The majority of research to date on technology in education has focussed almost exclusively on the institution and the instructor, with various attempts to measure the impact of technology on student learning. When the student perspective is solicited, this is usually confined to survey responses or end of semester evaluations with the impact of technology reduced to somewhat subjective measures in a limited context (Hämäläinen et al. 2017). However, as I have explored in section 2.1, quantifying such impact is complicated by not only the technology itself, but also by the inability to unequivocally attribute improvements in learning to such technology (Livingstone, 2012). But blaming educators for the lack of comprehensive integration of technology into the learning environment is an over- simplification of the complex social construct that is the classroom or lecture theatre. As I have also noted in section 2.1, attempts have been made to utilise technologies in the classroom and successes have been recorded. However, a comprehensive redefinition of education using technology has not happened and does not look like it will. Yet to dismiss technologies as an unnecessary imposition on the work of educators is to miss the potential offered by such technologies. Therefore, it is incumbent upon educators, managers and administrators, particularly at higher education, to facilitate learners who value technology and want this technology to be a part of their own learning experience. I now turn to the issue
44 of learners who bring personal technologies into the learning environment of their own volition.
Students at higher education bringing their own devices to lecture theatres is nothing new (Gaudreau et al., 2014; le Roux & Parry, 2017), but given the relatively recent appearance of tablet devices on the market, in addition to the appearance of such devices in lecture theatres, it provides a unique opportunity to investigate how students utilise them as part of the learning process, both on-campus and off-campus. It raises the question as to whether tablet devices are enabling students to be creators of their own digital pedagogies. Given the extent to which personal devices are ingrained in their personal life, it does not seem unreasonable that students could see potential of such devices in an educational context. However, before exploring the use of such devices, it pertinent to explore more established student conceptions of learning at higher education in an effort to suggest contexts within which learning with tablets might be situated.
Entwistle and Pearson (2004) suggest that students have three key approaches to learning and studying at higher education. The first, deep, suggest students have a desire to understand the material and are heavily invested in engaging in the learning process, even suggesting that such students are actively enjoying the learning process. However, such deep approaches to learning appear to be related to positive experiences of the teaching and learning environment, suggesting that instructors have a part to play in nurturing such an approach in students (Asikainen & Gijbels, 2017). Perhaps this might go some way to explain the prevalence of institute- and teacher-led initiatives with incorporating technology in education.
The second approach, surface, suggests students want to achieve nothing more than “coping” with the course they are studying, with focus narrowly trained on the syllabus (Marton & Saljo, 1976). This approach, suggest Asikainen & Gijbels (2017), is related to negative experiences of the teaching and learning environment, again suggesting instructors have a role to play in influencing student perceptions of learning and engagement. The third approach suggested by Entwistle and Pearson (2004) is strategic, with students investing time and effort into managing and organising their learning, guided by “an awareness of the assessment criteria.” A technological solution to this management and organisation was suggested by Henderson et al who found evidence of higher education student engagement
45 with technology to be primarily related to organisation, management and ensuring currency (Henderson et al., 2015). While the study was purposely device agnostic, it offers an insight into students engaging in elements of organising, regulation and self-monitoring, all of which are strands in the concept of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) (Zimmerman, 2002). In addition, students who engage in SRL tend to be driven and academically successful, therefore opening the question as to whether there is a link between student academic success and the use of personal technologies.
2.14 Bring Your Own Device
Research and activities involving personal devices in education typically incorporate students being loaned devices for the duration of the study (see Nguyen, Barton, & Nguyen, 2015; Van Der Ventel et al., 2016; Wardley & Mang, 2016). In one such study in an economics class, Castillo-Manzano et al report on a programme that loaned laptop devices to students if they did not have their own personal device. The results suggest a particularly contrasting difference between students who take a laptop to class compared to students who take a tablet to class. Laptop users (whether the laptops were loaned by the institution or owned by the students) typically had prior experience using such devices in an educational context and were more concerned with charging the devices. Tablet users tended to be more active on social media and less concerned with charging the devices, perhaps a reflection of the longer battery life of such devices (Castillo-Manzano, Castro-Nuño, López-Valpuesta, Sanz-Díaz, & Yñiguez, 2017). However the study notes that while only a minority of students (less than 18% in each case) bring devices to class, both groups are characterised by the demand that academic staff incorporate the devices into teaching practice. Or, as the researchers put it, students demand a better return for their investment in the technology. Given the relatively low numbers of students who bring devices to class, it opens up the question as to what such students do with these devices outside of class. This suggests that there appears to be a gap in the literature with respect to students who bring devices into class and subsequently what how such devices are used outside of the classroom.
Facilitating and encouraging academic staff to utilise the features of mobile technology and student personal devices still appears to be sporadic, with various reasons offered for the non-adoption (Gillies, 2016). In one research project, academics were given iPads for the purposes of teaching and integrating the use into their everyday academic practice. The study
46 was judged as having limited success (Aiyegbayo, 2015). Academics cited reasons such as a lack of professional development and not wanting to disadvantage students who could not afford iPads as reasons for not using the devices. The reduced functionality of iPads was also cited as a reason, with academics noting that they were better able to develop materials with desktop or laptop computers. While this study could be characterised by academics unwilling to embrace technology, the author notes that training and ongoing support are essential for initiatives such as this to succeed (Aiyegbayo, 2015). Such interventions usually providing a fleeting glimpse with the potential of such technologies, with researchers acknowledging that broader, longitudinal studies are needed to properly evaluate the potential of these devices (Nguyen et al., 2015).
The relatively new phenomenon in educational technologies of BYOD is an acknowledgement that personal devices have become sufficiently cost-effective, affordable and portable while offering significant functionality to enable their effective use in a learning environment (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada and Freeman, 2015; Sundgren, 2017). In addition, personal devices also open up the potential of a blurring of the time and location of learning, affording learners the opportunity to engage when suitable, a blurring of time and location (Sundgren, 2017). In some cases, educational institutions dictate the type and specification of devices learners are required to bring to effectively participate in class (Selwyn et al., 2017). The conformity offered negates the need for educators to take into account diverse functionality and software requirements of different devices when designing educational activities and materials, plus the support function is simplified for technical staff. However, Selwyn et al note in their study that the requirement of students to bring their own laptop devices in a number of secondary schools resulted in the laptops blending into the learning environment and, rather than radically altering and transforming practice, appeared to be subsumed into existing practice. They note that the original intention of BYOD had been reduced to “regulate and restrict”. This resulted in what was once seen as an invitation for students to bring their own devices, morphing into an instruction to bring their own devices, with the result that personal laptops were no longer seen as belonging to the student and more as an instrument of the schools in question (Selwyn et al., 2017).
The use of personal devices in a learning context has evolved from basic interaction with a learning management system and consumption of learning material to broader
47 communication and collaboration (Sundgren, 2017). Learners can utilise software platforms such as Google Docs (Google, n.d.) and Facebook (Facebook, n.d.) to collaborate on assignments and work in virtual teams, building up communities and expanding the learning environment beyond the confines of the campus (Henderson et al., 2015). The literature suggests that personal devices offer a sense of social connectedness and opportunities for self-regulated learning that are not as accessible in more traditional technologies such as desktop computers (Sundgren, 2017). But this connectedness comes at a prices as both educators and learners alike see a blurring of the personal space and public life when using personal devices, with traditional boundaries becoming increasingly less clear (Evans, 2014). Even within the classroom, immediate connectivity to the outside world invites what Aagard refers to as bringing the “outside-in” offering students the ability to bring relevant and appropriate material into the learning environment in real time, but also offering immense opportunities for off-task activities and distractions (Aagaard, 2016).
Like much of the current wave of educational technologies, research into learners bringing their own devices as still at a very exploratory stage. While institutions are willing to facilitate learners bringing their own devices, there appears to be limited evidence to suggest that mandated BYOD is widespread (Gillies, 2016).