i-manager Publications

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

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Cited

Volume 16 Issue 1 April - June 2019

Article

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) : Its Origin in India and Pedagogical Integration in the Study of Geography

Nidhi Singh*

Planning and Research Division, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, New Delhi, India.

Singh, N. (2019). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) : Its Origin in India and Pedagogical Integration in the Study of Geography. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15975

Abstract

Geography as a discipline is a multi-disciplinary science which has an ability to reach out to masses through its very nature. It has an in-built affinity towards technology which has been integrated in the subject even before many other Social Science subjects adopted it. The visible collaboration of Geography with technology started during the post Quantitative Revolution period when computer was adopted for research and study of various aspects of the subject. Since then, integration of technology into the subject has come through various ways and has resulted in achieving farreaching goals. The focus of the paper primarily rests at discussing various ways in which ICT can be integrated in teaching and learning of Geography at the school level. This has been reached through tracing the origin and implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in India, its components and tools.

References

[1]. Beastall, L. (2006). Enchanting a disenchanted child: revolutionising the means of education using Information and Communication Technology and e learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(1), 97-110.

[2]. Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta).

[3]. Berlinguer, L. (2012). Enhancing creativity and innovation at all levels of education and training to face new economic and social challenges. Educational Technology, 52(2), 6-9.

[4]. Bhatty, K. (1998). Educational deprivation in India: A survey of field investigations. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(27), 1731-1740.

[5]. CIET. (n.d.). The Curricula for ICT in Education, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, New Delhi.

[6]. Gibson, D., Broadley, T., Downie, J., & Wallet, P. (2018). Evolving learning paradigms: Re-setting baselines and collection methods of information and communication technology in education statistics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 62-73.

[7]. Home, P. (2000). Geography and the internet: Adding a key skills dimension. Teaching Geography, 25(4), 187- 190.

[8]. Humphries, P., & Burn, R. (2000). Geographical gateways into cyberspace. Teaching Geography, 25(3), 150-152.

[9]. ICT. (n.d.). Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India.

[10]. Jones, M., & Rycraft, P. (2007). Animated discussion in geography. Teaching Geography, 32(2), 93-96.

[11]. Lu, C., Tsai, C. C., & Wu, D. (2015). The role of ICT Infrastructure in its application to classrooms: A large scale survey for middle and primary schools in China. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 249- 261.

[12]. Marais & Miranda. (1950). Nature Songs- Song of the Rock.

[13]. Marais & Miranda. (1960). Nature Songs-The Balance of Nature.

[14]. Marianna, K., & Theodore, J. (2018). Geography and AI Combine for Business Intelligence. Esri.

[15]. Martin, F. (2001). Using ICT to raise achievement. Teaching Geography, 26(3), 117-121.

[16]. MHRD. (n.d). School Location Mapping, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India.

[17]. Naik, D. C., & Teelock, V. (2006). Enhancing the teaching and learning of history and geography through information and communications technology: A Mauritian experience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 422-434.

[18]. NCF. (2005). National Curriculam Framework, National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi.

[19]. Parkinson, A., & Vannet, V. (2008). Using digital learning resources in geography teaching. Teaching Geography, 33(1).

[20]. Pocock, D. C. (1979). The contribution of mental maps in perception studies. Geography, 64(4), 279-287.

[21]. Ritzer, G. (2005). Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the means of Consumption. Pine Forge Press.

[22]. Taylor & BPRS Cambridge Group. (2003). Effective use of ICT in geography coursework. Teaching Geography, 28(2), 94-96.

[23]. Van der Westhuizen, C. P., Nel, C., & Richter, B. W. (2012). An Analysis of Students' Academic Performance When Integrating DVD Technology in Geography Teaching and Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 190-201.

[24]. Williams, A. (2000). Teaching and learning with geographical information systems. Teaching Geography, 25(1), 45-47.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Validity of Online Learning in Occupational Therapy Curriculum

M. Blanche Leeman* , Lori Kupczynski, Sunddip Aguilar*, Shannon L. Groff ****

* Department of Occupational Therapy, Stony Brook University, USA.

-* Doctor of Education Program, University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, USA.

**** Department of Education and Human Services, Florida State College, Jacksonville, USA.

Leeman, M. B., Kupczynski, L., Aguilar, S., and Groff, S. L. (2019). The Validity of Online Learning in Occupational Therapy Curriculum. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.14960

Abstract

The profession of Occupational Therapy has over a 100-year history embracing technology. The relationship of technology and occupational therapy remains prevalent as a foundational skill taught in the occupational therapy curriculum. To stay current with emerging technology, a course written for master level occupational therapy students included the technologies of 3D printing and online learning. The purpose of this study was to measure the two-credit online course from the students' perspective for the value the student perceived in the profession of occupational therapy. Also measured was the educational format of the course where novel skills are taught through an online format. A qualitative case study research approach was used to garner the students' perception of the value of online learning. Two focus groups and four individual interviews were completed to collect data. The software NVivo 12 was used to organize and code the data. Results suggested that 88.2% of the students recommended to keep the course online as opposed to hybrid or traditional face-to-face format.

References

[1]. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.

[2]. American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA). (2018). Distance education entry-level occupational therapy (OT) educational programs. American Occupational Therapy Association, 1-4.

[3]. Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: instructor practices that support community. Online Learning, 21(2), 1-22.

[4]. Creswell, J. W., Hansen, W. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.

[5]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online Distance Education. In Moore & Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp.113-127).

[6]. Kaplowitz, M. D., & Hoehn, J. (2001). Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics, 2001, 36(2), 237-247.

[7]. Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be st job-ready with 21^st century skills? Change pedagogies: A pedagogical paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to critical thinking, problem solving and Siemens' digital connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 81-91.

[8]. Knightley, W. M. (2007). Adult learners online: Students' experiences of learning online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 264-288.

[9]. Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16-39.

[10]. Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 2, 228-37.

[11]. Nicholas, J., Proudfoot, J., Parker, G., Gillis, I., Burckhardt, R., Manicavasagar, V., & Smith, M. (2010). The ins and outs of an online bipolar education program: A study of program attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(5), e57.

[12]. Parker, J. A., & Burkhardt, A. (2010). The virtual world as a context for occupational therapy education. Special Interest Section Quarterly Education, 20(4), 1-2.

[13]. Queirosi, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-387.

[14]. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4^th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

[15]. Selvi, K. (2010). Motivating factors in online courses. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 819-824.

[16]. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

[17]. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.

[18]. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Method (6^th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Examine Technology Acceptance of Online Learning Technologies by Non-Traditional Students

Tony Robinson*

Department of Business and Technology, Mountain Empire Community College, USA.

Robinson, T. (2019). Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Examine Technology Acceptance of Online Learning Technologies by Non-Traditional Students. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15826

Abstract

Online learning has changed higher education, emerging as a primary source for delivering courses and programs to students. As online learning has grown, more non-traditional students have entered college, many for the first time. Consequently, many of these non-traditional are experiencing online learning, and the technologies that deliver them, for the first time. This quantitative research study developed and tested technology acceptance of online learning technologies using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with variables perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, and intention to use. Findings from 40 valid responses in an online survey at Mountain Empire Community College (2016) USA, showed that perceived ease of use had a significant effect on perceived usefulness, which is consistent with TAM. Findings showed that perceived ease of use did have a significant effect on attitude. Further, perceived usefulness had a significant effect on attitude and attitude had a significant effect on intention to use, which is consistent with TAM.

References

[1]. Capra, T. (2014). Online education from the perspective of community college students within the community of inquiry paradigm. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(2-3), 108-121.

[2]. Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy, and academic performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 213-222.

[3]. Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 15(6), 111-131.

[4]. Dalcher, I., & Shine, J. (2003). Extending the new technology acceptance model to measure the end user information systems satisfaction in a mandatory environment: A bank's treasury. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (4), 441-455.

[5]. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.

[6]. Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-indifferences analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 83-89.

[7]. Dumciene, A., Saulius, T., & Capskas, A. (2016). University students' attitudes towards e-learning. Baltic Journal of Sport & Health Sciences, 100(1), 2-9.

[8]. Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71-84.

[9]. Ellis, R. A., Pardo, A., & Han, F. (2016). Quality in blended learning environments - Significant differences in how students approach learning collaborations. Computers & Education, 102, 90-102.

[10]. Fador, A. G. (2014). Innovation and technology acceptance model (TAM): A theoretical approach. Romanian Journal of Marketing, 2, 59-65.

[11]. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) In higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.

[12]. Gagnon, R. J., Stone, G. A., & Garst, B. A. (2017). Beyond composite scores and cronbach's alpha: Advancing methodological rigor in recreation research. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education & Leadership, 9(4), 383-403.

[13]. Gao, Y., & Wu, X. (2015). User acceptance of learning technology: The case of using moodle. International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 21, 1-8.

[14]. Gregory, C. B., & Lampley, J. H. (2016). Community college student success in online versus equivalent faceto- face courses. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 63-72.

[15]. Hubona, G. S., & Whisenand, T. G. (1995). External variables and the technology acceptance. Americas Conference on Information Systems. Pittsburgh: Association for Information Systems.

[16]. Islam, A. N. (2016). E-learning system use and its outcomes: Moderating role of perceived compatibility. Telematics and Informatics, 33 (1), 48-55.

[17]. Kasim, N. N. M., & Khalid, F. (2016). Choosing the right learning management system (LMS) for the higher education institution context: A systematic review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(6), 55-61.

[18]. Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013a). Constructs of studentcentered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 97-122.

[19]. Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013b). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43-51.

[20]. Kuo, Y.-C., & Belland, B. R. (2016). An exploratory study of adult learners' perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 661-680.

[21]. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and selfregulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(1), 35-50.

[22]. Ladyshewsky, R., & Pettapiece, R. G. (2015). Exploring adult learners usage of information communication technology during a virtual peer coaching experience. Online Learning, 19(2), 107-121.

[23]. Lamar, S. B. C., Samms-Brown, C., & Brown, J. U. (2016). Technology acceptance in a sample of college students. International Journal of Education Research, 11(1), 15-26.

[24]. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating Students' Perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of elearning: A case study of the blackboard System. Computers & Education, 51 (2), 864-873.

[25]. Mallya, J., & Lakshminarayanan, S. (2017). Factors influencing usage of internet for academic purposes using technology acceptance model. Journal of Library & Information Technology, 37 (2), 119-124.

[26]. Mountain Empire Community College. (2016). Retrieved May 11, 2017, from Mountain Empire Community College.

[27]. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in degreegranting postsecondary institutions, by level of institution and sex and race/ethnicity of student: 1970 through 2015 : Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_302.60.asp

[28]. Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2012). Student satisfaction with learning management systems: A lens of critical success factors. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 21(3), 337-350.

[29]. Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1-10.

[30]. Pratt, T. (2017). The open access dilemma: How can community colleges better serve underprepared students? Education Next, 17(4), 34-41.

[31]. Rhode, J., Richter, S., Gowen, P., Miller, T., & Wills, C. (2017). Understanding faculty use of the learning management system. Online Learning, 21(3), 68-86.

[32]. Sondakh, J. J. (2017). Behavioral intention to use ETax service system: An application of technology acceptance model. European Research Studies Journal, 20(2A), 48-64.

[33]. Stantchev, V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P., & Misra, S. (2014). Learning management systems and cloud file hosting services: A study on students' acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 612- 619.

[34]. Swanke, J., & Zeman, L. D. (2015). Evaluation of nontraditional age learners' experiences in internetbased clinical social work courses. College Quarterly, 18(4), 1-9.

[35]. Tan, M., & Shao, P. (2015). An ECM-ISC based study on learners' continuance intention toward e-learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(4), 22-27.

[36]. Thompson, N. L., Miller, N. C., & Franz, D. P. (2013). Comparing online and face-to-face learning experiences for non-tradional students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233-251.

[37]. Travers, S. (2016). Supporting Online Student Retention in Community Colleges. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(4), 49-61.

[38]. Virginia Community College System. (2017). Finding a Virginia Communiity College. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from VCCS: http://www.vccs.edu/about/where-weare/college-locator/

[39]. Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15-35.

[40]. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students' course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37, 46-57.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Factors Influencing the Adoption and Integration of ICT in Teaching among Foreign Teachers in Thailand

Teresita Rubang-Doctor* , Mark Anthony Cenas Pa-alisbo, Omega Rose Palma Allanic*

_ Faculty of Education, St. Theresa International College, Thailand.

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, St. Theresa International College, Thailand.

Rubang-Doctor, T., Pa-alisbo, M. A. C., and Allanic, O. R. P. (2019). Factors Influencing the Adoption and Integration of ICT in Teaching among Foreign Teachers in Thailand. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.16021

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to identify the factors that influence adoption and integration of ICT in teaching; determine significant relationship between the personal level and technological level factors and the adoption and integration of ICT in teaching, and test the significant difference in the influence of the factors on the adoption and integration of ICT in teaching. Respondents of this study are 123 foreign teachers from different primary and secondary Schools and international schools in Thailand through the use of snowball sampling technique. They are non-education graduates, were teaching in various schools in Thailand, were enrolled in the Academic Year 2017, and those that are currently taking the Graduate Diploma in Teaching Profession in one of the private international universities in Rangsit and Nakhon Nayok, Thailand. This study utilized the descriptive method. The instrument utilized for gathering the data was a researcher-made survey questionnaire which was tested for its validity and reliability. The data were statistically analyzed and interpreted through basic statistics, such as frequency, percentage, and mean; and inferential statistics, such as Spearman rho, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Pearson r), t-test for significant difference, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Findings revealed that foreign teachers agreed that factors such as personal characteristics and technological characteristics influenced the adoption and integration of ICT in teaching. It was also found out that in general there was no significant relationship and difference in the personal and technological characteristics to the integration and adoption of ICT in the teaching-learning process.

References

[1]. Adams, N. B. (2002). Educational computing concerns of post secondary faculty. Research on Technology in Education, 34( 3), 285-303.

[2]. Ajayi, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teachers' perceptions of learning to teach while using asynchronous discussion board. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 86-100.

[3]. Alazam, A. O., Bakar, A. R., Hamzah, R., &Asmiran, S. (2012). Teachers' ICT skills and ICT integration in the classroom: the case of vocational and technical teachers in Malaysia. Creative Education, 3(8), 70-76.

[4]. Askar, P., Usluel, Y. K., & Mumcu, F. K. (2006). Logistic regression modeling for predicting task related ict use in teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 141- 151.

[5]. Baek, Y. G., Jong, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use of technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample.Computers and Education, 50(8), 224- 234.

[6]. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kafal, S. (2007). The ICT impact report. A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. European Communities.

[7]. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.

[8]. Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/barriers.pdf.

[9]. Breisser, S. R. (2006). An examination of gender differences in elementary constructionist classrooms using Lego/Logo instruction. Computers in the Schools, 22, 7-19.

[10]. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teacher's adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology into Teaching (IJEDICT) 2012, 8(1), 136-155

[11]. Campbell RJ. (2004). Older women and the Internet. Journal of Women and Aging,16(1-2), 161-174.

[12]. Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.

[13]. Chigona, A., & Chigona, W. (2010). An investigation of factors affecting the use of ICT for teaching in the Western Cape schools. In 18th European Conference on Information Systems, Proceedings.

[14]. Clausen, J. M. (2007). Beginning teachers' technology use: First-year teacher development and the institutional context's affect on new teachers' instructional technology use with students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 245-261.

[15]. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158

[16]. Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers' perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67- 74.

[17]. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333-352.

[18]. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5-13.

[19]. Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 267-293.

[20]. Giordano, V. A. (2007). A professional development model to promote Internet integration into p-12 teachers' practice: A mixed methods study. Computers in the Schools, 24(3-4), 111-123.

[21]. Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63-76.

[22]. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.

[23]. Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943-956.

[24]. Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers use of technology in Silicon valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39-64.

[25]. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-253.

[26]. Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2005). Exploring users' attitudes and intentions toward the Web as a survey tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 729-743.

[27]. Jamieson-Proctor, R. M.,Burnett, P. C., Finger, G., & Watson, G. (2006). ICT integration and teachers' confidence in using ICT for teaching and learning in Queensland state schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 511-530.

[28]. Jay, G. M., & Willis, S. L. (1992). Influence of direct computer experience on older adults' attitudes toward computers. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), 250-P257.

[29]. Jebeile, S., & Reeve, R. (2003). The diffusion of elearning innovations in an Australian secondary college: Strategies and tactics for educational leaders. The Innovation Journal, 8(4).

[30]. Jones, C. A. (2001). Teach Support: Preparing teachers to use technology. Principal Leadership, 1(9), 35-39.

[31]. Kay, R. (2006). Addressing gender differences in computer ability, attitudes and use: The laptop effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 187- 211.

[32]. Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 560-565.

[33]. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 369-376.

[34]. Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

[35]. Lau, & Sim. (2008). Exploring the extent of ICT adoption among Secondary school teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, 2(2), 19-36. Retrieved Nov 2, 2011 from http://www.ijcir.org/volume2number2/article 3.pdf.

[36]. Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.

[37]. Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of Information Technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.

[38]. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-236

[39]. Liaw, S., Huang, H., & Chen, G. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward Elearning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066-1080

[40]. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807-828.

[41]. Markauskaite, L. (2006). Gender issues in preservice teachers' training: ICT literacy and online learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 1- 20.

[42]. Martins, C., Steil, A., & Todesco, J. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers & Education, 42(4), 220-237.

[43]. Mazoya, A., Ismail, A., & Manyilizu, M. (2015). Age of teachers vs ICT use in Tanzanian secondary schools: A case of dodoma municipality. International Journal of Computer Applications, 132(14), 22-26.

[44]. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited. integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.

[45]. Neyland, E. (2011). Integrating online learning in NSW secondary schools: Three schools perspectives on ICT adoption. Australia Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 152-173

[46]. Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.

[47]. Norris, C., T., Sullivan, J., Poirot, & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (1), 15-27

[48]. Norton, S., McRobbie, C., & Cooper, T. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers' reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87-109.

[49]. OECD. (1999). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, France: OECD Publications.

[50]. Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors on influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 274-293.

[51]. Peralta, H., & Costa, F. A. (2007). Teachers' competence and confidence regarding the use of ICT. Educational Sciences Journal, 3, 75-84

[52]. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2004). Older Americans and Internet. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/pip_seniors_online_2004.pdf

[53]. Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(2), 70-74.

[54]. Rangaswamy, A., & S. Gupta. (2000). Innovation adoption and diffusion in the digital environment: some research opportunities.

[55]. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press

[56]. Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers' computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 17-30.

[57]. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L. & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examing teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.

[58]. Schiler, J. (2003). Working with ICT: Perceptions of Australian principals, Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 171-185.

[59]. Sherry, L., & Gibson, D. (2002). The path to teacher leadership in educational technology. Contemporary Issues In Technology and Teacher Education, 2(2), 178- 203.

[60]. Slaouti, D., & Barton, A. (2007). Opportunities for practice and development: Newly qualified teachers and the use of information and communication technologies in teaching foreign languages in English secondary school contexts. Journal of In-service Education, 33(4), 405-424.

[61]. Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 65-82.

[62]. Stockdill, S. H., & Morehouse, D. L. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of technology: A checklist based on the findings. Educational Technology, 32(1), 57-58.

[63]. Tella, A., Tella, A., Toyobo, O. M., Adika, L. O., & Adeyinka, A. A. (2007). An assessment of secondary school teachers uses of ICT's: Implications for further development of ICT's use in Nigerian secondary schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(3).

[64]. Tomei, L. A. (2005). Taxonomy for the technology domain. USA: Information Science Publishing.

[65]. Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, pp. 494-506.

[66]. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for st Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21 Century: A Report on teachers' use of technology. September 2000. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

[67]. Volman M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-634.

[68]. Watson, G. (2006). Technology Professional development: Long-term effects on teacher selfefficacy, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151 166.

[69]. Wepner, S., Tao, L., & Ziomek, N. (2006). Broadening our view about technology integration: Three literacy educators' perspectives. Reading Horizons, 46(3), 215- 237.

[70]. Williams, M. D. (2003). Technology integration in education. In Tan, S.C. & Wong, F.L. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning with Technology: An Asia-pacific perspective (pp. 17-31). Singapore: Prentice Hall.

[71]. Wong, E. M. L. & Li, S. C. (2008). Framing ICT implementation in a context of educational change: a multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(1), 99-120.

[72]. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.

[73]. Yildirim, S. (2007). Current Utilization of ICT in Turkish Basic Education Schools: A review of teacher's ict use and barriers to integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(2), 171-86.

[74]. Yuen, A. H. K., & Ma, W. W. K. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of E-learning technology. Asia- Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 229-243.

[75]. Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(3), 12- 22.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Awareness on Computerized Test among Undergraduate Students

S. Gandhi* , G. Hema**

*_** Department of Education, Periyar University, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.

Gandhi , S., and Hema, G. (2019). Awareness on Computerized Test among Undergraduate Students. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15666

Abstract

The computer based tests are capable of putting together a lot of interactions and fascinating question types, such as simulations, online tests, and measurement of skills, rather than simply assessing by paper-pencil tests. The computerized test result has greater standardization of test administration. The aim of this study is to seek out the awareness on computerized test among undergraduate students. Survey method has been adopted. A sample of 450 undergraduate students (226 male, 224 female) were selected from Salem district in Tamil Nadu, India. Awareness scale was used for data collection. Both descriptive analysis and differential analysis were adopted for data analysis. The results found that the undergraduate students had average level of awareness on computerized test.

References

[1]. Becker, K., & Bergstrom, B. A. (2013). Test administration models. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 18 (14), 122-127.

[2]. Iyadat, W., Iyadat, Y., Ashour, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2012). University Students and Ethics of Computer Technology Usage: human resource development. EL earning and Digital Media, 9 (1), 43-49.

[3]. Kaushik, N., & Sharma, A. (2010). Computer and internet awareness in school going students. Computers and Education, 55(3), 43-66.

[4]. Kumar, K. L. (1997). Educational Technology. New Delhi: New Age International.

[5]. Lambropoulos, N., Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2012). Supporting social awareness in collaborative e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 295-306.

[6]. Nirmal., & Udayarekha. (2012). Students attitude towards the use of the internet for learning and career orientation - a study. Journal of Educational and Psychological Research, 2(1), 24-37.

[7]. Panday, V. C. (2005). Educational Technology. New Delhi: Isha Books.

[8]. Rajkumar, R., & Hema, G. (2018a). Facilitating web resources for teaching and learning mathematics at school level. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 6(1), 124-130.

[9]. Rajkumar, R., & Hema, G. (2018b). Assessing general intelligence in influencing performance of mathematics. i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 12(1),19-24.

[10]. Maheswary, K. U., Reddy, P. S., & Gyanmudra. (2010). Assessment of ICT literacy among high school students of Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. Edutracks, 10(2), 34 – 37.

[11]. Sharma, S. (2005). Advanced Educational Technology. New Delhi: Anmol.

[12]. Sivakumar, D. (2012). Awareness of internet usage among the School Teachers in Tuticorin District, New Horizons in Educational Research, 4(1), 68-76.

[13]. Thamodaran. (2010). Impact of computer based instruction in teaching information technology to B.Ed students. Journal of knowledge Management Practice, 11(3), 27-35.

[14]. Tharanganie, T. H., Wickremasinghe, W. N., & Lakraj, G. P. (2011). An assessment of computer awareness and literacy among entry-level University of Colombo undergraduates: A case study. International Journal on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions, 4(1), 15-25.

[15]. Thompson, N. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2011). A framework for the development of computerized adaptive tests. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 16(1), 87- 95.

[16]. Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D., & Hodgson, J. (2010). Computer-based testing: Practices and considerations (Synthesis Report 78). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

[17]. Tutkun, O. F. (2011). Internet Access, Use and Sharing Levels among Students during the Teaching-Learning Process. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3), 152-160.

[18]. Zaidi. S. M. (2004). Modern Teaching of Educational Technology. Delhi: Anmol.

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

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 16 Issue 1 April - June 2019

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) : Its Origin in India and Pedagogical Integration in the Study of Geography

Nidhi Singh*

Planning and Research Division, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, New Delhi, India.

Singh, N. (2019). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) : Its Origin in India and Pedagogical Integration in the Study of Geography. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15975

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Validity of Online Learning in Occupational Therapy Curriculum

M. Blanche Leeman* , Lori Kupczynski**, Sunddip Aguilar***, Shannon L. Groff ****

* Department of Occupational Therapy, Stony Brook University, USA. **-*** Doctor of Education Program, University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, USA. **** Department of Education and Human Services, Florida State College, Jacksonville, USA.

Leeman, M. B., Kupczynski, L., Aguilar, S., and Groff, S. L. (2019). The Validity of Online Learning in Occupational Therapy Curriculum. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.14960

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Examine Technology Acceptance of Online Learning Technologies by Non-Traditional Students

Tony Robinson*

Department of Business and Technology, Mountain Empire Community College, USA.

Robinson, T. (2019). Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Examine Technology Acceptance of Online Learning Technologies by Non-Traditional Students. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15826

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Factors Influencing the Adoption and Integration of ICT in Teaching among Foreign Teachers in Thailand

Teresita Rubang-Doctor* , Mark Anthony Cenas Pa-alisbo**, Omega Rose Palma Allanic***

*_** Faculty of Education, St. Theresa International College, Thailand. *** Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, St. Theresa International College, Thailand.

Rubang-Doctor, T., Pa-alisbo, M. A. C., and Allanic, O. R. P. (2019). Factors Influencing the Adoption and Integration of ICT in Teaching among Foreign Teachers in Thailand. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.16021

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Awareness on Computerized Test among Undergraduate Students

S. Gandhi* , G. Hema**

*_** Department of Education, Periyar University, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.

Gandhi , S., and Hema, G. (2019). Awareness on Computerized Test among Undergraduate Students. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.16.1.15666

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

M. Blanche Leeman* , Lori Kupczynski, Sunddip Aguilar*, Shannon L. Groff ****

* Department of Occupational Therapy, Stony Brook University, USA.

-* Doctor of Education Program, University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, USA.

**** Department of Education and Human Services, Florida State College, Jacksonville, USA.

Teresita Rubang-Doctor* , Mark Anthony Cenas Pa-alisbo, Omega Rose Palma Allanic*

_ Faculty of Education, St. Theresa International College, Thailand.

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, St. Theresa International College, Thailand.