i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 21 Issue 2

Preventing Teacher and Counselor Burnout: Self-Care in Training Programs
A Study of Intervention Math Labs and STAAR Math Growth Scores in a South Texas Rural Middle School
Turkish EFL Teachers' Perceptions of their Pedagogical Digital Competence in an EFL Setting
Brief Report: Targeting the Social Communication Skills of an Autistic Adolescent with a Co-Occurring ADHD Diagnosis using Two Formats of a Social Story
The Effectiveness of GeoGebra Assisted Learning on Students' Mathematical Representation: A Meta-Analysis Study

Most Cited

Volume 14 Issue 4 January - March 2018

Article

Foundational Principles and Practices to Consider In Assessing Maker Education

Michael Lundberg * , Jay Rasmussen**

* Sixth Grade Teacher, Mounds View Public Schools, USA.

** Professor, Department of Education, Bethel University, USA.

Lundberg, M., and Rasmussen, J. (2018). Foundational Principles and Practices to Consider In Assessing Maker Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13975

Abstract

The maker education movement is growing in the United States. In order for this movement to gain widespread acceptance it is critical that students’ learning goals and progress towards those goals are clearly visible to all stakeholders. Given that traditional assessment methods may not be best suited for measuring some of the higher order skills associated with maker education, this paper explores this essential question: What are the critical principles and practices to consider when designing an effective assessment plan for maker education? Following a brief definition and history of maker education, the authors suggest that there are eight principles and five practices worthy of consideration when designing an assessment plan for students engaged with maker education experiences. An appendix containing example assessment tools is included.

References

[1]. Agency By Design. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of self: Preliminary findings of the agency by design project. Cambridge, MA.

[2]. Bennet, D., & Monahan, P. (2014). NYSCI design lab: No bored kids. In M. Honey, & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, Make, Play (pp. 34-49). New York: Routledge.

[3]. Chang, S., Keune, A., Peppler, K., McKay, C., & Regalia, L. (2015). The importance of portfolios for makers. In Keune, A., A. Maltese, C. McKay, S. Chang, K. Peppler& L. Regalia (Eds.), Open Portfolio Project: Research Brief Series (pp. 12-17) Maker Ed.

[4]. Derhally, L. A. (2016, May 19). Kids don't know how to play on their own anymore. Here are four ways to change that. The Washington Post.

[5]. Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education (60 anniversary Ed.). West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

[6]. Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. John Wiley & Sons.

[7]. Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey, & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 7-11). New York: Routledge

[8]. Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

[9]. Flanagan, F. (1994). The great educators' first series [Video File].

[10]. Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of Making: Best Practices for Establishing a Makerspace for your School. Corwin Press.

[11]. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.

[12]. Hlubinka, M., Dougherty, D., Thomas, P., Chang, S., Hoefer, S., Alexander, I., & McGuire, D. (2013). Makerspace Playbook: School Edition.

[13]. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of science innovators. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.), Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge.

[14]. Kohn, A. (2012). The case against grades. Education Digest, 77(5), 8-16.

[15]. Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D., & Fleming, L. (2014). The environment and tools of great educational makerspaces: Part 2 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 42(1), 8-12.

[16]. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

[17]. Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent: The Future of Education. New York: Penguin Books.

[18]. Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Palo Alto, CA: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[19]. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B.K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. J. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505- 531.

[20]. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M., (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

[21]. Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2013). Making their way in the world. In M. Honey, & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 189-217). New York: Routledge.

[22]. Yokana, L. (2015). Creating an Authentic Maker Education Rubric.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Impact of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Feedback on Students' Achievement in a Distance Learning Environment

O. Zeichner*

Lecturer and Researcher, Kibbutzim College of Education Technology and Arts, Israel.

Zeichner, O. (2018). The Impact of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Feedback on Students' Achievement in a Distance Learning Environment. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13976

Abstract

This paper deals with the field of "feedback intervention" in a distance learning environment. The study examines the influences of two types of feedback: cognitive content-oriented feedback designed to meet the student's cognitive needs relating to the curriculum, and non-cognitive feedback that refers to motivational–affective aspects of the learning process, in the form of axioms relating to the student's ability, on one hand, and the effort that the student puts into the learning process, on the other. The purpose of this study was to examine the differential effect of different types of feedback on the student's coping variables (cognitive assessment), i.e. the sense of threat and challenge, self-efficacy, and achievement. The rationale for choosing feedback axioms for motivation is based on recent theoretical models which focus on students' perceptions and beliefs as elements that affect their learning motivation. The study was conducted on 171 subjects divided into three study groups. Each group received a different type of feedback: content feedback, effort feedback, or ability feedback. The findings indicate that groups which received feedback relating to more than content show improved motivation, an increased sense of challenge and improved achievement in comparison to the group which received content feedback only. Small differences were found between the ability feedback and effort feedback groups.

References

[1]. American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles. Washington, DC: Author.

[2]. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

[3]. Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(12), 3599-3605.

[4]. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[5]. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

[6]. Barberà, E., Layne, L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Designing online interaction to address disciplinary competencies: A cross-country comparison of faculty perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 142-169.

[7]. Bernath, U., Szücs, A., Tait, A., & Vidal, M.,(Eds.). (2013). Distance and E-learning in Transition: Learning Innovation, Technology and Social Challenges. John Wiley & Sons.

[8]. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[9]. Brown, M., Kulik, C. T., & Lim, V. (2016). Managerial tactics for communicating negative performance feedback. Personnel Review, 45(5), 969-987.

[10]. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Selfregulation Learning: A Theortical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

[11]. Butler, R. (1995). Motivational and informational functions and consequences of children's attention to peers' work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 347-360.

[12]. Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theory of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 965-978.

[13]. Chaiprasurt, C., & Esichaikul, V. (2013). Enhancing motivation in online courses with mobile communication tool support: A comparative study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 377-401.

[14]. Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2016). Learners' Interpersonal Beliefs and Generated Feedback in an Online Role-Playing Peer-Feedback Activity: An Exploratory Study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 106-122.

[15]. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. John Wiley & Sons.

[16]. Conrad, D. (2013). Pondering change and the relationship of prior learning assessment to MOOCs and Knowledge in Higher Education. PLA Inside Out: An International Journal on Theory, Research and Practice in Prior Learning Assessment, 2(1).

[17]. Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314-325.

[18]. Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swinddell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp. 21-54). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

[19]. DeNisi, A. S. (2015). Some further thoughts on the entrepreneurial personality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 997-1003.

[20]. Dinning, T. M., Maghill, C. A., Money, J., Walsh, B., & Nixon, S. (2016). Can a blended learning approach enhance students transition into higher education? A study to explore perception, engagement and progression. International Journal of Advancement in Education and Social Science, 3(2), 1-7.

[21]. Duchaine, E. L., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 209-227.

[22]. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House

[23]. Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67(8), 614-622.

[24]. Garrison, D. R. (2012). Article review - Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 250-253.

[25]. Gunawardena, C. N. (2013). Culture and online distance learning. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education, 3^rdedition (pp. 185-200). New York: Routledge

[26]. Gunawardena, C. N. (2015). Building Online Learning Communities: Design Principles and Strategies. International Conference on the Humanities 2015: New Dynamics, Directions and Divergences (ICH 2015). University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.

[27]. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2002). Students' distress with a web-based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participants' experiences. In W. H. Dutton & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital Academe: The New Media and Institutions of Higher Education and Learning (pp. 62-84). London: Routledge.

[28]. Hilton, J, L., Gaudet, D., Clark, P., Robinson, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). The adoption of open educational resources by one community college math department. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 37–50.

[29]. Huges, E. M., Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., Fries, K. M., & Kanyongo, G. Y. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of Algebra Interventions for Learners with Disabilities and Struggling Learners. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36-47.

[30]. Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). An application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models (pp. 289-320). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

[31]. King, P. E. (2016). When do students benefit from performance feedback? A test of feedback intervention theory in speaking improvement. Communication Quarterly, 64(1), 1-15.

[32]. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254- 284.

[33]. Kramarski, B., & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Education Media International, 38(2-3), 77-82.

[34]. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 665-673.

[35]. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.

[36]. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Emotion research in education: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the integration of affect, motivation, and cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 307- 314.

[37]. Llorens, A. C., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Cerdán, R. (2016). Formative feedback to transfer self-regulation of taskoriented reading strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(4), 314-331.

[38]. Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85-98.

[39]. Moore, M. G. (Ed.) (2013). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge.

[40]. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Technology and media (chapter 5). In Distance Education: A systems view of on-line learning, 3^rd edition (pp. 72-96). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

[41]. Mory, E. H. (1996). Feedback research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (Chap. 32, pp. 919- 955). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

[42]. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback Research Revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 745- 783). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[43]. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Revisiting teacher preparation: Responding to Technology Transience in the Educational Setting. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 93-105.

[44]. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L.(2016). In the eye of the Beholder. Digital Badges in Education: Trends, Issues, and Cases, 102.

[45]. Muis, K. R., Ranellucci, J., Trevors, G., & Duffy, M. C. (2015). The effects of technology-mediated immediate feedback on kindergarten students' attitudes, emotions, engagement and learning outcomes during literacy skills development. Learning and Instruction, 38, 1-13.

[46]. Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, Y., & Shteinbok, A. (2003). Teacher-student interactions and learning outcomes in distance learning. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 65-75.

[47]. Offir, B., Lev, Y., Lev, Y., Barth, I., & Shteinbok, A. (2004). An integrated analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101-118.

[48]. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (2000). Using Networking Tools to Support Online Learning. In F. Lockwood, & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in Open and Distance Learning (pp. 149-162). Kogan Page, London

[49]. Ozaki, C. C. (2016). College Impact Theories Past and Present. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(174), 23-33

[50]. Park, O. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp 634-664). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

[51]. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555.

[52]. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Duncan, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Technical Report 91-B-004, Regents of the University of Michigan.

[53]. Poulos, A. & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students' perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.

[54]. Richardson, J. C., Besser, E., Koehler, A., Lim, J., & Strait, M. (2016). Instructors' Perceptions of Instructor Presence in Online Learning Environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 83-104.

[55]. Sadykova, G. (2014). Mediating knowledge through peer-to-peer interaction in a multicultural online learning environment: A case of international students in the US. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 25-49.

[56]. Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world class elearning: How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[57]. Schrum, L. (2015). Distance Learning: Where have we been & where are we going? Nova Southeastern University.

[58]. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. R. (2012). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Pearson Higher Education.

[59]. Sorensen, C. (2015). An Examination of the Relationship between Online Class Size and Instructor Performance. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 140- 159.

[60]. Twigg, C. A. (2015). Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: Fifteen years of Course Description. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(6), 6-13.

[61]. White, J. A., Troutman, A. P., & Stone, D. E. (1993). Effects of three levels of cognitive feedback and twocognitive levels of tasks on performance in computerdirected mathematics instruction. Journal of Computer- Based Instruction, 18(4), 130-134.

[62]. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.

[63]. Zirkin, B. G., & Sumler, D. E. (2008). Interactive or Noninteractive? That is the Question!!! International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Relationship between Smartphone use and Academic Performance in a Sample of Tertiary Students in Singapore: A Cross-Sectional Study

Jingming Zhao * , Wei Yuping , Ismail Maideen, Zan Khin Moe, A. M. A. Nasirudeen

-, Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore

,***** Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore.

Zhao, J., Yuping, W., Maideen, I., Moe, Z. K., and Nasirudeen, A. M. A. (2018). The Relationship between Smartphone use and Academic Performance in a Sample of Tertiary Students in Singapore: A Cross-Sectional Study. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13977

Abstract

The use of smartphone for socialising and learning has become a norm among students in Singapore. Educational institutions are creating lessons and applications for use on mobile platforms. However, the effectiveness of smartphones for learning has not been well studied in Singapore. This study was conducted to understand the association between smartphone use for learning activities and academic performance (measured by cumulative GPA) in a sample of tertiary students in Singapore. A questionnaire that contained questions concerning demographic data and use of smartphone for learning was used for data collection (n=619). Results showed that there is a significant association between smartphone use for learning activities and student's cumulative Grade Point Average (cGPA) (p< 0.05). Results also indicated that female students used the smartphones more frequently for learning compared to male students and international students made more frequent use of smartphones for learning compared to local students. Students' level of satisfaction with using smartphone for learning activities was also surveyed. In conclusion, this study showed that students who used smartphones for learning had higher academic performance (cGPA). Variables such as gender and nationality of students played a role in smartphone use for learning and impacted on students' cGPA.

References

[1]. Alavi, M., & Mansor, S.M.S. (2011). Categories of Problems among International Students in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1581-1587.

[2]. Alzougool, B., & AlMansour, J. (2017, May). The use of Smartphone for Learning Activities by University Students in Kuwait. In Proceedings of Teaching and Education Conferences (No. 4907508). International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.

[3]. Arkoudis, S., & Tran, L. (2010). Writing Blah, Blah, Blah: Lecturers' Approaches and Challenges in Supporting International Students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 169-178.

[4]. Barati, M., & Zolhavarieh, S. (2012). Mobile learning and multi mobile service in higher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(4), 297-299.

[5]. Boase, J. A., & Ling, R. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: Self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 18(4), 508-519.

[6]. Chen S. Y., & Tzeng J. Y. (2010). College female and male heavy Internet users' profiles of practices and their academic grades and psychosocial adjustment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 257-262.

[7]. Cochrane, T. D. (2010). Exploring mobile learning success factors. Research in Learning Technology, 18(2),133-148.

[8]. Davies, B. S., Rafique, J., Vincent, T. R., Fairclough, J., Packer, M. H., Vincent, R., & Haq, I. (2012). Mobile Medical Education (MoMEd)-how mobile information resources contribute to learning for undergraduate clinical students-a mixed methods study. BMC Medical Education, 12(1), 1-11.

[9]. Echeverría, A., García-Campo, C., Nussbaum, M., Gil, F., Villalta, M., Améstica, M., & Echeverría, S. (2011). A framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1127- 1136.

[10]. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cell phones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

[11]. Halder, I., Halder, S., & Guha, A. (2015) Undergraduate students use of mobile phones: Exploring use of advanced technological aids for educational purpose. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 7(4), 81-87.

[12]. Jambulingam, M., & Sorooshian, S. (2013). Usage of Mobile Features among Undergraduates and Mobile Learning. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 130-133.

[13]. Jayanthi1, S.V., Balakrishnan, S., Ching, A.L.S., Latiff, N.A.A., & Nasirudeen, A.M.A. (2014). Factors Contributing to Academic Performance of Students in a Tertiary Institution in Singapore. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(9), 752-758.

[14]. Kathuri, N. J, & Palls, A. D. (1993). Introduction to Educational Research. Egerton University Education Book Series.

[15]. Lepp, A., Barkley, J.E., Karpinski, A.C. (2015). The Relationship Between Cell Phone use and Academic Performance in a sample of U.S. College Students. SAGE Open, 2015, 1–9.

[16]. Moh, C. (2015). Students' acceptance of using smartphone in a mobile learning context. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(14), 1937-1942.

[17]. Payne, K. F. B., Wharrad, H., & Watts, K. (2012). Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12(1), 1-11.

[18]. Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 489-497.

[19]. Robinson, T., Cronin, T., Ibrahim, H., Jinks, M., Molitor, T., Newman, J., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Smartphone use and acceptability among clinical medical students: A questionnaire-based study. Journal of Medical Systems, 37(3), 1-7.

[20]. Rung, A., Warnke, F., & Mattheos, N. (2014). Investigating the use of smartphones for learning purposes by Australian dental students. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2(2), e20.

[21]. Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & de Geus, K. (2011). Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1334-1347.

[22]. Santos, I. M., & Ali, N. (2012). Exploring the uses of mobile phones to support informal learning. Education and Information Technologies, 17(2), 187-203.

[23]. Sarwar, M., & Soomro, T. R. (2013). Impact of smartphone's on society. European Journal of Scientific Research, 98(2), 216-226.

[24]. Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Beattie, C., & Lambert, J. (2012). An observational study of undergraduate students' adoption of (mobile) note-taking software. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 308-317.

[25]. Wallace, S., Clark, M., & White, J. (2012). 'It's on my iPhone': attitudes to the use of mobile computing devices in medical education, a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open, 2(4), e001099.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Regular Quadrilateral Function of E–Learning Engineering: The Mathematical Conjunction of Accumulation and Advancement that Defines The Logic, Rationale, and Active Infometrics of Information Delivery in the Digital Age

James Edward Osler II*

Associate Professor, Department of Allied Professions, North Carolina Central University, USA.

Osler, J. E., II. (2018). The Regular Quadrilateral Function of E–Learning Engineering: The Mathematical Conjunction of Accumulation and Advancement that Defines The Logic, Rationale, and Active Infometrics of Information Delivery in the Digital Age. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13978

Abstract

This monograph provides in-depth mathematical logic as the foundational rationale for the novel and innovative online instructional methodology called the 4A Metric Algorithm. The 4A Metric has been designed to address and meet the meta-competency-based education challenges faced by 21^st century students who must now adapt to and learn in a multitude of educational settings (face to face, hybrid, and online). The 4A Metric has a geometrically-spatial infrastructure that mathematically defines its unique online “E–Learning Engineered” methodology for online information delivery. This methodology is defined as a “Quadrilateral Function of E–Learning Engineering” that is grounded in neuroscience of mathematical trichotomy and the “neuromeasurement” of the “Bi-coordinate Scale of Learning”. The 4A Metric as an instructional methodology detailed in this narrative also provides an active solution that when implemented via an institutional Learning Management System (LMS)/Content Management System (CMS) uses virtual methods to achieve maximized information delivery in terms of meta-competence-based education for online learning. The explicative nature of the “Quadrilateral Function” also adds further mathematical value to online learning investigative inquiry through measurement, the efficacy of digital instrumentation, and information gathered through tools developed specifically for eduscientifically–engineered (Osler, 2013a and 2013b) research designs (Osler, 2013b and 2015a).

References

[1]. Adkins, S. S. (2004). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Technology plumbs the affective learning domain. T + D, 58(2), 28-33.

[2]. American Academy of Neurology (AAN). (2012). Working with Your Doctor. American Academy of Neurology. Retrieved 28 October 2012 from http://patients.aan.com/go/workingwithyourdoctor

[3]. Atta, H. M. (1999). Edwin Smith Surgical papyrus: The oldest known surgical treatise. The American Surgeon, 65(12), 1190-1192.

[4]. Beane, J. A., Toepfer, C. F., & Alessi, S. J., (1986). Curriculum Planning and Development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

[5]. BrainAge (2006). Nintendo Company of America. Based on the work of Ryuta Kawashima, M.D.

[6]. Careersinpsychology. (2015). Retrieved August 19, 2015 from http://careersinpsychology.org/becoming-aneuropsychologist/

[7]. Carrero, M. D. (2011). One vital organ: Heart is more than a pump. The Morning Call. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from http://articles.mcall.com/2011-02-12/health/mchealth-neurocardiology-20110212_1_heart-disease-unitedstates

[8]. Cherry, K. (2014). What is cognition? About Education.

[9]. Cobarrubias, S. (2014). What is neuroplasticity? – Definition, depression & quiz. Education Portal.

[10]. Dettmer, P. (2006). New blooms in established fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper Review, 28(2), 70-78.

[11]. Eagleman, D. M. (2011). The Brain on Trial. The Atlantic.

[12]. Feidakis, M., & Daradoumis, T. (2013). A Framework for Designing Computer Supported Learning Systems with Sensibility. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 9(1), 57-70.

[13]. Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

[14]. Goodfriend, W. (2014). What is learning: Understanding effective classroom strategies. Education Portal.

[15]. Green, M. F. (1998). Schizophrenia from a Neurocognitive Perspective. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

[16]. Güllü, A., Aki, O., & Ku?çu, H. (2015). Remote access for education and control of mechatronics systems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 1050- 1055.

[17]. Hardcastle, A. (2016). Mechatronics in Washington State: Manufacturing, Energy and Marine Sectors. Social & Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC).

[18]. Hidden Curriculum. (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The Glossary of Education Reform.

[19]. Mandal, A. (2014). What is neurogenesis?

[20]. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2_Research_Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.

[21]. Natelson, B. H. (Feb 1985). Neurocardiology. An interdisciplinary area for the 80s. Arch Neurol., 42(2), 178–184.

[22]. Neuroscience. (1963). In Merriam-Webster online.

[23]. Nouri, A., & Mehrmohammadi, M. (2012). Defining the Boundaries for Neuroeducation as a field of study. Educational Research Journal, 27(1 & 2), 1-25.

[24]. Osler, J. E. (2010a). Infometrics™ ©: The Systemic Strategic Practice of Empowerment through the Creation of an Ideal Learning Environment via Optimal Instruction (First Edition). Lulu Publishing, Morrisville NC.

[25]. Osler, J. E. (2010b). Visualus™ © visioneering volumetrically: The mathematics of the innovative problem–solving model of inventive instructional design (First Edition). Lulu Publishing, Morrisville NC.

[26]. Osler II,J.E. (2012a). Introducing: Trichotomy–Squared – A Novel Mixed Methods Test and Research Procedure Designed to Analyze, Transform, and Compare Qualitative and Quantitative Data for Education Scientists who are Administrators, Practitioners, Teachers, and Technologists. i-manager's Journal on Mathematics, 1(3), 23-32.

[27]. Osler, J. E., & Waden, C. (2012b). Using Innovative Technical Solutions as an intervention for at risk Students: A Meta–Cognitive Statistical Analysis to determine the impact of Ninth Grade Freshman Academies, Centers, and Center Models upon Minority Student Retention and Achievement. i-manager's Journal on School Education Technology, 8(2), 11-23.

[28]. Osler, J. E. (2013a). The Psychometrics of Educational Science: Designing Trichotomous Inventive Investigative Instruments for Qualitative and Quantitative Inquiry. i-manager's Journal on School Education Technology, 8(3), 15-22.

[29]. Osler, J. E. (2013b). The Psychological Efficacy of Education as a science through Personal, Professional, and Contextual Inquiry of the Affective Learning Domain. i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 6(4), 36- 41.

[30]. Osler, J. E. (2013c). The Triangulation Algorithmic: A Transformative Function for Designing and Deploying Effective Educational Technology Assessment Instruments. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology,10 (1), 46–54.

[31]. Osler, J. E. (2014). Triostatistics: The application of innovative in–depth advanced post hoc statistical metrics for the assessment and analysis of statistically significant tri–squared test outcomes. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 27–39.

[32]. Osler, J. E. (2015a). Trioinformatics: The innovative and novel logic notation that defines, explains, and expresses the rational application of the law of trichotomy for digital instrumentation and circuit design. i-manager's Journal on Circuits and Systems, 3(2),1-7.

[33]. Osler, J. E. (2015b). AMOVA [“Accumulative Manifold Validation Analysis ”]: An Advanced Statistical Methodology designed to measure and test the Validity, Reliability, and overall efficacy of Inquiry–Based Psychometric Instruments. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology,12 (3), 19-29.

[34]. Osler, J .E., & Mason, L.R.(2015) . Neuromathematical Trichotomous Mixed Methods Analysis: Using the Neuroscientific Tri–Squared Test Statistical Metric as a Post Hoc Analytic to Determine North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics Leadership Efficacy. i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 9(3), 44–61.

[35]. Osler, J. E. (2016). The 4A Metric Algorithm: A Unique E–Learning Engineering Solution Designed via Neuroscience to counter cheating and reduce its recidivism by measuring Student Growth thorough Systemic Sequential Online Learning. i-manager's Journal on Educational Technology,12 (2), 44–61.

[36]. Petoft, A. (2015). Neurolaw: a brief introduction. Iranian Journal of Neurology, 14 (1), 53-58.

[37]. Posner, M. I., & Digirolamo, G. J. (2000). Cognitive neuroscience: Origins and promise. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (6), 873–889.

[38]. Research Network on Law and Neuroscience (2014). Neurolaw.

[39]. Royal Society (2011). Neuroscience: Implications for Education and Lifelong Learning (Brain Waves Module 2). London: The Royal Society.

[40]. Sabitzer, B. (2011). Neurodidactics–a new stimulus in ICT and computer science education. INTED 2011 Proceedings, 5881-5889.

[41]. Saleem, H., & Khan, M. S. A. (2014). Towards Generation of Alternate Electrical Energy via Paddling Impact: Protracted Design and Implementation. International Journal of Computer Applications, 107(2),1-6.

[42]. UC-Berkeley Molecular and Cell Biology Department (2014). Neurobiology.

[43]. van der Wall, E., & van Gilst, W. H. (2013). Neurocardiology: close interaction between heart and brain. Netherlands Heart Journal, 21(2), 51-52.

[44]. Yale University (2010). Cognitive Science.

[45]. Yudofsky, S.C.; Hales, E.H. (2002). Neuropsychiatry and the Future of Psychiatry and Neurology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159 (8), 1261–1264.

[46]. Zymo Research. (2014). What is epigenetics?

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Adopting Free and Open Source Software(FOSS) in Education

Deepty Gupta* , Surbhi **

*-** Assistant Professor, Central Institute of Educational Technology, New Delhi, India.

Gupta, D., and Surbhi. (2018). Adopting Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13979

Abstract

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has provided the better learning opportunities to the present teachers and learners across the world. In the era of internet, many educational resources are free and lot of free softwares are also available. In our country the basic operating system used in educational institutions are proprietary in nature and we all are dependent to that. But in past few years the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement has broken the outlook of using the paid softwares. In the generation of online learning, where Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are being used by educators for transacting the curriculum based material, we need to use the available FOSS also. The Indian Government is also encouraging the usage of GNU/Linux in all the institutions. Still there are lots of barriers which are making teachers and students reluctant towards the usage of FOSS in education. So in this research paper, the authors have attempted to conduct a small scale research to find out the awareness of FOSS among school teachers along with their usage and barriers. An attempt has also been done to suggest some FOSS, which could be useful for teachers while transacting the curriculum.

References

[1]. Blessing, U. N. (2012). Awareness, availability and utilization of open source software in Nigerian libraries: the way forward, International Research Journal of Library, Information and Archival Studies, 1(1), 1-9.

[2]. De', R. (2015). Economic Impact of Free and Open Source Software Usage in Government: Final Report.

[3]. E governance in India blog (2007). Free as in Freedom and Free Sof tware.

[4]. Fernando, M. (2011). Enhancement of ICT Education via FOSS Solutions in Developing Countries through Sri Lankan Observations. 5^thInternational Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 169-179).IATED.

[5]. Free Software Foundation. (2009). GNU Operating System.

[6]. Ghosh, R. A., Glott, R., Krieger, B., & Robles, G. (2002). Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study. International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht.

[7]. History of the OSI. (2012).

[8]. Implementations in Government Schools in India. (2014). Department of School Education & Literacy, MHRD, GoI NISG.

[9]. Johnston, K., Begg, S., & Tanner, M. (2013). Exploring the factors influencing the adoption of Open Source Software in Western Cape schools. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(2), 64-84.

[10]. Makhathe, M., & Mabanza, N. (2013, January). ICT students' perception concerning free and open source software: A case study of Central University of Technology. In Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2013 15^th International Conference on (pp. 2-7). IEEE.

[11]. Mengesha, N. T. (2010). The role of technological frames of key groups in open source software implementation in a developing country context. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 43(1), 1-19.

[12]. Mittal, P. & Singh, J. (2013). A Survey on Open Source Software using Questionnaire. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), 4(4),833-838.

[13]. Paiva, E. (2009). Use of Open Source Software by the Brazilian Government. The Technology Innovation Management Review.

[14]. Petreley, N. (2004). Security Report: Windows vs. Linux.

[15]. Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India. (2014). Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Electronics & Information Technology.

[16]. Saini, S.K. (2013). Use of Free/Open Source Software By Indian Organisations - A Preliminary Study and its findings (Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Science And Humanities Anna University Chennai).

[17]. Scacchi, W. (2002). Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems. IEE Proceedings-Software, 149(1), 24-39.

[18]. Shaame, A. (2014). The Adoption of Free and Open Source Software in Teaching and Learning: Case Study Zanzibar Education Institutions, International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research (IJMSR), 2(5), 53-59.

[19]. Shaame,A., Shanmugam, K., and Dehghantanha, A. (2013). An Educational Framework for Free and Open Source Software. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(1), 16-20.

[20]. Ukachi, N. (2015). Awareness, availability and utilization of open source software in Nigerian libraries: the way forward. International Research Journal of Library, Information and Archival Studies. 1(1), 1-9.

[21]. What is free software? (n.d.).

[22]. Woodall, L. & Marius, M. (2013). Free and Open Source Software, Open Data, and Open Standards in the Caribbean: Situation Review and Recommendations, UNESC.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Review Paper

Implications of Korean Experiences of ICT in Education in Indian Context: A Viewpoint

C. Bansal* , P. K. Misra**

* Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India..

** Professor, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Bansal, C., and Misra, P. K. (2018). Implications of Korean Experiences of ICT in Education in Indian Context: A Viewpoint. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13980

Abstract

South Korea has achieved the rank of high tech nations of 21^st century, 100% literacy and 100% schools with internet connectivity in a span of 20 years. There are several factors responsible for these notable achievements. Optimal and effective integration of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in education is one of the main reasons behind successful journey of Korea in various socio-economic spheres. In this backdrop, present study was conducted to understand the journey of South Korea in reference to their initiatives and policies of ICT in education to draw useful lessons for India. This study is mainly based on the review of existing policies and practices, as well as other available literature and statistics related to use of ICT in education in Korea. On the basis of obtained findings, researchers figured out few lessons for policymakers and planners of India to integrate ICT in education in a more effective and efficient way.

References

[1]. Bacsich, P., & Proli, D. (2011). Researching Virtual Initiatives in Education.

[2]. Bush, M. D., & Mott, J. D. (2009). The transformation of learning with technology. Educational Technology, 49(1), 3-20.

[3]. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning Policy: When state Education Reform Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

[4]. Dessoff, A. (2012). Asia's burgeoning higher education hubs. NAFSA Association of International Educators.

[5]. Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (Ed.). (2015). The Age of STEM: Educational Policy and Practice across the World in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. New York, NY: Routledge.

[6]. Hwang, D. J. (2016). The Initiatives on ICT in Education in Korea: Cyber Learning System. Korea: UNESCO.

[7]. Hwang, D. J., Yang, H., & Kim, H. (2010). A Best Practice of e-learning in Korea. Moscow, Russia: UNESCO, IITE.

[8]. Khan, M. S. H., Hasan, M., & Clement, C.K. (2012). Barriers to the introduction of ICT into education in developing countries: The example of Bangladesh. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 61-80.

[9]. Kim,Y. ( 2007). Understanding Korean education, ICT in Korean education. Korean Educational Development Institute, 2(1).

[10]. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (2011). Report on Korean's understanding of science and technology. Korea: KOFAC.

[11]. Korean Educational Development Institute (2015). Education for the Future. KEDI.

[12]. Korean Educational Development Institute. (2007). Understanding Korean education, 2. KEDI.

[13]. Korean Educational Development Institute. (2014). Brief statistics on Korean education. KEDI.

[14]. Korean Ministry of Education & Korean Education and Research Information Service. (2014). White Paper on ICT in Education in Korea 2014. Korea: KERIS.

[15]. Kozma, R. B. (2005). National Policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 117-156.

[16]. Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education. Springer International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Boston, MA: Springer.

[17]. Kozma, R.B. (2003). Technology and Classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (1), 1–14.

[18]. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT in schools around the World: Findings from the SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: CERC and Springer.

[19]. MHRD. (2014). Annual Report 2013-2014. Department of School Education & Literary Department of Higher Education. New Delhi: MHRD.

[20]. MHRD. (2016). National Policy on Education 2016. Report of the committee for evolution of the new education policy. New Delhi: MHRD.

[21]. Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology. (2017). Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan.

[22]. Mishra, A. (2012). Potential to host several higher education hubs. University World News.

[23]. OECD. (2014). Strong Performers and successful reformers in education: Lesson from PISA for Korea. OECD: Korea.

[24]. OECD. (2016). Education Policy Outlook: Korea. OECD: Korea.

[25]. Ramirez, E. (2017). Nearly 100% of households in South Korea now have internet access.

[26]. Reigeluth, C. M. (2008). Instructional theory and technology for the new paradigm of education. Numero, 32.

[27]. Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., & Harris, J. (2011). Education with ICT in South Korea and Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(2), 126-148.

[28]. So, H. (2016). Shaping the future of education with technology- comparison of Korea and Singapore for ICT in education. ADB Knowledge Sharing Programme on ICT in Education. Korea: UNESCO

[29]. Thakur, G. K. (2014). ICT and digital divide in Indian school system. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(2), 34-38.

[30]. UN. (1997). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 52/LII. United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: UN.

[31]. UN. (2000). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: UN.

[32]. UN. (2002a). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 56/116. United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all. New York: UN.

[33]. UN. (2002b). United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for all. International plan of action: Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 56/116. New York: UN.

[34]. UNDP. (2001). Making technologies work for human development. Human development report. New York: UNDP

[35]. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2014). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Education in Asia. Montreal: UIS. Retrieved fromwww.uis.unesco.org

[36]. UNESCO. (2005b). UNESCO and Sustainable Development: Final Report. France: UNESCO. Retrieved from www.unesdoc.unesco.org

[37]. UNESCO. (2014). Education Systems in ASEAN +6 countries: A comparative analysis of selected educational issues. Bangkok: UNESCO.

[38]. Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2011). The role of technology and computer-based instruction in a disadvantaged alternative school's culture of learning. Computer in the Schools Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 28(1), 39-55.

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 21 Issue 2

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 14 Issue 4 January - March 2018

Foundational Principles and Practices to Consider In Assessing Maker Education

Michael Lundberg * , Jay Rasmussen**

* Sixth Grade Teacher, Mounds View Public Schools, USA. ** Professor, Department of Education, Bethel University, USA.

Lundberg, M., and Rasmussen, J. (2018). Foundational Principles and Practices to Consider In Assessing Maker Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13975

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Impact of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Feedback on Students' Achievement in a Distance Learning Environment

O. Zeichner*

Lecturer and Researcher, Kibbutzim College of Education Technology and Arts, Israel.

Zeichner, O. (2018). The Impact of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Feedback on Students' Achievement in a Distance Learning Environment. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13976

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Relationship between Smartphone use and Academic Performance in a Sample of Tertiary Students in Singapore: A Cross-Sectional Study

Jingming Zhao * , Wei Yuping **, Ismail Maideen***, Zan Khin Moe****, A. M. A. Nasirudeen*****

*-**,**** Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore ***,***** Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore.

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Regular Quadrilateral Function of E–Learning Engineering: The Mathematical Conjunction of Accumulation and Advancement that Defines The Logic, Rationale, and Active Infometrics of Information Delivery in the Digital Age

James Edward Osler II*

Associate Professor, Department of Allied Professions, North Carolina Central University, USA.

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Adopting Free and Open Source Software(FOSS) in Education

Deepty Gupta* , Surbhi **

*-** Assistant Professor, Central Institute of Educational Technology, New Delhi, India.

Gupta, D., and Surbhi. (2018). Adopting Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13979

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Implications of Korean Experiences of ICT in Education in Indian Context: A Viewpoint

C. Bansal* , P. K. Misra**

* Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.. ** Professor, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Bansal, C., and Misra, P. K. (2018). Implications of Korean Experiences of ICT in Education in Indian Context: A Viewpoint. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,14(4), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.4.13980

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

* Sixth Grade Teacher, Mounds View Public Schools, USA.

** Professor, Department of Education, Bethel University, USA.

Jingming Zhao * , Wei Yuping , Ismail Maideen, Zan Khin Moe, A. M. A. Nasirudeen

-, Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore

,***** Senior Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore.

* Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India..

** Professor, Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.