You are here:

Using research to inform learning technology practice and policy: a qualitative analysis of student perspectives
ARTICLE

, University of Western Sydney ; , Australian Catholic University ; , Macquarie University ; , University of Technology, Sydney

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 30, Number 1, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

As learning technologies are now integral to most higher education student learning experiences, universities need to make strategic choices about what technologies to adopt and how to best support and develop the use of these technologies, particularly in a climate of limited resources. Information from students is therefore a valuable contribution when determining institutional goals, building infrastructure and improving the quality of student learning. This paper draws on a survey of student experiences and expectations of technology across three Australian universities. Analysis of text responses from 7,000 students provides insight into ways that institutional learning technologies and academic-led technologies are influencing the student experience. This paper also discusses how the three universities have used this information to develop strategic initiatives, and identifies a need for new strategies to support academic-led use of the available tools.

Citation

Russell, C., Malfroy, J., Gosper, M. & McKenzie, J. (2014). Using research to inform learning technology practice and policy: a qualitative analysis of student perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ackroyd, S. (2009). Research designs for realist research. In Buchanan (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Resarch Methods (pp. 532-548; 531). London: Sage.
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology new vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.
  3. Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  4. Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (Research Report). Louisville: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
  6. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. (2009) Students and Information Technology in Higher Education: 2010 Survey Questionnaire (Survey Instrument). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
  7. 13EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. (2010) Students and Information Technology in Higher Education: 2010 Survey Questionnaire (Survey Instrument). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
  8. Ed Tech Now. (2012). MOOCS and other ed-tech bubbles. Retrieved from http://edtechnow.net/2012/12/29/moocs-and-other-ed-tech-bubbles
  9. Franzosi, R. (2004). Content analysis. In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T.F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, pp. 187-191, Sage.
  10. Gosper, M., Malfroy, J., & McKenzie, J. (2013). Students' experiences and expectations of technologies: An Australian study designed to inform planning and development decisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 268-282.
  11. Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: The impact of e-learning on academic identities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 553–64.
  12. Ipsos MORI. (2008). Great expectations of ICT: How higher education institutions are measuring up. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Available from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/research/2008/greatexpectations.aspx
  13. JISC. (2011). Student Experiences of Technology. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/campaigns/studentexperiences.aspx
  14. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  15. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., & Freeman, A. (2013). Technology outlook for Australian tertiary education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project regional analysis. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  16. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
  17. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective Use of Learning Technologies. London: Routledge Falmer. Little, B. Locke, W, Scesa, A., & Williams, R. (2009). Report to HEFCE on student engagement. Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2009/rd0309/rd03_09.pdf
  18. Moss, G., Kubacki, K., Hersh, M., & Gunn, R.O.D. (2007). Knowledge management in higher education: A comparison of individualistic and collectivist cultures. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 377-394.
  19. Russell, C. (2009). A systemic framework for managing e-learning adoption in campus universities: individual strategies in an institutional context. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 17(1), 3-19.
  20. Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning management systems. ECAR Research Bulletin, 2008(13). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/web-20-personal-learning-environments-and-futurelearning-management-systems
  21. Weller, M. (2007). The Ed Techie: “The VLE/LMS is dead” [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2007/11/the-vlelms-is-D.html
  22. Weller, M. (2010). The centralisation dilemma in educational IT. International Journal of Virtual and Personal learning Environments, 1(1) 1-9, January-March.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.