Advertisement

The Learning, Use and Critical Understanding of Software in Media Studies

  • Elaine Khoo
  • Craig Hight
  • Rob Torrens
  • Bronwen Cowie
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)

Abstract

This chapter (as with the next, Chap.  4) reports on the findings from a two-year funded empirical study (2013–2014) exploring how tertiary students in media studies and engineering develop the understandings and skills needed to use software as forms of software literacy. Two case studies were developed. The case studied experiences of media studies students’ software literacy development is the focus of this chapter. Two cohorts of media studies undergraduate students were tracked, at different stages of study and using mixed methods, in their learning of discipline-specific software, Final Cut Pro, and the Adobe Creative Suite. The findings illustrate the ways student software literacy develop in a specific tertiary context. The findings will be revisited in Chap.  5 and discussed to include implications for the wider field of software teaching and learning.

References

  1. Armstrong, V., & Curran, S. (2006). Developing a collaborative model of research using digital video. Computers & Education, 46(3), 336–347. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzi, H. J. (1988). From short-to long-term: Studying science education longitudinally. Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 17–53. doi: 10.1080/03057268808559947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Technology, 2012. Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ESI1208.pdf.
  7. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hegarty, B., Penman, M., Kelly, O., Jeffrey, L., Coburn, D., & McDonald, J. (2010). Digital information literacy: Supported development of capability in tertiary environments. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary_education/80624.
  10. Khoo, E., Hight, C., Torrens, R., & Cowie, B. (2016). Copy, cut and paste: How does this shape what we know? Final report. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/tlri-research/research-completed/post-school-sector/copy-cut-and-paste-how-does-shape-what-we-know.
  11. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Livingstone, S., Wijnen, C. W., Papaioannou, T., Costa, C., & del Mar Grandío, M. (2014). Situating media literacy in the changing media environment: Critical insights from European research on audiences. In N. Carpentier, K. C. Schrøder, & L. Hallet (Eds.), Audience transformations: Shifting audience positions in late modernity (Vol. 1, pp. 210–227). Routledge, NY: Routledge Studies in European Communication Research and Education.Google Scholar
  13. Manovich, L. (2006). After effects or the velvet revolution. Millennium Film Journal, 45(46), 5–19.Google Scholar
  14. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT). Retrieved from https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BGMFNF8.
  15. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London, UK: Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Mietenen, R. (2001). Artifact mediation in Dewery and in cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pagram, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). E-yearning: An examination of the use and preferences of students using online learning materials. In T. Hirashima, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education. Chiang Mai, Thailand, (pp. 712–716). Retrieved from https://www.nectec.or.th/icce2011/program/proceedings/pdf/C6_S18_163S.pdf.
  18. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Selwyn, N. (2010). Degrees of digital division: Reconsidering digital inequalities and contemporary higher education. RU&SC. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 7(1), 33–42. Available at http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=78012953011.
  20. Shih, C.-L., & Chuang, H.-H. (2013). The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education, 63, 109–118. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wertsch, J. V. (1991a). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wertsch, J. V. (1991b). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Yang, X. (2014). Teaching and learning fused through digital technologies: Activating the power of the crowd in a university classroom setting. In D. J. Loveless, B. Griffith, M. E. Berci, E. Ortlieb, & P. M. Sulivan (Eds.), Academic knowledge construction and multimodal curriculum development (pp. 77–85). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Khoo
    • 1
  • Craig Hight
    • 2
  • Rob Torrens
    • 3
  • Bronwen Cowie
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research (WMIER)University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Creative IndustriesThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations