This section situates the study in a higher education faculty. The faculty has a people-centric focus, is inclusive of appropriate digital technologies, prides itself in the support of excellence in teaching and learning, and engenders a culture of trans-disciplinary scholarship and research. It comprises several departments that provide tertiary education programmes: Architectural Technology and Interior Design, Design, Information Technology, Media, and Town and Regional Planning.
An amalgamation of concepts suggests mobility manifests in particular contexts (Hildreth & Boiros, 2013; Garcia-Cabot et al., 2015) where the stakeholders rather than the technology is mobile (Vavoula & Sharples, 2009). A multi-dimensional association of technology, learners, and learning (El-Hussein & Cronjé, 2010) impacts the evolution of mobile knowledge workers, influencing educational expectations and behaviour (Traxler, 2007). Mobile realities include the connectedness of people (Traxler, 2010a), benefits of mobile productivity (Park, 2014) and applicable, rhizomatic, and workable mobile preferences (Cronjé, 2016).
1.3.1 Architectural technology as an ill-defined domain
The concept ‘ill-definedness’ is viewed by Lynch et al. (2009) in many ways. Problems are characterised by a set of “…concepts, relations, or solution criteria [that] are un- or under-specified, open-textured, or intractable, requiring a solver to frame or recharacterize it. …” demonstrating a “… lack a single strong domain theory uniquely specifying the essential concepts, relationships, and procedures for the domain and providing a means to validate problem solutions or cases …” (p. 258). They refer to architectural problems as being ill-defined as “…no amount of expertise can provide the indisputable answer …” (p. 261).
Figure 1.1 illustrates the digital context of an innovative architectural technology programme represented as a virtual design studio. Contrary to traditional design studio contexts, students and lecturers collaborate, do online crits and assessments and deliver practical design artifacts digitally. The process is facilitated via a hub - a bespoke customisation of Microsoft SharePoint which supports webinar sessions, conference calling and document sharing. This figure is repeated for convenience later as Figure 2.8 in Section 2.6.1.
Mobile personal learning environments are social and encompass informal, personalised and ad hoc use of mobile technology.
Figure 1.1: Architectural technology in the context of the study
A novel third-year architectural technology programme defines the primary context of the study. The hybrid initiative is offered by the South African Institute of Architects (SAIA), vetted by OpenArchitecture (OpenArchitecture Education, 2014) and delivered by a higher education institution in South Africa. This
2012). An online blend offers a virtual studio environment which simulates the traditional studio space. Face-to- face block sessions complement online critiques, digital course content, and web-based interactivity such as webinars delivered by lecturers via a customised Microsoft SharePoint learning portal. Emerging technologies support off-campus teaching and learning, augmented via TED-Ed lessons and YouTube videos.
Architectural technology, an ill-defined domain, is characterised by an ongoing personal dialogue, conversations involving fellow students and communication between students and lecturers (Morkel, 2012). Interactivity extends beyond campus confines into the world of work and incorporates digital tools such as Facebook groups and blogs for educational purposes (Ivala & Gachago, 2012; Morkel, 2012). While the build of a model is informed by an architectural brief, evaluation of competence is a difficult mechanism, since assessment is based largely on the application of taught principles rather than the principles in and of themselves. Assessment is determined by the ability to produce drawings, formulate projections, display creativity and apply self-expression (Lynch et al., 2009).
The innovative application of emerging technologies in ill-defined domains such as architectural technology is well documented. Morkel (2012) reports the successful use of Facebook in virtual architecture studios as a facilitating medium that promotes interactivity, communication and architectural conversation. Similarly, Ivala and Gachago (2012) suggest social media have the potential to improve student engagement, calling for lecturer involvement with the integration of new technologies into teaching and learning but acknowledging the role of student stakeholders whose valued participation and voice should be noted.
Table 1.2: Emerging technologies
Emerging technology Purpose
Blackboard Institutional LMS
GoToMeeting Web-based seminars, i.e. webinars
SharePoint Content delivery and critique submission
Skype Communication, assessment, feedback
TED-Ed Customised digital lessons
YouTube Video enhancement of lessons
Table 1.1 summarises the main emerging educational technologies relevant to the higher education context of the study.
1.3.2 Stakeholders
Key educational stakeholders include institutional decision makers, faculty and departmental managers, designers and developers of instructional resources and delivery mechanisms, responsible lecturers, and
enrolled students. Success of digital learning environments is dependent on meeting expectations and satisfying concerns of stakeholders (Wagner et al., 2008). The study incorporates attitudes and opinions of the stakeholders from one faculty, namely, the dean – an executive and strategic faculty leader, a champion of emerging technologies viewed as an expert in the architecture domain, a selection of tactical-level faculty academics, a cohort of part-time architectural technology students and dedicated architectural technology lecturers.
1.3.3 Affordances of mobile technology
Students may benefit from the affordances of mobile Web 2.0 technologies that support “connectivity, mobility, geolocation, social networking, personal podcasting and vodcasting” (Cochrane & Bateman, 2010:2). Lecturers are assured the inclusion of mobile technologies in their teaching regimes remains relevant (Herrington & Herrington, 2007:8). Educational benefits of mobile technologies incorporate the delivery of content irrespective of time and space, instantaneous support for seamless learning in differing environments (Lai et al., 2007:327) and educational engagement via social media, for example, Facebook (Ng'ambi et al., 2016).
The affordances of ubiquitous Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones, laptops, tablets and netbooks encourage the integration of emerging technologies into educational contexts and facilitate digital interactivity (Fischer et al., 2013; Barry et al., 2015). Mobile technologies may extend and augment learning practices (MacCallum & Kinshuk, 2008) and afford mobile lecturers and students opportunities to enhance informal teaching and learning via online platforms that house digital artefacts (Ng, 2015).
1.3.4 Mobile personal learning environments (MPLEs)
Personal learning environments (PLEs) may comprise a set of cloud-based technologies that support holistic learning (Martindale & Dowdy, 2010) and student efforts to collect and share resources (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). PLEs constitute technology-enhanced learning (TEL) contexts (Rahimi et al., 2015). In addition, they provide a milieu for interactivity, communication and collaboration with a people-centric focus on informal learning. Besides highlighting the student-driven value of social technologies, learning experiences are ongoing and personally motivated (Attwell et al., 2009). The incorporation of specifically designed and developed social media that support educational activities has the potential to improve learning (Kožuh et al., 2015).
1.3.5 The researcher as a primary data source
I am an IS lecturer in a higher education environment where a formalised tablet technology implementation aimed to enhance teaching and learning. I identify with Rogers’ view that “change agents may increase the predictability of the rate of adoption of innovations” (Rogers, 2003, cited in Sahin, 2006:17). Consequently, I prefer to fill the role of champion (Cronjé, 2016), promoting the benefits of mobile technology used for educational purposes among academic colleagues and students.