, and to keep at
problems until solutions are crafted.

43. ―…more self-directed learning...those who want to
can learn more than is necessary; it‘s not boxed
in, it‘s not confined. We have outcomes but how
they get there, it can be easily navigated...‖
―Every second week the students are
allowed to or invited to present their
own topic and their own TED talk...and
then usually chaos erupts because
they choose controversial topics that
are very close to their heart but not
close to anybody else‘s‖

44. + 1. It should be student-centered, with
learning put first, and flexible
enough to accommodate different
styles and interests of students. It
should provide necessary support,
but require that the student do the
work.
2. It should be designed to offer
options, motivate students, and
Disruptive nature of provide connections to students‘
emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities.
3. It should capitalize on the
Meyer 2010
willingness of lecturers and
students alike to experiment and
fail, to improve, and to keep at
problems until solutions are crafted.

45. +
―It‘s a way of doing life. It‘s a network. It‘s not doing
computers. It‘s not doing mobile learning. It‘s just
learning – it‘s just life.‖
―Also continuing the learning beyond the classroom and
beyond the studio...you know if you commit yourself to
Architecture ... it doesn‘t, you can never escape it, it
never stops.‖
―Our students generally don‘t have a wide exposure to
life. Their life is you know it‘s the townships...its MXit, its
TV...its Generations, its Rhythm City and that‘s it...they
don‘t read the newspapers...they don‘t listen to the
radio...they don‘t read...listen to the news...and so part
of my TED talks is to expand their horizons....they are
usual visual creatures and they want to see what‘s going
on...‖

46. + 1. It should be student-centered, with
learning put first, and flexible
enough to accommodate different
styles and interests of students. It
should provide necessary support,
but require that the student do the
work.
2. It should be designed to offer
options, motivate students, and
Disruptive nature of provide connections to students‘
emerging technologies lives, jobs, and communities.
3. It should capitalize on the
Meyer 2010
willingness of lecturers and
students alike to experiment and
fail, to improve, and to keep at
problems until solutions are crafted.

47. +
―I mean Twitter...how long had
Twitter been out? What‘s going to
happen at the end of the year? ―We‘ve never needed support...you
There is going to be another press the help button or you
programme...so we can‘t say we Google it!‖
have reached the end of it. We‘ve
never. So there will be a new
technology, it may be...I mean ―It takes hours of preparation…you can ask
Whatsapp...all of a sudden they my husband, you know I used to have a life
are all on Whatsapp...they actually but my job ate it…I spend hours and
asked me the other day please can weekends at preparing lessons like this. But
I Whatsapp you? I said no, no, the thing is once I‘ve used it now, that lesson
no...I also got a life. But I will have I can use next year again…but then each
to use Whatsapp as well. That‘s year there‘s something new so then, I
what they want to do...‖ change it…‖

48. +
Conclusions

49. +
Conclusions
 Confirming previous findings we established that majority of lecturers use a
very limited range of learning events
 BUT: use of emerging technologies seem to broaden the range of learning
events lecturers engage with…especially when it comes to dialogical and
collaborative learning events
 Evidence of disruptive nature of emerging technologies: focus on opening up
boundaries, transferring control and responsibility towards students, providing
exciting learning opportunities, enthusiasm!
 Recognize champions who use ICTs creatively and widen application of
technology in T&L
 Create a space to engage in a discussion around the use of institutional and
non-institutional technologies to advocate comprehensive of use of ICTs in
teaching and learning

50. +
Thank you!
 Any questions?
 Contact:
 Daniela Gachago at gachagod@cput.ac.za
 Eunice Ivala ivalae@cput.ac.za
 Agnes Chigona chigonaa@cput.ac.za
 More information on blog www.edutechcput.wordpress.com
 We would like to acknowledge the CPUT Riftal fund which funded this project
and the NRF project on the use of Emerging Technologies in SA Higher
Education for the knowledge shared and gained in this project

51. + References
Czerniewicz, L., and C. Brown. 2005. ―The uses of information and communication (ICT) in teaching and learning in South African higher education
practices in the Western Cape.‖ Perspectives in Education 23 (4): 1–18.
Dron, J. 2011. ―Soft things, hard things and invisible elephants.‖ Athabasca University Landing. https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/89415.
HEFCE. (2009). Effective practice in a from Retrieved from digital age. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/effectivepractic edigitalage_textonly.doc
Herrington, J, A Herrington, J Mantei, I Olney, and B Ferry. 2009. Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. Faculty of
Education, University of Wollongong. ro.uow.edu.au/newtech
Johnson, L, and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Technology. Texas.
Kirkup, G., and A. Kirkwood. 2005. ―Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching—a tale of gradualism rather than
revolution.‖ Learning, Media and Technology 30 (2): 185–199.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Maddux, CD., and LD. Johnson. 2005. ―Type II Applications of Technology in Education.‖ Computers in the Schools 22 (1&2): 1-5.
Margaryan, A, and A Littlejohn. 2011. ―Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students‘ use of technologies for learning.‖ Computers & Education 56 (2):
429-440.
Meyer, K E. 2010. ―The Role of Disruptive Technology in the Future of Higher Education.‖ EDUCAUSE Quartely 33 (1).
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRoleofDisruptiveTechnologyi/199378.
Veletsianos, G 2011. ―Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies George Veletsianos.‖ Educational Technology 51 (2): 41-
46.
Veletsianos, G 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press.
Williams, R R Karousou, and J. Mackness. 2011. ―Emergent Learning and Learning Ecologies in Web 2.0.‖ International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning 12 (3).

52. +