=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1776/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Students' technologies in practice –a participant perspective of mobile IT in higher education
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1776/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1776
|authors=Johan Lundin,Lars Svensson
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/nordichi/LundinS16
}}
==Students' technologies in practice –a participant perspective of mobile IT in higher education==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1776/paper8.pdf
Students’ technologies in practice –a participant
perspective of mobile IT in higher education
Johan Lundin1, Lars Svensson1,2
1
University of Gothenburg, Box 100, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
2
University West, 461 86 Trollhättan, Sweden
{johan.lundin@gu.se, lars.svensson@hv.se}
Abstract. We argue that the availability and penetration of mobile technology in
society in general, and among young persons in particular, have consequences
for how students employ IT in educational settings. This paper is an exploration
of what it means empirically, analytically and for design to take the use of tech-
nology introduced by students, rather than by teachers, in their learning activities,
as a starting point for research on IT and learning.
1 Introduction
At the moment we see how ownership of mobile and networked devices is increasing.
As a consequence, this increases the potential for students to bring their own IT to ed-
ucational settings. The possibility of bringing your own smartphone or laptop greatly
increases the possibilities to personally define and design the use. We argue that the
availability and penetration of mobile technology in society in general, and among
young persons in particular, have consequences for how students employ IT in educa-
tional settings.
The proposed focus contrasts a large body of research on the use and design of IT
for educational purposes. Instead of putting learning at the focus of attention, we pay
interest in the technology in action (Heath & Luff, 2000) conducting empirical studies
“...concerned with the analysis of how tools and technologies feature in social action
and interaction...” (Heath, Knoblauch, & Luff, 2000, p. 306). Also Orlikowskis is ad-
vocating a practice lens in studies of technology in organizations. She suggests the term
technology-in-practice:
“… it may be termed a technology-in-practice, to refer to the specific structure rou-
tinely enacted as we use the specific machine, technique, appliance, device, or gadget
in recurrent ways in our everyday situated activities.“ (Orlikowski, 2000, p. 408).
Substantial efforts have been made during the past decades to push IT into educa-
tional settings. The reasons given for designing, or employing new technologies are
often to enhance and support students’ learning. Multi billion dollar projects in North
America, Europe and parts of Asia have been initiated and developed (Selwyn, 2000).
49
Proc. of Fourth International Workshop on Cultures of Participation in the Digital Age - CoPDA 2016
Gothenburg (Sweden), October 23, 2016 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
The motivations for such investments can be debated. The arguments are often based
on that IT “... is equated with the modern world, economic success and the future; so
schools must embrace the technology” (Watson, 2001). In Wellington’s (2005) over-
view of the debate of IT in education he identifies three main arguments: Firstly, a
vocational argument: we need IT in schools to prepare students for the future, IT-
intensive, work. Secondly, a pedagogical argument: IT can be a catalyst for, and support
learning, and better design provides better possibilities for learning. And finally, a so-
cietal argument: access to, and knowledge of how to use IT is a precondition to be able
to take part in society. There seem to be several reasons why educational institutions
should incorporate IT, but still little discussion is dedicated to issues of who is involving
IT and how the participants use IT in educational practices.
As a result, also the methods for studying mobile-IT-practices have to be adapted.
Historically studies have focused on field experiments where one new technology has
been introduced by the researcher. Such experiments where new technologies are in-
troduced and evaluated with the purpose of changing the future practice also become
an easy target for criticism. Evaluations of experimental initiatives introducing IT point
to a very limited transformation of educational practices (Cuban, 2001). It is also inher-
ently difficult to predict any future use of based solely on the properties of a particular
technology as expressed by Robey & Sahay: “… showing how nearly identical tech-
nologies occasioned quite different social meanings and consequences in comparable
organizational settings.” (Robey & Sahay, 1996, p. 108). We see this as a call for more
inclusive and practice based views in research on tools employed in educational prac-
tices. It is essential to conduct studies of day-to-day use of IT to understand the conse-
quences of the use and to be able to wisely implement technology in such settings
(Selwyn, 2000). Experimental studies focusing on the introduction of new technologies
certainly have a place, but we also need to look more into the non-experimental, routine
and present use of technology among students. The efforts in developing new technol-
ogies for learning must thus be accompanied by research on technology already used
in practice.
This perspective demands understanding students as practitioners. This means rec-
ognizing “being a student“ as a sustained practice in its own right. What we are talking
about here are students in the academic sense. Quite understandably studies investigat-
ing aspects of education as a social practice have been emphasizing, and highlighting,
potential, or lacking, connections between educational practices and work practices. .
Attempts at changing education with IT and developing educational practices with
IT has proven challenging to developers and researchers, and the results of the efforts
are rarely impressive. We propose that one plausible explanation for the distance be-
tween vision and outcome is that in studies with focus on technology and learning,
students rarely are described or understood as participants within a community of prac-
tice. In summary, research exploring the design and understanding of IT and techno-
logical change within social settings emphasize the importance of understanding the
technology as part of a practice, and focus on that practice in efforts of change. At the
same time research repeatedly disqualify the practice of being a student as an authentic
practice in its own right (see e.g Lindroth & Bergqvist, 2010 and Lundin et al 2010 for
notable exeptions).
50
Proc. of Fourth International Workshop on Cultures of Participation in the Digital Age - CoPDA 2016
Gothenburg (Sweden), October 23, 2016 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
In this paper we argue that research on IT in education mainly have disregarded and
ignored the fact that students themselves introduce and employ IT in their educational
activities. Alternatively, we suggest a focus on the student educational activities as a
practice in its own right. Investigating the particulars of how students include mobile
and ubiquitous hardware and software in their educational activities. We are not exclu-
sively interested in what is taught or learned with IT, but rather in how the students
employ these tools in practice. The proposed point of departure also removes teachers
from the main focus and brings to front the students as co-producers of educational
practice (Clark et al. 2009).
Methodologically, we suggest that the collection of empirical material on students’
IT in use should be based on first hand studies of what they actually do. In the examples
we have demonstrated the value of an interest in students’ social practices, to be able
to understand IT in higher education. When engaging in research on technology use in
higher education, what we might interest ourselves in, find, see and change, will be
inherently dependent on what practice we are investigating, the practice of teachers, or
that of students.
Looking at the practice of students, rather than at the practice of teachers, or teach-
ing, affects what is interesting, how it should be studied, and the design of IT support.
Instead of defining the study by the technologies implemented by the teachers, for
learning purposes, we look at which digital resources the students mobilize to get the
job done. Consequently, it will be possible to explore how this use of IT might be con-
nected to educational activities, and further more interestingly, how it relates to and
shape learning. This can then be the starting point for discussions on the presence of
particular technologies in educational settings. It could also feed a debate on the forms
for engaging in lectures, examinations, group work, and other academic genres.
One way framing the suggested attempts of focusing students’ technologies in action
is to understand this as an attempt of taking the perspective of the students using differ-
ent methods for collecting and analyzing data. Almost trivial might seem the very phys-
ical placement in the studied settings, placing the researcher in the back among the
students and at the coffee-tables. Viewing the settings from the angle of the students
(e.g. Lindroth & Bergqvist 2008).
However, methodologically, the main challenge is the change in analytical perspec-
tive. The mere statement that being a student is a practice in its own right, and the skills
developed are not only (or even mainly) connected to future work, is provoking to
some. Taking the student perspective mean to investigate what it takes to successfully
complete the work of students. This is not only about learning, but also about getting
good grades, having en pleasant time, enjoying the respect of co-students, i.e. all the
aspects part of being a participant in a practice. It essentially would also mean to look
at how bullying, cheating, and other less desirable aspects of being a student. Collecting
empirical data on such activities might be difficult. Students know that they are sup-
posed to be engaged in particular activities, which means that self-reporting or inter-
views might be quite misleading. However, there are numerous ways for collecting data
that are not dependent on relying on users own understanding of what they actually do
with their tools.
The shift could also possibly change the design of new tools for student work. If we
51
Proc. of Fourth International Workshop on Cultures of Participation in the Digital Age - CoPDA 2016
Gothenburg (Sweden), October 23, 2016 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
pay less interest in supporting teachers, and use less effort in building catalysts for
learning, then more efforts can be put into supporting the work of students. As in all
design activities the judgment of the designer will play a crucial part. If we are to decide
what activities of the practice to support we might want to compare how such a support
would align or conflict with the efforts of teachers, and the goals for learning. For ex-
ample, are we willing to build systems where students will be more successful in higher
education, but learn less? In other words, would it be suitable to make it easier, more
convenient, or more efficient to succeed in higher education, without regarding what
students are learning. Such a system would certainly raise more fundamental questions
of the depth and authenticity of learning and knowing, as well as how knowledge are
tested and assessed in education, which are beyond the scope of this paper.
In the table below we present some of the design paradoxes which we have been
dealing with in our design work, attempting to engage in design aligned with the prac-
tice of being a student, rather than of being a teacher.
Design for teacher Design for students
Support for the job of displaying
Support the learning of students
something learned
Support for instruction in the best Supporting for dealing with and con-
way suming instruction
Making the work of learning and dis-
Making teaching more efficient
playing learning more efficient
Designs in line with the values Design aligned with values and norms
and norms of teaching of being a student
The prioritization of activities to The prioritization of activities to sup-
support framed by education port the social practice of students
Evaluating designs by searching
Understanding the success of designs
for causality between teaching,
by appropriation in social practices
technology and learning
Driven by looking at what teach-
Driven by looking at what students do
ers do
Downstream interest teacher-stu- Network of interactions among stu-
dent dents and teachers
The paradoxes presented in the table could be criticized for giving an overly cynical
picture of the two practices. Of course students care about learning, but ultimately only
those who are able to produce valued externalizations of learning are successful as stu-
dents. And of course teachers are not naïve to the extent that they don’t understand that
some of the important work of a student is to display valued externalizations of learn-
ing. However, the polarization is useful when trying to explore one whose behalf the
designer is working, and push articulation of the values underlying the design work.
Finally, we want to stress that even though we propose the design for student practice
design attempts should not be carried out on the expense of the teachers’ practices.
52
Proc. of Fourth International Workshop on Cultures of Participation in the Digital Age - CoPDA 2016
Gothenburg (Sweden), October 23, 2016 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
Building IT support for students could even possibly allow for teachers to not become
experts in the same components of IT use as the students. The “disharmony” in
knowledge of, and interest in, how to use IT is often understood as one of the factors
contributing to the failures of engagingly introducing IT in education (Selwyn, 2006).
But if we remove the responsibility of introduction of IT from the teachers, they need
not anymore be experts in the same sense. As it turns out, independent of the compe-
tence of the teachers, as well as of research attempting to show how IT might relate to
learning, being a student (as well as a teacher) in higher education is a practice heavily
based on the use of IT in various ways. Even though a structure for involving in educa-
tional activities is provided, the students are deciding what to bring, when to use it, and
what to use it for.
2 References
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2. 0: mapping the
technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(1), 56-69.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA Har-
vard University Press
Heath, C., Knoblauch, H., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: the emergence
of'workplace studies'. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 299-320.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Lindroth, T., & Bergquist, M. (2008). Breadcrumbs of interaction: situating personal information
management. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-
computer interaction: building bridges.
Lindroth, T., & Bergquist, M. (2010). Laptopers in an educational practice: Promoting the per-
sonal learning situation. Computers & Education, 54(2), 311-320.
Lundin, J., Lymer, G., Holmquist, L. E., Brown, B., & Rost, M. (2010). Integrating students’
mobile technology in higher education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organ-
isation, 4(1), 1-14.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying
technology in organizations. Organization Science, 404-428.
Robey, D., & Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: a compar-
ative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Sys-
tems Research, 7(1), 93.
Rost, M., & Holmquist, L. E. (2009). Tools for students doing mobile fieldwork. In T. T. Goh
(Ed.), Multiplatform E-learning systems and technologies (pp. 215-228). New York: Hershey.
Selwyn, N. (2000). Researching computers and education - glimpses of the wider picture. Com-
puters & Education(34), 93-101.
Selwyn, N. (2006). Exploring the 'digital disconnect' between net-savvy students and their
schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(1), 5 - 17.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings
of mLearn 2005.
Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship between ICT
and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251-266.
Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education,
1982-2004. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 25-39.
53
Proc. of Fourth International Workshop on Cultures of Participation in the Digital Age - CoPDA 2016
Gothenburg (Sweden), October 23, 2016 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.