Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’
Abstract
The much-discussed potential of ‘technology-enhanced learning’ is not always apparent in the day-to-day use of digital technology throughout higher education. Against this background, the present paper considers the digital devices and resources that students engage most frequently with during their university studies, what these technologies are being used for, and perceptions of ‘usefulness’ attached to these uses. The paper draws upon data gathered from a survey of undergraduate students (n = 1658) from two Australian universities. Having explored a variety of factors shaping student engagement with digital technology within these university settings, the paper considers how ongoing discussions about digital technology and higher education might better balance enthusiasms for the ‘state of the art’ (i.e. what we know might be achieved through technology-enabled learning) with an acknowledgement of the ‘state of the actual’ (i.e. the realities of technology use within contemporary university contexts).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The authors concluded that while digital technologies have become central to student experiences, they are not transforming the nature of university teaching and learning in the ways often envisioned by educators and researchers.
“The authors concluded that while digital technologies have become central to student experiences, they are not transforming the nature of university teaching and learning in the ways often envisioned by educators and researchers.”
From Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students' Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education (2025) · cites this paper as Henderson et al (2015)
Henderson et al (2015) found that college students primarily valued digital technologies for their ability to support organizational tasks, time management, and efficient completion of coursework.
“Henderson et al (2015) found that college students primarily valued digital technologies for their ability to support organizational tasks, time management, and efficient completion of coursework.”
From Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students' Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education (2025) · cites this paper as Henderson et al (2015)
This trend aligns with broader patterns in students' use of digital technologies in higher education.
“This trend aligns with broader patterns in students' use of digital technologies in higher education.”
From Scaffold or Crutch? Examining College Students' Use and Views of Generative AI Tools for STEM Education (2025) · cites this paper as Henderson et al (2015)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hrastinski, S., Olofsson, A. D., Arkenback, C., Ekström, S., Ericsson, E., Fransson, G., Jaldemark, J., Ryberg, T., Öberg, L.-M., Fuentes, A., et al. (2019) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/s42438-019-00046-x · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Critical Immersive-Triggered Literacy as a Key Component for Inclusive Digital Education
Lazou, C., & Tsinakos, A. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070696 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Wang, K. D., Wu, Z., Tufts, L., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., & Haber, N. (2025) · 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016406 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Kumar, A., Baijal, A., & Kharat, M. (2025) · Journal of International Education in Business · doi:10.1108/jieb-07-2024-0086 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Henderson, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-04-17
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 308-319
- ISSN
- 1360-080X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9508
- OpenAlex
- W2053519262
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 28.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Government
- Office for Learning and Teaching
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- technology-enhanced learning, undergraduate students, digital devices, perceived usefulness, everyday technology use, higher education, student perceptions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
