Not the right kind of ‘digital capital’? An examination of the complex relationship between disabled students, their technologies and higher education institutions

Tai-Seale, Ming; Georgeson, Jan; Mamas, Christoforos; Swain, Julie A.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.007

Cited by 113 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with other researchers [5,11,21,25], our analysis of feedback highlights the importance of understanding the users engagement with technology in context as part of accessibility. In particular, having skills, strategies, and confidence-levels that are developed and disrupted over time.…”

Section: Conceptualise the Development And Changes To The User Over Tsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…As an initial basis for this, four categories were devised that broadly reflect distinct areas of concern for accessibility in online education [21][22][23]. These were: Course-related; Disability-related, People and Organisations; and Tools and Resources.…”

Section: Categorisation Of Abstractmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intertwined nature of this is identified by Seale et al (2015), who find that support from institutional staff, appropriate training opportunities, and attitudes towards technology are key factors in the 'Digital Capital' that impact on the use of general and assistive technologies by disabled students [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Accessibility as a Process through the Analysis of Feedback from Disabled Students

Coughlan

Ullmann

Lister

2017

Proceedings of the 14th International Web for All Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessibility cannot be fully achieved through adherence to technical guidelines, and must include processes that take account of the diverse contexts and needs of individuals. A complex yet important aspect of this is to understand and utilise feedback from disabled users of systems and services. Open comment feedback can complement other practices in providing rich data from user perspectives, but this presents challenges for analysis at scale. In this paper, we analyse a large dataset of open comment feedback from disabled students on their online and distance learning experience, and we explore opportunities and challenges in the analysis of this data. This includes the automated and manual analysis of content and themes, and the integration of information about the respondent alongside their feedback. Our analysis suggests that procedural themes, such as changes to the individual over time, and their experiences of interpersonal interactions, provide key examples of areas where feedback can lead to insight for the improvement of accessibility. Reflecting on this analysis in the context of our institution, we provide recommendations on the analysis of feedback data, and how feedback can be better embedded into organisational processes. CCS Concepts• User Characteristics~People with Disabilities • Accessibility ~Accessibility design and evaluation methods.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualise the Development And Changes To The User Over Tsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Categorisation Of Abstractmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding Accessibility as a Process through the Analysis of Feedback from Disabled Students

Coughlan

Ullmann

Lister

2017

Proceedings of the 14th International Web for All Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of technology as part of the agenda to promote wider access by all has obfuscated a wider capability issue, with studies beginning to examine the intricacies of digital exclusion and questioning whether some students have 'the right kind of digital capital' (Seale et al, 2015). In seeking to avoid further digital inequalities, educators must acknowledge that there is evidence of a disparity in the relationship between transformative learning and technologyenabled learning (TEL).…”

Section: Contextualising Digital Inequalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The massification of HE started explicitly with the report by Robbins (1963), which called for mass expansion of HE in the UK, yet also recognised that certain steps had to be taken to encourage wider social mobility within the sector. This starting point spawned a range of national initiatives, such as Aimhigher and, recently, the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP) to try to engage the apparently 'unengaged', whilst access to HEincluding financial incentives -is now co-ordinated by an Office for Fair Access (OFFA); hence, it is now big business for all HEIs.The use of technology as part of the agenda to promote wider access by all has obfuscated a wider capability issue, with studies beginning to examine the intricacies of digital exclusion and questioning whether some students have 'the right kind of digital capital' (Seale et al, 2015). In seeking to avoid further digital inequalities, educators must acknowledge that there is evidence of a disparity in the relationship between transformative learning and technologyenabled learning (TEL).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are all students 'hard to reach' in a digital higher education (H.E.) context?

Jones‐Devitt

Austen

Irwin

et al. 2017

EIPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextualising digital inequalitiesThe concept of 'hard to reach' groups in HE -and addressing such under-representationhas been occupying Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) for many decades. The massification of HE started explicitly with the report by Robbins (1963), which called for mass expansion of HE in the UK, yet also recognised that certain steps had to be taken to encourage wider social mobility within the sector. This starting point spawned a range of national initiatives, such as Aimhigher and, recently, the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP) to try to engage the apparently 'unengaged', whilst access to HEincluding financial incentives -is now co-ordinated by an Office for Fair Access (OFFA); hence, it is now big business for all HEIs.The use of technology as part of the agenda to promote wider access by all has obfuscated a wider capability issue, with studies beginning to examine the intricacies of digital exclusion and questioning whether some students have 'the right kind of digital capital' (Seale et al, 2015). In seeking to avoid further digital inequalities, educators must acknowledge that there is evidence of a disparity in the relationship between transformative learning and technologyenabled learning (TEL). While highlighting that TEL has the potential to enhance and enrich student learning, Torrisi-Steele and Drew (2013), Henderson et al (2015) and Kirkwood (2014) all had reservations about its evident transformative nature. Evidence from our study indicates that the use of technology within HE can be primarily for efficiency and effectiveness -commonly known as hygiene factors -rather than for emancipation. Being a 'digital native' is not enoughAnecdotally, there are strong beliefs held concerning assumptions that students arrive at HEIs as apparent 'digital natives' who are very comfortable with all digital processes. However, whilst many students are attuned intuitively to being connected socially by using technology such as Facebook as part of their everyday lives, they are far less likely to arrive with effective information-retrieval and -interrogation approaches -as needed and expected of new entrant 'Generation Zs' for academic study or for future employability development. Evidence is beginning to suggest that the attributes of digital natives are poor predictors of competent information literacy (Sorgo et al, 2016). Our review found that students themselves often fail to appreciate the role of technology in student-centred approaches to learning, expressing support for logistical benefits and hygiene factors (Henderson et al, 2015;Torrisi-Steele and Drew, 2013) rather than for 'creative, collaborative, hyperconnected practices' (Henderson et al, 2015:10). This can be linked inherently with a student as consumer ethos (Henderson et al, 2015;Hutchings et al, 2014), in which metrics of satisfaction are aligned problematically with teaching practice. For example, measures of perceived 'usefulness' (Henderson et al, 2015) were used as proxies for effective TEL and, as...

show abstract