Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 3745–3765 | Cite as

The impact of integrating technology into students’ presentations on peer evaluation in higher education

  • Emad A. S. Abu-AyyashEmail author
  • Christopher Hill
Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of technology in presentations on students’ perception of quality. Students peer reviewed presentations and two external raters evaluated the presentations based on a rubric adapted from Savory (2009). Students reviewed activity using two assessment instruments: a seven-point attitudinal scale and a 1–5 ranking scale. The study utilized a mixed-methods, embedded QUAN:qual design, where statistical analysis of Pearson Correlation coefficient was paired with qualitative description to discuss the data gathered. The findings showed that students’ scores on the attitudinal scale and their holistic rankings correlated positively with the degree of technology employed in the presentations. The greater the integration of technology in a presentation, the higher the peer rating. However, the external raters’ evaluations did not generally accord with the student-raters’.

Keywords

Technology Student perception Peer evaluation Pedagogy Attitudinal rankings Teaching and learning 

Notes

Availability of data and materials

Data used in this article is held with the first author. It is not publically available given the privacy issues involved. Access can be requested by contacting the first author.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information System Research, 9(2), 204–215.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Amiri, E. (2012). A study of the application of digital technologies in teaching and learning English language and literature. International Journal of science and Technology Research, 1(5), 103–107.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, C., & Sparrow, C. (2016). Technology and presentation skills teaching: Activity theory as a tool for the design and evaluation of strategies for the use of video as a learning tool in presentation skills teaching. European Journal of Law and Technology, 7(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169–177.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, T. L., Lavin, A. M., & Korte, L. (2009). Student perceptions of how technology impacts the quality of instruction and learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1, 2–16.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.Google Scholar
  10. Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 749–760.Google Scholar
  11. Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects? A systematic narrative research review. Education Research Review, 7(2), 107–122.Google Scholar
  12. Garcia, K., Davis, L., Jones, Q., Choi, J., & Dawson, M. (2012). Student perceptions of multimedia technology integrated in classroom learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(11), 67–70.Google Scholar
  13. Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361–377.Google Scholar
  14. Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as “agents provocateurs” in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.Google Scholar
  16. Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
  17. Hamidi, F., Meshkat, M., Rezaee, M., & Jafari, M. (2011). Information Technology in Education. Procedia Computer Science, 3(2011), 369–373.Google Scholar
  18. Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effect of e-learning on students’ motivation Proceeding – Social and Behavioural. Science, 181, 423–430.Google Scholar
  19. Harper, B. (2018). Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 214–225.Google Scholar
  20. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004-2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579.Google Scholar
  22. Hunt, L., Eagle, L., & Kitchen, P. J. (2004). Balancing marketing education and information technology: Matching needs or needing a better match. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
  23. IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  24. Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., Wilson, A., Zhu, T., & Cockle, V. (2018). Improving achievement using digital pedagogy: Impact of a research practice Partnership in new Zealand. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 183–199.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, T. H., & Paolucci, R. (1998). The learning effectiveness of educational technology: A call for further research. Educational Technology Review, 9, 10–14.Google Scholar
  26. Kim, S. Y., & Lim, Y. J. (2001). Consumer’s perceived importance of and satisfaction with internet shopping. Electronic Markets, 11, 148–154.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, Y., B. Grabowski, & Song, H. (2003). Science teachers’ perspectives of web-enhanced problem-based learning environment: A qualitative inquiry. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved: May 12, 2005 http://www.ed.psu.edu/~bgrabow/pub12. Accessed 12 May 2018
  28. Kirkgöz, Y. (2011). A blended learning study on implementing video recorded speaking tasks in task-based classroom instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  29. Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  30. Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.Google Scholar
  31. Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–34). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control (p. 5). Boulder: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K-12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325–372.Google Scholar
  34. Lumadi, M. W. (2013). E-learning impact on academic performance of student -teachers. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, (14), 4.Google Scholar
  35. Maier, P., & Warren, A. (2000). Integrating Technology in Learning and Teaching. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  36. McCabe, D. B., & Meuter, M. L. (2011). A student view of technology in the classroom: Does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education? Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
  37. Milliken, J., & Barnes, L. P. (2002). Teaching and technology in higher education: Student perceptions and personal reflections. Computers & Education, 39(3), 223–235.Google Scholar
  38. Montrieux, H., Vanderlind, R., Scheelens, T., & Marez, L. D. (2015). Teaching and learning with mobile technology: A qualitative explorative study about the introduction of tablet devices in secondary education. PLoS One, 10(12), e0144008.Google Scholar
  39. Mugo, D. G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., & Ochwagi Motanya, J. (2017). The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its application to the utilization of Mobile learning technologies. British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science, 20(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  40. Murphy, D. (2016). A literature review: The effect of implementing technology in a high school mathematics classroom. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 295–299.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Oye, N. D., Ilahad, N., Madar, M. J., & Rahim, A. (2012). The impact of e-learning on students’ performance in tertiary institutions. Journal of Computer Networks and Wireless Communication, 2(2), 121–130.Google Scholar
  42. Özad, B. H., & Kutoğlu, Ü. (2004). EFL students use of technology in the presentations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 16–20.Google Scholar
  43. Peart, D. J., Rumbold, P. L. S., Keane, K. M., & Allin, L. (2017). Student use and perception of technology enhanced learning in a mass lecture knowledge-rich domain first year undergraduate module. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(40), 2–11.Google Scholar
  44. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.Google Scholar
  45. Portnov-Neeman, Y., & Barak, M. (2013). Exploring students’ perceptions about learning in school: An activity theory based study. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(3), 9–25.Google Scholar
  46. Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103–112.Google Scholar
  47. Qing, L. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.Google Scholar
  48. Quinones, D. (2010). Digital media (including video!) resources for the STEM classroom and collection. Knowledge Quest, 39(2), 28–32 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Google Scholar
  49. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sanders, R. (2006) The “imponderable bloom”: Reconsidering the role of Technology in Education, Innovate: Journal of Online Education 2(6) August/September https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ae/&httpsredir=1&article=1125&context=innovate (accessed June 9 2018).
  51. Savory, P. (2009). Rubric for presentation evaluation. Industrial and Management Systems Engineering – Instructional Materials, 7.Google Scholar
  52. Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. New York: Software Publishers Association.Google Scholar
  53. Summak, M. S. (2010). Technology readiness of primary school teachers: A case study in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 2671–2675.Google Scholar
  54. Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.Google Scholar
  55. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage. MIS Quarterly, 11(9), 561–570.Google Scholar
  56. Tugrul, T. O. (2012). Student perceptions of an educational technology tool: Video recordings of project presentations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64(2012), 133–140.Google Scholar
  57. Turney, C. S. M., Robinson, D., Lee, M., & Soutar, A. (2009). Using technology to direct learning in higher education: The way forward? Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 71–83.Google Scholar
  58. Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Technology projects as a vehicle to empower students. Educational Media International, 4, 316 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Google Scholar
  59. Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behaviour. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe British University in DubaiDubaiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations