If technology is the answer, what is the question?

This essay aims to define the appropriate question where technology would be the answer. The technology that is relevant in this instance relates to the implementation of social software to support and scaffold first year students in terms of their basic skills required at tertiary level.

Many students enter higher education under prepared for the rigors and demands required by tertiary study {Brussow, 2007; van Schlakwyk, 2009}. According to Brussow (2007:8) “the key solution to the academic failure encountered in higher education in South Africa is to address the inability of the learners to learn independently”.

In determining the question to which technology is the answer, this essay is guided by the following challenges obtained from the literature. Firstly, the succinct question stated by Brussow, “How can higher education educators apply learning facilitation strategies and methods to encourage self-directed and independent learning in learners who are inadequately prepared for higher education?” (2007:9). Secondly, the suggestion by Ajjan & Hartshorne (2008:79) that the “specific factors that promote and inhibit faculty use of Web 2.0 applications” needs to be investigated and thirdly to answer Usluel & Mazman’s (2009:96) suggestion for the development of “a new model” to examine the adoption of social software in higher education.

Technological innovations are increasingly challenging higher education to adapt to the demands of an ever changing society. The increasing adoption and experimentation of social software within higher education implicitly or explicitly raises the following pertinent question: “How do we learn in an era of connection and collaboration?” (Barron, Martin & Roberts, 2007; Cailliau, 2006; Carneiro, 2007; Craft, Chappell & Twining, 2008; Duderstadt, 200?; Hubball & Helen Burt, 2006; Klamma, et al, 2006; Jennings, 2006; Owen et al, 2006; Pearson & Somekh, 2006; Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2004; Siemens, 2006, 2007; Sims, 2008; Zhu & Baylen, 2005).

From literature and current research it is clear that (higher) education globally faces major challenges (Siemens, 2008; Wilson, 2006). Technological developments and particularly ICT innovations are increasingly transforming the educational landscape. Although it is clear that universities (and all academic institutions) cannot approach learning and competency development from the traditional perspectives anymore (Wilson, 2006), some authors (Cronje, 2008; Reeves et al, 2005) caution that technology should not be seen as the proverbial “silver bullet” that will solve all learning problems.

Technological innovations like social software is providing educators, industry and learners with the tools and challenge to design learning not only in terms of academic discourse, but also in relation to corporate training, competence development, social learning, self-directed/independent learning, lifelong learning, collaborative learning, knowledge management, etc (Wilson et al, 2006:68; Siemens, 2008).


Interestingly, Ajjan & Hartshorne (2008:78-9) found that although academic staff in their context acknowledged the benefits of social software, the actual implementation and usage do not reflect this. This implies that merely knowing and understanding the benefits related to adopting social software in a higher education context is not enough. Other factors also need to be considered, as Ajjan & Hartshorne (2008:78-9) found that “faculty attitude and their perceived behavioral control are strong predictors to their intention to use Web 2.0” and this is “a strong predictor of their actual behaviour”.

The adoption and usage of social software by students (and academic staff) in higher education also resonates with the question posed by Intagonok et al. (2008:13) in terms of the expansion of student and staff “duty or role statements” to include competencies related to ICT. This raises an interesting question: Should the adoption and usage of social software be encouraged from a regulatory perspective or should it rather be informally encouraged within a community of practice as having the potential to respond to the current educational needs and practices (Intagonok, 2008:13).

People can be trained how to use certain tools, provided with access to various tools (increasingly free), but this does not imply that the tools that are available are in line with the day to day tasks that people are required to perform. People’s use of social software will be contingent on the value that it has for the tasks that they engage in on a daily basis and the fact that the tools actually make it easier to perform their work.

The problem central to this essay is how social software can be used to support under-prepared first year students a higher education context. The focus lies in the design of an interactive learning space that will enable students and staff to adopt social software to learn and collaborate as communities of practice.

According to Clark (in Reeves et al, 2005:105) it is “pedagogical methods, not technology per se, that most directly influence learning”. Although technology might be the answer, it needs to be a qualified by the following caveat: Social software as a technology could provide the answer to support and scaffold the learning of first year students in terms of their basic skills, but only within the careful instructional design that places the pedagogical principles that enable self-directed/independent learning at the heart of student learning.

In conclusion, the question to which technology is the answer (together with the qualifying caveat) is:

How can higher education educators facilitate first year students’ learning through social software within a community of learning?