Personal Blogs

	Salaway et al	Kennedy et al
1.  Scope of the study	27,317 student respondents; 98 institutions in USA.  Represents an 11.9% response rate	2120 student respondents; 1 institution in Australia.  Represents a 27.2% response rate.
2. Research questions focused on	Ownership and use of ICT among students.  Their self assessment of skills.  Perceptions of how technology affects their level of engagement and success in their studies.  Focus on use of social networking sites	To assess the assumptions of relative homogeneity of ICT experience and preferences in students compared to Perensky's concept of 'digital natives'.  Particularly to assess the degree to which students use and access various emerging and established ICT.  Also student self-reporting of desire to use ICT.  Considering whether student use of ICT in everyday life is related to a desire to use it for learning
3. Methods used to capture data	Literature review. Quantitative web-based survey questionnaire Student focus groups - 75 students (qualitative data) Qualitative responses from 5877 students (2008) Comparison with previous surveys	4 page paper questionnaire. (2006)
4.  Overarching findings	Survey no longer asks about e-mail, word processing or simple cell phone ownership as these are near global. 98% of respondents own computers and the level of lap top ownership has increased from 65.9% in 2006 to 80.5% in 2008 1.5% do not own a computer at all                   91% of respondents were  members of Facebook but only about half had used it for arranging study meetings or to discuss course related issues.         45.7% reported that IT had improved their learning 31.8% reported that they felt they became more engaged with courses that used ICT. 65.6% felt that ICT made doing course activities more convenient.       Points to a near universal use of the core technologies and substantial use of those considered by Kennedy et al to be more secondary.	96.4% had a mobile phone - however there is no differentiation between simple cell phones and web enabled devices. 89.5% had unrestricted access to a desk top computer and 63.2% to a lap top.  70.5% had unrestricted access to both.  However the question asked about access not ownership so these could be university owned machines.  Salaway asked about ownership. 0.6% of respondents had no access to a computer.   Only 23.8% of respondents used a SNS every day and 62.9% have never used one at all.       75% of students wanted to use ICT in their studies - mostly web research, word processing, text messaging.  Under 5% do not wish to do so.           Identifies a set of homogenous core technologies used by most students - web browsers, word processors, mobile phones.  Also identifies a secondary set of more emergent technologies - wikis, blogs, SNS- which are less used and which students indicate less desire to use in their studies. Points to a considerable degree of diversity in use and desire to use ICT.

 

 

• 1. How does the study compare with the ECAR study?

Kennedy et al find a greater degee of diversity in both use and desire to use ICT by students and this becomes more pronounced the less established the technologies are.  Kennedy does not ask students to rate their skills and abilities in use of ICT so we cannot see whether this difference might correlate to the students perception of their abilities in using ICT compared with the US students.

• 2. Are similar findings emerging?

Broadly, both studies identify core technologies used by almost all students - indeed the Salaway study has ceased to ask about e-mail and word processing, regarding this as global.

For some findings the results were essentially the same (although Kennedy et al asked about what the students wanted to use for learning purposes and Salaway et al about what was actually being done).  For example, Kennedy found that 32.2% of respondents wanted to use blogs for learning.  Salaway found that 34.1% of respondents contributed content to a blog for learning purposes monthly.

 

• 3. Are there any differences in what is being reported for students in the USA compared with those in Australia?

The US study shows much greater use of  some other ICT than the Australian study - in particular SNSs are used by 91% of respondents in Salaway but only 23.8% in Kennedy.

The findings seem to suggest less divergence among the student respondents in Salaway than in Kennedy.

 

• a. What are the main findings from the two studies?

 

Both studies find that there is a core set of technologies that are near universal.  These include e-mail, word processing, text messaging and use of mobile phones. Indeed Salaway et al no longer ask about these core technologies apparently viewing them as universal.  This is a little disappointing because it means that the 'digital dissidents' are now not measured.

 

 Beyond this both identify a secondary set of technologies that are less used.  The difference seems to be that Kennedy et al see much less adoption of some of these technologies than Salaway et al.  For example the use of SNSs is at 23.8% in the Australian study but at 91% of the American respondents.

 

There are also however some similarities between the studies when looking at the use of the secondary technologies for learning.  ).  For example, Kennedy found that 32.2% of respondents wanted to use blogs for learning.  Salaway found that 34.1% of respondents contributed content to a blog for learning purposes monthly.

 

Impressionistically Salaway seems to find less diversity and a higher level of adoption of all technologies than Kennedy.

• b. How do these suggest that students are changing in the ways in which they are using technologies?

It is not possible to tell whether the differences are due to the passage of time - there are two years between the studies which in ICT terms is a lifetime - or to national differences.  Nor is it possible to attribute any causation to the correlations that can be seen, as the authors recognise.

 

One possible explanation is that students are becoming more familiar with all of the technologies as they penetrate society in general and thus more able to use them and more willing to do so in learning.

 

There is also the possiblity that costs are falling: laptops for example are becoming more popular which may be because the prices of powerful laptops have come down so it is no longer necessary to have a desktop box or tower for most purposes.

 

• 1. What (if anything) surprises you?

The extent of the gender disparity in terms of self- description as 'early adopters' of technology.

 

I was not surprised by the observations that students are actually unhappy about use of SNSs as part of their formal learning (as opposed to being used voluntarily by themselves informally to discuss their studies or to arrange study meetings etc).  We all keep our social space and our work space separate to some extent and do not necessarily welcome it when one intrudes on the other.

• 2. How does your own experience of students (or as a student) compare with the patterns reported?

My experience suggests rather more students among my OU groups (Level 1 and Level 2) than the studies found, who struggle to use the core technologies. I spend quite a lot of time at the start of each course with students who cannot work out how to install First Class or use the eTMA system and who cannot navigate a web page (Student Home) to find information that they need.

• 3. What are the implications for how students should be taught - or 'enabled to learn', if you prefer?

The need for clear and unambigous guidance about the kinds and level of skills needed for study (not just ICT).  The potential usefulness of a pre-enrollment practical test of these skills (not relying on self reporting so that the gender perception issue does not mean that students get on to the course and then find that they cannot cope with the ICT) and directed training in areas of weakness.

 

Avoiding assumptions about uses of technology that may increase the costs of learning to the students.  I too would be unhappy about an approach that required subscription to paid for services on top of course fees etc.

 

The need to recognise that students report valuing f2f contact and personal support and have concerns about learning that is wholly delivered on-line.  Motivation and confidence are crucial elements in course completion and success and the student who feels unsupported is unlikely to complete the course.