Vivienne Bozalek, Dick Ng’ambi, Daniela Gachago, Eunice Ivala, Kathy Watters UWC, UCT, CPUT

Characteristics of ET

1. May or may not be new technologies2. Evolving organism, that exist in the state of

coming into being3. Go through hype cycles4. They are not yet fully understood5. They are not yet fully researched6. They are potentially disruptive, but that

potential is mostly unfulfilledVeletsianos, 2010:13-17

Johnson & Adams (2011:1)

“Emerging ICTs in Higher Education” NRF project, 2011-2013

• 8 SA HEIs (SU, UWC, UCT, CPUT, UP, Rhodes, Wits, Fort Hare) • 1 NGO (Open

Courseware Consortium)

More information at http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/

Focus of the research

1. What are the technologies academics are using?

2. How are SA lecturers using these technologies?

3. Is the use of these technologies transforming teaching and learning practices?

Current teaching practice in HE

• Predominantly teacher centred• Lecture based• Reliance on rote learning• Transmission teaching models• Use of technology often replicates traditional

teaching practice: passive, teacher-centered and didactic instruction (Herrington et al. 2009)

What institutions are using…

What are students using?

Disruptiveness in Education

• 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)

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Effective learning environments

1. Learner centered (or learning centered Anderson 2004)

2. Knowledge centered3. Assessment centered and4. Community centered

(Bransford, Brown and Cocking 1999)

Anderson 2004, 46

Six levels of interaction

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

2011 Emerging Technologies Survey

• Part of NRF project• Target group: lecturers that are known to be open

to/engaged with technology• Sent by email to contacts in all public HEIs institution,

snowball sampling• Content: 3 parts, demographic, tools and open ended

questions around practice with ET• Respondents: 262 (by 30 September 2011)• Selection of 15 respondents for in depth analysis based

on richness of responses

Respondents by Institution Female Male TotalUniversity of Stellenbosch 28 21 49University of Cape Town 25 10 35University of the Western Cape 21 13 34Cape Peninsula University of Technology 14 16 30Rhodes University 12 3 15University of Fort Hare 7 8 15Durban University of Technology 10 4 14Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 6 5 11University of Johannesburg 4 5 9Walter Sisulu University of Technology & Science 2 6 8University of Limpopo 5 2 7University of the Free State 6 1 7Mangosuthu University of Technology 1 4 5Central University of Technology 1 3 4North-West University 4 0 4Vaal University of Technology 1 3 4University of KwaZulu-Natal 3 0 3University of South Africa 3 0 3University of Pretoria 0 2 2Tshwane University of Technology 1 0 1University of the Witwatersrand 0 1 1University of Venda for Science and Technology 0 1 1Grand Total 154 108 262

56%

FINDINGS

What is your most innovative T&L practice using technology?

How?

Replication

• These activities promote – low levels of student-teacher interactions, – low levels of students-student interactions and– medium to low levels of student-contents

interactions (Anderson 2004).

Transformation

• These uses of technology contain – high levels of student-student interaction;– teacher- student interaction, and – student- content interaction.

• According to Anderson and Garrison (2004), deep and meaningful learning is supported as long as one of the above mentioned types of interactions is at a higher level.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

• Definition of Emerging Technologies confirmed that perception of ET is highly context based

• Emerging Technologies do not necessarily lead into innovative practices that transform teaching and learning

• Interesting examples of use of ET for transformation across all institutions and disciplines

• Anderson model was helpful, but missing: student self interaction, community not emphasized

Further research

• Agency vs structure• Researching student voices• More in depth case studies

Any questions?

See more information on our project on our blog:

http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/

References

Anderson, S. 2010. Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press, pp23-40.Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. 2004. Theory and practice of online learning. (T. Anderson & F. Elloumi, Eds.)British Journal of

Educational Technology (Vol. 36). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00445_1.x 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

Johnson, L. and S. Adams. 2011. Technology Outlook for UK Tertiary Education 2011-2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Austin, Texas: The New Media ConsortiumMaddux, C. D., & Johnson, L. D. 2005. Type II Applications of Technology in Education. Computers in the Schools, 22(1&2), 1-5.Veletsianos, G. 2010. A Definition of Emerging Technologies for Education. . In G. Veletsianos (ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press, pp1-22Veletsianos, G. 2011. Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46.