Barriers to the effective use of technology in education

Suggestions that all students of the digital generation are naturally technology-savvy, or ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b) have been largely discredited (e.g. Kennedy et al, 2008) and yet the idea remains fixed in the public perception. It is implausible that all students will have the same level of access to technology, the same attitudes towards using technology, or the same intent to engage with technology. Individual differences and socio-economic factors suggest that access, attitudes, intent, and other factors follow the natural bell curve around the mean.

A natural barrier to effective use of technology is unfamiliarity. New technology requires time to adopt and integrate into an extant system, and additional resources to support - and once new technology is adopted, further change can create further barriers (e.g. Brzycki and Dudt, 2005). The issue of unfamiliarity can be overcome via mentoring (Franklin et al, 2001) but this still requires expert knowledge on the part of the mentor. When new technology is purchased by an instution what priority is placed on training and support to acheive this?

Further, the attitude of educators can be a significant barrier. Some staff may view new technology with suspicion; as something to be endured rather than embraced. If costs of embracing new technology are seen to outweigh potential benefits then it may lead to staff resentment or rejection of a system (e.g. Whitworth, 2005). Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM;  Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989) the perceived usefulness of a system is the strongest indicator of intention to use the technology, with attitudes towards computer use in general also a factor (Teo, 2009). If technology is perceived to be useful it is more likely to be adopted and used, regardless of whether it is easy to use.

Some first year students may be reluctant to fully engage with a VLE they are unfamiliar with through fear of ‘looking stupid’ (Dale and Lane, 2007). However, once engaged with the system students are then more likely to be reluctant to upload material to forums as this may subsequently provide answers for lazier students. Initial reluctance in year one of higher education becomes more ‘selfish’ behaviour in year three. At this stage barriers are more likely to be attitudes towards other students rather than the technology itself.

Barriers to engagement with some technology can be overcome by introducing students to other systems. Research shows that training incoming Higher Education students in VLE use prior to their starting a course increases subsequent VLE use over the academic year (Hutchings, 2011). Additionally, Twitter micro-blogging can lead to increased student VLE use and engagement in the learning process, and subsequently higher student grades (Junco, Heiberger and Loken, 2010). There is evidence also that increased use of a VLE can enhance the overall academic experience for students.

Regardless of the type of technology, how easy a system is to use, or the amount of time students engage with it, the expertise of the lecturer is the principal factor in student learning (Arbaugh, 2000). Whatever barriers may exist in effective use of technology, if the teacher is not competent in its use or the topic in question then student learning will be far less effective.

• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26.
• Brzycki, D. and Dudt, K., 2005. Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), pp.619-641.
• Dale, C., and Lane, A. M. (2007). A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An analysis of student engagement with virtual learning environments. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Leusire Tourism, 6, 100-108.
• Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
• Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M. and Duran, M., 2001. Mentoring overcomes barriers to technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1), pp.26-31.
• Hutchings, P. B. (2011). Putting the VLE before the HE: Prior training increases course engagement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Higher Education, Newport, Wales. http://www.srhe.ac.uk/conference2011/abstracts/0203.pdf
• Junco, R., Heiberger, G., and Loken, E. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132.
• Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology., 24, 108-122.
• Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
• Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).
• Teo, T., 2009. Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), pp.302-312.
• Whitworth, A. (2005). The politics of virtual learning environments: environmental change, conflict, and e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 685-691

How technology has changed the way we learn

Technology is here to stay. Over the past 20 years home computers have been increasingly common, the availability of laptops allowed a more portable use of technology which has since seen the advent of mobile devices and wireless networks in public places. Education has had to adapt to this development but has not always kept pace with the technology. In some areas it has been slow to change. The question is whether technology should drive education or simply be a tool of dissemination. 

Virtual learning environments (VLEs) are a form of information and communication technology (ICT) that provide students with unprecedented remote-access to a variety of learning materials in a flexible, web-based format. A number of sources (e.g. Martins and Kellermanns, 2004; Ngai, Poon and Chan, 2007; Van Raaij and Schepers, 2008) characterise VLEs as ‘a web-based communications platform that allows students to access different learning tools, such as course content, programme information, teaching assistance, document sharing, discussion boards, and learning resources, without restriction as to time and place’.

In effect, students can access their course remotely. Some lecturers make video clips or podcasts of their lectures available via a VLE making the issue of student attendance on campus moot. There is debate however as to what degree the VLE can enhance the learning process. If students do not regularly access the information available they are less likely to succeed than their peers. 

In a study of over 18,000 students, Caruso and Kvavik (2005) found that over 72% had used a VLE and over three quarters of these reported a positive experience. Interestingly, students reported a preference for a moderate level of technology use as a supplement to classroom study. It is possible therefore that over-reliance on technology in the classroom may detract from the student learning experience.

Research shows that students clearly prefer studying at home on a personal device over using university computer suites (Benfield, Ramanau and Sharpe, 2009). Being able to access university VLEs and library sites remotely has facilitated this and moved much of the learning experience away from institutions and more into the home. The Open University has had success over decades running courses without students attending a campus. Likewise, the advent of massive open online courses (MOOCs) make content from leading universities available globally via the internet, free of charge. 

Why then pay for college and university? While a MOOC course content is free it does not include a qualification; these can be obtained for a suitable fee. The result may be the same but the experience is not. Attending a college or university is about more than obtaining a qualification; it is a comprehensive education.

• Benfield. G., Ramanau, R., and Sharpe, R. 2009. Student learning technology use: preferences for study and contact. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 2 (4). Retrieved from http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk
• Martins, L. L., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A Model of Business School Students' Acceptance of a Web-Based Course Management System. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 7-26.
• Ngai, E., Poon, J., and Chan, Y. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267.
• Van Raaij, E. M., and Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852.

A new day, a new blog

As part of my continuing journey in education I am now studying towards a PGCE (PCET) at UWTSD in Swansea. Today was the first day of a new module, ICT, which looks at the use of technology in education, and one of our first tasks was to create a blog.

This reminded me that I started a blog a while back but had added very little content. As a result of the lesson I revisited that blog and added a post from previous research we carried out here at UWTSD (then 'Swansea Metropolitan University') into student engagement with virtual learning environments  (VLEs). The research was presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) Conference 2013. A further presentation on a different aspect of the research built on previous research on VLE use at SMU: Student engagement with VLEs: why and why not (Hutchings and Grey, 2013).

From the quantitative data we concluded that students tend to avoid using VLEs for more challenging topics - in this case cognitive psychology. Qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews revealed that students prefer using social media such as facebook to communicate with their cohort about course-related matters, and  avoid using chat or discussion boards built in to the university VLE.

This fits with the technology acceptance model (TAM) for most new students. If they already use social media for communication there is little perceived usefulness in learning another system for a similar purpose; therefore attitude toward using is reduced and actual system use consequently lower.

Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi & Washaw, 1989).