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
