Advertisement

Connecting to the digital age: using emergent technology to enhance student learning

  • Mohammed AlfadilEmail author
  • Derek Anderson
  • Amber Green
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In classrooms, the use of newer technology—particularly laptops, tablets, and smart-phones—in the teaching-learning process is a relatively new phenomenon with little investigation. The purpose of this study was to investigate student perceptions and experiences regarding the emergent technology used to achieve learning in a high school setting. The participants were eight high school graduates from Northern Colorado, where a homogenous sampling procedure was used to gather participants. In this study, we used a generic qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews, and NVIVO was used to manage and analyse participant response data. Findings indicated a consensus in support of using emergent technology for learning from the students’ perspective. The results revealed a significant difference between the perceptions of participants who used emergent technology in their classrooms as a tool to enhance learning and those who used emergent technology as a distraction. Therefore, most of the participants believed that there was an urgent need for instructors to learn how to increase the effectiveness of using emergent technology in the classroom setting and make instructors more effective.

Keywords

Technology Educational learning Experience and engagement Effectiveness Generic qualitative approaches 

Notes

References

  1. Brooks, L. (2009). Social learning by design: The role of social media. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 58–60. Retrieved June 06, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Social Learning by Design: The Role of Social Media.
  2. Domalewska, D. (2014). Technology-supported classroom for collaborative learning: Blogging in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 10(4), 21–30. Retrieved June 12, 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059031.pdf.
  3. Gilakjani, A. P., Lai-Mei, L., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers' use of technology and constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(4), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010–040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Hung, M. L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study. Computers & Education, 81, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keiler, L. S. (2011). An effective urban summer school: Students’ perspectives on their success. The Urban Review, 43(3), 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khoo, B. K. S. (2019). Mobile applications in higher education: Implications for teaching and learning. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 95–108. Retrieved September 22, 2019 from https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2019010107.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Examining the effects of texting, twitter, and message content on student learning. Communication Education, 64(3), 344–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, C., Young, A., & Cheung, K. (2019). Learner perceptions versus technology usage: A study of adolescent English learners in Hong Kong secondary schools. Computers & Education, 133(2019), 13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S.-L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128(330), 344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.023 Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12) [Computer software]. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/home.
  17. Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report, 2(35), 203–206. Retrieved May 14, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926305
  18. Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saini, C., & Abraham, J. (2019). Implementing Facebook-based instructional approach in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 128(2019), 243–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Silberman, N. J., Panzarella, K. J., & Melzer, B. A. (2013). Using human simulation to prepare physical therapy students for acute care clinical practice. Journal of Allied Health, 42(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  21. Tokmak, H., & Ozgelen, S. (2013). The ECE pre-service teachers perceptions on factors affecting the integration of educational computer games in two conditions: Selecting versus redesigning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1345–1356. Retrieved May 17, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1017333
  22. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Table 425. Public schools and instructional rooms with internet access, by selected school characteristics: Selected years, 1994 through 2005. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (2009 ed.). Retrieved May 15, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_425.asp.
  23. Willson, R., & Given, L. (2014). Student search behavior in an online public access catalogue: An examination of searching searching mental models and searcher self-concept. Information Research, 19(3) 140–152. Retrieved June 04, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1042709
  24. Yilmaz, K., & Altinkurt, Y. (2011). The views of new teachers at private teaching institutions about working conditions. Education Science: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 645–650. Retrieved June 04, 2019 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ927370

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British University in DubaiDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.University of Northern ColoradoGreeleyUSA
  3. 3.University of Northern ColoradoGreeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations