- \n \t
- student demographics;<\/li>\n \t
- access; and<\/li>\n \t
- differences in how students learn.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
10.2.1 Student demographics<\/h2>\nOne of the fundamental changes resulting from mass higher education is that university and college teachers must now teach an increasingly diverse range of students. This increasing diversity of students presents major challenges for all teachers,\u00a0not just\u00a0post-secondary teachers. However, it has been less common for instructors at a post-secondary level to vary their approach within a single course to accommodate to learner differences, but the increasing diversity of students now requires that all courses should be developed with a wide variety of approaches and ways to learn if all students in the course are to be taught well.\n\nIn particular, it is important to be clear about the needs of the target group. First and second year students straight from high school are likely to require more support and help studying at a university or college level. They are likely to be less independent as learners, and therefore it may be a mistake\u00a0to expect them to be able to study entirely through the use of technology. However,\u00a0technology may be useful as a support for classroom teaching, especially if it provides an alternative approach to learning from the face-to-face teaching, and is gradually introduced, to prepare them for more independent study later in a program.\n\nOn the other hand, for students who have already been through higher education as a campus student, but are now in the workforce, a program delivered entirely by technology at a distance is likely to be attractive. Such students will have already developed successful study skills, will have their own community and family life, and will welcome the flexibility of studying this way.\n\nThird and fourth year undergraduate students may appreciate a mix of classroom-based and online study or even one or two fully online courses, especially if some of their face-to-face classes are closed to further enrolments, or if students are working part-time to help cover some of the costs of being at college.\n\nLastly, within any single class or group of learners, there will be a wide range of differences in prior knowledge, language skills, and preferred study styles. The intelligent use of media and technology can help accommodate these differences. In particular, if you are trying to reach students in remote areas, or homeless or poor people, or students with physical disabilities, then this too should influence your choice of technology. Indeed, for most courses, there is likely to be a mix of different student needs, which suggests that a multi-media approach (including on-campus face-to-face teaching) will be necessary to accommodate all student needs.\n\nSo, once again, it is important to know your students, and to keep this in mind when making decisions about what media or technology to use. This will be discussed further\u00a0in Chapter 11 Section 3<\/a>.\n
10.2.2 Access<\/h2>\nOf all the criteria in determining choice of technology, this is perhaps the most discriminating. No matter how powerful in educational terms a particular medium or technology may be, if students cannot access it in a convenient and affordable manner they cannot learn from it. Thus video streaming may be considered a great way to get lectures to students off campus, but if they do not have Internet access at home, or if it takes four hours or a day's wages to download, then forget it. Difficulty of access is a particular restriction on using xMOOCs in developing countries or video conferencing such as Zoom for students with poor Internet access. Even if potential learners have Internet or mobile phone access, which 2.9 billion globally still do not (ITU, 2021<\/a>), it often costs a day's wages to download a single YouTube video.\n\nAny\u00a0teacher or instructor\u00a0intending to use computers, tablets\u00a0or mobile phones for teaching purposes needs answers to a number of questions:\n
- \n \t
- what is the institutional\u00a0policy with regard to students\u2019 access to a computer, tablets or mobile phones?<\/li>\n \t
- can students\u00a0use any device or is there a limited list of devices that the institution will support?<\/li>\n \t
- is the medium or software chosen for teaching compatible with all makes of devices students might use?<\/li>\n \t
- is the network adequate to support any extra students that this initiative will add?<\/li>\n \t
- who else in the institution\u00a0needs to know that you are requiring students to use particular devices?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nIf students are expected to provide their own devices (which increasingly makes sense):\n
- \n \t
- what kind of device\u00a0do they need: one at home with Internet access or a portable that they can bring on to campus - or one that can be used both at home and on campus?<\/li>\n \t
- what kind of applications will they need to run on their device(s) for study purposes?<\/li>\n \t
- will they be able to use the same device(s)\u00a0across all courses, or will they need different software\/apps and devices\u00a0for different courses?<\/li>\n \t
- what skills will students\u00a0need in operating the devices and the apps that will be run on them?<\/li>\n \t
- if students do not have the skills, would it still be worth their learning them, and will there be time set aside in the course for them to learn these skills?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nStudents (as well as the instructor) need to know the answers to these questions before they enrol in a course or program. In order to answer these questions, you and your department must know what students will use their devices for. There is no point in requiring students to go to the expense of purchasing a laptop computer if the work they are required to do on it is optional or trivial. This means some advance planning on your part:\n
- \n \t
- what are the educational advantages that you see in student use of a particular device?<\/li>\n \t
- what will students need to do on the device\u00a0in your course?<\/li>\n \t
- is it really essential for them to use a device\u00a0in these ways, or could they easily manage without the device? In particular, how will assessment be linked to the use of the device?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nIt will really help if your institution has good policies in place for student technology access (see Section 7 of this chapter)<\/a>. If the institution does\u00a0not have clear policies or infrastructure\u00a0for supporting the technologies you want to use,\u00a0then your job is going to be a lot harder.\n\nThe answer to the question of access and the choice of technology will also depend somewhat on the mandate of the institution and your personal educational goals. For instance, highly selective universities can require students to use particular devices, and can help the relatively few students who have financial difficulties in purchasing and using specified devices. If though the mandate of the institution is to reach learners denied access to conventional institutions, equity groups, the unemployed, the working poor, or workers needing up-grading or more advanced education and training, then it becomes critical to find out what technology they have access to or are willing to use. If an institution's policy is open access to anyone who wants to take its courses (which covers most publicly funded school systems), the availability of equipment already in the home<\/em> (usually purchased for entertainment or work purposes) becomes of paramount importance.\n\nAnother important factor to consider is access for student with disabilities. This may mean providing textual or audio options for deaf and visually impaired students respectively. Fortunately there are now well established practices and standards under the general heading of Universal Design standards. Universal Design is\u00a0defined as follows:\n
Universal Design for Learning, or UDL, refers to\u00a0the deliberate design of instruction to meet the\u00a0needs of a diverse mix of learners. Universally designed courses attempt to meet all\u00a0learners\u2019 needs by incorporating multiple means of imparting information and flexible\u00a0methods of assessing learning. UDL also includes multiple means of engaging or\u00a0tapping into learners\u2019 interests. Universally designed courses are not designed with\u00a0any one particular group of students with a disability in mind, but rather are designed\u00a0to address the learning needs of a wide-ranging group.<\/em><\/p>\n
Brokop, F. (2008<\/a>)<\/p>\n
Most institutions with a centre for supporting teaching and learning will be able to provide assistance to faculty to ensure the course meets universal design standards. For instance, BCcampus has produced an accessibility toolkit<\/a>\u00a0(Coolidge et l., 2018<\/a>) and Norquest College, Alberta, has published a detailed guide to ensuring online materials are accessible for persons with disabilities.<\/a><\/p>\n\n
10.2.3 Student differences with respect to learning with technologies<\/h2>\nIt may seem obvious that different students will have different preferences for different kinds of technology or media. The design of teaching would cater for these differences. Thus if students are \u2018visual\u2019 learners, they would be provided with diagrams and illustrations. If they are auditory learners, they will prefer lectures and podcasts. It might appear then that identifying dominant learning styles should provide strong criteria for media and technology selection. However, it is not as simple as that.\n\nMcLoughlin (1999<\/a>), in a thoughtful review of the implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material, concluded that instruction could be designed to accommodate differences in both cognitive-perceptual learning styles and Kolb's (1984<\/a>) experiential learning cycle. In a study of new intakes conducted over several years at the University of Missouri-Columbia, using the Myers-Briggs inventory, Schroeder (1993<\/a>) found that new students think concretely, and are uncomfortable with abstract ideas and ambiguity.\n\nHowever, a major function of a university education is to develop skills of abstract thinking, and to help students deal with complexity and uncertainty. Perry (1970<\/a>) found\u00a0that learning in higher education is a developmental process. It is not surprising then that many students enter college or university without such 'academic' skills. Indeed, there are major problems in trying to apply learning styles and other methods of classifying learner differences to media and technology selection and use. Laurillard (2001<\/a>) makes the point that looking at learning styles in the abstract is not helpful. Learning has to be looked at in context. Thinking skills in one subject area do not necessarily transfer well to another subject area. There are ways of thinking that are specific to different subject areas. Thus logical-rational thinkers in science do not necessarily make thoughtful husbands, or good literary critics.\n\nPart of a university education is to understand and possibly challenge predominant modes of thinking in a subject area. While learner-centered teaching is important, students need to understand the inherent logic, standards, and values of a subject area. They also need to be challenged, and encouraged to think outside the box. In particular, at a university level we need strategies to gradually move students from concrete learning based on personal experience to abstract, reflective learning that can then be applied to new contexts and situations. Technology can be particularly helpful for that, as we saw in Chapter 8.\n\nThus\u00a0when designing courses,\u00a0it is important to offer a range of options for student\u00a0learning within the same course. One way to do this is to make sure that a course is\u00a0well structured, with relevant 'core' information easily available to all students, but also to make sure that there are opportunities for students to seek out new or different\u00a0content. This content\u00a0should be available in a variety of media such as text, diagrams, audio, video, and computing, with concrete examples explicitly related to underlying principles. The increasing availability of open educational resources (discussed in Chapter 12.2<\/a>) makes the provision of this 'richness' of possible content much more viable.\n\nSimilarly,\u00a0technology enables\u00a0a range of learner activities to be made available, such as researching readings on the Web, online discussion forums, synchronous presentations, assessment through e-portfolios, and online group work. The range of activities increases the likelihood that a variety of learner preferences are being met, and also encourages learners to involve themselves in activities and approaches to learning where they may initially feel less comfortable.\u00a0Thus it is important to ensure that students have a wide range of media (text, audio, video, computing) within a course or program.\n\nLastly, one should be careful in the assumptions made about student preferences for learning through\u00a0digital technologies. On the one hand, technology 'boosters' such as Mark Prensky (2001<\/a>) and Don Tapscott (2008<\/a>) have argued that today's 'digital natives' are different from previous generations of students. They argue that today's students live within a networked digital universe and therefore expect their learning also to be all digitally networked. It is also true that\u00a0professors in particular tend to underestimate students' access to advanced technologies (professors are often late adopters of new technology), so you\u00a0should always try to find up-to-date information on\u00a0what devices and technologies students are currently using, if you can.\n\nOn the other hand, it is also dangerous\u00a0to assume that all students are highly 'digital literate' and are demanding that new technologies should be used in teaching.\u00a0Jones and Shao (2011<\/a>) conducted a thorough\u00a0review of the literature on 'digital natives', with over 200 appropriate references, including surveys of relevant publications from countries in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and South Africa.\u00a0They concluded that:\n
- \n \t
- students vary widely in their use and knowledge of digital media;<\/li>\n \t
- the gap between students and their teachers in terms of digital literacy is not fixed, nor is the gulf so large\u00a0that it cannot be bridged;<\/li>\n \t
- there is little evidence that students enter university with demands for new\u00a0technologies that teachers and universities cannot meet;<\/li>\n \t
- students will respond positively to changes in teaching and learning strategies that include the use of new technologies that are well conceived, well explained and properly embedded in courses and degree\u00a0programmes. However there is no evidence of a pent-up demand amongst\u00a0students for changes in pedagogy or of a demand for greater collaboration;<\/li>\n \t
- the development of university infrastructure, technology policies and teaching objectives should be choices about the kinds of provision that the university wishes to make and not a response to general statements about what a new generation of students are demanding;<\/li>\n \t
- the evidence indicates that young students do not form a generational cohort and they do not express consistent or generationally organised demands, thus challenging general assumptions about the differences between post-millennials, millennials, Generation X and boomers in the way that they learn.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nGraduating students that have been interviewed about learning technologies at the University of British Columbia made it clear that they will be happy to use technology for learning so long as it contributes to their success (in the words of one student, 'if it will get me better grades') but the students also made it clear\u00a0that it was the instructor's responsibility to decide what technology was best for their studies.\n\nIt is also important to pay attention to what Jones and Shao are not<\/em> saying. They are not saying that social media, personal learning environments, or collaborative learning are inappropriate, nor that the needs of students and the workforce are unchanging or unimportant, but the use of these tools or approaches should be driven by a holistic look at the needs of all students, the needs of the subject area, and the learning goals relevant to a\u00a0digital age, and not by an erroneous view of what a particular generation of students are demanding.\n\nIn summary, one great advantage of the intelligent application of technology to teaching is that it provides opportunities for students to learn in a variety of ways, thus adapting the teaching more easily to student differences. Thus, the first step in media selection is to know your students, their similarities and differences, what technologies they already have access to, and what digital skills they already possess or lack that may be relevant for your courses. This is likely to require\u00a0the use of a wide range of media within the teaching to accommodate these differences.\n
10.2.4 The information you need about your students<\/h2>\nIt is critical to know your students.\u00a0In particular, you need the following information to provide an appropriate context for decisions about media and technology:\n\n1. What is the mandate or policy of your institution, department or program with respect to student access in general (selective vs open; accommodation of disabilities, etc.)? How will students who do not have access to a chosen technology be supported?\n\n2. What are the likely demographics of the students you will be teaching? How appropriate is the technology you are thinking of using for these students?\n\n3. If your students are to be taught at least partly off campus, to which technologies are they likely to have convenient and regular access at home or work?\n\n4. If students\u00a0are to be taught at least partly on campus, what is - or should be - your or your department\u2019s policy with regard to students\u2019 access to devices\u00a0in class?\n\n5. What digital\u00a0skills do you expect your students to have before they start the program?\n\n6. If students are expected to provide their own access to technology, will you be able to provide unique teaching experiences that will justify the purchase or use of such technology?\n\n7. What prior approaches to learning are the students likely to bring to your program? How suitable are such prior approaches to learning likely to be to the way you need to teach the course? How could technology be used to cater for student differences in learning?\n\nThere are many different ways to get the information needed to answer these questions. In many cases, you will still have to make decisions on insufficient evidence, but the more accurate information you have about your potential students, the better your likely choice of media and technology. Almost certainly, though, you will have a variety and diversity of students, so the design of your teaching will need to accommodate this.\n
References<\/h1>\nBrokop, F. (2008)\u00a0Accessibility to E-Learning for Persons With Disabilities: Strategies, Guidelines, and Standards<\/em> <\/a>Edmonton AB: NorQuest College\n
\u00a0Coolidge, A. et al (2018) B.C. Open Textbook Accessibility Toolkit<\/a>\u00a0Victoria BC: BCcampus<\/p>\nInternational Telecommunications Union (2021) Statistics: Individuals Using the Internet<\/a> Geneva Switzerland: ITU\n\nJones, C. and Shao, B. (2011) The Net Generation and Digital Natives: Implications for Higher Education<\/em><\/a> Milton Keynes: Open University\/Higher Education Academy\n\nKolb. D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Exper<\/em>ience as the source of learning and development<\/em><\/a> Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall\n\nLaurillard, D. (2001)\u00a0Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies<\/a><\/em>\u00a0New York\/London: Routledge\n\nMcCoughlin, C. (1999) The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material<\/a> Australian Journal of Educational Technology<\/em>, Vol. 15, No. 3\n\nNorquest College (2008)\u00a0Accessibility to E-Learning for Persons With Disabilities: Strategies, Guidelines, and Standards<\/a> Edmonton AB: Norquest College\n\nPerry, W. (1970) Forms of intellectual development and ethical development in the college years: a scheme\u00a0<\/em><\/a>New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston\n\nPrensky, M. (2001) \u2018Digital natives, Digital Immigrant<\/a>s<\/em>\u2019 On the Horizon Vol. 9, No. 5\n\nSchroeder, C. (1993) New students\u00a0\u2013\u00a0new learning styles<\/a>, Change,<\/em> Sept.-Oct\n\nTapscott, D. (2008)\u00a0Grown Up Digital<\/em><\/a>\u00a0New York: McGraw Hill\n
\nActivity 10.2: Knowing your students<\/h3>\n
- \n \t
- How many of the questions in Section 10.2.4 can you answer off the top of your head?<\/li>\n \t
- What additional information do you need, and where can you find it?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThere is no feedback provided on these questions.\n\n<\/div>\n ","rendered":"
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2015\/01\/Muslim-girls-using-mobiles-2.jpg\")
Figure 10.2.1 The Malaysian Ministry of Education announced in 2012 that it will enable students to bring handphones to schools under strict guidelines
Image: \u00a9 NewStraightsTimes, 2012<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe first criterion in the SECTIONS model is students.\u00a0At least three issues related to students need to be considered when choosing media and technology:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n- \n
- student demographics;<\/li>\n
- access; and<\/li>\n
- differences in how students learn.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
10.2.1 Student demographics<\/h2>\n
One of the fundamental changes resulting from mass higher education is that university and college teachers must now teach an increasingly diverse range of students. This increasing diversity of students presents major challenges for all teachers,\u00a0not just\u00a0post-secondary teachers. However, it has been less common for instructors at a post-secondary level to vary their approach within a single course to accommodate to learner differences, but the increasing diversity of students now requires that all courses should be developed with a wide variety of approaches and ways to learn if all students in the course are to be taught well.<\/p>\n
In particular, it is important to be clear about the needs of the target group. First and second year students straight from high school are likely to require more support and help studying at a university or college level. They are likely to be less independent as learners, and therefore it may be a mistake\u00a0to expect them to be able to study entirely through the use of technology. However,\u00a0technology may be useful as a support for classroom teaching, especially if it provides an alternative approach to learning from the face-to-face teaching, and is gradually introduced, to prepare them for more independent study later in a program.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, for students who have already been through higher education as a campus student, but are now in the workforce, a program delivered entirely by technology at a distance is likely to be attractive. Such students will have already developed successful study skills, will have their own community and family life, and will welcome the flexibility of studying this way.<\/p>\n
Third and fourth year undergraduate students may appreciate a mix of classroom-based and online study or even one or two fully online courses, especially if some of their face-to-face classes are closed to further enrolments, or if students are working part-time to help cover some of the costs of being at college.<\/p>\n
Lastly, within any single class or group of learners, there will be a wide range of differences in prior knowledge, language skills, and preferred study styles. The intelligent use of media and technology can help accommodate these differences. In particular, if you are trying to reach students in remote areas, or homeless or poor people, or students with physical disabilities, then this too should influence your choice of technology. Indeed, for most courses, there is likely to be a mix of different student needs, which suggests that a multi-media approach (including on-campus face-to-face teaching) will be necessary to accommodate all student needs.<\/p>\n
So, once again, it is important to know your students, and to keep this in mind when making decisions about what media or technology to use. This will be discussed further\u00a0in Chapter 11 Section 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n
10.2.2 Access<\/h2>\n
Of all the criteria in determining choice of technology, this is perhaps the most discriminating. No matter how powerful in educational terms a particular medium or technology may be, if students cannot access it in a convenient and affordable manner they cannot learn from it. Thus video streaming may be considered a great way to get lectures to students off campus, but if they do not have Internet access at home, or if it takes four hours or a day’s wages to download, then forget it. Difficulty of access is a particular restriction on using xMOOCs in developing countries or video conferencing such as Zoom for students with poor Internet access. Even if potential learners have Internet or mobile phone access, which 2.9 billion globally still do not (ITU, 2021<\/a>), it often costs a day’s wages to download a single YouTube video.<\/p>\n
Any\u00a0teacher or instructor\u00a0intending to use computers, tablets\u00a0or mobile phones for teaching purposes needs answers to a number of questions:<\/p>\n
- \n
- what is the institutional\u00a0policy with regard to students\u2019 access to a computer, tablets or mobile phones?<\/li>\n
- can students\u00a0use any device or is there a limited list of devices that the institution will support?<\/li>\n
- is the medium or software chosen for teaching compatible with all makes of devices students might use?<\/li>\n
- is the network adequate to support any extra students that this initiative will add?<\/li>\n
- who else in the institution\u00a0needs to know that you are requiring students to use particular devices?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
If students are expected to provide their own devices (which increasingly makes sense):<\/p>\n
- \n
- what kind of device\u00a0do they need: one at home with Internet access or a portable that they can bring on to campus – or one that can be used both at home and on campus?<\/li>\n
- what kind of applications will they need to run on their device(s) for study purposes?<\/li>\n
- will they be able to use the same device(s)\u00a0across all courses, or will they need different software\/apps and devices\u00a0for different courses?<\/li>\n
- what skills will students\u00a0need in operating the devices and the apps that will be run on them?<\/li>\n
- if students do not have the skills, would it still be worth their learning them, and will there be time set aside in the course for them to learn these skills?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Students (as well as the instructor) need to know the answers to these questions before they enrol in a course or program. In order to answer these questions, you and your department must know what students will use their devices for. There is no point in requiring students to go to the expense of purchasing a laptop computer if the work they are required to do on it is optional or trivial. This means some advance planning on your part:<\/p>\n
- \n
- what are the educational advantages that you see in student use of a particular device?<\/li>\n
- what will students need to do on the device\u00a0in your course?<\/li>\n
- is it really essential for them to use a device\u00a0in these ways, or could they easily manage without the device? In particular, how will assessment be linked to the use of the device?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It will really help if your institution has good policies in place for student technology access (see Section 7 of this chapter)<\/a>. If the institution does\u00a0not have clear policies or infrastructure\u00a0for supporting the technologies you want to use,\u00a0then your job is going to be a lot harder.<\/p>\n
The answer to the question of access and the choice of technology will also depend somewhat on the mandate of the institution and your personal educational goals. For instance, highly selective universities can require students to use particular devices, and can help the relatively few students who have financial difficulties in purchasing and using specified devices. If though the mandate of the institution is to reach learners denied access to conventional institutions, equity groups, the unemployed, the working poor, or workers needing up-grading or more advanced education and training, then it becomes critical to find out what technology they have access to or are willing to use. If an institution’s policy is open access to anyone who wants to take its courses (which covers most publicly funded school systems), the availability of equipment already in the home<\/em> (usually purchased for entertainment or work purposes) becomes of paramount importance.<\/p>\n
Another important factor to consider is access for student with disabilities. This may mean providing textual or audio options for deaf and visually impaired students respectively. Fortunately there are now well established practices and standards under the general heading of Universal Design standards. Universal Design is\u00a0defined as follows:<\/p>\n
Universal Design for Learning, or UDL, refers to\u00a0the deliberate design of instruction to meet the\u00a0needs of a diverse mix of learners. Universally designed courses attempt to meet all\u00a0learners\u2019 needs by incorporating multiple means of imparting information and flexible\u00a0methods of assessing learning. UDL also includes multiple means of engaging or\u00a0tapping into learners\u2019 interests. Universally designed courses are not designed with\u00a0any one particular group of students with a disability in mind, but rather are designed\u00a0to address the learning needs of a wide-ranging group.<\/em><\/p>\n
Brokop, F. (2008<\/a>)<\/p>\n
Most institutions with a centre for supporting teaching and learning will be able to provide assistance to faculty to ensure the course meets universal design standards. For instance, BCcampus has produced an accessibility toolkit<\/a>\u00a0(Coolidge et l., 2018<\/a>) and Norquest College, Alberta, has published a detailed guide to ensuring online materials are accessible for persons with disabilities.<\/a><\/p>\n
10.2.3 Student differences with respect to learning with technologies<\/h2>\n
It may seem obvious that different students will have different preferences for different kinds of technology or media. The design of teaching would cater for these differences. Thus if students are \u2018visual\u2019 learners, they would be provided with diagrams and illustrations. If they are auditory learners, they will prefer lectures and podcasts. It might appear then that identifying dominant learning styles should provide strong criteria for media and technology selection. However, it is not as simple as that.<\/p>\n
McLoughlin (1999<\/a>), in a thoughtful review of the implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material, concluded that instruction could be designed to accommodate differences in both cognitive-perceptual learning styles and Kolb’s (1984<\/a>) experiential learning cycle. In a study of new intakes conducted over several years at the University of Missouri-Columbia, using the Myers-Briggs inventory, Schroeder (1993<\/a>) found that new students think concretely, and are uncomfortable with abstract ideas and ambiguity.<\/p>\n
However, a major function of a university education is to develop skills of abstract thinking, and to help students deal with complexity and uncertainty. Perry (1970<\/a>) found\u00a0that learning in higher education is a developmental process. It is not surprising then that many students enter college or university without such ‘academic’ skills. Indeed, there are major problems in trying to apply learning styles and other methods of classifying learner differences to media and technology selection and use. Laurillard (2001<\/a>) makes the point that looking at learning styles in the abstract is not helpful. Learning has to be looked at in context. Thinking skills in one subject area do not necessarily transfer well to another subject area. There are ways of thinking that are specific to different subject areas. Thus logical-rational thinkers in science do not necessarily make thoughtful husbands, or good literary critics.<\/p>\n
Part of a university education is to understand and possibly challenge predominant modes of thinking in a subject area. While learner-centered teaching is important, students need to understand the inherent logic, standards, and values of a subject area. They also need to be challenged, and encouraged to think outside the box. In particular, at a university level we need strategies to gradually move students from concrete learning based on personal experience to abstract, reflective learning that can then be applied to new contexts and situations. Technology can be particularly helpful for that, as we saw in Chapter 8.<\/p>\n
Thus\u00a0when designing courses,\u00a0it is important to offer a range of options for student\u00a0learning within the same course. One way to do this is to make sure that a course is\u00a0well structured, with relevant ‘core’ information easily available to all students, but also to make sure that there are opportunities for students to seek out new or different\u00a0content. This content\u00a0should be available in a variety of media such as text, diagrams, audio, video, and computing, with concrete examples explicitly related to underlying principles. The increasing availability of open educational resources (discussed in Chapter 12.2<\/a>) makes the provision of this ‘richness’ of possible content much more viable.<\/p>\n
Similarly,\u00a0technology enables\u00a0a range of learner activities to be made available, such as researching readings on the Web, online discussion forums, synchronous presentations, assessment through e-portfolios, and online group work. The range of activities increases the likelihood that a variety of learner preferences are being met, and also encourages learners to involve themselves in activities and approaches to learning where they may initially feel less comfortable.\u00a0Thus it is important to ensure that students have a wide range of media (text, audio, video, computing) within a course or program.<\/p>\n
Lastly, one should be careful in the assumptions made about student preferences for learning through\u00a0digital technologies. On the one hand, technology ‘boosters’ such as Mark Prensky (2001<\/a>) and Don Tapscott (2008<\/a>) have argued that today’s ‘digital natives’ are different from previous generations of students. They argue that today’s students live within a networked digital universe and therefore expect their learning also to be all digitally networked. It is also true that\u00a0professors in particular tend to underestimate students’ access to advanced technologies (professors are often late adopters of new technology), so you\u00a0should always try to find up-to-date information on\u00a0what devices and technologies students are currently using, if you can.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, it is also dangerous\u00a0to assume that all students are highly ‘digital literate’ and are demanding that new technologies should be used in teaching.\u00a0Jones and Shao (2011<\/a>) conducted a thorough\u00a0review of the literature on ‘digital natives’, with over 200 appropriate references, including surveys of relevant publications from countries in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and South Africa.\u00a0They concluded that:<\/p>\n
- \n
- students vary widely in their use and knowledge of digital media;<\/li>\n
- the gap between students and their teachers in terms of digital literacy is not fixed, nor is the gulf so large\u00a0that it cannot be bridged;<\/li>\n
- there is little evidence that students enter university with demands for new\u00a0technologies that teachers and universities cannot meet;<\/li>\n
- students will respond positively to changes in teaching and learning strategies that include the use of new technologies that are well conceived, well explained and properly embedded in courses and degree\u00a0programmes. However there is no evidence of a pent-up demand amongst\u00a0students for changes in pedagogy or of a demand for greater collaboration;<\/li>\n
- the development of university infrastructure, technology policies and teaching objectives should be choices about the kinds of provision that the university wishes to make and not a response to general statements about what a new generation of students are demanding;<\/li>\n
- the evidence indicates that young students do not form a generational cohort and they do not express consistent or generationally organised demands, thus challenging general assumptions about the differences between post-millennials, millennials, Generation X and boomers in the way that they learn.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Graduating students that have been interviewed about learning technologies at the University of British Columbia made it clear that they will be happy to use technology for learning so long as it contributes to their success (in the words of one student, ‘if it will get me better grades’) but the students also made it clear\u00a0that it was the instructor’s responsibility to decide what technology was best for their studies.<\/p>\n
It is also important to pay attention to what Jones and Shao are not<\/em> saying. They are not saying that social media, personal learning environments, or collaborative learning are inappropriate, nor that the needs of students and the workforce are unchanging or unimportant, but the use of these tools or approaches should be driven by a holistic look at the needs of all students, the needs of the subject area, and the learning goals relevant to a\u00a0digital age, and not by an erroneous view of what a particular generation of students are demanding.<\/p>\n
In summary, one great advantage of the intelligent application of technology to teaching is that it provides opportunities for students to learn in a variety of ways, thus adapting the teaching more easily to student differences. Thus, the first step in media selection is to know your students, their similarities and differences, what technologies they already have access to, and what digital skills they already possess or lack that may be relevant for your courses. This is likely to require\u00a0the use of a wide range of media within the teaching to accommodate these differences.<\/p>\n
10.2.4 The information you need about your students<\/h2>\n
It is critical to know your students.\u00a0In particular, you need the following information to provide an appropriate context for decisions about media and technology:<\/p>\n
1. What is the mandate or policy of your institution, department or program with respect to student access in general (selective vs open; accommodation of disabilities, etc.)? How will students who do not have access to a chosen technology be supported?<\/p>\n
2. What are the likely demographics of the students you will be teaching? How appropriate is the technology you are thinking of using for these students?<\/p>\n
3. If your students are to be taught at least partly off campus, to which technologies are they likely to have convenient and regular access at home or work?<\/p>\n
4. If students\u00a0are to be taught at least partly on campus, what is – or should be – your or your department\u2019s policy with regard to students\u2019 access to devices\u00a0in class?<\/p>\n
5. What digital\u00a0skills do you expect your students to have before they start the program?<\/p>\n
6. If students are expected to provide their own access to technology, will you be able to provide unique teaching experiences that will justify the purchase or use of such technology?<\/p>\n
7. What prior approaches to learning are the students likely to bring to your program? How suitable are such prior approaches to learning likely to be to the way you need to teach the course? How could technology be used to cater for student differences in learning?<\/p>\n
There are many different ways to get the information needed to answer these questions. In many cases, you will still have to make decisions on insufficient evidence, but the more accurate information you have about your potential students, the better your likely choice of media and technology. Almost certainly, though, you will have a variety and diversity of students, so the design of your teaching will need to accommodate this.<\/p>\n
References<\/h1>\n
Brokop, F. (2008)\u00a0Accessibility to E-Learning for Persons With Disabilities: Strategies, Guidelines, and Standards<\/em> <\/a>Edmonton AB: NorQuest College<\/p>\n
\u00a0Coolidge, A. et al (2018) B.C. Open Textbook Accessibility Toolkit<\/a>\u00a0Victoria BC: BCcampus<\/p>\n
International Telecommunications Union (2021) Statistics: Individuals Using the Internet<\/a> Geneva Switzerland: ITU<\/p>\n
Jones, C. and Shao, B. (2011) The Net Generation and Digital Natives: Implications for Higher Education<\/em><\/a> Milton Keynes: Open University\/Higher Education Academy<\/p>\n
Kolb. D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Exper<\/em>ience as the source of learning and development<\/em><\/a> Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall<\/p>\n
Laurillard, D. (2001)\u00a0Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies<\/a><\/em>\u00a0New York\/London: Routledge<\/p>\n
McCoughlin, C. (1999) The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material<\/a> Australian Journal of Educational Technology<\/em>, Vol. 15, No. 3<\/p>\n
Norquest College (2008)\u00a0Accessibility to E-Learning for Persons With Disabilities: Strategies, Guidelines, and Standards<\/a> Edmonton AB: Norquest College<\/p>\n
Perry, W. (1970) Forms of intellectual development and ethical development in the college years: a scheme\u00a0<\/em><\/a>New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston<\/p>\n
Prensky, M. (2001) \u2018Digital natives, Digital Immigrant<\/a>s<\/em>\u2019 On the Horizon Vol. 9, No. 5<\/p>\n
Schroeder, C. (1993) New students\u00a0\u2013\u00a0new learning styles<\/a>, Change,<\/em> Sept.-Oct<\/p>\n