What Do Students Want? Making Sense of Student Preferences in Technology-enhanced Learning

Abstract

This article, with its focus on university students as intended recipients and users of technological innovations in education, explores student preferences across three dimensions of technology-enhanced learning: mode of instruction; communication; and educational technology tools embedded in learning and teaching activities. The article draws on results of an exploratory case study, where mixed (quantitative and qualitative) data was collected from a randomized student sample generated through the institutional learning management system. An online survey (N=66) gaged students’ engagement with educational technologies, online and blended learning and social media as a learning tool. The findings confirmed previous research arguing that students generally use educational technology in a narrow way, rarely engaging with technological tools, unless it is presented to them as integral to their learning or if they are already familiar with a particular tool and/or perceive it as useful. Despite a well-cited characteristic by proponents of ‘digital natives’ that students need constant entertainment, this study found no evidence that this was the case.

Keywords

• educational technology,student preferences,blendid learning,social media

References

1. Aayeshah, W. & Bebawi, S. (2014). The Use of Facebook as a Pedagogical Platform for Developing Investigative Journalism Skills. In G. Mallia (Ed.), The social classroom: integrating social network use in education (pp. 83-99). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
2. Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education wtih a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x
3. Barr, D. (2016). Students and ICT: An analysis of student reaction to the use of computer technology in language learning. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 36(2), 19-38.
4. Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don't trust anyone under 30). London, England: Penguin.
5. Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207.
6. Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Hixon, E., Zamojski, H., & Tomory, A. (2016). Technology’s role in learning at a commuter campus: The student perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 412-431. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2014.984596
7. Coklar, A. N. (2012). Evaluations of students on facebook as an educational environment. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(2), 42-53.
8. Ferdig, R. E. & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the'Blogosphere'. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 31(7), 12.

9. Fontana, A. (2009). The multichronic classroom: Creating an engaging environment for all students. Journal for Foundations in Art: Theory and Education, FATE in Review, 30, 12- 17.
10. Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Gilmore, D. (in print). A dramaturgical perspective of online university students: A case study of a second year psychology subject. Computers in Human Education.
12. Guo, Z., Cheung, K., & Tan, F. (2008). Motivations for using CMC and non-CMC media in learning contexts: A uses and gratifications approach., Proceedings of the ICIC (pp 1-19). Retrieved on 1 December 2016 from http://aisle.aisnet.org/icis2008.
13. Gurung, B. & Rutledge, D. (2014). Digital learners and the overlapping of their personal and educational digital engagement. Computers & Education, 77, 91-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.012
14. Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.iheduc.2013.09.004
15. Helsper, E. J. & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. doi:10.1080/01411920902989227
16. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424
17. Hoffman, M. E. & Vance, D. R. (2005). Computer literacy: what students know and from whom they learned it. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 356-360.
18. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon report: Higher education edition. The New Media Consortium. Retrieved 20 November 2016 from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf.
19. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54(3), 722-732. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
20. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Judd, T., Gray, K., & Chang, R. (2008). mmigrants and natives: investigating differences between staff and students' use of technology. In R. Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds.), Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 484-492). Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.
21. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1233
22. Khine, M. S. & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Blended learning approach in teacher education: combining face‐to‐face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 671-675. doi:10.1046/j.0007- 1013.2003.00360.x
23. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 247-254. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002
24. Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. Educating the net generation, 1, 7.1-7.20.
25. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
26. McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 729- 740. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1039
27. McCarthy, J. (2013). Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 337-356. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.373
28. O’Connell, T. & Dyment, J. (2016). 'I’m just not that comfortable with technology': Student perceptions of and preferences for Web 2.0 technologies in reflective journals. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 392-411. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.984594
29. Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38-46.
30. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part II: Do they really think differently? On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
31. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
32. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M [superscript 2]: Media in the Lives of 8-to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved on 9 January 2017 from https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8010.pdf
33. Rosen, Y. & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241.
34. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students' education‐related use of Facebook. Learning, media and technology, 34(2), 157-174. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17439880902923622
35. Selwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: why education and technology is full of bullshit…and what might be done about it. Learning, Media & Technology, 41(3), 437-443. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523
36. Small, G. & Vorgan, G. (2008). Meet your iBrain. Scientific American Mind, 19(5), 42-49. StatisticBrain. (2013). Facebook statistics. Retrieved on 1 December 2016 from http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/
37. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38. Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers & Education, 67, 51-57. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2013.02.012
39. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12-33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2012.12.022
40. Tiryakioglu, F. & Erzurum, F. (2011). Use of social networks as an education tool. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(2), 135-150.
41. Van Zanten R., Somogyi, S., & Curro, G. (2012). Purpose and preference in educational podcasting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 130-138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01153.x
42. Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A.-M., & Rabah, J. (2014). Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of Web 2.0. Paper presented at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI.
43. Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254.