Logo image
Capturing the invisible: Non-institutional technologies in undergraduate learning within three New Zealand universities
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Capturing the invisible: Non-institutional technologies in undergraduate learning within three New Zealand universities

Qian Liu, Tehmina Gladman, Christina Grove, Sally Eberhard, Susan Geertshuis, Anthony Ali, Phil Blyth and Rebecca Grainger
The Internet and higher education, Vol.58, p.100910
06/2023
Handle:
https://hdl.handle.net/10523/19465

Abstract

Higher education Learning technology Online learning Phenomenology Undergraduate University
Research in Internet-enabled learning tends to focus on technologies implemented by institutions or staff. In reality, students learn with technologies that go beyond institutional offerings. This misalignment risks universities' approaches to online technologies being partially relevant to student learning. To understand student experiences, we followed hermeneutic phenomenology, interviewing 22 students from three New Zealand universities. Content and thematic analyses showed that students used non-institutional technologies to augment institutional offerings. They experienced institutional technologies as being overloaded with information, and non-institutional technologies as enabling them to process information expediently and take control of their own learning. We also identified differences between high and low-achieving students in technology use, which were associated with motivation, awareness of technologies, and metacognition. Our study highlights the role of non-institutional technologies in learning, which has implications for future research, for the design and implementation of institutional technologies, and for preparing students to learn with technologies. •There was limited research into students' use of non-institutional technologies.•Students chose non-institutional technologies for efficient and self-regulated learning.•Higher and lower achievers used non-institutional technologies differently.•The differences lay in motivation, awareness of technologies and metacognition.

Details

Logo image