Authors

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 e\merge 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 debate interactions paradigms Definition!!! team individual

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

6. More about emerging technologies Uncertainty & confusion International interest • 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 3. Hype Cycles 4. #Understood/ #Researched 2. Evolving 1. Context specific 5. #Potential

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/survey-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