skip to main content
10.1145/3197091.3197125acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How seamless are technology-rich learning environments? the voice of IT educators

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Educational environments in higher education Information Technology (IT) courses typically involve the use of multiple technologies. Such technology-rich learning and teaching environments (TRLTEs) can enhance a student’s learning experiences and support learning in different settings (e.g., in-class and out-of-class, individual and group learning) and promote flexibility in learning in terms of time, space and access to learning resources. However, these can be complex teaching environments for educators to manage. A challenge for educators is to ensure that learning across multiple technologies and contexts happens seamlessly. Seamless learning is a notion whereby students transition smoothly from one learning setting to another, typically aided by technology. This paper reports the findings of an exploratory qualitative study of IT educators’ experiences of a TRLTE. Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit IT educators’ views of enablers and barriers to learning seamlessly. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis technique. The findings revealed several issues in facilitating learning in a TRLTE and IT educators used various technologies to bridge the seams in their students’ learning. We discuss the findings and the implications for providing a seamless learning experience.

References

  1. K. Burden and M. Kearney. 2016. Future Scenarios for Mobile Science Learning. Research in Science Education 46, 2 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. s11165-016-9514-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Nadire Cavus and Dogan Ibrahim. 2009. m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, 1 (jan 2009), 78–91. 00801.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tak-Wai Chan, Jeremy Roschelle, Sherry Hsi, Kinshuk, Mike Sharples, Tom Brown, Charles Patton, John Cherniavsky, Roy Pea, Cathie Norris, Elliot Soloway, Nicolas Balacheff, Marlene Scardamalia, Pierre Dillenbourg, Chee-Kit Looi, Marcelo Milrad, and Ulrich Hoppe. 2006. One-To-One Technology-Enhanced Learning: an Opportunity for Global Research Collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 01, 01 (2006), 3–29. S1793206806000032Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Linda Creanor, Kathryn Trinder, Doug Gowan, and Carol Howells. 2006. LEX: Learner experiences of e-Learning: Final Project Report. Technical Report August. 1– 44 pages. arXiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. John W. Creswell. 2009. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications Ltd, Los Angeles. 260 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Teresa Franklin and Li-Wei Peng. 2008. Mobile math: math educators and students engage in mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 20, 2 (oct 2008), 69–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jennifer Groff. 2013. Technology-rich innovative learning environments. Oecd.Org (2013), 1–30. arXiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jisc. 2006. Designing Spaces for Effective Learning:A guide to 21st century learning space design. Technical Report 27/08/09. 1–36 pages. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ eli{_}learningspaces.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S.C. Kong and Y. Song. 2014. The impact of a principle-based pedagogical design on inquiry-based learning in a seamless learning environment in Hong Kong. Educational Technology and Society 17, 2 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Agnes Kukulska-Hulme. 2007. Mobile usability in educational contexts: What have we learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8, 2 (2007). http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2. 0-34250688362{&}partnerID=tZOtx3y1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Mary R. Lea and Sylvia Jones. 2011. Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education 36, 4 (2011), 377–393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. C.-K. Looi, P. Seow, B. Zhang, H.-J. So, W. Chen, and L.-H. Wong. 2010. Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology 41, 2 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 2008.00912.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. C.-K. Looi, D. Sun, and W. Xie. 2015. Exploring students’ progression in an inquiry science curriculum enabled by mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 8, 1 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. C.-K. Looi and L.-H. Wong. 2014. Implementing mobile learning curricula in schools: A programme of research from innovation to scaling. Educational Technology and Society 17, 2 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nadia Pantidi, Hugh Robinson, and Yvonne Rogers. 2010. Understanding technology-rich learning spaces. In 28th CHI Conference. Oepn UUniversity y, 1 – 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. 2009. Research methods for business students (5th editio ed.). Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate. 649 pages. https://is.vsfs.cz/el/6410/leto2014/BA{_}BSeBM/um/ Research{_}Methods{_}for{_}Business{_}Students{_}{_}5th{_}Edition.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Carly Shuler, Niaal Winters, and Mark West. 2013. THE FUTURE OF MOBILE LEARNING - Implications for policy makers and planners. UNESCO - United National Educational. (2013), 1–44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Y. Toh, H.-J. So, P. Seow, W. Chen, and C.-K. Looi. 2013. Seamless learning in the mobile age: A theoretical and methodological discussion on using cooperative inquiry to study digital kids on-the-move. Learning, Media and Technology 38, 3 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirsty Williamson and Graeme Johanson (Eds.). 2013. Research Methods: Information, Systems and Contexts. Tilde Publishing and Distribution. 556 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Daniel T Willingham, Elizabeth M Hughes, and David G Dobolyi. 2016. The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teaching of Psychology 42, 3 (2016), 266–271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. L.-H. Wong. 2013. Enculturating self-directed learners through a facilitated seamless learning process framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 22, 3 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. L.-H. Wong, C.-K. Chin, C.-L. Tan, and M. Liu. 2010. Students’ personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology and Society 13, 4 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Lung Hsiang Wong and Chee Kit Looi. 2011. What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How seamless are technology-rich learning environments? the voice of IT educators

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
      July 2018
      394 pages
      ISBN:9781450357074
      DOI:10.1145/3197091

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 July 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

      Upcoming Conference

      ITiCSE 2024
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader