Crossing

boundaries:

Lecturers’

perspectives on the

use of WhatsApp to

support teaching

and learning in

Higher EducationDaniela Gachago, CPUT

Sonja Strydom, SU

Pauline Hanekom, SU

Shaheda Simons, UWC

Shirley Walters, UWC

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

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?

Affordances of WhatsApp

Widely used

Resource non-intensive

Works on feature phones

Sharing of resources/multimedia very easy

Group functionality

Mute functionality

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)

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)

Boundary mechanisms of

learning (Akkerman and Bakker 2011)

Identification

Coordination

Reflection

Transformation

IdentificationBoundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes

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

CoordinationBoundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes

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

ReflectionBoundary mechanisms of 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

Transformation

Boundary mechanisms of learning Common learning processes

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

Methodology

Qualitative paradigm

Multiple case studies

3 lecturers from a regional staff

development course

Written case studies, reflections, focus

groups

Thematic analysis (Atlas TI)

Case study 1CASE 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

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

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

Findings Case Study 1I’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

Findings Case Study 1And then they started asking eachother: 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

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 inand 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

Findings Case Study 3They 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

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

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

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 andepistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 45(3): 255–262.

Pimmer, C. and U. Groehbiel. 2013. The affordances of social mobile media for boundarycrossing. In SSRE2013 Integrating formal and informal learning. pp. 2011–2014.

Rambe, P. and A. Bere. 2013. Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learnerparticipation and transform pedagogy at a South African University of Technology. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 44(4): 544–561. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/bjet.120574 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.