Concluding comments on use of computers

Many of the findings of this study provide confirmation of opinions based on hearsay or anecdotal evidence. Our sense that computers are an intrinsic part of teaching and learning in higher education has been confirmed by findings which show that almost no students or staff report that they never use computers as part of teaching or learning events. This means that almost all students and staff report use of some kind. In addition, our study has demonstrated the shifting role of computers within institutions, from predominantly administrative use and minimal use for teaching and learning, to environments where computers are even being reported as being used more for teaching or learning than for any other purpose.

The general commonsense view that younger people are growing up “digitally” (Tapscott 1997) is also confirmed in this study, which shows that amongst younger staff and academics there is more frequent and varied use of

Table 5.28: Relationship between staff use of computers for teaching and learning, and position

Associate lecturer Lecturer Senior lecturer

Associate

professor Professor

Infrequent 32% 32% 36% 18% 27%

Occasional 34% 44% 38% 39% 26%

Frequent 34% 24% 25% 43% 47%

Figure 5.16: Comparison off overall use of computers for teaching and learning between older junior staff and older senior staff

often

15% seldom

42%

average 42%

often 42%

seldom 28%

average 28%

Older senior

Older junior

43% 30%

computers as part of their practice. More interesting is the finding that students are using computers as part of their learning activities much more than when asked to do so by academics teaching their courses. While we do observe academic requirement as a driver, it is evidently not the only one. Researchers internationally have been arguing that young adults today think and learn differently because they have grown up with interactive technology at their fingertips (Seely Brown 2002). Locally the assumption has been that limited access makes this kind of integration unlikely.

Our findings suggest that broader digital cultural influences are infiltrating higher education and changing students’

computer-mediated learning practices. This needs urgent further investigation.

These findings open the door to questions about staff–

student interactions, and have immense implications for institutional staff development strategies.

On the other hand, our findings show quite conventional uses of computers, and indicate that the affordances of the new technologies are not being acknowledged in higher educational classroom environments. The potential of certain attributes of computer technologies are not being exploited in support of student learning.

The most dominant uses of computers are the use of interactive media forms which enable engaging with and finding online content, and the use of productive media forms, largely to write assignments.

The extensive use of interactive media highlights the significance of online content in higher education today.

This suggests the redefinition of the roles of libraries and librarians in higher education. It also signals the importance of related crucial issues such as plagiarism, information literacy and critical literacy to learning designers, academics and institutional policy makers.

Institutional staff development strategies in the Western Cape will also need to grapple with ways to encourage the most effective application of the potential embedded in computers.

While our findings show general use of computers for communication, they show low use for educational purposes. With interactivity and dialogue at the heart of the educational enterprise, computers offer real options for student learning improvement. Similarly computers offer opportunities for self-paced practising and repetition needed as part of the learning process. Our findings also show that the functionality afforded by computer technologies to support these activities is hardly being utilised.

Our findings throw up challenges and identify anomalies.

We did not set out to specifically investigate whether the use of computers challenges existing disciplinary-linked teaching and learning strategies. Yet in the light of the existing literature our findings show that in one case (Health Sciences) where computers are used extensively and in varied ways, there is also evidence of teaching and learning strategies not usually associated with this disciplinary grouping being utilised.

We were surprised too by the generally low extent and variety of use reported by the business-related disciplinary groupings, partly because this contradicts findings from elsewhere, but especially as it appears to fly in the face of the apparent needs of business graduates in the workplace.

Finally, the analytical framework we used enabled us to consider use in relation to specific teaching and learning events and the survey provided a useful research tool in sketching the landscape of computer use in the Western Cape. It has identified areas for closer analysis and provided pointers for policy makers wishing to ensure that their extensive investment in technology in the region is justified by more extensive exploitation of the possibilities of computers to support effective student learning.

Endnotes

1 Calculated by examining the number of times a respondent answered “never” or “rarely” to a question and then divided by the number of responses they made. This tells us how many respondents answered

“never” or “rarely” in ALL their responses.

2 This forms a contrast to studies from other contexts such as telecentres, which suggests that while computers exist they are often not being used (Benjamin 2000; Warschauer 2003a).

3 Represents an average of responses for “regularly”

and “often” for the five activities listed for the event of discovery (see http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/pie/Cz_Brown.

htm for further details).

4 Calculated by examining the number of times a respondent answered “never” or “rarely” in ALL their responses and conversely, how many respondents used at least one activity occasionally or more frequently.

5 Navigation and annotation, and through various media elements such as images and videos, e.g. image maps.

6 Students and staff who responded in the affirmative when asked if they used a computer as part of their

courses for finding information, communication, participating in activities, creating things and expressing ideas

7 See section 3.3.2.3 in the Methodology which explains how we grouped the 34 faculties surveyed into disciplines, how these disciplines were organised according to Biglan’s framework and how the indices were calculated.

8 Biglan’s framework organises disciplines into four fields, these being hard pure fields (natural and pure sciences), hard applied fields (science-based

professions, e.g. engineering), soft pure fields (humanities and social sciences), and soft applied fields (social science-based professions, e.g. business).

9 Frequent = responses of “regularly” or “often”

10 For example, medical students at a university in Australia responded very positively to the opportunities offered by a CD ROM An@tomedia that used visuals from multiple perspectives to assist students in answering questions and solving problems particularly in enabling the student to move between different representation of knowledge.

Chapter 6