Revised version of Anne's presentation from MELSIG event at Manchester Met on 14/4/14

1. Are we ready for smart
learning?
Anne Nortcliffe, and James Weldrake

2. Why?
Smart devices are having an impact on
people’s commercial practice (Chen et al, 2010,
Durbin, 2011, Lin and Brown, 2007):
• what people work with
• who people work with
• how people work
• where people work
• when people work
So how much are these devices changing
academia?

3. Surveyed staff and students?
• Students in ACES ~ 5000
• Staff in SHU with mobile ~1410
• Surveyed in January 2014
• 174 ACES & 1 DS Students
responded out ~ 5000
• 242 staff responded out ~1410

4. Student
StaffConfidence
in using the
device?
[Not
confident 1
- 5 very
confident]
12 staff specify
training.

5. How staff & student use
their smart device?
Student
(No 168)
Staff
(No 238)
Personal Tool 15% 8%
Tool for organising
personal and University
Life
28% 21%
Dependent on tool for
certain aspects University
Life
32% 36%
Use tools multi-
functionality throughout
University life.
24% 35%

6. Category Staff
(No 162)
Student
(No 111)
Examples
1.Productivity 51% 64% Word processing,
spreadsheets,
2.Reading 10% 5% newspapers, iBooks
3.Browsing 41% 46% Web browser,, TED,
4.Media Capture 22% 17% Sketching, graphing, video
5.Managing learning 77% 82% Blackboard, library,
iStudiez, Diigo, Calender,
6. Social media 23% 31% Facebook, twitter,
7.Communications 86% 49% Email, Text, FaceTime
8.Data manipulation 4% 3% Calculators, Surveys
9.Subject specific tools 20% 15% Sim Monitor, Coach’s Eye,
SIGN/NICE, NHS apps,
10. Other 30% 28% Job sites, memory training,

7. Reality?
• Staff primarily reported using
calendar and email apps
• Students it is Blackboard and writing
apps
• 73% (No 195) Staff encourage
students smart device in classroom
• 56% (No 170) Students who use their
device in classroom

8. Reflections of use in
Class
Staff
(No 101)
Student
(No 89)
Examples
1. Supplementary
learning
35% 17% Goggling, TED,
2. Class response 30% 8% Socratives, Twitter
3. Learning Gathering 24% 55% Note-taking, Audio, Video,
4. View Class Learning
Materials
9% 20% Class Slides, Handouts,
5. Collaborative
learning
6% 15% Group reflections, Q&A
6.Generate learning 5% 2% Dev’ prest’n in class,
7. Promote Learning
Organisation
3% 9% Calendar, DropBox
8. Communication
learning
3% 7% Email students materials,
9. Personalised learning 1% 0% Each individual work to
their personal style
10. Attendance
Monitoring
1% 0% QR Code
11. Discouraged 9% 11% Misuse, Distraction,

9. Socrative
My Room Number: 606596
SOC#: SOC-3728244

10. Thunderstorm of Apps
Student example of an app
for University Life
Staff example of an app for
University Life

11. Table reflections and
discussion?
• Identify an app for University
Life
• Discuss enabling and inhibitors
• Note enabling and inhibitors

12. Table Summaries
Each table summary of
inhibitors and enablers

13. Inhibitors: limitations or technical
challenges of Smart devices/Apps
• Students (No 103):
• 39% Perceived lack of Apps
• 39% Network connection
• 24% Limitations of Apps/
Websites viewed on Mobile
• Staff (No 112)
• 36% Network connection
• 26% Physical practicalities

14. Enablers: To make life better for
smart device(s)/apps
• Students (No 88):
• 25% Infrastructural Issues: IT
Hardware
• 42% Infrastructural Issues: IT Software
• Staff (No 132)
• 23% Infrastructural Issues: IT
Hardware
• 26% Infrastructural Issues: IT Software
• 38% Infrastructural Issues: Staff
Development and training/IT Support

15. Conclusion
• Staff are receptive in class use
• Students are apprehensive in class use
• Digital literacy is not clear cut between
generations
• Students gather learning to
supplement their learning
• Staff use for communication and
management for learning
• University and App Developers have
work to be done

16. Reference
Chen, J., Park, Y., and Putzer, G.
J., 2010 ‘An examination of the
components that increase
acceptance of Smartphones
among Healthcare
Professionals’, electronic Journal
of Health
Informatics, 5(2), 2010, e16