First-Year Engineering Students’ Use of Digital Technology for Learning
The Role of Agency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/irspbl-11066Keywords:
Agency, Digital technologies, First-year engineering student, ContradictionsAbstract
The use of digital technology has become integral for teaching and learning in engineering curricula at universities. However, in South Africa, many students enter their first year of study with limited prior access to and engagement with digital technologies for learning, which presents challenges for them and their educators. This paper is based on a PhD study that explores the student experience, specifically agency, when students use digital technologies for their coursework in first-year engineering. The key question posed in this study is “How do engineering students demonstrate agency when using digital technologies for their coursework?” The study drew on Cultural Historical Activity Theory as a systemic framing for analysing learning as a socially mediated, culturally situated activity, emphasizing the dynamic interactions between its tenets. An ethnographic approach, which entailed observations, focus groups, and individual interviews, was employed to collect data and answer the research question. By mapping the elements within activity systems, the study identifies contradictions such as mismatches between students’ prior digital experiences and institutional expectations that catalyse learning. The findings show variation in agentic engagement and action by students as they developed their ability to use digital technologies for course activities. The study revealed how digital literacy is not merely acquired but co-constructed through participation in culturally and historically embedded practices where students took initiative to improve their digital skills, used adaptation strategies to sustain learning, and redefined the status quo in unfavourable circumstances.
References
Aagaard, T., & Lund, A. (2020). Digital agency in higher education: Transforming teaching and learning. Routledge.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. sage. Andresen, B. B. (2020). The Agency of Teachers in the 21 st Century--Design and Certification of Vocational E-Learning. Open Conference on Computers in Education, 84–93.
Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is ‘agency’’? Perspectives in science education research.’ International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735–754.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.
Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2.
Bozhovich, L. I. (2004). LS Vygotsky’s historical and cultural theory and its significance for contemporary studies of the psychology of personality. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(4), 20– 34.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brod, G., Kucirkova, N., Shepherd, J., Jolles, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). Agency in educational technology: Interdisciplinary perspectives and implications for learning design. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 25.
Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523–2546.
Cornér, T. (2020). The Emergence of Students’ Transformative Agency in a Novel Design and Making Environment.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Czerniewicz, L. (2020). What we learnt from “going online” during university shutdowns in South Africa. In PhilonEdTech. https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-going-online-during-university- shutdowns-in-south-africa/
Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2014). The habitus and technological practices of rural students: a case study. South African Journal of Education, 34(1).
Czerniewicz, L., Trotter, H., & Haupt, G. (2019). Online teaching in response to student protests and campus shutdowns: academics’ perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–22.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Echenique, E. G., Molias, L. M., & Bullen, M. (2015). Students in higher education: Social and academic uses of digital technology. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(1), 25– 37.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: an activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7(5), 395–412.
Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research. Looking Ten Years Back and into the Zone of Proximal Development. Nordisk Pedagogikk, 16(3).
Engeström, Y. (1999). Engeström’s outline of three generations of Activity Theory.
Engeström, Y. (2001a). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2001b). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.
Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2020). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1–20.
Ganduri, L., Collier-Reed, B., & Shaw, C. (2023). A Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Approach To Studying. The Development Of Students’ Digital Agency In Higher Education.
Ganduri, L., Shaw, C., & Collier-Reed, B. (2021). Digital agency among engineering educators post emergence remote teaching. SEFI 49th Annual Conference - Blended Learning in Engineering Education: Challenging, Enlightening – and Lasting? 13 – 16 September 2021 – Berlin, GE.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Gobo, G., & Marciniak, L. T. (2011). Ethnography. Qualitative Research, 3(1), 15–36.
Hammersley, M. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it? Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 1–17.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: principles in practice. 2007. London and New York: Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
Holland, D., & Lachicotte, W. (2007). Vygotsky, Mead, and the new sociocultural studies of identity.
Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Assessing agency of university students: validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2061–2079.
Jantjies, M. (2020). How South Africa can address digital inequalities in e-learning. The Conversation., Http://Theconversation. Com.
Johnson, M., Peng, X., Yalvac, B., Ozturk, E., & Liu, K. (2014). An examination of the effects of contextual computer-Aided design exercises on student modeling performance. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 24–155.
Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019). Young people, digital mediation, and transformative agency, special issue (part 1). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 201–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1652653
Khalid, M. S., & Pedersen, M. J. L. (2016). Digital exclusion in higher education contexts: A systematic literature review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 614–621.
Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69–85. doi:10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Citeseer.
Kumpulainen, K., Kajamaa, A., & Rajala, A. (2018). Understanding educational change: Agency-structure dynamics in a novel design and making environment. Digital Education Review, 33, 26–38.
la Cruz Paragas, F., & Lin, T. T. C. (2016). Organizing and reframing technological determinism. New Media& Society, 18(8), 1528–1546.
Lazar, J. (2021). Managing digital accessibility at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–17.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality.
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Garnett, F., Whitworth, A., Akass, J., Cook, J., Day, P., Ecclesfield, N., Hamilton, T., & Robertson, J. (2011). Learner-generated contexts: A framework to support the effective use of technology for learning. In Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 70–84). IGI Global.
Lund, A., & Aagaard, T. (2020). Digitalization of teacher education: Are we prepared for epistemic change?
Mekoa, I. (2018). Challenges facing higher education in South Africa: a change from apartheid education to democratic education. African Renaissance, 15(2), 227–246.
Mhlanga, D. (2020). Industry 4.0: The Challenges Associated with the Digital Transformation of Education in South Africa. The Impacts of Digital Transformation, 13.
Mian, S. H., Salah, B., Ameen, W., Moiduddin, K., & Alkhalefah, H. (2020). Adapting universities for sustainability education in Industry 4.0: Channel of challenges and opportunities. Sustainability, 12(15), 6100.
Moya, A. A., & Damsa, C. (2023). Affordances and agency in students’ use of online platforms and resources beyond curricular boundaries. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(4), 685–700.
Naidoo, S., & Raju, J. (2012). Impact of the digital divide on information literacy training in a higher education context. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 78(1), 34–44.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384.
Ozturk, E., Yalvac, B., Johnson, M., Peng, X., & Liu, K. (2015). Adaptive expertise and its manifestation in CAD modeling: A comparison of practitioners and students. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 26–155.
Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T., & Smits, A. (2018). Digital agency: Empowering equity in and through education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x
Peng, X., McGary, P., Ozturk, E., Yalvac, B., Johnson, M., & Valverde, L. M. (2014). Analyzing adaptive expertise and contextual exercise in computer-aided design. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 11(5), 597–607.
Rainio, A. P. (2010). Lionhearts of the playworld: An ethnographic case study of the development of agency in play pedagogy [Helsingin yliopisto]. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-5959-9 http://hdl.handle.net/10138/19883
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 1–338.
Sannino, A. (2015). The emergence of transformative agency and double stimulation: Activity-based studies in the Vygotskian tradition. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 1–3.
Schubotz, R. I., Ebel, S. J., Elsner, B., Weiss, P. H., & Wörgötter, F. (2023). Tool mastering today--an interdisciplinary perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1191792.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.
Siddiq, F., Røkenes, F. M., Lund, A., & Scherer, R. (2023). New kid on the block? a conceptual systematic review of digital agency. Education and Information Technologies, 1–32.
Stenalt, M. H. (2020). Researching student agency in digital education as if the social aspects matter: students’ experience of participatory dimensions of online peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15.
Stenalt, M. H. (2021). Digital student agency: Approaching agency in digital contexts from a critical perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 9(3), 52–68. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1309730
Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1), 21–39.
Tamássy, R., Géring, Z., Király, G., Plugor, R., & Rakovics, M. (2023). The portrayal of the role and agency of students and higher education institutions in highly ranked business school discourses. Journal of International Education in Business. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259558739
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978a). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (V. John-Steiner, E. Souberman, M. Cole, & S. Scribner (eds.)). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978b). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 52–58.
Wong, B., & Chiu, Y.-L. T. (2021). Exploring the concept of ‘ideal’university student. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 497–508.
Zhang, D., Peng, X., Yalvac, B., Eseryel, D., Nadeem, U., & Islam, A. (2017). Integrating student-made screencasts into computer-aided design education. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 14(sup1), 41–50.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
