During August and September 2011, a survey was sent to all public HEIs in South Africa to establish the use of emerging technologies (ET) by academics and support staff.
In identifying the survey participants, convenience sampling was used, whereby members of the research team named possible educators who were known to be using ET in their teaching and support staff involved in supporting these technologies (identified sample size=194). Directors of teaching and learning and senior academics at all South African HEIs were also targeted (identified sample size=42). The sample was broadened using snowballing sampling.
Overall, a total of 262 participants responded to the survey, from all the 22 public HEIs in South Africa. Because of the sampling methods used, the small number of respondents and the fact the researchers were interested in how ET were used rather than how many educators used specific ET, results of this study might not be representative of all academics staff in the participating institutions, but are sufficient to give detailed insights into teaching and learning practices with ET in South African HE.
The survey tool was piloted in two phases: phase one targeted members of the research team, while phase two included national and international academics knowledgeable in the field of emerging technologies. The pilot was aimed at ensuring that the survey questions were well designed to elicit data, which would address the research questions.
The final survey tool comprised 30 questions which were a mixture of open-ended and closed questions designed to establish the ways in which ET were used and whether such uses had any transformative effect on pedagogical practices. Questions explored usage of ET, innovative practices with these technologies, the reasons for use, the effects on teaching and learning and the constraints and support from the institution.
The survey tool provided links to further information on the various technologies listed in the questionnaire in case educators were not familiar with the ones listed in the question. Respondents had an opportunity to mention other technologies they considered emerging.
The survey tool provided links to further information on the various technologies listed in the questionnaire in case educators were not familiar with the ones listed in the question. Respondents had an opportunity to mention other technologies they considered emerging.
Table 1: Use of emerging technologies by respondents (N=200)
Please indicate your use or non-use of the following technologies in your teaching | On a regular basis | At least once a year | Never | Never heard of | ||||
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Research databases (e.g. Ebscohost; Academic Premier) | 123 | 62% | 26 | 13% | 48 | 24% | 3 | 2% |
Social media (e.g. Flickr, YouTube, Slideshare, Picasa, Vimeo) | 97 | 49% | 39 | 20% | 61 | 31% | 3 | 2% |
Social networking (e.g. Facebook) | 89 | 45% | 38 | 19% | 71 | 36% | 2 | 1% |
Instant messaging (e.g. GoogleTalk, Mxit) | 76 | 38% | 35 | 18% | 89 | 45% | 0 | 0% |
E-books | 75 | 38% | 57 | 29% | 66 | 33% | 2 | 1% |
Web-based documents (e.g. Google Docs, Google Forms) | 73 | 37% | 51 | 26% | 71 | 36% | 5 | 3% |
Blogging (e.g. Blogger, WordPress) | 69 | 35% | 45 | 23% | 78 | 39% | 8 | 4% |
Bibliographic management (e.g. RefWorks, Zotero, Mendeley) | 67 | 34% | 51 | 26% | 69 | 35% | 13 | 7% |
Internet phone (e.g. Skype) | 65 | 33% | 40 | 20% | 94 | 47% | 1 | 1% |
Open Educational Resources repositories | 62 | 31% | 58 | 29% | 77 | 39% | 3 | 2% |
Wikis (e.g. Wikis within an LMS; MediaWiki, Wikispaces, PBWiki) | 55 | 28% | 53 | 27% | 87 | 44% | 5 | 3% |
Podcasting / Vodcasting (e.g. Podcast Capture, Movie maker, Audacity) | 46 | 23% | 54 | 27% | 98 | 49% | 2 | 1% |
RSS Feeds | 46 | 23% | 28 | 14% | 101 | 51% | 25 | 13% |
Multimedia production; Digital stories (e.g. Windows MovieMaker) | 40 | 20% | 53 | 27% | 104 | 52% | 3 | 2% |
Concept and Mindmapping (e.g. Bubbl.us, CMap, Freemind) | 38 | 19% | 49 | 25% | 101 | 51% | 12 | 6% |
Microblogging (e.g. Twitter) | 37 | 19% | 34 | 17% | 126 | 63% | 3 | 2% |
Screencasting (e.g. Camtasia, Camstudio, Captivate, Wink) | 29 | 15% | 30 | 15% | 122 | 61% | 19 | 10% |
Lecture capturing (e.g. Opencast, Camtasia Relay, Echo360) | 28 | 14% | 34 | 17% | 120 | 60% | 18 | 9% |
Modelling / Simulation tools | 28 | 14% | 34 | 17% | 130 | 65% | 8 | 4% |
Reusable learning objects | 26 | 13% | 23 | 12% | 106 | 53% | 45 | 23% |
Webconferencing (e.g. elluminate, MS Lync, dimdim, Adobe Connect) | 24 | 12% | 38 | 19% | 131 | 66% | 7 | 4% |
Student/Personal response systems / Clickers (e.g. Turning Point) | 22 | 11% | 18 | 9% | 148 | 74% | 12 | 6% |
Tablet computers | 22 | 11% | 25 | 13% | 151 | 76% | 2 | 1% |
Social bookmarking (e.g. Delicious) | 21 | 11% | 17 | 9% | 142 | 71% | 20 | 10% |
Context aware environments and devices (e.g. geotagging) | 15 | 8% | 16 | 8% | 139 | 70% | 30 | 15% |
Electronic portfolios (e.g. Carbonmade, Exabis, Mahara) | 15 | 8% | 26 | 13% | 139 | 70% | 20 | 10% |
Adaptive systems / Assisstive technologies (e.g. Screenreaders) | 12 | 6% | 20 | 10% | 123 | 62% | 45 | 23% |
Games and Massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) | 12 | 6% | 18 | 9% | 163 | 82% | 7 | 4% |
Learning analytics | 11 | 6% | 23 | 12% | 119 | 60% | 47 | 24% |
Argumentation Visualisation (debategraph) | 8 | 4% | 8 | 4% | 131 | 66% | 53 | 27% |
Augmented Reality (AR) | 7 | 4% | 9 | 5% | 132 | 66% | 52 | 26% |
Virtual worlds / Immersive technologies (e.g. Second Life) | 6 | 3% | 15 | 8% | 162 | 81% | 17 | 9% |
Remote instrumentation (e.g. remote labs) | 5 | 3% | 12 | 6% | 170 | 85% | 13 | 7% |
Table 2: Technology used in the most innovative teaching intervention over the last five years
Technology | N | % |
LMS / CMS | 59 | 24% |
Blogging | 20 | 8% |
Podcasting / Vodcasting | 20 | 8% |
Social media | 18 | 7% |
Social networking | 16 | 7% |
Multimedia production; Digital stories | 13 | 5% |
Screencasting | 12 | 5% |
Research databases | 9 | 4% |
Instant messaging | 7 | 3% |
Microblogging | 7 | 3% |
Modelling / Simulation tools | 7 | 3% |
Web-based documents | 8 | 3% |
Wikis | 8 | 3% |
Bibliographic management | 5 | 2% |
Open Educational Resources repositories | 6 | 2% |
Student/Personal response systems | 5 | 2% |
Tablet computers | 6 | 2% |
Concept and Mindmapping | 3 | 1% |
E-books | 2 | 1% |
Electronic portfolios | 2 | 1% |
Internet phone | 3 | 1% |
Social bookmarking | 2 | 1% |
Webconferencing | 3 | 1% |
Total | 241 |
Table 3: What prompted you to explore the use of this specific technology/ies?
(175 Responses)
(175 Responses)
Option | Count | Percent | |||||
Personal interest: I am passionate about technology | 100 | 28% | |||||
It is available at my institution | 81 | 23% | |||||
Institutional workshop / demonstration | 36 | 10% | |||||
My institution requires this of me | 29 | 8% | |||||
My colleagues had positive results using this technology | 29 | 8% | |||||
My students demanded this | 17 | 5% | |||||
I experienced it as a student in my studies | 13 | 4% | |||||
Other: To improve learning | 12 | 3% | |||||
I saw this at a conference | 11 | 3% | |||||
I read about it in a paper | 11 | 3% | |||||
Incentive (funding, policy) | 6 | 2% | |||||
Other (various) | 6 | 2% | |||||
Total | 351 | 100% |
Table 4: Constraints
| Institutional constraints | | |
| inadequate access to the Internet | 20 | 21% |
| using own equipment | 5 | 5% |
| lack of equipment (computers) | 15 | 15% |
| institutional systems | 9 | 9% |
| lack of funding | 3 | 3% |
| 54% | ||
| Lecturer's constraints | | |
| lack of time/ time management | 8 | 8% |
| lack of support for students / large classes | 2 | 2% |
| difficulties in evaluating technology | 1 | 1% |
| lack of colleagues' support due to fear of change, resistance | 10 | 10% |
| time management, expectation of immediate feedback | 1 | 1% |
| lecturer's skills and attitude | 2 | 2% |
| 25% | ||
| Students' constraints | | |
| lack of skills in students | 7 | 7% |
| lack of student motivation (especially if no marks allocated), mixed take up | 7 | 7% |
| cost transferred to students | 1 | 1% |
| students' access off campus | 5 | 5% |
| plagiarism | 1 | 1% |
| | | 22% |
| | | |
| Total comments | 97 | |
