Presentation at 2014 Heltasa

1. Crossing
boundaries:
Lecturers’
perspectives on the
use of WhatsApp to
support teaching
and learning in
Higher Education
Daniela Gachago, CPUT
Sonja Strydom, SU
Pauline Hanekom, SU
Shaheda Simons, UWC
Shirley Walters, UWC

2. Problem statement
 Rising use of mobile technology (Sharples et al.
2012; Rambe & Bere 2013)
 Ubiquitous nature of mobile technology
 Mobile technology to bridge digital
divide? (Brown & Czerniewicz 2010)
 Social usage
 Use for informal learning (Pimmer & Pachler 2014)
 Staff challenged to imagine ways to use it
for formal learning and teaching

3. Research question
 How does WhatsApp as a boundary
object impacted on lecturers’ teaching
and their students’ learning practices?
 How is this impacted by pedagogical
model chosen, rules of engagement,
group ownership and learner profile?

4. Affordances of WhatsApp
Widely used
 Resource non-intensive
Works on feature phones
 Sharing of resources/multimedia very easy
 Group functionality
 Mute functionality

5. The notion of boundaries…
 Boundary objects: particular artefacts
associated with the crossing process and that
fulfil a bridging function(Akkerman and Bakker 2011)
 Boundary crossing: transition from one territory
to another
 Learning within boundaries: involves the
integration of knowledge and experience
from two different settings constructing new
knowledge in the process (Dillon 2008)

6. Mobile technologies as
boundary objects…
 Mobile technology allows the crossing of
boundaries…
 across cultures, locations, time, formal
and informal learning, and professionals,
be they novice or expert…(Pimmer and Groehbiel
2013)

7. Boundary mechanisms of
learning (Akkerman and Bakker 2011)
 Identification
 Coordination
 Reflection
 Transformation

8. Boundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Identification
Identification
• Different sites are questioned and
accordingly redesigned
Othering
• Comparison of one practice with
another in order to identify differences
Legitimate coexistence
• Working in different groups and/or sites
and considering interference and
expectations of a number of
relationships in different groups

9. Boundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Coordination
Coordination
• Overcoming boundary for continuity to take
place
Communicative connection
• Boundary objects to be shared by various role
players
Efforts of translation
• Boundary objects used to translate aspects in
different sites
• Boundary objects to address the multiplicity of
different sense makings
Enhancing boundary permeability
• Effortless exchanges and lack of considered
choice and effort
Routinization
• Practices take place routinely with little or no
disagreement

10. BoRunedarfylmeecchatniismosnof learning Common learning processes
Reflection
• Developed set of viewpoints
contributing to the development of a
new identity
Perspective making
• Indicating knowledge and
understanding of a certain topic
Perspective taking
• Reflecting on one’s own knowledge
and considering the perspective of
others

11. Boundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes
Transformation
Transformation
• Development of new practices
• Results in the emergence of ‘in-between’
practices (i.e. boundary practices)
Confrontation
• Different sites to consider their current
practices and relationships
• Recognizing a shared problem space
• Often resulting from the confrontation.
Hybridization
• A new cultural form is developed as a result of
the shared problem space (create hybrid)
Crystallization
• Something that has been created during
hybridization is embedded in practice.
• Continuous joint work at the boundary

12. Methodology
 Qualitative paradigm
 Multiple case studies
 3 lecturers from a regional staff
development course
Written case studies, reflections, focus
groups
 Thematic analysis (Atlas TI)

13. Case study 1 CASE STUDY 1
Context In service teacher training, mature
students, rural setting, low digital
literacies, limited access to Internet
Pedagogical model Blended learning, support of off
campus learning, peer to peer support,
social and academic content, set up of
community of practice
Group ownership Lecturer
Rules of engagement Limited, focus on low power differential,
building up trust

14. CASE STUDY 2
Case Study 2
Context Undergraduate dentistry
Pedagogical model Support of engagement between
lectures, teacher led discussion of
content
Group ownership Students
Rules of engagement Focus on academic content, clear
response times, strong power
differential

15. CASE STUDY 3
Case Study 3
Context Post grad Adult Education course, cross
country (SA, Botswana), mature
learners, low digital literacies, low
access to technology
Pedagogical model Support of engagement off campus
learning, communication,
engagement, support, encouragement
Group ownership Lecturer
Rules of engagement Limited, low power differential

16. Findings Case Study 1
I’ve had a teacher sending me a WhatsApp
just before she runs into class to say she’s
totally forgotten this one thing, can I just
quickly explain it to her again? (giggles), and
its, its just that I can, I’ve got more contact with
them, I’ve got a better idea of what’s going on
in their schools, going on in their classes, how
they experience teaching
So you get to know them, it’s not just socially,
you get to know them professionally better too,
coz you can quickly, now for example during
the exams, you got a very good sense of the
ones that jumped in and were marking, and
the one who, who`s stressing because he got
to mark in the exam, in the holidays
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation

17. Findings Case Study 1
And then they started asking each
other: Can you send me that
worksheet? I like how you did that,
but how did you do that thing? I
don't have iodine; can you please
send me some? And they figured out
- they made a whole issue of getting
one of the curriculum advisers to go
pick it up at one school and bring it
to the other school
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation

18. Findings Case Study 2
I personally don’t think it’s a difficult course but
students seem to struggle with it, especially
with the different terms that are used in this
particular course…What I’ve done now with
this WhatsApp group, every day, I would send
them a question: What do you think of this?,
And you know, what was so amazing was, one
person would answer it, and answer it
incorrectly, and before I have the chance to
correct it, some other person would jump in
and say: That is the wrong answer, this is the
correct answer. And then they will still ask me:
Is that right ma’am ? You know? And then
ma’am needs to confirm it and then we just
carry on
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation

19. Findings Case Study 3
They could then go tell their kids they were
using it [WhatsApp]. There are different ways of
getting affirmation because I’ve allowed
myself to learn something new, it was helpful to
remind me to do certain things at certain times
and you know, there was that occasional
Happy Birthday! that it was used for, but for the
rest, it’s been… like yesterday, another
colleague wasn’t able to get on to the LMS, so
there was some hitch there, you can send a
message and say: sorry there’s a delay. But this
is what’s going on, so its keeping people
informed at a distance
Identification
Coordination
Reflection
Transformation

20. Discussion
 Good for coordination through ubiquity
/ mobility of tool – guiding functionality
 Reflection when teacher led
 Little control on content and level of
engagement allows for identification,
crossing professional and social
boundaries
When learners take full ownership of
learning transformation can happen

21. Conclusion
WhatsApp can be used as boundary
object to support formal and informal
learning (Pimmer and Groehbiel 2013)
 Learning inherently social (Bandura 1971)
 Formation of peer to peer network,
sustainable beyond formal learning
intervention
 Challenges: lack of privacy, importance
to set up a ground rules, ethical issues

22. References
 Akkerman, S.F. and A. Bakker. 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81(2): 132–169.
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0034654311404435 23 May 2014.
 Bandura, A. 1971. Social learning theory. New York City: General Learning Press.
 Brown, C. and L. Czerniewicz. 2010. Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital
apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5): 357–
369.
 Dillon, P. 2008. A pedagogy of connection and boundary crossings : methodological and
epistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 45(3): 255–262.
 Pimmer, C. and U. Groehbiel. 2013. The affordances of social mobile media for boundary
crossing. In SSRE2013 Integrating formal and informal learning. pp. 2011–2014.
 Rambe, P. and A. Bere. 2013. Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learner
participation and transform pedagogy at a South African University of Technology. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4): 544–561. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bjet.12057
4 April 2014.
 Sharples, M., P. Mcandrew, M. Weller, R. Ferguson, E. Fitzgerald, T. Hirst, T., Y. Mor and M.
Gaved. 2012. Innovating Pedagogy 2012. Milton Keynes.
http://www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report
_July_2012.pdf.