Has technology changed the way we learn?

Nowadays, the appearance of some form technology is becoming more common in many facets of teaching (Luppicini, 2005). As individuals all over the world adapt to the introduction of ever-changing and developing technology, the world of education needs to move to incorporate these changes also to assist learning even further. The focus of this essay will be on the impact that interactive whiteboards (IWB’s) and virtual learning environments (VLE’s) such as Moodle can have on collaborative learning (Edwards, 2012), the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies into the learning environment (Frisch, Jackson and Murray, 2013; Luckin, 2010), how Twitter can be used as an instructional tool in higher education (Bozarth, 2010; Yakin and Tinmaz, 2013), and the ever increasing demand for the use of mobile technologies in distance education (Fuegen, 2012).

The meaning of the word ‘technology’ has changed immensely over the last decade (Edwards, 2012). It would be incorrect to think of technology as simply being the devices that are used to deliver teaching and learning material, such as computers. We need to instead include the processes and systems that are available within these devices. VLE’s have been developed to aid students in their learning by accessing course materials online. McRobb, Jefferies and Stahl (2007) propose that using VLE’s to control the learning experiences of students whilst still allowing for the facilitation of discussion through forums fits with both constructivist and positivist ways of thinking in relation to pedagogy. Rudd (2007) states that there are many factors that can influence the use of IWB’s as a “truly pedagogical tool” (p7), including the teachers understanding of how its use can assist collaborative learning and communication between students.

Introducing Web 2.0 technologies into the classroom can only allow for increased group collaboration and communication (Luckin, 2010). Frisch, Jackson and Murray (2013) have highlighted that, although it is obvious that students nowadays have considerable experience in using Web 2.0 technologies and incorporating them easily into their everyday lives, there is very little research available into the impact these have on learning. Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes (2009) state that, while the idea of incorporating Web 2.0 technologies into the classroom isn’t a new one, it is taking a long time for any empirical research to conclude its effectiveness on students understanding and learning.

Upon questioning, many students would explicitly claim that they are aware of the correct way of using the internet to search for valid resources to use in research papers. However, Frish, Jackson and Murray (2013) have determined that students, in fact, lack the ability to correctly identify what sources are considered to be valid and what are considered to be invalid in accordance to college standards. During this study, students were made aware of the correct procedure for searching for valid resources using Web 2.0 tools. These students reported that, overall, the Web 2.0 tools were incredibly helpful for separating relevant material from irrelevant material, and that this would ultimately be a beneficial skill for them throughout the rest of their academic careers.

Web 2.0 technologies can attempt to make online learning possible by increasing students’ participation in course material as a collaborative group of learners (Harrison and Thomas, 2009). Research has suggested that microblogging sites, such as Twitter, have the capacity for easy integration into learning environments for educational benefits (Chen, 2011). Microblogging sites allow its users to make posts of up to 140 characters. Bozarth (2010) insinuates that this restriction on space for text influences users to posts content that is brief and to the point. In relation to higher education, Twitter can be used to aid communication between students and also between a student and a lecturer about anything related to the course through the use of @ mentions, direct messages and retweets. Steenkamp and Rudman (2013) have implied that there are a number of current students that may be less text literate than previous generations due to an overreliance on technology. Using Twitter for educational posting may give these individuals a chance to become involved with discussions that they may not previously had the confidence for.

Yakin and Tinmaz (2013) set out to address how beneficial the use of Twitter would be in a higher education setting. Through a set of experiments across three time points and the ability to respond to open ended questions on the efficacy and usefulness of Twitter, Yakin and Tinmaz found that participants placed more emphasis on the beneficial power of using Twitter as a learning tool as time went on. Participants recognised that Twitter has the ability to be integrated in a formal university setting just as easily as it has been introduced into non-formal, social settings. Amongst answers given for what students liked about using Twitter as an educational resource were statements including “Twitter made instruction funnier” and “it increased communication in class”. However, on the flip side of this, some students reported that they considered tweeting and reading tweets during lessons to be distracting. From these results it can be suggested that Twitter does hold the power for easy integration into the world of education to aid further learning. However, further research needs to investigate the degree to which a non-formal site like Twitter can realistically be used in higher education.

Distance learning continues to grow as a way of providing flexible education to individuals who may find it difficult to attend physical learning environments (Fuegen, 2012). Ally and Samaka (2013) argue that every individual should be entitled to, at the very least, a basic level of education. The introduction of distance education over the years has allowed all different kinds of people the chance to become educated; this includes people who may not necessarily be able to attend a physical environment for learning as well as those who are able to attend college or university.

Mobile technologies have been heavily implicated in the substantial popularity of distance education courses due to the nature of being able to access course materials “anywhere at any time” (Chuang, 2009). According to Jones (2002), there are very few individuals in Western civilisations that do not at least have access to a mobile device. Increased mobility allows students to access course materials on the go, as well giving them the opportunity to get involved with discussion forums and communicate with tutors online at any time (Steenkamp and Rudman, 2013).

Although mobile technologies are unquestionably available and have been seen to be effective for teaching and learning in a new way, there can be a lot of pressure put upon tutors to provide relevant material that will allow their learners to be educated effectively. Realistically, there are many tutors who may struggle with evolve their pedagogical practices through the use of mobile technologies due to other constraints put upon them; many educators do not have sufficient training in creating materials that will be supported by mobile technologies, and some simply don’t feel they have the time to learn how to support mobile technologies in education (Shim and Shim, 2001). Nonetheless, mobile technologies will be ever present within the field of education and, in particular, distance learning.

Technology has evidently changed the way that educational material can be learnt. The introduction of Web 2.0 tools will continue to aid the shift to a collaborative way of learning, as will the implementation of using IWB’s in classrooms. Mobile technologies will continue to develop and grow, as will the possibility for further learning anywhere at any time. Steenkamp and Rudman (2013) conclude that students who are currently entering higher education have grown up in a media rich society, therefore have adapted to using many different forms of technology with ease in their everyday lives, including in their learning. However, Lawrence and Lentle-Keenan (2013) warn that technologies should only be utilised in situations that will actually allow students to develop the necessary transferable skills they require to use in their everyday lives and their everyday education. They also suggest that simply injecting technology into teaching can cause two problems; firstly, students may become over reliant on the information that they expect to be available to them online and secondly there may be potential for students to bypass an independent learning style. There are still students and teachers alike who will prefer the method of face-to-face interactions with each other, therefore using the newest technology for learning should be methods of appropriateness rather than convenience.

References

Ally, M. and Samaka, M., 2013. Open education resources and mobile technology to narrow the learning divide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), pp. 14-27.

Bozarth, J., 2010. Social media for trainers: Techniques for enhancing and extending learning. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Chen, G. M., 2011. Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(2), pp. 755-762.

Chuang, K-W., 2009. Mobile technologies enhance the e-learning opportunity. American Journal of Buisness Education, 2(9), pp.49-53.

Edwards, A., 2012. New technology and education: Contemporary issues in education studies. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Frish, J. K., Jackson, P. C. and Murray, M. C., 2013. WikiED: Using Web 2.0 tools to teach content and critical thinking. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(1), pp. 70-80.

Fuegen, S., 2012. The impact of mobile technologies on distance education. TechTrends, 56(6), pp. 49-53.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. and Hughes, J. E., 2009. Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, pp. 246-259.

Harrison, R. and Thomas, M., 2009. Identity in online communities: Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), pp. 109-124.

Jones, S., 2002. The internet goes to college: how students are living in the future with today’s technology. Pew Internet and American Life Project Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_College_Report.pdf.pdf , [Accessed 13 November 2013].

Lawrence, B. and Lentle-Keenan, S., 2013. Teaching beliefs and practice, institutional context, and the uptake of web-based technology. Distance Education, 34(1), pp. 4-20.

Luckin, R., 2010. Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Abingdon: Routledge.

Luppicini, R., 2005. A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology and Society, 8(3), pp. 103-109.

McRobb, S., Jefferies, B. and Stahl, B. C., 2007. Exploring the relationships between pedagogy, ethics and technology: Building a framework for strategy development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), pp. 111-126.

Rudd, T., 2007. Interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Bristol: Futurelab.

Shim, M. K. and Shim, S. J., 2001. Mobile computing in higher education: Faculty perceptions of benefits and barriers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29(4), pp. 345-354.

Steenkamp, L. P. and Rudman, R. J., 2013. Incorporative online tools in tertiary education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(4), pp. 365-371.

Yakin, I. and Tinmaz, H., 2013. Using Twitter as an instructional tool: A case study in higher education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(4), pp.209-218.