This is the presentation of an NRF sponsored project on Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

3. Characteristics of ET
1. May or may not be new technologies
2. Evolving organism, that exist in the state of
coming into being
3. Go through hype cycles
4. They are not yet fully understood
5. They are not yet fully researched
6. They are potentially disruptive, but that
potential is mostly unfulfilled
Veletsianos, 2010:13-17

4. Johnson & Adams (2011:1)

5. “Emerging ICTs in Higher Education”
NRF project, 2011-2013
• 8 SA HEIs
(SU, UWC, UCT,
CPUT, UP, Rhod
es, Wits, Fort
Hare)
• 1 NGO (Open
Courseware
Consortium)
More information at http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. What institutions are using…

9. What are students using?

10. 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)

11. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

12. Effective learning environments
1. Learner centered (or learning centered
Anderson 2004)
2. Knowledge centered
3. Assessment centered and
4. Community centered
(Bransford, Brown and Cocking 1999)

13. Six levels of interaction
Anderson 2004, 46

14. DATA COLLECTION AND
METHODOLOGY

15. 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

16. Respondents by Institution Female Male Total
University of Stellenbosch 28 21 49
University of Cape Town 25 10 35
56%
University of the Western Cape 21 13 34
Cape Peninsula University of Technology 14 16 30
Rhodes University 12 3 15
University of Fort Hare 7 8 15
Durban University of Technology 10 4 14
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 6 5 11
University of Johannesburg 4 5 9
Walter Sisulu University of Technology & Science 2 6 8
University of Limpopo 5 2 7
University of the Free State 6 1 7
Mangosuthu University of Technology 1 4 5
Central University of Technology 1 3 4
North-West University 4 0 4
Vaal University of Technology 1 3 4
University of KwaZulu-Natal 3 0 3
University of South Africa 3 0 3
University of Pretoria 0 2 2
Tshwane University of Technology 1 0 1
University of the Witwatersrand 0 1 1
University of Venda for Science and Technology 0 1 1
Grand Total 154 108 262

17. FINDINGS

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

19. How?

20. Replication

21. • 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).

22. Transformation

24. • 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.

25. CONCLUSIONS

26. 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

27. Further research
• Agency vs structure
• Researching student voices
• More in depth case studies

28. Any questions?
See more information
on our project on our blog:
http://emergingicts.blogspot.com/

29. 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 Consortium
Maddux, 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, pp1-22
Veletsianos, G. 2011. Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies. Educational Technology,
51(2), 41-46.