What is important and why? Students’ experience of educational activities including technologies

Abstract

Digital technology is now a central part of higher education and has led to high expectations of increased student activity, engagement, and learning. Drawing on two research projects about Norwegian bachelor’s students, this article explores how they experience educational activities, including the use of technologies in on-campus courses. It is vital to understand this from the students’ point of view. Data have been gathered from qualitative group interviews and an online survey. The analysis draws on socio-cultural perspectives on learning, focusing on what forms of activities and technologies the students experienced as important and useful, or challenging, in various contexts. The results suggest that, despite extensive access to digital technologies, the students experience that activities that support physical encounters on campus, such as lectures and group work, are more important and beneficial than flexible digital solutions. Technologies are basically experienced as a supplement for handling academic demands. The possible implications this has for students’ experiences of educational activities and technology use, and teachers’ facilitation, are discussed. The overall intention is to highlight the significance of the students’ experiences, as well as contribute to more realistic institutional expectations for the pedagogical use of technology.

Introduction

Digital technologies are now a central aspects of students’ everyday life and an integral part of educational activities in higher education. Political initiatives, in tandem with professional and public debates, encourage educational institutions to increase the use of digital technology to enhance student-centred learning activities and educational quality (Fossland, 2015: 14; Henderson et al., 2017). The Kofoed et al. (2019: 22) documents that many university lecturers believe that digital technology can facilitate new forms of communication and collaboration. Students are expected to be active in teaching as well as master and use the institution’s technology. Such initiatives and expectations are based on assumptions about today’s students as fully technologically competent (Selwyn, 2016: 1006) and what they need to learn to become knowledgeable and competent graduates and engaged citizens (Damşa and De Lange, 2018: 10). The COVID-19 pandemic has also accelerated expectations of increased flexibility and access, forcing educational institutions to use technology to communicate with students and colleagues (Fritze et al., 2022: 219).

Much research about the benefits of new technologies in education focuses on the challenges that teachers face when planning and carrying out teaching; however, it also highlights the positive impacts on students’ learning (Jahnke et al., 2017; Kalantzis and Cope, 2008). This article responds to calls within an emerging field of research that aims to increase knowledge about students’ own perspectives on technologies in educational activities, since this is seen as crucial to how they engage and learn (Selwyn, 2016: 1007; Lee and Branch, 2018: 586). The following research questions guide this article: How do bachelor’s students experience educational activities including technologies? What kind of activities and technologies do they experience as important and useful, and what do they see as challenging, and why? This article draws on data from two research projects about bachelor’s students in a Norwegian university college which explored how they experience opportunities and challenges in activities involving technologies in on-campus courses. The analysis is based on a socio-cultural approach to learning and meaning making in social activities that include the use of technology (Säljö, 2010).

The results allow us to discuss how the students’ interpretations might influence engagement and learning. With the students’ perspectives as the point of departure, and by focusing on their actual use of technologies, we hope to nuance well-fortified assumptions about young people as highly competent technology users. We also hope to avoid focusing on what can be seen as unfruitful dichotomies between good or bad sides of technologies in learning (Selwyn, 2016: 1006). As many have emphasised, it is not technology itself that is essential for development and learning. Rather, much depends on the strategies teachers use to provide students with opportunities to be active and engaged, as well as explore and generate knowledge, and take responsibility for their own learning (Damşa and De Lange, 2018: 10-11; Krumsvik, 2016; Lee and Branch, 2018: 591). We therefore discuss how a better-founded understanding of students’ experiences and interpretations of their use of technologies in educational activities might help lecturers to facilitate a greater degree of participation and academic engagement (Krumsvik, 2016; Lee and Branch, 2018; Selwyn, 2016).

Research on students’ experience of educational activities involving digital technologies

Existing research has generated valuable insight into how students experience educational activities with digital technologies (Bern et al., 2021; Damşa and De Lange, 2018; Henderson et al., 2017; Lee and Branch, 2018). Many scholars argue for the potential in directing attention towards how students experience and give meaning to technologies in higher education (Selwyn, 2016:1007; Drange and Birkeland, 2016). In general, these studies point to the benefit of paying more attention towards how students justify their own engagement in educational activities and technologies, i.e., why they engage with specific forms of technologies during their academic work. Henderson et al. (2017) argue for the need to explore students’ actual approaches and more mundane use of digital technology in academic work as “[t]his raises questions about the roles that these technologies are playing in student learning, the meanings that are being attached to different digital practices, and the outcomes and consequences of any use” (Henderson et al., 2017: 1568). For example, the authors examine what Australian students find to be particularly useful forms of technologies in on-campus courses. Results from a survey of 1658 undergraduates, focusing on descriptions in open-ended questions, document that fulfilling course requirements by using digital tools to research information, was one of the most cited reasons for perceiving technology as particularly useful. For instance, library databases; flexibilities of time and place; ease of organising and managing study tasks; reviewing, replaying and revising’ digitally recorded learning materials; and using social media to ask questions, exchange information and collaborate, were common responses (Henderson et al., 2017: 1570-1571). The authors point out that their results highlight clear gaps between students’ actual uses of digital technology and the rhetoric of ‘technology-enhanced-learning’, as well as a need for educators to develop better understandings of the realities of students’ encounters with technology (Henderson et al., 2017:1576). The authors conclude, however, that many of the ‘educational’ benefits of technologies that students reported can be described as “concerned with the ‘logistics’ of university study rather than matters related directly to ‘learning’ per se.”

According to Selwyn (2016), in addition to benefits and opportunities, it is necessary to investigate the more problematic aspects of technologies, as students are expected to relate to these during their studies. Selwyn documents how Australian students experience the ‘digital downsides’, i.e., the more unsuccessful use of institutional technologies in on-campus courses. Based on an extensive survey, he finds that the students experienced difficulties in retrieving information from the learning management system, something they mainly associated with the way lecturers organised course information (Selwyn, 2016: 1030). In addition, the students experienced the lecturer’s use of technologies as disruptive and even incompetent, resulting in loss of precious time. Students also viewed social media, such as Facebook, as distracting and unhelpful in academic settings. This impression even applies to academic library databases (Selwyn, 2016: 1011-1013). Drange and Birkeland (2016); NorwayUniversity (2014) also document that Norwegian students find academic libraries databases difficult to access.

In another relevant study Lee and Branch (2018:586) draw on a survey and semi-structured interviews of 32 American students. They find that the students’ perceptions of a student-centred learning environment involving multimedia tools – as well as their beliefs about teaching and learning, and previous experiences in technology – influenced their perceptions of and participation in the environment and on-campus courses. The authors conclude that teachers need to facilitate the development of a learning culture that helps students understand and appreciate teaching in student-centred learning environments (Lee and Branch, 2018: 591-592). These studies support other studies that highlight individual differences among young people in terms of how they relate to technologies in educational activities, and by this they nuance established myths about the digital generation (Moll et al., 2015: 1; Selwyn, 2016: 1006; Stewart, 2015: 494). These studies are relevant in this context because they provide examples of how students’ experiences, prior knowledge and perceptions direct engagement and participation in activities and technologies.

Norwegian research that documents students’ preferences for campus lectures is also relevant here, as this research can supplement the studies mentioned above. Although Norwegian students retain heavy access to technology and online resources, as is typical throughout the Western world, several studies document that many prefer to engage in established forms of activities, like the campus lecture (Drange and Birkeland, 2016; Kofoed et al., 2019: 24; Norway University, 2014; Thingnes et al., 2015). Although the value of the lecture has long been debated, many point out that attending lectures and reading textbooks are still central activities associated with higher education (Drange and Birkeland, 2016; Thingnes et al., 2015). Thingnes et al. document that students clearly view lectures on campus as relevant to their learning, and interviews show that students associate lectures with attendance, exam focus, and access to appropriate resources, such as PowerPoint presentations. They related the learning contribution to the fact that lecturers simplified the literature and provided pegs on which to hang the syllabus. Thingnes et al. also point out that the students’ descriptions of their learning strategies, together with the limited use of, for instance, video lectures, reveal an instrumental approach to learning. These results are in line with other research outlining that students are concerned with efficient and exam-oriented strategies (Drange and Birkeland, 2016; Henderson et al., 2017; Selwyn, 2016). Moll et al. (2015: 11) suggest that such orientations often result in superficial solutions, such as googling to find ‘the right answer’, instead of searching academic databases or engaging in dynamic teaching methods. A survey from Norway University (2014:10) also shows that, even though nine out of ten students believe that digital technology makes collaboration easier, only half believe that it contributes to better learning.

Research on students’ use and experience of social media in on-campus courses is also interesting in this context. Despite numerous asserted benefits, such as increased student creativity and enhanced communication, and even though students avidly use social media on a day-to-day basis (Stewart, 2015: 485), many find that most of their communication is based on surface-level encouragement and organising study work, rather than course-related topics (Adalberon and Säljö, 2015; Selwyn, 2016). Such findings nuance common assumptions that today’s digitally savvy technology users easily transfer leisure experiences from technologies into educational contexts (Stewart, 2015: 494; Krumsvik, 2016: 324).

Since this article draws on data collected before and in the wake of the pandemic, it is relevant to include research into how students experienced the introduction of Zoom, a video communication tool, as a replacement for lectures on campus. Drawing on interviews, Solberg et al. (2021: 12) document that more than 70% of Norwegian students believe that lectures on Zoom results in less learning, compared with lectures on campus. Bern et al. (2021) find that some students experienced that their own participation increased in lectures on Zoom, while others saw themselves as passive. While some experienced the communication to be more direct and an efficient use of time, others lost track and felt it became difficult to participate in discussions. Graf et al. (2021) demonstrate how Danish university students experienced video conferences during oral exams as challenging because of turn-taking, eye contact and the experience of one-way communication. The students also experienced a lack of social physical contact. This study is interesting here, as it says something about how technology has an impact on our way of understanding and acting. The national survey from The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (2022: 44) is also relevant in this context as it documents about half of students’ experiences as less integrated into the social student environment. About 50% experience to some or a great extent that digital tools are used in such a way that they become actively involved in the teaching (2022: 33).

This body of research emphasises the potential of investigating students’ experiences and perceptions of educational activities and technologies. To see how their experiences influence their engagement and participation, we need to know more about what forms of technologies students experience and justify as important. We also need to gain insight into what characterises the activities and contexts in which technology use takes place. Therefore, we adopt a sociocultural approach to learning and meaning making to study how educational activities including technologies, become meaningful and relevant in various contexts (Säljö, 2010; Wertsch, 1998).

A sociocultural perspective on experiences of activities and technologies

Within a socio-cultural approach to learning and meaning making the focus is on how individuals and groups relate to and make use of the different resources that are available in the activities in which they participate, and in relation to social codes and expectations in the social context (Wertsch, 1998). As technology is integrated into educational activities, it contributes to transforming the activities and how we think about and describe our own learning, i.e., what we know, and expectations of what we need to know (Säljö, 2010:56). Therefore, both activities and the social contexts shape, direct and reshape local definitions of how to use and engage in the activities with the technologies involved (Aarsand, 2019). This tells us that students’ experiences and interpretations are influenced by prescribed roles and expectations within technologies as “mediating tools” (Wertsch, 1998), as well as within the institution, for instance, how teachers facilitate activities with technologies, e.g., how to behave on Zoom or navigate in Canvas.

The argument made so far and framework we carry with us are based on assumptions that individual perceptions, expectations, and prior knowledge mediate how students (and teachers) choose to engage in activities and make use of technologies (Säljö, 2010). We are interested in how students make educational activities involving technologies important and relevant – or see them as unhelpful and challenging. It is also, therefore, possible to identify what they see as relevant knowledge and competence in particular activities. Knowing how to act can be seen as a pragmatic resource, where students participate in activities and use technologies according to how meaningful and relevant, they regard them to be in the activities. This also tells us that being a ‘successful’ university student means knowing how to participate and use technologies to read, write and produce content in line with what is expected in the given educational activity (Aarsand, 2019: 2; Selwyn, 2016: 1018).

Methodology and research design

Context of the study

The illustrative examples used in this article are taken from two previous studies focusing on bachelor students’ technology use in five on-campus courses in a Norwegian university college. The university college is situated in the eastern part of Norway, and is representative in terms of the number of students and employees, and its organisation, technical facilities, etc. All lectures and seminars normally take place on campus, although not during the pandemic. Technology use is quite general, such as, for instance, the use of the learning platform Canvas to access administrative information and learning materials (PowerPoints, video lectures). All courses use Canvas, which was introduced before the pandemic. Zoom, Google dock and academic databases are used for communication, collaboration, and in individual work. Social media is used in a more unofficial manner by both students and staff. All course descriptions signal expectations about attending lectures, seminars, and groups, for instance in dialogues and presentations. Expectations regarding technology use are also reflected in the descriptions of learning outcome, such as critical source competence, critical reflection on the importance of digital communication in professional practice and being able to use relevant technology.

Data collection: Methods and participants

Data were collected over a period of 2 years, before and after the pandemic. The first study drew on five group interviews with 13 students: eight males and five females, all attending a third-year bachelor course in pedagogy. In a follow-up study, we conducted three group interviews on Zoom, comprising six female and three male students from three courses. We also included an online questionnaire survey where we invited around 400 students from five bachelor’s courses in the subjects of health and social sciences, psychology, and law. The examples presented below take the group interviews as a point of departure, while results from the survey are used as a supplement where relevant. By applying a qualitative approach, the aim has been to increase our understanding of the students’ articulated experiences and perceptions (Kvale et al., 2015:42).

In the group interviews, the students were invited to reflect on how and why they engaged in different activities and technologies, and how they experienced opportunities, challenges and tensions in these activities. A relatively open and semi-structured interview guide has worked in a structuring way. We asked the students to describe and reflect upon issues like how technologies were used in teaching; in what situations they were active participants; what characterises good lectures, seminars and group work; how they worked on assignments and what resources were important; how tutors’ feedback contributed to learning; and sharing notes (Norway University, 2014). They were also invited to reflect on and justify their use of technologies like Canvas, Zoom, online resources and social media in lectures and in study work, as described by Selwyn (2016), Moll et al. (2015), and Drange and Birkeland (2016). The questions were adapted to the current data collection period. All interviews ranged from 40 to 60 min in duration and were recorded and transcribed. Both authors were academically and administratively responsible for the course in question during the first interviews. This may have influenced the recruitment of students, the answers they gave, the research design, as well as the analysis. However, we have tried to reflect on our assumptions and take advantage of our knowledge of the students and the course.

The questionnaire in the survey following the second interview, received 207 responses, approximately equally distributed across all five courses, with 80% female and 20% male students. The questions explored what activities and resources students rated as least/most important, using a scale ranging from 1 as least important to 5 as most important: lectures, group work, seminars, syllabi, PowerPoints, searching for information on the internet, Canvas, and social media. Other questions related to what aspects of Canvas they perceived as easy/challenging, where they searched for material to use in assignments, how digital they considered themselves to be, and how they used feedback from their teachers. We suggest that the samples described are representative of the courses and the undergraduate students on the local campus.

Data analysis

The interview data were analysed in accordance with a thematic-analysis approach (Bernard and Ryan, 2010). We aimed to obtain descriptions expressing students’ experience of a variety of educational activities and the technologies involved. A research-group conducted an initial close reading of the interviews to gain an overall understanding of the students’ experiences. Next, we analysed the main descriptions expressing patterns and variations in the material in accordance with key themes in the interview guide, as well as new themes emerging from the data. Based on the analysis of the group interviews, supplied by patterns arising from the survey, we identified the following main themes related to experience of possibilities/benefits and challenges: (1) lectures on campus provide possibilities to meet face-to-face; (2) challenging lectures on Zoom; (3) the academic library as a good place to be but with difficult online databases; (4) assignments and the importance of teachers’ feedback; (5) technology use in group work as both efficient and time consuming; (6) PowerPoints as a guide to syllabus texts and exam preparation; (7) sharing notes and the fear of unreliable sources and plagiarism; and (8) Canvas as great – except for the teachers’ ways of organising study material.

All interviews have been translated from Norwegian to English. For reasons of anonymity, the link between names and courses has been omitted when presenting the results. For the same reason, as well as to clarify the meaning and content specified in the categories, descriptions of technology use and activities have been partly edited (Kvale et al., 2015: 212). The study has been conducted in accordance with the ethical codes of the Norwegian Data Protection Services.

Students’ experiences of what and why educational activities including technologies are important and useful

We start by presenting the forms of educational activities that the students regard as important. We then present examples of how and why they included technologies in these activities, related to how they experienced opportunities or challenges.

Lectures on campus provide possibilities to meet face-to-face

Both the interviews and the survey show that the students experienced campus lectures, syllabus texts, assignments, and feedback, as well as PowerPoints as important in their learning. In the interviews, many reflected on the relevance of the campus lecture with opportunities to achieve tips and guidance on what in the syllabus was important to prepare for regarding exams. Several expressed a desire for syllabus-related lectures, especially where they received tips for the most important pages in the syllabus, as well as explanations for how to understand the syllabus. This description of a request to the teacher is typical: “Yes, a bit like, which one is the Bible? Which one is the most important?” (Finn).

The survey reveals that the following proportion of students gave these resources the highest score/5, which may indicate what they perceived as most important: lectures and seminars at campus (N = 207), 80%; syllabus texts, 79%; teachers’ feedback on assignments, 57%; working on assignments, 49%; teachers PowerPoints from lectures 45%; and note-writing, 41%; recorded and streamed lectures, 23%; Google and Wiki, 15%; and social media, 4.5%.

Challenging lectures on Zoom

As the second interview study took place after the pandemic, many took the opportunity to compare lectures that are held on campus with lectures held via Zoom. Many associated the importance of the on-campus lecture with opportunities to connect with fellow students and the teachers, and with the importance of a good learning environment: “There is more communication, people seem physically safer. On Zoom, people only speak when they are invited to speak” (Cathy). Sonia followed up: “I think it [Zoom] is quite bad. I’m more interested in meetings where we sit and work together (…) then there will be more wholehearted communication”. Many emphasised that Zoom-lectures were challenging in terms of the lack of opportunities to communicate or collaborate on a face-to-face basis:

It becomes more difficult to keep in touch when you don’t have a common arena where you can meet (...). Our programme requires a lot of presence. We like to manage everyday life ourselves – that is what we appreciate about online teaching – but this does not become the social arena where you meet and see people (Liv).

Other challenges mentioned included maintaining attention and motivation:

In terms of being engaged and motivated when it comes to work requirements, this has decreased when we have been on Zoom. You receive so little input from the outside, and you do not see other people, this is so weird. There is only the teaching, and it takes place on a screen (Anna).

Several described negative experiences and feelings of being monitored and commented on by others after being exposed in front of a camera. However, some pointed out that lectures and meetings on Zoom could have some advantages, such as better options to communicate in chat and break-out rooms, as well as more flexibility in terms of time and space. Some stated that communicating via Zoom required considerable self-discipline, which they believed had a kind of transfer value in working on assignments.

The academic library as a good place to be but with difficult online databases

In addition to campus lectures, many associated the academic library as a good place to be, both in terms of hanging out and getting help, especially in their first academic year: “I used to go there to print things out and to find books. I know the staff can help me” (Roy). However, the descriptions varied depending on the subject. Psychology students described some challenges associated with sitting in the library, namely the feeling of looking stupid if you do not spend the time reading, and the experience of being monitored by fellow students: “If I am not reading, I look stupid. It is a big deal in psychology to read together in the study room. You are being monitored; you are only allowed to look down at the book” (Sonia).

Very few respondents reported visiting the library’s online databases to search for material to use in assignments. In the survey, about half of them ranked the library’s databases lowest as a subject material source. Some explained that they found the databases difficult to navigate and preferred to search for subject-related resources on Google and Wikipedia. These resources were seen as relevant since they provided easy access to explanations of concepts and an initial overview of subjects.

Assignments and the importance of teachers’ feedback

In the interviews many associated working on assignments with the importance of feedback from the teacher. Almost all stated that they read feedback from teachers to use it in their studies. They almost always read feedback on written assignments, especially in the period leading up to the exam. Many emphasised that they preferred guidance and feedback face-to-face encounters, and the survey supports this picture. Along with attending campus lectures and reading syllabus texts, the students ranked working with obligatory assignments as important for learning. Accessing teachers’ feedback was seen as one of the most important benefits of using Canvas.

When asked where they searched for material to use in assignments, the vast majority explained that they usually oriented themselves towards syllabus texts. They also used syllabus texts when preparing for lectures and exams: “We usually use the syllabus, very few supplement with other stuff” (Olav). Some moderated this by suggesting that they also tried to fulfil expectations by referring both to syllabus textbooks and other literature in assignments.

Technology use in group work as both efficient and time consuming

In the interviews, we asked the students to describe how they worked with assignments. Many described collaboration in groups as the most effective activity for the completion of tasks and requirements. The procedure was described as dividing the work between the group members, each working on different parts, then putting everything together before submission:

We have each taken our share and it has worked well. We met on Zoom. It is very educational to work in groups, especially this semester. And one in the group is terribly good at organising (Kari).

The survey supports the descriptions in the interviews, showing that a majority reported to preferring communication and collaboration with fellow students face-to-face on campus, rather than by using communication technology. Although the students experienced collaboration as both important and effective, several explained that they preferred to work alone, as it often felt tiring to coordinate group work:

I like to write alone. It is less tiring because there is a lot of coordination. Now, when we do not meet that often, there is more procrastination, it is more important with deadlines now (Christian).

Several associated online group collaboration with technical challenges and loss of time, explaining they were more interested in physical meetings on campus: “You get normal interaction; you hear how things are going and you are nice to each other. You get things done right away” (Frida). Others also confirmed that collaboration on campus saved time and the work was done more efficiently than when using technical devices: “(…) otherwise it will take much longer than it should have taken” (Charlie).

If impossible to meet in person, many stated that they communicated via Facebook, Messenger, or Snapchat. Several reported that their groups had their own messenger group: “We are good at sharing knowledge” (Finn). None reported using discussion groups in Canvas. Facebook was used to organise colloquium groups, and receive and give moral support, but less so for academic discussions. A group of students explained how their colloquium group used Google Docs in combination with Messenger. They believed that this made it easier to work, because they acquired a better overview of the Google text when they used Messenger to send and receive updates about changes to the text. It saved them time, and they were able to add new text straight into the document and finish their course requirements.

PowerPoints as a guide to syllabus texts and exam preparation

Teachers’ PowerPoints from lectures were characterised as an important source of guidance to discover more about the syllabus. In the interviews, the students expressed a desire to access PowerPoints before and after lectures and seminars. The survey shows that downloading PowerPoints was seen as one of the most important features of Canvas: “PowerPoints act as a common thread, as preparation in advance of lectures. I look for reading tips and page numbers. But I never look at them afterwards” (Kim). Some stated that they liked PowerPoints because they were faster to read, compared to, for instance, listening to recorded lectures: “I use PowerPoints to review notes, it is much faster than recordings. But I like both” (Lars). Like Kim and Lars, Sarah confirmed that she liked the PowerPoints, but like the two boys, she did not use them much after lectures:

Yes, it [PowerPoint] is easier to read. I can take note of what is written and what the teacher says, and I learn well. But I don’t use them much afterwards, I use my own notes and get inspiration for assignments. I usually read over them after lectures (Sarah).

Sarah stated that she preferred her own notes to PowerPoints, and like many others she used to combine reading PowerPoints from lectures with her own notes. Studying PowerPoints was also a key activity when preparing for exams, but this varied somewhat depending on the course.

Sharing notes and the fear of unreliable sources and plagiarism

Some suggested that they were unsure as to whether PowerPoints could be considered as reliable academic source. One student stated that they never used PowerPoints in their course to prepare for exams: “It is scary as an academic source. It is important in our profession [health and social care] to refer to exact sources”. When asked about their experiences from sharing notes with fellow students, more than half stated that they never or rarely shared notes:

I’m a little anxious about that. I do not want anyone to take what I write and have worked hard for. Your texts are your texts, it’s a bit private. When I finish the product, I can send it to someone in the class and get feedback. It may not be so wise… someone can copy unconsciously. You become uncertain about what you write (Camille).

In this statement, Camille indicates, together with several others, that she feels anxious about having her work copied, and about plagiarising others: “We are terrified of being punished, and of not having included enough sources. There is a lot of fear out there” (Liv).

“Canvas is great – the problem is the teachers”

In the course rooms in Canvas, the students can find lectures and other subject content, such as PowerPoints, digital texts, videos, assignments and teachers’ feedback, as well as practical information. Canvas largely has the same features as other learning platforms used in higher education. The survey shows that downloading PowerPoints as well as teachers’ feedback on assignments were regarded as the most important aspects of Canvas. Very few reported engaging in the discussion groups or using the e-mail system. Several expressed that Canvas worked well, apart from the material being organised in different ways by different teachers: “Canvas is great – the problem is the teachers (…) it took a very long time before I realised where all the different lecture documents had been posted”. As a result, many struggled to find feedback on assignments or materials from lectures.

The survey also asked the students to rate how ‘digital’ they considered themselves to be. A majority described themselves as ‘very digital’. They were also asked to rate various features of Canvas as easy or difficult, i.e., logging in; finding and reading feedback; finding information and study material; and using discussion forums, the calendar, and e-mail. About half of them rated these functions as easy to use, whilst about a quarter found them difficult to master. Several wrote comments about the more technical aspects, especially regarding uncertainty surrounding whether work requirements had been submitted and approved.

Discussion

This article provides insight into which educational activities and technologies bachelor’s students find important in on-campus courses. Although the examples provided may seem mundane and even unsurprising, they illustrate what characterises the activities in which technologies are included, seen from the students’ point of view. They show how students’ interpretations, mediated by technologies and contextual requirements, might be decisive for how they choose to engage in the activities (Selwyn, 2016). Based on the results, we discuss below possible implications for both students’ engagement and learning, and teachers’ pedagogical facilitation.

The value of on-campus meetings and altered experiences with lectures on Zoom

There is much in the material that indicates that the students experience that on-campus activities, especially lectures, provide opportunities to “meet and see people” in “wholehearted” dialogues, exchange ideas and “be nice to others”. On-campus lectures were perceived as important for learning (Norway University, 2014; Thingnes et al., 2015: 102; Norwegian Directorate for Kofoed et al., 2019), in addition to seminars, group work, and face-to-face feedback from teachers. Spending time at the academic library was also associated with opportunities to meet and hang out with fellow students and with a sense of belonging in an academic and social community. The results align with a socio-cultural approach to learning and meaning making with a focus on how we orient ourselves towards various cultural resources in social activities (Wertsch, 1998). This means that when students participate in educational activities over time, they will learn how to act and engage, and what forms of technologies are preferred (Aarsand, 2019). Our results show how and why the students have made activities and technologies important and relevant.

The present study also illustrate that the pandemic has altered expectations and experiences related to attending lectures. This aligns with the work of Säljö (2010) and Wertsch (1998), both of whom argue that the introduction of new technologies changes activities and mediates our expectations of what to master and what is important. Our results show that students became unsure about what to expect and how to behave when faced with Zoom, a new educational activity. To them, the attendance of streamed lectures was introduced without prescribed expectations, and they were concerned by both the possibilities and challenges. They appreciated the flexibility Zoom provided in managing their day-to-day lives. However, they seemed particularly sure about what they missed compared to the traditional on-campus lectures, namely a sense of community and belonging, and they were less satisfied with the academic and social learning environment, compared to the period before the pandemic (Bern et al., 2021; Graf et al., 2021; Solberg et al., 2021). In line with the results from The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (2022: 4), our study demonstrates that the students experienced digital devices such as Zoom as used in a way such that failed to actively involve them in teaching. Our results are most likely coloured by the fact that data collection took place during the pandemic, and since the students were initially most familiar with campus lectures, their preferences were probably guided by this. Nevertheless, although their preference for on-campus lectures was also prominent before the pandemic, this emerged more clearly after the pandemic.

Focus on efficiency at the expense of participation and reflection

Another common denominator in the material is that group work on campus was experienced as more effective (“get things done”) than working online with Google docs or Zoom. The students seem to experience social media, like Messenger and Facebook, as supplements to group face-to-face work. These technologies were considered effective and helpful in, for example, sharing knowledge, asking questions, accessing resources or cultivating social life. PowerPoints, including reading instructions, were seen as supportive shortcuts for accessing the syllabus and passing the exam. Many of the reported benefits of technologies in our study are related to more technical aspects of university life (Selwyn, 2016:1017), for instance, Canvas as a device to download and consume teachers’ feedback and submit assignments. Several viewed the library online databases as difficult to access (Drange and Birkeland, 2016; Selwyn, 2016:1013). Our results contrast with Henderson et al. (2017:1571), who show that students find library databases useful. However, our results are in line with Henderson et al. and others who point out that students see social media as useful but do not engage in particularly advanced ways of using social media, online forums, or databases (Adalberon and Säljö, 2015; Moll et al., 2015).

From a sociocultural viewpoint, activities and social contexts shape and direct local definitions of how to use and engage in the activities with technologies involved (Säljö, 2010; Wertsch, 1998). The current study contributes to this body of knowledge. The material clearly shows that the students prioritised effective and exam-oriented strategies. They knew how to act according to institutional expectations of becoming ‘successful’ university students (Aarsand, 2019; Selwyn, 2016:1018). It seems that many considered the transfer of knowledge and skills to be the most relevant and adequate way of learning. We suggest that many preferred to behave as consumers of education rather than active participants (Drange and Birkeland, 2016; Norway University, 2014). Similar result-oriented strategies are registered in other studies (Moll et al., 2015; Thingnes et al., 2015:395). Our results complement Henderson et al. (2017:1575) who find that students are more concerned with what can be described as “the ‘logistics’ of university study rather than matters related directly to ‘learning’ per se” (see also Drange and Birkeland, 2016). According to Selwyn (2016:1017), we need to take considerations of such technical, or logistical, aspects seriously, since they comprise a large part of student life. Thingnes et al. (2015) remind us that the students’ reflections on more strategic choices can be linked to obligations towards family and work.

Technology use that preserves established notions of educational activities, students’ roles and higher education

There is little in the material to suggest that the students received or created opportunities to work with technologies in more exploratory ways that might stimulate increased activity, such as sharing content, communicating, and collaborating digitally (Selwyn, 2016). On the contrary, several students in our study expressed opposition to such activities. It is tempting to suggest that established notions of educational activities, students’ roles and higher education as such are reproduced (Fossland, 2015; Henderson et al., 2017). However, the student’s opposition, i.e., that they did not seem to adapt to the systems’ invitation to participate, can be interpreted as their way of questioning institutional expectations about technology use (Fritze et al., 2022: 231). The material also contains examples of students demonstrating forms of empowerment, for instance, by combining technologies when collaborating online, helping them to cope with course requirements (Henderson et al., 2017). Such activities are probably not described in the course requirements but are acquired through their leisure time experiences with technologies. As many researchers have emphasised, teachers need to help and motivate students to master and engage in the technologies that the educational institution considers relevant. In addition, the institutions must support teachers in their professional development on these matters (Krumsvik, 2016; Selwyn, 2016).

Neither the teachers’ practice, nor whether the students have fulfilled the expectations of working to achieve the learning outcome, has been the focus of this study. Hence, there is reason to ask whether it can be challenging to achieve prescribed outcomes, for instance, critical source competence related to the use of academic databases, and critical reflection on the importance of digital communication in professional practice (Drange and Birkeland, 2016:67). Such questions depend, among other things, on whether the work requirements were clear about the learning outcomes, whether it was to acquire the more technical aspects, such as searching for or downloading something, or whether they were more in the direction of critical reflection (Selwyn, 2016:1019).

As the present study is rather small in scale, it is difficult to draw any definite Conclusions or to apply results to other similar settings. The aim has been rather to contribute to our understanding of students’ use and perceptions of technologies in the different educational activities of a sample of Norwegian bachelor’s students. The results are corroborated by findings in other relevant studies of students’ experiences of technologies in higher education (Henderson et al., 2017; Selwyn, 2016), and can contribute to a more nuanced consideration of such studies.

Concluding remarks

Based on the results and other studies, we suggest that teachers should consider students’ perspectives when including new technologies in teaching to see if these can be made relevant to support learning (Krumsvik, 2016:325; Selwyn, 2016). Insight into students’ perspectives might also inform teachers of what students need to learn. The present study complements other research, which emphasises that we cannot assume that students automatically master the university’s digital systems. We suggest that both students and teachers need to be more aware of how individual perceptions influence engagement and learning in activities with technologies. In line with the research presented, this study also shows that we cannot assume that the digitalisation of education automatically contributes to change or develops established forms of educational activities. Turning our attention to the aspects highlighted above will hopefully help us to nuance debates about students’ actual use of digital technologies and about how technologies can contribute to higher education. Further research is needed on how students’ experiences and perceptions of various forms of technology in different activities and contexts can have an impact on engagement and learning. We also need to know more about teachers experiences and perceptions on these matters and how this has an impact on pedagogical arrangements.