Main Article Content
technology, digital literacy, COVID-19, e-learning, mixed methods
In this paper, through the replication of a pre-COVID-19 research project, we seek to test and compare first-year Australian university students’ study and private uses of technology; compare the desires and capacities of different cohorts (Law and Justice vs Engineering) for technology use; and identify any impacts arising from COVID-19 to their learning experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data, collected by an online questionnaire, identified that, while some participants had more experience with different technologies, there were limited differences between the cohorts’ willingness to use, and their use of, technology for study purposes. Concerns expressed by participants related to where, when, and for what purpose technology was used. Participants all had access to a smart phone, and almost all used a laptop for study purposes. The results suggest the combination of online or pre-recorded lectures and synchronous (either face-to-face or online) tutorials was the most favoured option. While participants were comfortable with the use of technology in teaching and learning, they were wary about using such tools for private communications; however, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, appeared to be in common use. The results confirm the need for a broader and more in-depth understanding of students’ technology uses, needs, and desires.
Alam, K., & Mamun, S. A. K. (2017). Access to broadband Internet and labour force outcomes: A case study of the Western Downs Region. Queensland. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.12.011
Ali, M. A., Alam, K., Taylor, B., & Rafiq, S. (2020). Does digital inclusion affect quality of life? Evidence from Australian household panel data. Telematics and Informatics, 51 (Article 101405). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101405
Alzahrani, L., & Seth, K. P. (2021). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6787–6805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10492-5
Amponsah, S. (2021). Echoing the voices of SWVIs under Covid-19 inspired online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6607–6627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10479-2
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1 (Article 100011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P., Quiroga-Garza, A., Gómez-Mendoza, S., Del Río Villanueva, C. A., Avolio Alecchi, B., & Avci, D. (2021). Comparison of students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19 in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Turkey. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6823–6845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10473-8
Arslantas, T. K., & Gul, A. (2022). Digital literacy skills of university students with visual impairment: A mixed-methods analysis. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10860-1
Aydin, M. (2021). Does the digital divide matter? Factors and conditions that promote ICT literacy. Telematics and Informatics, 58 (Article 101536). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101536.
Arpaci, I., Al-Emran, M., & Al-Sharafi, M. A. (2020). The impact of knowledge management practices on the acceptance of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) by engineering students: A cross-cultural comparison. Telematics and Informatics, 54 (Article 101468). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101468.
Baragash, R. S., & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Blended learning: Investigating the influence of engagement in multiple learning delivery modes on students’ performance. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 2082–2098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.010
Barnes, C., & Tynan, B. (2007). The Adventures of Miranda in the Brave New World: Learning in a Web 2.0 Millennium. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 15(3), 189–200. Retrieved June 27, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/102682/
Bustillo-Booth, M. (2021). Equity by Design and Delivery Model in Online Learning: Educator and Student Perceptions and Behaviors and Leading Indicators of Systemic Change, Ed.D. Dissertations in Practice. 69. https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/edd_capstones/69
Chakraborty, A., Bhattacharjee, S., Marsden, J. R., Shankar, R., Katz, E. S., & Vallee, W. L. (2018). Predictive models to measure the impact of fiber-optic broadband speeds on local towns and communities. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1408–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.011.
Chakravarti, I., Laha, R., & Roy, J. (1967). Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics: Volume 1. John Wiley and Sons.
Charness, N., & Boot, W. R. (2016). Chapter 20 – Technology, Gaming, and Social Networking. Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (Eighth Edition). Eds: Schaie, K. W., Willis, S. L. Academic Press. 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-411469-2.00020-0.
Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54: sup 1, S14–S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998
Cradduck, L. (2013). Digitally enabled?! An analysis of law and justice students' use of smart devices. In Issa, T., Sharef, N M, Isaias, P, & Kommers, P. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Technologies and Society 2013. IADIS Press, Malaysia, 107–111.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved January 21, 2022. https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2013/9/ers1302-pdf.pdf?la=en
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
De Boer, P. S., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Rompay, T. J. L. (2019). Accepting the Internet-of-Things in our homes: The role of user skills. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.004
Goksu, I. (2021). Bibliometric mapping of mobile learning. Telematics and Informatics, 56 (Article 101491). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101491
Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: towards a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society. 5(4), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480354003
Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016
Hamidi, H., & Jahanshaheefard, M. (2019). Essential factors for the application of education information system using mobile learning: A case study of students of the university of technology. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.002
Hampton, K. N., Robertson, C. T., Fernandez, L., Shin, I., & Bauer, J. M. (2021). How variation in internet access, digital skills, and media use are related to rural student outcomes: GPA, SAT, and educational aspirations. Telematics and Informatics, 63 (Article 101666). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101666
Horn, C., & Rennie, E. (2018). Digital access, choice and agency in remote Sarawak. Telematics and Informatics. 35(7), 1935–1948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.006
Hornik, S., Johnson, R., & Wu, Y. (2007). When Technology Does Not Support Learning: Conflicts Between Episemological Beliefs and Technology Support in Virtual Learning Environments. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 19(2), 23–46. http://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2007040102
Ifinedo, P., Pyke, J., & Anwar, A. (2018). Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.001.
Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M. A., Gu, X., & Spector, J. M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6747–6769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10519-x.
Jurado, D., Redondo, M., & Ortega, M. (2012). Blackboard architecture to integrate components and agents in heterogeneous distributed eLearning systems: an application for learning to program. The Journal of Systems and Software, 85(7), 1621–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.009
Khan, M. L., Welser, H. T., Cisneros, C., Manatong, G., & Idris, I. K. (2020). Digital inequality in the Appalachian Ohio: Understanding how demographics, internet access, and skills can shape vital information use (VIU). Telematics and Informatics, 50 (Article 101380). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101380
Kidd, W. (2011). Utilising podcast for learning and teaching: a review and ways forward for e-learning cultures. Management in Education, 26 (2), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020612438031
Lee, H.-J., Park, N., & Hwang, Y. (2015). A new dimension of the digital divide: Exploring the relationship between broadband connection, smartphone use and communication competence. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.02.001
Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
McNeill, M., Diao, M., & Gosper, M. (2011). Student uses of technology in learning: Two lenses. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. 8(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651111125478
Matthew, A. (2012). Managing distraction and attention in diverse cohorts: 21st century challenges to law student engagement. QUT Law and Justice Journal, 12(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v12i1.229
Mois, G., & Beer, J. M. (2020). Chapter 3 – Robotics to support aging in place. Living with Robots. Eds: Pak, R., de Visser, E. J., Rovira E. Academic Press. 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815367-3.00003-7
Moreira, F., & Rocha, Á. (2017). A Special Issue on New Technologies and the Future of Education and Training. Telematics and Informatics, 34(6), 811–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.008
Morris, T., & Rohs, M. (2021). Digitization bolstering self-directed learning for information literate adults – A systematic review. Computers and Education Open, 2 (Article 100048). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100048
Nam, J., & Jung, Y. (2021). Digital natives’ snack content consumption and their goals: A means-end chain approach. Telematics and Informatics, 63 (Article 101664). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101664
Nelson, K., Kift, S., & Harper, W. (2005). First portal in a storm: a virtual space for transition students. Proceedings ASCILITE 2005, QUT, Brisbane, Queensland, 509–517. https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/58_Nelson.pdf
O'Sullivan, J. (2018). Beyond solutions: Students’ rationales for print and screen reading in Irish higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.012
Peña-Ayala, A. (2021). A learning design cooperative framework to instil 21st century education. Telematics and Informatics, 62 (Article 101632). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101632
Picatoste, J., Pérez-Ortiz, L., & Ruesga-Benito, S. M. (2018). A new educational pattern in response to new technologies and sustainable development. Enlightening ICT skills for youth employability in the European Union. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1031–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.014
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
Schöpfel, J., & Azeroual, O. (2021). Chapter 2 – Current research information systems and institutional repositories: From data ingestion to convergence and merger. In Chandos Digital Information Review. Future Directions in Digital Information. Eds: Baker, D., Ellis, L. Chandos Publishing, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822144-0.00002-1
Souabni, R., Saâdi, I. B., & Ben Ghezala, H. (2019). A multidimensional framework to study situation awareness in u-learning systems. Telematics and Informatics, 43 (Article 101246). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101246
Tanaka, E. (2012). The evolution of distance learning and factors promoting ICT use in the pacific islands: focusing on the possibility of e-learning opportunities for higher education. Keio Communications Review, 34, 37–55. https://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2012/KCR34_03TANAKA.pdf
Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
Yazgan, Ç. Ü. (2022). Attitudes and interaction practices towards distance education during the pandemic. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10843-2
Yuan, Y.-P., Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., & Lim, W.-L. (2021). Can COVID-19 pandemic influence experience response in mobile learning? Telematics and Informatics, 64 (Article 101676). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101676