Tools for Entertainment or Learning? Exploring Students’ and Tutors’ Domestication of Mobile Devices

Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

This paper presents findings from a research project at a school of humanities, languages and social science at a UK university that investigated attitudes towards and uses of mobile devices (smartphones, tablets and laptops) by students and tutors. It applied the domestication of technology approach (Silverstone and Hirsch, Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge, 1992) to understand how mobile devices have been appropriated by users in their everyday lives, how they have become part of daily routines and spatial arrangements and what rules are being negotiated around their use. This approach can be enriching to research in networked learning but has so far not been applied in this area before. It focuses on the ICT aspect of networked learning and on the multiple contexts in which networked learning takes place. Data was collected via in-depth interviews with 18 teaching staff and 6 focus groups with a total of 19 students across different departments in the school. The research identified distinct uses of different devices in terms of university-related and personal uses but also areas of overlapping use. Students and tutors associated important symbolic meanings with their devices, had incorporated them into daily routines and spatial arrangements in new ways and attempted to self-regulate use in different situations. While tutors were starting to make use of mobile devices in their teaching practice in innovative and meaningful ways, students had a less well-defined understanding of the educational benefits of mobile devices.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Manchester Metropolitan University. The authors would like to thank all staff and students who gave up their time to take part in and contribute to this project. Special thanks go to Anshul Lau for carrying out the student focus group interviews.

References

  1. Aiyegbayo, O. (2014). How and why academics do and do not use iPads for academic teaching? British Journal of Educational Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12202.
  2. Barry, S., Murphy, K., & Drew, S. (2015). From deconstructive misalignment to constructive alignment: Exploring student uses of mobile technologies in university classrooms. Computers and Education, 81, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (2006). Domestication of media and technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bober, M. (2016). Beyond Moodle and Powerpoint: Mobile and technology-enhanced learning in the humanities, languages and social sciences. Learning and Teaching in Action, 12(1), 35–50, http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/Vol12Iss1/4_Bober_beyond_Moodle_and_Powerpoint.pdf. Viewed 27 Feb 2017.
  6. Caron, L., & Caronia, A. H. (2009). Mobile learning in the digital age: A clash of cultures? In S. Kleinman (Ed.), The culture of efficiency: Technology in everyday life (pp. 190–212). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creanor, L., & Walker, S. (2012). Learning technology in context: A case for the sociotechnical interaction framework as an analytical lens for networked learning research. In L. Dirckinck Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 173–187). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtis, F., & Cranmer, S. (2014). Laptops are better. Medical students’ perceptions of laptops versus tablets and smartphones to support their learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 67–75).Google Scholar
  10. Dohn, N. (2014). Implications for networked learning of the ‘practice’ side of social practice theories: A tacit-knowledge perspective. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 29–49). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analysing qualitative data. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Haddon, L. (2005). Empirical studies using the domestication framework. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 103–122). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haddon, L. (2011). Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann, M. (2006). Triple articulation of ICTs: Media as technological objects, symbolic environments and individual texts. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 80–102). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hartmann, M. (2013). From domestication to mediated mobilism. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2015). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 5079(January), 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Hynes, D. (2009). [End] users as designers: The internet in everyday life in Irish households. Anthropology in Action, 16(1), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hynes, D., & Rommes, E. (2006). Fitting the internet into our lives: IT courses for disadvantaged users. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 125–144). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hynes, D., Vuojärvi, H., & Isomäki, H. (2010). Domestication of a laptop on a wireless campus. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 250–267. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/vuojarvi.pdf. Viewed 9 Apr 2015.
  22. Israelashvili, M., Kim, T., & Bukobza, G. (2012). Adolescents’ over-use of the cyber world – Internet addiction or identity exploration? Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. JISC. (2015). Mobile learning: A practical guide for educational organisations planning to implement a mobile learning initiative. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/mobile-learning. Viewed 27 Feb 2017.
  24. Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In L. Dirckinck Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  27. MacKenzie, D. A., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mahat, J., Ayub, A. F. M., & Luan, S. (2012). An assessment of students’ mobile self-efficacy, readiness and personal innovativeness towards mobile learning in higher education in Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ofcom. (2015). The Communications market report. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr15/CMR_UK_2015.pdf. Viewed 27 Feb 2017.
  30. Park, N., & Lee, H. (2014). Gender difference in social networking on smartphones: A case study of Korean college student smartphone users. International Telecommunications Policy Review, 21(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Pierson, J. (2006). Domestication at work in small businesses. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 205–226). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  33. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shekar, M. (2009). Domestication of the cell phone on a college campus: A case study (Masters dissertation). London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media%40lse/research/mediaWorkingPapers/MScDissertationSeries/Past/Shekar_final.pdf. Viewed 9 Apr 2015.
  35. Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Silverstone & R. Mansell (Eds.), Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Moreley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 15–31). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sørensen, K. (2006). Domestication: The enactment of technology. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 40–61). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, T. (2012). Who’s taming who? Tensions between people and technologies in cyberspace communities. In L. Dirckinck Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 157–172). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation? Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  41. UCISA. (2014). 2014 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/bestpractice/surveys/tel/tel. Viewed 27 Feb 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Audiences North, BBCManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Languages, Information and CommunicationsManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations