An investigation into the way PhD students utilise ICT to support their doctoral research process

The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has grown enormously in the last decade with computers and smart devices becoming indispensable in tertiary students’ study practices. There is, however, limited documented research about the ways PhD students use ICT in their research practice. Under normal circumstances, it is assumed that PhD students will make use of ICT (e.g., computer technologies) throughout their research journey for a variety of generic and specialised purposes. This study thus examines the degree to which PhD students use ICT to support their doctoral research in their daily academic practices. In order to better understand the role of ICT among PhD students in an uncontrived context, the study adopted the interpretive, naturalist enquiry and analysis approach proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1989), from social constructivist perspectives. This approach underpinned the decision to select a small number of participants from within a particular context to investigate their understandings of their experiences and use of ICT to support their research, in light of the adopted socio-technical framework (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977a). Three data sources were used in this study. Computer activity data was extracted from the computer devices of nine full time PhD students who self-reported as being skilled computer users. The second data source consisted of drawings gathered from the same group of participants about their doctoral research process involving the use of ICT. The third dataset represented photographs of this cohort of participants’ work areas as well as individual and group discussion sessions about the participants’ ICT use in this process. The analysis took into account the emphasis of the socio-technical framework: the relationship and/or the tensions that exist between the PhD student participants (the social aspect) and ICT (the technical aspect). An analysis of the five areas of findings revealed that: 1) The ways PhD students used ICT in the process of undertaking doctoral research were similar, regardless of the phase of their PhD. 2) The ways PhD students used ICT in the doctoral research process were similar, regardless of their discipline backgrounds (the only difference was the frequency of the document types they accessed in their daily research practices). 3) The socio-technical systems in the doctoral research process in regard to the PhD students’ goal-directed behaviours of producing a doctoral thesis in the “best possible ways” are co-adopted and co-adapted to each other at a minimum level. 4) The computer activities of the PhD students in their day-to-day research practices showed a misalignment between their level of computer literacy and their academic achievement. 5) Individual PhD students presented differences in their ways of using ICT during their doctoral research process but their concept of ICT use was not different as a cohort. In addition, the characteristics of “Curation”, “Combat”, “Coping” and “Conforming” situate within the context of PhD students’ ICT use in the process of accomplishing their doctoral research in relation to their notion of the best possible ways to be “efficient” and “effective”. The findings of this study raise questions about the role played by ICT in advancing learning in higher education and highlights an aspect of limitation in these students’ academic or research-orientated use of ICT. This could be due to taken-for-granted and/or overlooked acceptance that all students are proficient ICT users which may result in a lack of intervention, support, and emphasis of ICT support, as well as educational approach for ICT use in the process of undertaking doctoral research. The ways participants use ICT as represented in this study did not lead them to the construct of using ICT in the “best possible ways” within the doctoral research process. The tension that exists between the social (the PhD students in this context) and the technical (ICT) systems within this process could be the main concern as well as the main cause of this phenomenon. Such tension, however, could be resolved if there is a “shared” construct for the ideas of the notions of computer literacy, ICT teaching and learning, the process of carrying out PhD study, and the use of technology in this process. In summary, the findings of this study have relevance for the broader tertiary population to engender awareness of a different way to understand research into student behaviour. In this way, the study will provide an opportunity for academics, especially supervisors of postgraduate research students, to understand to what extent ICT plays a role in PhD students’ research processes and/or to what degree technological support might be required to support PhD students. Further, it is hoped that the findings generated from this study will help promote a deeper conversation about the ways PhD students use ICT in their research. Perhaps research on larger and more diverse groups of students could be considered to obtain more representative data of the student population, as this study is focussed on a small group of students at one university. Additionally, visual and situated behavioural data could be employed in researching ICT use as such data may offer new insights not found in data gathered through questionnaires and surveys

The EdTech difference: Digitalisation, digital pedagogy, and technology enhanced learning

This editorial is in support of an issue of the Journal that has a focus on educational technology (EdTech). With this in mind, this editorial will provide advice on how the editorial team for this section feels that educational technology will evolve into the latter part of the 2020’s, especially given the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples are given of how writing in this space has changed over the years of the pandemic, with a history of EdTech given, followed by an argument for the need for technology to be used in context. This is followed by descriptions of good practice around theoretical framing, methodology rigour, inclusion of the people element, and the need for the technology to serve a purpose. The piece concludes with a summary of where the editorial team feels the field will go from here into the future. Throughout, practical examples of submissions made over the last few years are given to help illustrate a coherent direction. It is anticipated that this editorial will serve as a guide for future authors to use in service of better educational technology outputs in the future

The Role/Importance of Personal Computers to Support Learning in Higher Education

Background: This scoping study examines the degree to which students use their personal computers to support their undergraduate academic practice in their daily study habits. Methods: Three data sources were used in this study. Computer activity data was extracted from the personal laptops of 18 third-year undergraduate students who self-reported as being skilled computer users. The second data source consisted of video data captured by four third-year undergraduate students of their personal study activity within their homes. The third dataset represented secondary data sourced from two local student surveys looking at student technology use from 2009-2012 and internationally acclaimed research-based EDUCAUSE studies also from 2009 to 2012. Findings: Three core themes: (a) Computer-based Approach vs Paper-based Approach; (b) Production Activity vs Consumption Activity; and (c) Self-reports of Practice vs Actual Practice emerged from these datasets. An analysis of these themes revealed that for the participants involved: 1] paper-based approaches to study were preferred over digital despite the high rate of personal computer ownership and internet access; 2] students were more likely to engage in production than consumption activities using paper-based approaches to study; 3] there was a disparity between students’ self-reports of their adoption of technology compared with their actual practice of both academic and non-academic use of computer technology. In addition, students’ computer use presented a low level of alignment when compared between their academic course demands and their assignment schedule. Discussion: The findings of this exploratory study illustrate a considerable disparity that appeared between what students thought they used computers for and what they actually did use them for. While the students’ preference for paper-based approaches could be linked to unease or lack of awareness regarding academic software, evidence suggested that dependence on paper-based approaches in undergraduate education was due to an inherent focus on paper-based ethos. At the same time, the primary paper-based approach to production and consumption activities indicated that personal computers were not as crucial to undergraduate academic study as expected. This was supported by the lack of any clear pattern regarding students’ daily computer use plotted against their course assignment schedule

The Role/Importance of Personal Computers to Support Learning in Higher Education

Background: This scoping study examines the degree to which students use their personal computers to support their undergraduate academic practice in their daily study habits. Methods: Three data sources were used in this study. Computer activity data was extracted from the personal laptops of 18 third-year undergraduate students who self-reported as being skilled computer users. The second data source consisted of video data captured by four third-year undergraduate students of their personal study activity within their homes. The third dataset represented secondary data sourced from two local student surveys looking at student technology use from 2009-2012 and internationally acclaimed research-based EDUCAUSE studies also from 2009 to 2012. Findings: Three core themes: (a) Computer-based Approach vs Paper-based Approach; (b) Production Activity vs Consumption Activity; and (c) Self-reports of Practice vs Actual Practice emerged from these datasets. An analysis of these themes revealed that for the participants involved: 1] paper-based approaches to study were preferred over digital despite the high rate of personal computer ownership and internet access; 2] students were more likely to engage in production than consumption activities using paper-based approaches to study; 3] there was a disparity between students’ self-reports of their adoption of technology compared with their actual practice of both academic and non-academic use of computer technology. In addition, students’ computer use presented a low level of alignment when compared between their academic course demands and their assignment schedule. Discussion: The findings of this exploratory study illustrate a considerable disparity that appeared between what students thought they used computers for and what they actually did use them for. While the students’ preference for paper-based approaches could be linked to unease or lack of awareness regarding academic software, evidence suggested that dependence on paper-based approaches in undergraduate education was due to an inherent focus on paper-based ethos. At the same time, the primary paper-based approach to production and consumption activities indicated that personal computers were not as crucial to undergraduate academic study as expected. This was supported by the lack of any clear pattern regarding students’ daily computer use plotted against their course assignment schedule

An investigation into the way PhD students utilise ICT to support their doctoral research process

The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has grown enormously in the last decade with computers and smart devices becoming indispensable in tertiary students’ study practices. There is, however, limited documented research about the ways PhD students use ICT in their research practice. Under normal circumstances, it is assumed that PhD students will make use of ICT (e.g., computer technologies) throughout their research journey for a variety of generic and specialised purposes. This study thus examines the degree to which PhD students use ICT to support their doctoral research in their daily academic practices. In order to better understand the role of ICT among PhD students in an uncontrived context, the study adopted the interpretive, naturalist enquiry and analysis approach proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1989), from social constructivist perspectives. This approach underpinned the decision to select a small number of participants from within a particular context to investigate their understandings of their experiences and use of ICT to support their research, in light of the adopted socio-technical framework (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977a). Three data sources were used in this study. Computer activity data was extracted from the computer devices of nine full time PhD students who self-reported as being skilled computer users. The second data source consisted of drawings gathered from the same group of participants about their doctoral research process involving the use of ICT. The third dataset represented photographs of this cohort of participants’ work areas as well as individual and group discussion sessions about the participants’ ICT use in this process. The analysis took into account the emphasis of the socio-technical framework: the relationship and/or the tensions that exist between the PhD student participants (the social aspect) and ICT (the technical aspect). An analysis of the five areas of findings revealed that: 1) The ways PhD students used ICT in the process of undertaking doctoral research were similar, regardless of the phase of their PhD. 2) The ways PhD students used ICT in the doctoral research process were similar, regardless of their discipline backgrounds (the only difference was the frequency of the document types they accessed in their daily research practices). 3) The socio-technical systems in the doctoral research process in regard to the PhD students’ goal-directed behaviours of producing a doctoral thesis in the “best possible ways” are co-adopted and co-adapted to each other at a minimum level. 4) The computer activities of the PhD students in their day-to-day research practices showed a misalignment between their level of computer literacy and their academic achievement. 5) Individual PhD students presented differences in their ways of using ICT during their doctoral research process but their concept of ICT use was not different as a cohort. In addition, the characteristics of “Curation”, “Combat”, “Coping” and “Conforming” situate within the context of PhD students’ ICT use in the process of accomplishing their doctoral research in relation to their notion of the best possible ways to be “efficient” and “effective”. The findings of this study raise questions about the role played by ICT in advancing learning in higher education and highlights an aspect of limitation in these students’ academic or research-orientated use of ICT. This could be due to taken-for-granted and/or overlooked acceptance that all students are proficient ICT users which may result in a lack of intervention, support, and emphasis of ICT support, as well as educational approach for ICT use in the process of undertaking doctoral research. The ways participants use ICT as represented in this study did not lead them to the construct of using ICT in the “best possible ways” within the doctoral research process. The tension that exists between the social (the PhD students in this context) and the technical (ICT) systems within this process could be the main concern as well as the main cause of this phenomenon. Such tension, however, could be resolved if there is a “shared” construct for the ideas of the notions of computer literacy, ICT teaching and learning, the process of carrying out PhD study, and the use of technology in this process. In summary, the findings of this study have relevance for the broader tertiary population to engender awareness of a different way to understand research into student behaviour. In this way, the study will provide an opportunity for academics, especially supervisors of postgraduate research students, to understand to what extent ICT plays a role in PhD students’ research processes and/or to what degree technological support might be required to support PhD students. Further, it is hoped that the findings generated from this study will help promote a deeper conversation about the ways PhD students use ICT in their research. Perhaps research on larger and more diverse groups of students could be considered to obtain more representative data of the student population, as this study is focussed on a small group of students at one university. Additionally, visual and situated behavioural data could be employed in researching ICT use as such data may offer new insights not found in data gathered through questionnaires and surveys

Academic development through a pandemic crisis: Lessons learnt from three cases incorporating technical, pedagogical and social support

Distance or online learning is more than simply uploading and delivering learning resources to learners but in fact, it is a process that provides learners with autonomy, responsibility, flexibility and choice. This can be a challenge for many academic teachers. In 2020, as universities globally shifted to online learning, in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of staff have supported colleagues to develop e-learning techniques ‘just-in-time’ for effective delivery to students in fully online platforms. This has required a transformation of educational development and faculty support globally. This paper will reflect on mechanisms of support demonstrating tailored staff support to transform education in three case scenario contexts, during the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in three different countries. Our case studies illustrate that support lies beyond technological capability building to also incorporate the essentials of holistic well-being and resilience reinforcement. This paper demonstrates temporary solutions to a global crisis in online education and reflects on lessons learnt and how e-teaching and e-learning support may transform beyond the pandemic

Models of Professional Development for Technology-Enhanced Learning in the Virtual University

Due to the rapid progress of technologies used in academic practices, higher education today is dynamic and constantly changing, which makes it necessary for academics to apply and continuously reflect on new and refreshed teaching and learning strategies (e.g., virtual mode). This chapter draws on data from two case studies that evaluates academic digital capabilities. The case studies were based at a New Zealand institution which implemented “new” strategies related to educational technologies. The (un)seamless technology integration in teaching and learning practices that emerged from the cases demonstrates diverse perspectives on the role of educational technologies in teaching and learning, leading to questionable use of technologies in terms of both “efficiency” and “effectiveness.”Based on these case studies, we propose that explicit academic TEL (technology-enhanced learning) development support should be offered to academics to enable them to leverage the affordances of educational technology tools in a pedagogically sound manner in teaching and learning practices. In this chapter, we propose a model for engaging, training, and supporting academic use of TEL. This model considers the needs of academics, and suggests how academic TEL development could be designed for the virtual university

Conceiving career coaching during COVID-19: A Case Study of 2020 ASCILITE CMP

A recording of the Pecha Kucha Dr Kwong Nui and I delivered during ASCILITE2021 on some interesting outcomes from the data analysis of the ASCILITE Community Mentoring Program (CMP) data from 2020, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic

Visualising the Doctoral Research Process: an exploration into empirical research processes of emerging researchers.

No description supplie