Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s

new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use
and perception of technology
a,*
Gráinne Conole , Maarten de Laat b, Teresa Dillon c, Jonathan Darby a

a
The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK6 7AA, United Kingdom
b
School of Education and Lifelong Learning, The University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, United Kingdom
c
Polar Produce, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 4Q, United Kingdom

Abstract

The paper describes the findings from a study of students’ use and experience of technologies. A series of in-depth case
studies were carried out across four subject disciplines, with data collected via survey, audio logs and interviews. The find-
ings suggest that students are immersed in a rich, technology-enhanced learning environment and that they select and
appropriate technologies to their own personal learning needs. The findings have profound implications for the way in
which educational institutions design and support learning activities.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Post-secondary education; Student experience; Evaluation; Technologies; Audio logs

1. Introduction

Technologies have long been promoted as ‘disruptive technologies’ (Sharples, 2003). They seem to offer the
potential for ‘pedagogical innovative’ or are suggested as acting as ‘catalysts for change’. These assumptions
are reflected in the rhetoric associated with e-learning policy directives internationally but arguably are not
reflected in actual changes to practice (Conole, 2007a). However the emergence of new forms of mobile, inter-
net and social software technologies, which enable distributed collaboration suggests we are reaching a turning
point in the way technology is used for learning. The terms ‘Web 2.0’ and ‘e-learning 2.0’ have become syn-
onymous with this more interactive, peer-generated and collaborative internet (Alexander, 2006; Bacon & Dil-
lon, 2006; Downes, 2006). Many argue that the new possibilities of these social networking tools are resulting
in a fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume and produce new artefacts (Braun & Schmidt, 2006;
Brown, 2000; Dillon, 2006; Prensky, 2001; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005).

*
Corresponding author. Fax: +44 (0) 1908654173.
E-mail address: g.c.conole@open.ac.uk (G. Conole).

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009
512 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

However a review of papers which purported to study students’ experiences and use of technologies
(Sharpe, Benfield, Lessner, & DeCicco, 2005) found that many of these studies focused primarily at the level
of course evaluations, rather than on how learners actually use and experience technology. Sharpe et al.
argued that we are failing to adequately acknowledge the learner perspective in the development of tools, ped-
agogy and teaching practices. They suggested that more in-depth studies were needed that captured the diver-
sity of how students are using technologies in their formal studies, as well as eliciting students’ perceptions of
technologies.
This paper describes some of the findings from a JISC1-funded project, LXP, which provides empirically
grounded evidence of students’ actual use of technologies to support their learning. The study focused on stu-
dents across a range of disciplines studying in universities in the UK and consisted of a survey of students
coupled with a series of in-depth case studies. This paper concentrates on the qualitative data; further details
on the project and details of the survey results are available in the final project report (Conole, De Laat, Dil-
lon, & Darby, 2006). The paper will compare the findings of the study with related national and international
work in the area.

2. Background

The project aimed to collect learner stories on their experiences of e-learning. The work was informed by
the findings from the Sharpe et al. (2005) review and our own understanding of the literature. Particularly rel-
evant aspects of this wider body of research on students’ use and experience of technologies are highlighted
here as a contextual background to the description of our own findings.
Oblinger and Oblinger’s book ‘Educating the net generation’ provides a useful baseline reference for
research on students’ use of technologies (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). They describe the characteristics of
the ‘net generation’ – students born after 1980 – suggesting that these students fundamentally differ from pre-
vious generations in the way they process information and communicate (and hence learn). They argue that
these students are comfortable with technologies and suggest that the ways in which they learn is task orien-
tated and experiential. These learners prefer to receive information quickly, are adept at processing informa-
tion and multi-tasking, and using multiple/multi-modal communication channels to access information and
communicate with friends and tutors.
However, Kennedy et al. (2006) concur with Sharpe et al.’s (2005) view that there is a dearth of studies
looking specifically at student use of technologies, arguing that more empirical research is needed to support
the claims made about the net generation. They conducted a study looking at students’ use of emerging tech-
nologies, focusing on how students were using these to communicate, publish and share information. Their
initial findings point to extensive use of technology by students; they argue that this has considerable impli-
cations for institutional policy and practice.
Kirkwood and Price (2005) reported on data from the Open University spanning five years on students’
attitudes to and experiences of technologies. They found that there was a dramatic increase in students’ access
to and use of ICT over the five-year period. Their meta-analysis revealed that there were differences in student
access to, experience of and attitude towards technologies across subject disciplines.
Taken together these studies suggest that technologies are fundamentally impacting on the ways in which
students learn, but that more in-depth research is needed to understand the nuances of how students are using
technologies to support their learning.
Studies that focus at a more fine-grained level of analysis of students’ use of technology are also important
in the context of our research. De Laat (2006) studied emergent student roles and engagement with e-learning
activities and found that students are actively involved in coordinating and regulating personal and shared
learning activities. The findings showed that students at various stages of their course developed particular
learning strategies and facilitation skills to support their online learning. Similarly studies carried out by Clou-
der and Deepwell (2004), De Laat, Lally, Simons, and Wenger (2006), Light, Nesbitt, Light, and Burns,
(2000), McConnell (1999), Strijbos (2004) and Vonderwell (2003) provide a growing body of evidence that stu-

1
JISC: Joint Information Systems Committee.
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 513

dents are actively involved in co-designing their e-learning environments. Such work indicates that some stu-
dents now have the technical tools and skills, which could provide them with new opportunities for organising
and restructuring their own learning experiences.
We wanted to explore the issues raised in these studies in more depth. We were interested in focusing on the
student voice – their ongoing use, experience and perception of technologies. We wanted to try and elicit more
about what types of e-learning strategies students are using, as well as exploration of the role of context and
the impact of discipline differences.

3. Research methodology

The research focused on two main questions: How do learners engage with and experience e-learning (per-
ceptions, use and strategies) and how does e-learning relate to and contribute to the whole learning experience?
We used a broad definition of e-learning ‘the use of any kind of internet or communication service or elec-
tronic device that supports . . . a learning activity’. To ensure a wide range of student experiences data was
collected with the support of four HE Academy subject centres:2 Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medi-
cine, Economics, Information and Computer Sciences, and Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies.
Data collection consisted of three main sources: an online survey, audio logs and interviews. The combina-
tion of methods provided rich empirical descriptions of use and perceptions of technologies but also ensured
there was some triangulation of data. The participating institutions provided a range of contexts across the
UK – old and new institutions, city and regionally based. The online survey3 was used to gain a wider con-
textual understanding of learners’ experiences, whereas the case studies of individual learners (via the audio
logs and interviews) described the nature of the e-learning activities carried out by the learner. The survey
gathered data about access to technologies, level of competence and perceptions about the use of technology
for study. It contained a series of matrices of technologies against types of learning activities derived from the
DialogPlus taxonomy (Conole, 2007b) as a basis for categorising types of technology and their use.
As described by Mayes (2006) we used purposive sampling rather than random sampling or comparison
groups and selected ‘information-rich case studies that manifest the phenomenon’ (Mayes, 2006). Our inten-
tion was to follow students who showed a lot of experience in using technology to support their learning. We
used the results of the survey and students availability (the students could indicate whether or not they were
willing to participate further) to make a selection of learners from across the subject centres for in-depth case
studies. Students were asked to provide regular audio logs to demonstrate the different ways in which they
were using technology. During the period of data collection, students could ‘drop’ their audio logs, which were
phone (mobile or landline) messages they could leave on a central database every time they used technology to
support their learning activity. When phoning the dedicated voicemail box they received instructions remind-
ing them of the type of information we were looking for. Audio logs were chosen because such diaries can
provide rich data about day-to-day events, as they happen, and contain a realistic account of the activities
undertaken by the learners. Our choice was informed by the experiences of Timmis, O’Leary, Weedon, Har-
rison, and Martin (2004), Timmis, O’Leary, Weedon, and Martin (2004) who found that working with written
diaries was useful but that students find them time consuming. In addition we took account of experiences in
collecting sound, music and audio data (Dillon, 2003; 2004; 2006) and the work of others on the use of mobile
and personal devices for data collection (see for example Clough, 2005; Pettit & Kukulska-Hulme, 2007).
Towards the end of the study, semi-structured interviews were carried out to help contextualise and extend
the findings emerging from the audio logs.
Table 1 gives the breakdown of data collected. The central purpose of analysing the qualitative data was to
extract and generalise from the complexity of the data evidence concerning e-learning activities and experi-
ences in order to answer the main research questions. Removal of incomplete or corrupt survey results pro-
duced a dataset of 427 valid entries. These entries were then sorted according to subject centre and divided into
qualitative and quantitative responses and further analysed with Excel and SPSS. A broad descriptive analysis

2
http://heacademy.ac.uk.
3
http://www.geodata.soton.ac.uk/eLRC/learner_survey/.
514 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

Table 1
Breakdown of data collected
Survey Case studies
Audio logs Interviews
Economics: 128 Economics: 3 Economics: 2
Languages: 92 Languages: 47 Languages: 3
Medicine: 31 Medicine: 16 Medicine: 5
Computing: 158 Computing: 19 Computing: 4
Other: 18
Total 427 85 14

was carried out to identify emergent patterns. We used descriptive statistics to observe the basic features of our
data set in order to categorize the data and detect patterns in the use of technology in relation to certain learn-
ing activities. These patterns were then analysed to see if there are differences between the participating subject
centres. The qualitative data was organized and coded according to emerging patterns and the results ranked,
proportioned or directly quoted to support the quantitative findings. During the period in which students
could leave their audio logs we collected eighty-five distinct audio recordings. See Conole (2007c) for a descrip-
tion of our use of audio logs. These recordings were also sorted by subject discipline and individually coded
according to technology use and students’ reasons for using particular tools for different purposes. Relevant
sections were transcribed, ordered and anonymised and a separate look up coding table was created. Finally a
total of fourteen student interviews were held. Background information and notes were collected during each
interview and the sessions were audio recorded. Interviews were also analysed for emergence themes and rel-
evant extracts from the interviews were transcribed and used to complement and extend the survey and audio
logs findings. The interview data were used to provide more in-depth information about the strategies that the
students used and how the technologies influenced their approach to learning and the impact this had on their
daily lives. Further details are described in the final project report (Conole et al., 2006).

4. Findings

The findings indicate that although there was a degree of commonality in terms of hardware/software used,
how they were used and the frequency of use, differed. Overall, students made extensive use of personally
owned technologies, including computers and a range of mobile devices. Most did not have personal printers
and used memory sticks to transfer information between locations of study. Four broad overarching themes
are discussed here which emerged from the data. These provide a higher-level description of the way in which
students were using technologies and their associated perceptions of technologies:

 Information seeking and handling

 Communication
 Assignment preparation
 Integrated learning.

4.1. Information seeking and handling

Students used the web extensively to extend their understanding of concepts and supplement course mate-
rial. Search engines and information sites such as Wikipedia were frequently mentioned. Several reported that
searching with Google was their first action when trying to get information for an assignment.
Today I used the internet, various websites to do some research for patient’s analysis that had came up
today, what happened in surgery.
Only one student mentioned Google Scholar specifically. All found Google easy to use and most considered
it ‘very useful’.
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 515

The first thing I do when given any piece of word is type it into a search engine! This gives me the oppor-
tunity to see how different people interpret the title. From there I can focus on one main idea and use the
electronic resources to support my initial findings or indeed rule them out.
However, there were examples in both the interviews and the audio logs where search engines failed to pro-
vide useful information, such that the students had to resort to alternative sources of paper-based and digital
information. Despite this, comments were generally favourable with respect to the relevance of the informa-
tion found for their studies. The rapid positioning of Wikipedia as an important authoritative text, despite its
relative newness, is an important indicator of the way in which students are now using technologies with peer
review and sharing of ‘what counts as good’ being an important scaffold to help make meaning of a complex
and constantly changing information landscape.
I search for what I need using Search Engines and Wikipedia, and build up a list of things that I need. I ref-
erence those through to Word, and send the file to my peers through IM, where I get feedback and addi-
tional info on what’s going on and how the things I’m researching relate to the current area of study.
Despite this openness to exploring new sources of information, students indicated that it was sometimes
difficult to evaluate the creditability of sources found on the web and they provided examples of some of
the strategies they used to double check sources. For example students discussed how they cross-referenced
and validated material found on the web with other sources (text books, lecture notes, etc.), as well as restrict-
ing their search scope to reliable sites that they learnt to trust.
You can tell usually from the website itself how accurate the information might be. When they attribute it,
it might be an academic publishing or something. So you generally see that it is better than when it comes
from a blog or something.
Methods of validation and cross-referencing indicate that students mix and match information sources,
combining old and new methods.
I use it as my first task in gathering information (Google, etc) and I use Podcasts whenever I can. I will
often be reading parts of a course book whilst finding similar information on the Internet.
For many the internet was invaluable in terms of enabling them to access up-to-date information. Specia-
lised subject-based sites were frequently cited. Printed textbooks were considered by some to be outdated and
difficult to digest but were still used by many as key resources. Online textbooks were popular in medicine and
computing science because they were easy to search and provided digestible chucks of information that the
students could use to support particular aspects of their learning.
Also there are a few like trusty sites I know of like GP notebooks, Prodigy guidance and things like that,
which are very good and Kumar and Clarke the big medical text book they have got an online version of
that as well.
Very few students appear to have received formal training on how to find and use digital information;
instead they tended to use a process of trial and error to refine their web searching skills.
So you have to know what to exactly select from the Internet but, like in a way I said there is a variety of
opinions and I just go to pick what’s necessary.
The degree to which tutors steered students in terms of relevant resources varied, depending on individual
departments and tutors: some provided links to recommended sites, whereas others did not. Peer reviewing
however was evident; for example sharing of relevant links to course-related materials appears to be common
practice. Indeed one group of students maintained a class Website with advice on assignments and other stu-
dent-supplied course information. Students also drew on others, external to their class cohort, for recommen-
dations, for example from colleagues during their work placement.
Students recognised the value of library catalogues in terms of being able to see the availability of resources
and reserve books online. Some difficulties were reported using catalogues and students were frustrated when
they found that a paper they wanted was in a journal that their university did not subscribe to.
516 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

Information retrieval from the web was primarily for text-based materials, but students also reported
searching for images (to include in presentations), as well as downloading relevant Podcasts. One medical stu-
dent reported studying e-modules on health topics from the British Medical Association (BMA), while
another referred to using online course materials and lecture notes from another university. This indicates that
the students were drawing on external resources to complement course materials; combing and adapting com-
mercial, academic and popular information sources to gain a better understanding of the topics being studied.

4.2. Communication

Use of communication technologies to support their studies was extensive. Many students reported using
mobile phones frequently to phone and text each other, to discuss issues related to their learning, and partic-
ularly for assignment queries. They also used MSN Messenger and other instant messaging software, espe-
cially for international communications. They expressed positive feelings about the communication
technologies they used, though some found the frequent interruptions which arose as a consequence of this
constant communication disruptive to study.
Sometimes you cannot concentrate on doing one thing, if I am at home, I mean in China, if you don’t
have a laptop, you write everything out by your hand. It is easier for you to concentrate, but here when
you type often . . . you cannot help to listen to this and that.
Email was used universally and was the main channel for communication with tutors.

Almost all our communications with the university are through email.
I use email to communicate with everyone, especially lecturers; arranging meetings, asking questions
about work and queries over assignments, etc.
I use email daily to keep up with information from my university and communicate with friends and
relatives
Some preferred to use text messages and instant messaging with peers, utlising the additional functionality
available with the latter for sharing files and organising meetings.
Instant messenger, free to use, easy of use to speak to people with fast response, ability to share files across
it, ability to work on group projects with it, and ability to video conference.
Students expected and generally received quick responses to their emails and appreciated the flexibility this
provided, although this does raise questions about student–tutor expectations in terms of response times. Cul-
tural differences in terms of communications practices were also evident. One overseas student noted that in
the UK it was common practice to use email to discuss issues or arrange meetings with tutors, whereas they
had been used to more direct face-to-face interaction in their own country.
Low cost communication technologies such as Skype (software which allows students to call people for free
or at a low cost via the internet), MSN chat and email were considered invaluable forms of communication
and were being used in a variety of different ways (student–student, student–friends/family, student–depart-
ment/university or tutor). Skype was mentioned by some of the foreign students as a cheap, easy way to keep
in touch with friends and family. For some students text messaging and the mobile phone, although popular,
were regarded as more expensive options.
Students appear to be more ambivalent about the value of discussion forums. The language students
appeared to use forums most, but many stated that they preferred to read rather than post messages. Although
they considered forums a potentially useful way of engaging with others, some stated that they disliked them
because it was possible that one or two individuals could dominate the discussions. Others found the time lag
between message posting and responses frustrating. Some expressed the view that they did not find forums
particular useful or inspiring and felt that it was not always possible to engage with issues at a deep level.
I dislike using discussion boards as often they are not used properly and I find that groups tend to prefer to
use email or msn anyway.
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 517

Although forum-usage is heavily context dependent in terms of how they are integrated and used within a
course, these findings are interesting in that students gave far more examples of the alternative communication
channels they were using (text, chat, etc.), suggesting that students are creating their own social network to
support their learning, tailored to their particularly needs and using the technologies which suit them rather
than being constrained in topic and technology via discussion forums.
Student use of blogs varied; some used blogs as a means of reflecting on their learning, whilst others used
them more as an information source or ‘expert filter’ – i.e. as a means of keeping up-to-date with new
developments.

Yeah, I write blog nearly everyday, that is when I look into these things, and I think something is
important, I write it in my blog, as a notebook.

I use blogging as a personal means to reflect on work and what is seen in practice. Some of this is pri-
vate some of it is open for viewing and commenting on others.
For some use of a blog was compulsory – for example the computer science students were required to keep
a reflective blog diary as part of their course, others chose to set up a blog voluntarily – for example one of the
overseas students kept a blog as a record of her experiences in the UK. Other students reported reading blogs
but did not discuss writing them.

4.4. Assignment preparation

A high proportion of reported ICT-usage was in connection with assessed work. Students used Word (and
Open Office in two cases) to write assignments as well as take notes. In three of the subjects, students also
reported using PowerPoint to prepare and give presentations to their class. All were positive about the benefits
of PowerPoint and Word and some wondered how they had ever managed without these tools.
So I’d look things up on the Internet and then used Word to make notes on it, coz I find that a lot easier
than writing it down, if I can just write it down coz then you can just edit and chop it and change it without
having to redo it all again. And then from there, it was a case of put, turning that into a presentation. I
design my presentations in PowerPoint as it’s pretty easy to use. So I put it on PowerPoint, design the pre-
sentation, and then, and then used word to make handouts for it as well and then emailed these to someone
in the office who printed out the handouts for me so I could hand them around at the group session, while I
presented to the group off the PowerPoint.
Students used Word for essay and report writing, while PowerPoint was used for oral presentations, dis-
tributing online course material and revision. Other components of Microsoft Office, such as Excel, were used
for carrying out audits and drawing graphs. Students cited few disadvantages to using Office tools and found
them invaluable for preparing and presenting assignments. Despite the central importance of these tools for
the students’ learning, very few received any formal training on their use, which was highlighted by some stu-
dents as problematic given that there was an inherent (but sometimes unspoken) expectation that students
would use these tools for their assignments.
The problem with PowerPoint is that we don’t really get enough training on it, really I think, we’re told to
make PowerPoint slides but you’re not really given much training about what you can do with it so then
you get a situation, with two students, both giving the same sort of presentation, one of them knows a lot
about PowerPoint and how to really manipulate it and how to really get their messages across using it and
other people who don’t really know much about it and it kind of really puts a good light on one student and
not the other because we’ve different levels of training in it, coz it is what you pick up when you go along so
its got the potential to kind of make yourself, your presentation look better or worse although it has not
much to do with the content.
Some of the students felt that this was particularly problematic for international students, who may not
have had much experience of using computers prior to coming to university. A number of students mentioned
the benefits of Word and PowerPoint in terms of improving the final presentation of their work; foreign
518 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

students valued the grammar, spell checking and dictionary functionality. What is unclear is the balance of
effort in terms of concentrating on presentation as opposed to actual content.
The medical students made extensive use of the e-portfolio integrated into their virtual learning environ-
ment (VLE) since this was an assessed part of their study.

You start off with setting your learning objectives. . . and you could edit it and update it, during the first
three weeks of the course, you could go in and change anything you wanted or add anything, it was
quite flexible.
Most found it useful, recognising that self-assessment was likely to be an important part of their future
post-university continuing professional development (CPD) activities. Other forms of e-assessment mentioned
included the use of multiple-choice questions for formative purposes and mock online tests; however e-assess-
ment more generally did not feature significantly in the responses.
Students demonstrated a variety of learning strategies in terms of how they used technology to support
their learning, for example:

I often summarise revision notes using word processing – to see it visually organised helps me. Also, I
record reading my revision notes aloud on a digital mini-disk player and then listen to them to revise. I
find I remember things better through repetition of hearing and reading together.
Best example is revising for exam; I have my books open, my notes ready, and blackboard logged in.
Once I attempt a solution, I check the right answers on blackboard. Before going to exam, After I’ve
completely finished revising, I sometimes take the online Multiple Choice Questions.
However the study was not able to determine the extent to which these are effective learning strategies mak-
ing optimum use of the available technologies and this is certainly an area worth exploring further.

4.5. Integrated learning

Only one person on the survey mentioned their institutional virtual learning environment (VLE) as one of the
four technologies they like to use most, and ten listed a VLE as a dislike. Critical factors with respect to students’
perceptions of the value of their institutional VLE appear to centre on whether the VLE was well designed, rel-
evant to their needs and appropriately embedded into the culture of the course. The findings hint that students
are beginning to move beyond VLEs as a central resource and that they use the VLE only when it meets specific,
individual needs. Many students did say that they used their VLE to check for course-related information and in
some cases the VLE was used as a course calendar or for communicating course administration.

I have been using WebCT and my University email account to see if there was any further news or
updates on the course. There had not been any news so it was OK.
However, computer science students cited alternative sources of course-related information (such as tutor
or fellow-student websites), as more important. The medical students made most use of their VLE, as it
included the e-portfolio tool; a mandatory element of their course. Tutor usage appeared patchy with only
a selection using it as a primary course tool. Usage therefore appears to be context dependent – linked to
how it has been set up and how it is used during the course. Clarity of purpose, relevance of use and critical
mass determine the extent of uptake.
The interviews and audio logs revealed a more detailed understanding of how particular technologies
served individual learning style and needs. For example students who worked part-time, had children, lived
some distance from campus or had heavy work placements, really appreciated access to an integrated set
of online course-related information and resources.

As a mature student and mother I find e-learning helps me manage my time more effectively. I am free to
work from home if necessary and can catch up on any lectures missed or discuss any problems without
using the phone or going in to college
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 519

For such students the possibility of being able to download lecture notes or view course timetables was a
real asset as it meant they did not have to travel everyday to the campus. This saved both time and money and
gave students more flexibility and freedom to arrange their learning around their individual lifestyle and work-
ing situation.
Despite the general consensus amongst the students that online course materials ‘were a good thing’, the
importance of face-to-face contact with tutors was still considered necessary and important and was cited
by a number of students in both the interviews and audio logs. The students interviewed described the benefit
of meeting with classmates and tutors to discuss work issues. Face-to-face contact was considered vital in
building a sense of community or ‘belonging’ to the class or study group. For many this could not be replaced
by online environments. One computer science student complained that in his view it cost a lot to come to
university and therefore he expected to be taught by knowledgeable experts. He did not want to loose the
face-to-face contact arguing that online communication did not provide the same quality, value for money
or degree of interaction.

5. Discussion

The findings provide a valuable snapshot of the ways in which students are using technologies to support
their learning, both in terms of how they find and use information and in how they use different communica-
tion mechanisms to raise queries and discuss issues with other students and their tutors. The ‘Learner Expe-
rience of e-learning’ (LEX) project ran in parallel to LXP. It examined students across a wider educational
context and aimed to ‘investigate learner’s current experiences and expectations of e-learning across further,
higher, adult, community and work-based learning (Creanor, Trinder, Gowan, & Howells, 2006). The study
had similar overarching aims but focused in particular on the characteristics of effective e-learners, beliefs and
intentions, and strategies for effective e-learning. Despite the different student populations in the two studies
and different methodological approaches, the findings are very similar; both in terms of highlighting the exten-
sive use of technologies by students, and of exposing an ‘underworld of non-institutional technology use’ and
individual personalisation of use.
The data from both LXP and LEX reveal that students are learning in a complex and changing environ-
ment, using a plethora of technological tools to support their learning. Computer ownership is high and stu-
dents have become accustomed to being able to electronically access information or people on demand. The
characteristics of the net generation suggested by Oblinger and Oblinger (2005), at the start of this paper, are
evident in the data: students are adept at finding and manipulating relevant information and synthesising
across different information sources and use a variety of communication tools to support their learning needs.
Also there is evidence from the data that there is a shift from passive to more interactive interactions across all
aspects of their learning, which is another characteristic of the net generation.
The findings indicate that the environment in which students are working is complex and multi-faceted.
Technology is at the heart of all aspects of their lives. Kennedy et al. (2006) assert that ‘Universities are ill-
equipped to educate a new generation of learners whose sophisticated use of emerging technologies is incom-
patible with current teaching practice’. Our findings support this and point to a mismatch between our current
offerings and student use and a further mismatch between institutions’ perceptions of student use of technol-
ogy and actual use. Therefore a key question for institutions is whether institutional infrastructures match stu-
dents’ own rich technology-enhanced environment and perhaps more importantly whether courses are
designed and delivered with these external influences in mind.
A number of students highlighted that a key benefit of technologies was the opportunities technologies pro-
vide in terms of accessibility. This is encouraging given the increasingly recognition of the importance of
ensuring accessibility for all in terms of the use of technologies (Seale, 2006). The data indicates that technol-
ogies are being appropriated by learners to play to their strengths in terms of visual and auditory capabilities;
therefore students who have a preference for learning visually described how they used mind mapping meth-
ods and other visual software to support their learning; those who preferred to work from text, illustrated how
they combined and annotated different explanations to create their own meaning, and those with a preference
for auditory information discussed how they downloaded and listened to Podcasts or created their own audio
recordings.
520 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

Despite the many favourable comments about technologies there were still some usability issues. What is dif-
ficult to gauge from the data is the extent to which these are a consequence of the level of maturity of particular
tools or the level of technological competence. Students were critical of badly designed websites and software
which appeared ‘old fashioned’. They stated finding browsing through over-structured websites, with poorly
designed navigation frustrating, as they are used to the (deceptively) simple and apparently effective interface
of search engines. They were particularly critical of the usability of their own institutions’ online library systems.
Although a backdrop of information and multiple communications is now simply part and parcel of their
learning palette; some did voice a concern that this technology-mediated learning environment can be distract-
ing. For some peace and quiet is needed in order to learn. Goodyear raises similar concerns about a more tech-
nology-enhanced environment for learning and calls for a closer critique of the role of time and space in
relation to e-learning (Goodyear, 2006). Land (2006) has raised related concerns, suggesting that there may
be some truth in Virilio’s (2005) notion of the ‘death of space’ as students have access to information on a
global basis.
Both our study and the LEX study highlighted personalisation and appropriation of technologies as major
themes to have emerged from the data. Students appear to place greater value on technologies they have ‘dis-
covered’ or selected for themselves. Ownership, personalisation and appropriation of technologies are over-
arching themes which emerge from the data. Personalisation and a sense of control come across as key
factors of success in the use of technologies. Importantly if students did not find the technology or platform
provided by the institutions useful they were in a position to by-pass it in favour of their own personalised
approach and preferred tools. This raises a conundrum in terms of institutional policy on technologies. As
a review by Britain and Liber (2004) notes, uptake of virtual learning environments (VLEs) across HE is
now practically universal. The importance of VLEs from an institutional perspective is evident; Weller
(2007) notes that there are numerous studies on the implementation and impact of VLEs within individual
institutions and that many institutions see VLEs as part of their core provision. However, institutional policy
on the use of personalized, student- centric tools is far from clear.
One of the objectives of our research was to try to gain a better understanding of the different ways in which
technologies might be used across disciplines. We felt this was worth exploring because disciplines, by their nat-
ure, emphasise some skills and ways of knowing over others (Hammond & Bennett, 2002; Oliver, Roberts, Bee-
tham, Ingraham, & Dyke, 2007; White & Liccardi, 2006) which in turn might lead to appropriating
technologies for different purposes. For example, in maths and science the ability to manipulate data, and in
particular numerical data, is an essential skill. Humanities and the social science tend to have a more subjective
or relativist perspective, where the development of argument and foregrounding of dialogue is fundamental.
Simplistically one might therefore expect greater use of tools for manipulating and displaying data in the former
subjects in contrast to greater use of communicative tools for the later. The evidence from our data did not draw
out major discipline difference of this kind, although some patterns in discipline differences were evident.
Not surprisingly use of subject-specific resources and web sites was common across all the disciplines in our
study. How tools were used did vary across disciplines and there were some indications that this difference in
use was related to the nature of the subject being studied or the activities being undertaken. For example many
of the economics students cited the BBC current affairs website and associated expert Podcasts, whereas e-
Portfolios and online textbooks were more frequently mentioned by the medical students. Access to up-to-date
authoritative information on current events is a particularly valuable aspect of the internet and useful for stu-
dents studying subjects such as economics, finance and computing science. Similarly access to up-to-date,
research data, through e-journals is useful for final-year and post-graduate students, and is especially useful
in fast moving research areas such as science and medicine.
Subject cultural norms and practices are also influential. In computer science there is a culture of publishing
through alternative non-journal-based channels such as specialised mailing lists, blogs, wikis and other more
‘immediate’, technologically driven and networked forms of communication. Practice-based courses in con-
trast tend to have a focus on inter-disciplinary practice and teamwork. Email, for example, emerged as an
important means of students maintaining contact with the university whilst on placement. Other communica-
tive channels were used to support these disparate and different communities of practitioners.
An HE Academy symposium derived practitioners’ views on the fundamental characteristics of their
respective disciplines and asked them to consider how these mapped to current (and potential) uses of tech-
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 521

nology (HEA, 2006). Communication was highlighted as crucial in the social sciences, whereas problem solv-
ing and interaction with data was deemed important in the sciences; health sciences in contrast listed team
working as critical for students. Participants went on to describe current and potential uses of technology
in their disciplines, many of which align with the patterns of use emergent in our study. The SOLE project
(Timmis, O’Leary, Weedon, Harrison, et al., 2004) reported marked differences in the role of tutors and their
use of technologies across different disciplines, suggesting that this might be related to differences in underpin-
ning pedagogical models. Because our study focused solely on the learner voice it is not possible to detect sim-
ilar differences but this could be an interesting area to explore further.
E-assessment usage varied across the disciplines. The more ‘qualitative’, ‘textual’ or ‘visual’ the subject, the
less appropriate e-assessment (in the form of binary-type multiple choice questions (MCQ)) was deemed to be.
The data revealed some nice examples of students using e-assessment for formative self-reflection. However
there were also a number of negative responses about the impersonal and restrictive nature of basic MCQ
tests. There was surprisingly little mention of subject-specific software. Traditional CAL-type software (such
as e-tutorials and simulations) was noticeable by its absence. The medical students mentioned CD-ROM sim-
ulations, which they found useful in providing insights into the internal and complex workings of the body
(e.g., heart, autonomy). However they also recognised their limitations and the importance of being exposed
to real, authentic practical experiences.
One of the most striking features to emerge from the data is the extent to which students are capitalising on
the social affordances of technologies, much heralded under the banner of Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006), in terms
of peer support and communication – the picture emerges of a networked, extended community of learners
using a range of communicative tools to exchange ideas, to query issues, to provide support, to check progress.
This peer network is particularly valuable to students who favour a social approach to learning. These findings
seems to be a common emergent factor across the related studies discussed here (such as Creanor et al., 2006;
Kennedy et al., 2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005) and aligns with a survey which specifically focused on stu-
dents’ use of Web 2.0 tools (SPIRE, 2007). A cautionary note is needed however as the timing of our study
(and many of those quoted in this paper) was such that it was before the major uptake of social networking
tools by students. Nonetheless there are some interesting illustrations of the use of specific Web 2.0 technol-
ogies. For example students’ use of blogs as ‘expert filters’ of knowledge or as reflective diaries echoes other
empirical studies on blogs (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Kerawalla et al., forthcoming).
To what extent this social peer network replaces or complements existing support mechanisms is not clear.
Students evidently do still use traditional support mechanisms – contact with tutor, study guides, additional
institutional workshops and training – but it would be interesting to investigate further how much some of
these are being replaced by students choosing to turn first to a fellow student for guidance.

6. Conclusion

The findings suggest a shift in the way in which students are working and suggest a rich and complex inter-
relationship between individuals and tools. The following eight factors emerged from the data in terms of the
changing nature of the way students are working and form a useful checklist against which institutions might
begin to think about and incorporate these findings into policy and practice (see Fig. 1).

1. Pervasive: Students use technologies to support all aspects of their study; using technologies extensively to
find, manage and produce content. Students are part of a wider community of peers who they share
resources with, ask for help and mutually peer assess.
2. Personalised: They appropriate technologies to suit their own needs. They use computers, the internet and
books simultaneously. Their learning is interactive and multifaceted; using strategies such as annotation
and adaptation of materials to meet their learning needs.
3. Niche, adaptive: Use of particular tools is not uniform; individuals adapt their use to suit their individual
means of learning. They use technologies for particular purposes, not just for the sake of using them.
4. Organised: They are sophisticated at finding and managing information (searching and structuring). They
see the computer as a central learning tool. They are used to having easy access to information (for travel,
entertainment, etc.) and therefore have an expectation of the same for their courses.
522 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

Fig. 1. Factors informing the changing practice.

5. Transferable: They are applying the skills gained through using technologies in other aspects of their lives to
their learning context. The distinction between using technologies for learning as opposed to other purposes
is eroding.
6. Time and space boundaries: The concept of both ‘time’ and ‘space’ in relation to learning is changing, as
students are now able to communicate with tutors and peers in a variety of ways and are coming to expect
immediate or near-immediate responses. Students study patterns are changing as a result of where and how
they study. They appear more adept at working in a constantly changing environment, comfortable with
multitasking and able to work with multiple resources and tools simultaneously.
7. Changing working patterns: New working practices using a range of tools are emerging. The use of these
tools is changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge, as well as their perception of the value
and worth of information. Higher-level skills such as evaluation and synthesis are necessary to make sense
of their complex technological-enriched learning environment.
8. Integrated: Students are using tools in a combination of ways to suit individual needs. There is evidence of
mixing and matching. They are comfortable with switching between media, sites, tools, content, etc. Tech-
nologies provide them with more flexibility in terms of being able to undertake learning anytime, anywhere.
Students appear to be able to integrate successfully for themselves a wide range of diverse technologies.

The data demonstrates that students are using technologies to support all aspects of their learning processes
(communication with tutors and other students, keeping abreast of course administration, finding and man-
aging learning materials, processing data, and creating assignments/presentations). These tools are appropri-
ated in a variety of ways, depending on individual needs and preferences. Discussing some of these issues one
student during the interview noted:
It [i.e. technology] basically opens up a whole world of learning for everybody, you know. You can find,
read up, on anything you want, like in a university context, you can have all your notes and everything
all on one machine.
Technology is not simply seen as an ‘add on’ for these students, it is central to how they organise and ori-
entate their learning. The technologies provide them with a rich variety of alternatives for interaction and
communication in relation to learning and a flexibility of use which enables them to take control of their learn-
ing. The overarching picture which emerges is that these students:

 are comfortable with technology and see it as integral;

 are, on the whole, sophisticated users – using different tools for different purposes, critically aware of the
pros and cons;
 have specific expectations – the internet is their first port of call for information and they expect access to
up-to-date/ relevant information and communication (with peers, tutors, etc.) on demand.
 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524 523

Students were using technologies to support all aspects of learning; directed study, resource discovery, prep-
aration and completion of assignments, communication and collaboration, presentation and reflection. In
addition the study revealed that their use of technologies for learning is intermingled with use of these tools
for social and leisure activities. The data shows that students are using a range of different types of e-learning
strategies, appropriating the tools to meet their own needs.
We’ve been brought up using new technologies, and introducing new ones to our way of working as new
technologies appear, it’s not a case of ‘‘fitting around’’ it’s just the way I work, using multiple methods,
some ‘‘traditional’’ some e-learning
The findings have profound implications for both the technical infrastructure institutions provide for stu-
dents and the ways in which we support their learning through use of technologies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable help provided by the Higher Education Academy
Subject Centres for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine, Economics, Information and Computer
Sciences, and Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. This work was part of a JISC-funded project. Further
information on the programme is available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html.

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32–44.
Bacon, S., & Dillon, T. (2006). The potential of open source approaches for education. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
Braun, S., & Schmidt, A. (2006). Socially aware informal learning support: Potentials and challenges of the social dimension. In
Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 06), Heraklion, October 2006, http://
publications.professional-learning.eu/Schmidt_Braun_LOKMOL06_final.pdf [20/4/07]
Britain, S., & Liber, O. (2004). OEA Framework for the Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments, JISC commissioned
review, available online at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/VLE%20Full%20Report%2006.doc [19/10/07]..
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, USDLA Journal,
16(2), 10–11, http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html [20/04/07].
Clouder, L., & Deepwell, F. (2004). Reflections on unexpected outcomes: Learning from student collaboration in an online discussion
forum. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, C. Jones, V. Lally, D. McConnel, & C. Steeples (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international
conference on Networked Learning 2004 (pp. 429–435). Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Clough, G. (2005). The use of PDAs and smartphones for informal learning, M.Sc. Dissertation. The Open University: Milton Keynes.
Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2006). JISC LXP: Student experiences of technologies, Final report of the JISC-funded
LXP project, Southampton: University of Southampton, available online at www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html [21/08/09].
Conole, G. (2007a). An international comparison of the relationship between policy and practice in e-learning. In R. Andrews & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Handbook of e-learning research (pp. 286–310). London: Sage.
Conole, G. (2007b). Describing learning activities: tools and resources to guide practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking
Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-Learning (pp. 81–91). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Conole, G. (2007c). Briefing on the use of audio logs, LXP project report, Southampton: University of Southampton, http://
www.e4innovation.com/Papers/Briefing%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Audio%20Logs.doc [21/08/09].
Creanor, L., K. Trinder, Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2006). LEX: The learner experience of e-learning – Final project report, http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf [21/4/07].
De Laat, M. F. (2006). Networked learning. Apeldoorn: Politieacademie.
De Laat, M., Lally, V., Simons, P. R. J., & Wenger, E. (2006). A selective analysis of empirical findings in networked learning research in
higher education: Questing for coherence. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 99–111.
Dillon, T. (2003). Collaborating and creating using music technologies. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 893–897.
Dillon, T. (2004). It’s in the mix baby: exploring how meaning is created within music technology collaborations. In D. Miell & K.
Littleton (Eds.), Collaborative creativity contemporary perspectives. London: Free Association Books.
Dillon, T. (2006). Hail to the thief: The appropriation of in music in the digital age. In K. O’Hara & B. Brown (Eds.), Consuming music
together: Social and collaborative aspects of music consumption technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Downes, S. (2006). ‘E-learning 2.0’, eLearning magazine: education and technology in perspective, http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?sec-
tion=articlesandarticle=29-1 [20/04/07].
Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘Blogosphere’. Technological Horizons in Education Journal [February].
Goodyear, P. (2006). Technology and the articulation of vocational and academic interests: reflections on time, space and e-learning.
Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 83–98.
524 G. Conole et al. / Computers & Education 50 (2008) 511–524

Hammond, N., & Bennett, C. (2002). Discipline differences in role and use of ICT to support group-based learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 18, 55–63.
HEA. (2006). HE Academy symposium on discipline differences and technology use, available online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
eLDisciplines.htm, [24/01/07].
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Dalgarno, B., & Bishop, A. (2006). Questioning the net generation:
A collaborative project in Australian higher education. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE conference, Sydney, December 2006, http://
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p160.pdf [21/4/07].
Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G., & Conole, G. (forthcoming). Development of a sensitising framework to facilitate Higher
Education students’ understanding of whether and how blogging can support online distance learning. New Media and Society.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards
and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3),
257–274.
Land, R. (2006). Networked learning and the politics of speed: A dromological perspective. In Proceedings of the fifth international
conference on networked learning, 10–12th April, 2006, Lancaster.
Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000). Let’s you and me have a little discussion: computer mediated communication in
support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 85–96.
Mayes, T. (2006). LEX methodology report, The JISC-funded LEX project, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, available online at
www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html [21/08/07].
McConnell, D. (1999). Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong learning. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 15(3), 232–243.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation, An Educause e-book publication, http://www.educause.edu/ir/
library/pdf/pub7101.pdf [20/04/07].
Oliver, M., Roberts, G., Beetham, H., Ingraham, B., & Dyke, M. (2007). Knowledge, society and perspectives on learning technology. In
G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research (pp. 21–37). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Pettit, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Going with the grain-mobile devices in practice. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
23(1), 17–33, http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/pettit.html [19/10/07].
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Seale, J. (2006). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility theory and practice. Oxford: Routledge.
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Lessner, E., & DeCicco, E. (2005). Final report: Scoping study for the pedagogy strand of the JISC learning
programme, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/scoping%20study%20final%20report%20v4.1.doc [21/4/07].
Sharples, M. (2003). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering
Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 504–520.
SPIRE. (2007). Results and analysis of the Web 2.0 services survey undertaken by the SPIRE project. Final report of the JISC-funded
SPIRE project, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digital_repositories/spiresurvey.doc, [21/08/07].
Strijbos, J. (2004). The effect of roles on compter-supported collaborative learning, Ph.D. dissertation, Open Universiteit Nederland,
Heerlen.
Timmis, S., R. O’Leary, Weedon, E., Harrison, C., & Martin, K. (2004). Different shoes, same footprints? A cross-disciplinary evaluation
of students’ online learning experiences: preliminary findings from the SOLE project, JIME, 13, http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/13/
[20/04/07].
Timmis, S., O’Leary, R., Weedon, E., & Martin, K. (2004). A multi-disciplinary, holistic approach to networked learning – A critique of a
large-scale empirical study into student online learning experiences. In Proceedings of the networked learning conference, Lancaster,
http://sole.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/methodology.pdf#search=%22online%20learning%20diaries%20methodological%20issues%22 [10/10/06].
Virilio, P. (2005). The information bomb. London: Verso.
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A
case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90.
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments – Using, choosing and developing your VLE. London: Routledgefalmer.
White, S., & Liccardi, I. (2006). Harnessing insight into disciplinary differences to refine e-learning design. In 36th Annual frontiers in
education conference, Borders: International, Social and Cultural, http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf [16/10/06].
Williams, J. B., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 20(2), 232–247.