Crossing boundaries: Lecturers’ perspectives on the use of WhatsApp to support teaching and learning in Higher Education Daniela Gachago, CPUT Sonja Strydom, SU Pauline Hanekom, SU Shaheda Simons, UWC Shirley Walters, UWC
Jul 07, 2015
Crossing
boundaries:
Lecturers’
perspectives on the
use of WhatsApp to
support teaching
and learning in
Higher EducationDaniela Gachago, CPUT
Sonja Strydom, SU
Pauline Hanekom, SU
Shaheda Simons, UWC
Shirley Walters, UWC
Problem statement
Rising use of mobile technology (Sharples et al.
2012; Rambe & Bere 2013)
Ubiquitous nature of mobile technology
Mobile technology to bridge digital divide? (Brown & Czerniewicz 2010)
Social usage
Use for informal learning (Pimmer & Pachler 2014)
Staff challenged to imagine ways to use it for formal learning and teaching
Research question
How does WhatsApp as a boundary
object impacted on lecturers’ teaching and their students’ learning practices?
How is this impacted by pedagogical
model chosen, rules of engagement,
group ownership and learner profile?
Affordances of WhatsApp
Widely used
Resource non-intensive
Works on feature phones
Sharing of resources/multimedia very easy
Group functionality
Mute functionality
The notion of boundaries…
Boundary objects: particular artefacts associated with the crossing process and that fulfil a bridging function(Akkerman and Bakker 2011)
Boundary crossing: transition from one territory to another
Learning within boundaries: involves the integration of knowledge and experience from two different settings constructing new knowledge in the process (Dillon 2008)
Mobile technologies as
boundary objects…
Mobile technology allows the crossing of
boundaries…
across cultures, locations, time, formal
and informal learning, and professionals,
be they novice or expert…(Pimmer and Groehbiel
2013)
Boundary mechanisms of
learning (Akkerman and Bakker 2011)
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation
IdentificationBoundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Identification
• Different sites are questioned and
accordingly redesigned
Othering
• Comparison of one practice with
another in order to identify differences
Legitimate coexistence
• Working in different groups and/or sites
and considering interference and
expectations of a number of
relationships in different groups
CoordinationBoundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Coordination
• Overcoming boundary for continuity to take
place
Communicative connection
• Boundary objects to be shared by various role
players
Efforts of translation
• Boundary objects used to translate aspects in
different sites
• Boundary objects to address the multiplicity of
different sense makings
Enhancing boundary permeability
• Effortless exchanges and lack of considered
choice and effort
Routinization
• Practices take place routinely with little or no
disagreement
ReflectionBoundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Reflection
• Developed set of viewpoints
contributing to the development of a
new identity
Perspective making
• Indicating knowledge and
understanding of a certain topic
Perspective taking
• Reflecting on one’s own knowledge
and considering the perspective of
others
Transformation
Boundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Transformation
• Development of new practices
• Results in the emergence of ‘in-between’
practices (i.e. boundary practices)
Confrontation
• Different sites to consider their current
practices and relationships
• Recognizing a shared problem space
• Often resulting from the confrontation.
Hybridization
• A new cultural form is developed as a result of
the shared problem space (create hybrid)
Crystallization
• Something that has been created during
hybridization is embedded in practice.
• Continuous joint work at the boundary
Methodology
Qualitative paradigm
Multiple case studies
3 lecturers from a regional staff
development course
Written case studies, reflections, focus
groups
Thematic analysis (Atlas TI)
Case study 1CASE STUDY 1
Context In service teacher training, mature
students, rural setting, low digital
literacies, limited access to Internet
Pedagogical model Blended learning, support of off
campus learning, peer to peer support,
social and academic content, set up of
community of practice
Group ownership Lecturer
Rules of engagement Limited, focus on low power differential,
building up trust
Case Study 2
CASE STUDY 2
Context Undergraduate dentistry
Pedagogical model Support of engagement between
lectures, teacher led discussion of
content
Group ownership Students
Rules of engagement Focus on academic content, clear
response times, strong power
differential
Case Study 3
CASE STUDY 3
Context Post grad Adult Education course, cross
country (SA, Botswana), mature
learners, low digital literacies, low
access to technology
Pedagogical model Support of engagement off campus
learning, communication,
engagement, support, encouragement
Group ownership Lecturer
Rules of engagement Limited, low power differential
Findings Case Study 1I’ve had a teacher sending me a WhatsApp
just before she runs into class to say she’s
totally forgotten this one thing, can I just
quickly explain it to her again? (giggles), and
its, its just that I can, I’ve got more contact with
them, I’ve got a better idea of what’s going on
in their schools, going on in their classes, how
they experience teaching
So you get to know them, it’s not just socially,
you get to know them professionally better too,
coz you can quickly, now for example during
the exams, you got a very good sense of the
ones that jumped in and were marking, and
the one who, who`s stressing because he got
to mark in the exam, in the holidays
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation
Findings Case Study 1And then they started asking eachother: Can you send me that
worksheet? I like how you did that,
but how did you do that thing? I
don't have iodine; can you please
send me some? And they figured out
- they made a whole issue of getting
one of the curriculum advisers to go
pick it up at one school and bring it
to the other school
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation
Findings Case Study 2 I personally don’t think it’s a difficult course but
students seem to struggle with it, especially
with the different terms that are used in this
particular course…What I’ve done now with
this WhatsApp group, every day, I would send
them a question: What do you think of this?,
And you know, what was so amazing was, one
person would answer it, and answer it
incorrectly, and before I have the chance to
correct it, some other person would jump inand say: That is the wrong answer, this is the
correct answer. And then they will still ask me:
Is that right ma’am ? You know? And then
ma’am needs to confirm it and then we just
carry on
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation
Findings Case Study 3They could then go tell their kids they were
using it [WhatsApp]. There are different ways of
getting affirmation because I’ve allowed
myself to learn something new, it was helpful to
remind me to do certain things at certain times
and you know, there was that occasional
Happy Birthday! that it was used for, but for the
rest, it’s been… like yesterday, another
colleague wasn’t able to get on to the LMS, so
there was some hitch there, you can send a
message and say: sorry there’s a delay. But this
is what’s going on, so its keeping people
informed at a distance
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation
Discussion
Good for coordination through ubiquity / mobility of tool – guiding functionality
Reflection when teacher led
Little control on content and level of engagement allows for identification, crossing professional and social boundaries
When learners take full ownership of learning transformation can happen
Conclusion
WhatsApp can be used as boundary object to support formal and informal learning (Pimmer and Groehbiel 2013)
Learning inherently social (Bandura 1971)
Formation of peer to peer network, sustainable beyond formal learning intervention
Challenges: lack of privacy, importance to set up a ground rules, ethical issues
References Akkerman, S.F. and A. Bakker. 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81(2): 132–169. http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0034654311404435 23 May 2014.
Bandura, A. 1971. Social learning theory. New York City: General Learning Press. Brown, C. and L. Czerniewicz. 2010. Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital
apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5): 357–369.
Dillon, P. 2008. A pedagogy of connection and boundary crossings : methodological andepistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 45(3): 255–262.
Pimmer, C. and U. Groehbiel. 2013. The affordances of social mobile media for boundarycrossing. In SSRE2013 Integrating formal and informal learning. pp. 2011–2014.
Rambe, P. and A. Bere. 2013. Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learnerparticipation and transform pedagogy at a South African University of Technology. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 44(4): 544–561. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bjet.120574 April 2014.
Sharples, M., P. Mcandrew, M. Weller, R. Ferguson, E. Fitzgerald, T. Hirst, T., Y. Mor and M. Gaved. 2012. Innovating Pedagogy 2012. Milton Keynes.http://www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report_July_2012.pdf.