Are we ready for smart learning? - Anne Nortcliffe, SHU for MELSIG
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes564 views
The document explores the impact of smart devices on academic practices, highlighting the usage patterns among students and staff at a university surveyed in January 2014. It reveals that while staff primarily use devices for communication and management, students often rely on them for supplementary learning and productivity. The findings indicate a need for improved digital literacy and development efforts from universities and app developers to enhance the integration of smart devices in educational settings.
![Student
StaffConfidence
in using the
device?
[Not
confident 1
- 5 very
confident]
12 staff specify
training.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/nortcliffe-areweready-140415062657-phpapp01/85/Are-we-ready-for-smart-learning-Anne-Nortcliffe-SHU-for-MELSIG-4-320.jpg)
Are we ready for smart learning? - Anne Nortcliffe, SHU for MELSIG
- 1. Are we ready for smart learning? Anne Nortcliffe, and James Weldrake
- 2. Why? Smart devices are having an impact on people’s commercial practice (Chen et al, 2010, Durbin, 2011, Lin and Brown, 2007): • what people work with • who people work with • how people work • where people work • when people work So how much are these devices changing academia?
- 3. Surveyed staff and students? • Students in ACES ~ 5000 • Staff in SHU with mobile ~1410 • Surveyed in January 2014 • 174 ACES & 1 DS Students responded out ~ 5000 • 242 staff responded out ~1410
- 4. Student StaffConfidence in using the device? [Not confident 1 - 5 very confident] 12 staff specify training.
- 5. How staff & student use their smart device? Student (No 168) Staff (No 238) Personal Tool 15% 8% Tool for organising personal and University Life 28% 21% Dependent on tool for certain aspects University Life 32% 36% Use tools multi- functionality throughout University life. 24% 35%
- 6. Category Staff (No 162) Student (No 111) Examples 1.Productivity 51% 64% Word processing, spreadsheets, 2.Reading 10% 5% newspapers, iBooks 3.Browsing 41% 46% Web browser,, TED, 4.Media Capture 22% 17% Sketching, graphing, video 5.Managing learning 77% 82% Blackboard, library, iStudiez, Diigo, Calender, 6. Social media 23% 31% Facebook, twitter, 7.Communications 86% 49% Email, Text, FaceTime 8.Data manipulation 4% 3% Calculators, Surveys 9.Subject specific tools 20% 15% Sim Monitor, Coach’s Eye, SIGN/NICE, NHS apps, 10. Other 30% 28% Job sites, memory training,
- 7. Reality? • Staff primarily reported using calendar and email apps • Students it is Blackboard and writing apps • 73% (No 195) Staff encourage students smart device in classroom • 56% (No 170) Students who use their device in classroom
- 8. Reflections Staff (No 101) Student (No 89) Examples 1. Supplementary learning 35% 17% Goggling, TED, 2. Class response 30% 8% Socratives, Twitter 3. Learning Gathering 24% 55% Note-taking, Audio, Video, 4. View Class Learning Materials 9% 20% Class Slides, Handouts, 5. Collaborative learning 6% 15% Group reflections, Q&A 6.Generate learning 5% 2% Dev’ prest’n in class, 7. Promote Learning Organisation 3% 9% Calendar, DropBox 8. Communication learning 3% 7% Email students materials, 9. Personalised learning 1% 0% Each individual work to their personal style 10. Attendance Monitoring 1% 0% QR Code 11. Discouraged 9% 11% Misuse, Distraction,
- 9. Socrative My Room Number: 606596 SOC#: SOC-3728244
- 10. Thunderstorm of Apps Student example of an app for University Life Staff example of an app for University Life
- 11. Table reflections and discussion? • Identify an app for University Life • Discuss enabling and inhibitors • Note enabling and inhibitors
- 12. Table Summaries Each table summary of inhibitors and enablers
- 13. Inhibitors: limitations or technical challenges of Smart devices/Apps • Students (No 103): • 39% Perceived lack of Apps • 39% Network connection • 24% Limitations of Apps/ Websites viewed on Mobile • Staff (No 112) • 36% Network connection • 26% Physical practicalities
- 14. Enablers: To make life better for smart device(s)/apps • Students (No 88): • 25% Infrastructural Issues: IT Hardware • 42% Infrastructural Issues: IT Software • Staff (No 132) • 23% Infrastructural Issues: IT Hardware • 26% Infrastructural Issues: IT Software • 38% Infrastructural Issues: Staff Development and training/IT Support
- 15. Conclusion • Staff are receptive in class use • Students are apprehensive in class use • Digital literacy is not clear cut between generations • Students gather learning to supplement their learning • Staff use for communication and management for learning • University and App Developers have work to be done
- 16. Reference Chen, J., Park, Y., and Putzer, G. J., 2010 ‘An examination of the components that increase acceptance of Smartphones among Healthcare Professionals’, electronic Journal of Health Informatics, 5(2), 2010, e16