Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Michael Flavin
related staff (3 from the same specialist H.E.I., and 1 from a campus university). The questionnaires
were issued and returned in the period November 2010-March 2011.
The second phase of the pilot study comprised two semi-structured interviews of participants from the
original sample, an approach which made it possible to identify what learners have done with
technologies, and how participants articulate their experiences with technologies, thereby helping to
generate an understanding of the meanings participants create for and with technologies.
The interview transcripts were analysed with the primary aim of identifying disruptions and
contradictions, and exploring how purposes for technologies are established through usage. Analysis
of the interviews was also interested in how participants gained competence in technologies, and in
exploring the interactions between nodes in an activity system.
6. Findings
The questionnaires show specific technologies being used for more than one purpose. For example,
Facebook is used for recreation by 16 participants, but also for work (7) and informal learning (3), with
informal learning signifying learning not undertaken in the context of a formal course. Twitter is used
for recreation by 10 participants, but also for work (7) and informal learning (5). This phenomenon
echoes research by Conole et al. (2008), in the sense that technology blurs the lines between study,
work and recreation.
The questionnaire findings for LinkedIn and Wikipedia are particularly noteworthy. LinkedIn
encourages individuals to create a profile foregrounding “professional expertise and
accomplishments” thereby “linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts”
(LinkedIn 2011). Its focus and raison d’être is therefore clearly professional, yet while 4 participants
use it for work, 5 use it for recreation and 4 for informal learning. The meanings of the technology are
not dictated by design, but emerge from usage. While the evidence base for this assertion is small, it
would be worthwhile seeing if the same results were replicated in a larger sample beyond the pilot
study phase.
The findings for Wikipedia indicate its ubiquity, as it crosses boundaries between work, study and
recreation. Twenty-one participants use it for recreation, 20 for informal learning, 15 for formal
learning, and 16 for work. In addition, Wikipedia has displaced, or at least challenged, more
established encyclopedias, which are sustaining technologies in the sense that they update their
knowledge along existing lines and publication formats, but find it difficult to complete with a rival
encyclopedia which is free, and available to anyone with access to a networked device. One
participant stated, “The biggest advantage of Wikipedia is that the answers are at your finger tips, you
can ask a question and the answer appears without the need for flicking from chapter to chapter in a
book.” Like many disruptive technologies, Wikipedia is cheaper (free in this particular case) and more
convenient than its more established rivals.
The questionnaires do not reveal any significant patterns of usage among distinct groups. Students at
levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the UK Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (QAA 2008) were
questioned, but did not provide any data to suggest that individuals at different stages in a community
of practice have different levels of technology awareness and usage.
The two interviews were conducted with a lecturer who teaches at both a campus university and a
smaller, specialist H.E.I., and with a Learning Technologist at the same specialist H.E.I., who is also a
postgraduate student studying by distance learning. Both interviews were conducted in February
2011.
The interview with the lecturer referred to her experiences teaching on an undergraduate degree at a
campus university, where students can post materials on the V.L.E.:
Q. Instead of all the learning and teaching resources at [name of institution] coming from
you – some of them maybe posted by you, but essentially coming from the students.
How do you feel about that?
A. I think it’s absolutely brilliant because they’re engaging in that process. And they’re
not just waiting to be spoon fed. They’re actually actively seeking materials and they’re
sharing it with everyone else.
921