Understanding why teachers entrust technology in innovating the learning outcomes

  • Sahlan Tampubolon 
    Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
    Indonesia
  • Lela Susanty
    STBA YAPARI ABA Bandung
    Indonesia
  • Khasanah Khasanah
    Universitas Siber Asia, Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Wisman Wisman
    Universitas Bengkulu
    Indonesia
  • Agus Riyanto
    STIKes Bhakti Husada Bengkulu
    Indonesia

Abstract

This study aims to analyze why elementary school and college educators trust technology to achieve teaching and learning outcomes. To discuss in order to answer the problem comprehensively and with high validity, we have collected data with the help of technology in a database of academic works such as journals, books, proceedings, magazines, and digital era educational technology websites. This study relies on secondary data with a phenomenological approach, exploring the broadest data often done in descriptive qualitative studies of social sciences and humanities. Examples of databases that we are targeting are the publications of Sagepub, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Google Books, and ERIC, which we specifically focus on for the latest issues between 2015 and 2021. Based on the data, findings and discussions can be summarized, between educators at both basic education levels until universities rely on ways to improve learning outcomes on the advantages and benefits of technology because of the effectiveness, innovation, and productivity of technology compared to teaching methods before the emergence of today's technology. The results of this study are expected to assist in the development of future technology and education studies.
Keywords
  • Technology
  • teaching
  • Schools
  • Teachers
  • Digital
  • and publication review.
References
  1. Abdinazarovna, S. G., & Rustamovna, U. R. (2022). Using corpora in the language teaching and learning. Web of Scientist: International Scientific Research Journal, 3(3), 500–508.
  2. Abonamah, J. V, Eckenrode, B. A., & Moini, M. (2019). On-site detection of fentanyl and its derivatives by field portable nano-liquid chromatography-electron lonization-mass spectrometry (nLC-EI-MS). Forensic Chemistry, 16, 100180.
  3. Admiraal, R., Lindemans, C. A., van Kesteren, C., Bierings, M. B., Versluijs, A. B., Nierkens, S., & Boelens, J. J. (2016). Excellent T-cell reconstitution and survival depend on low ATG exposure after pediatric cord blood transplantation. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 128(23), 2734–2741.
  4. Ahmed, V., & Opoku, A. (2022). Technology supported learning and pedagogy in times of crisis: the case of COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 365–405.
  5. Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16–25.
  6. Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65.
  7. Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., & Branco, F. (2018). The social impact of technology on millennials and consequences for higher education and leadership. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 954–963.
  8. Bawaneh, A. K. (2021). The satisfaction level of undergraduate science students towards using e-learning and virtual classes in exceptional condition covid-19 crisis. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 52–65.
  9. Benneworth, P., & Cunha, J. (2015). Universities’ contributions to social innovation: reflections in theory & practice. European Journal of Innovation Management.
  10. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 361–392.
  11. Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., Robb, M., & Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption and use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes. Computers & Education, 69, 310–319.
  12. Buckingham, D. (2013). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. John Wiley & Sons.
  13. Chakraborti, T., Isahagian, V., Khalaf, R., Khazaeni, Y., Muthusamy, V., Rizk, Y., & Unuvar, M. (2020). From robotic process automation to intelligent process automation. International Conference on Business Process Management, 215–228.
  14. Clunie, L., Morris, N. P., Joynes, V. C. T., & Pickering, J. D. (2018). How comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of technology‐enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A systematic review. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(3), 303–319.
  15. Eldridge, B. A. (2014). Exploring faculty adoption and utilization of Blackboard at a community college in the Kentucky Community and Technical College System. University of Kentucky.
  16. Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 329-A15.
  17. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning.
  18. Galluzzi, L., Pedro, B.-S., Vitale, I., Aaronson, S. A., Abrams, J. M., Adam, D., Alnemri, E. S., Altucci, L., Andrews, D., & Annicchiarico-Petruzzelli, M. (2015). Essential versus accessory aspects of cell death: recommendations of the NCCD 2015. Cell Death & Differentiation, 22(1), 58–73.
  19. Gilakjani, A. P., Leong, L.-M., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers’ Use of Technology and Constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science, 5(4).
  20. Glatthorn, A. A., Jailall, J. M., & Jailall, J. K. (2016). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Corwin Press.
  21. Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069.
  22. Hamiti, M., & Reka, B. (2012). Teaching with technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1171–1176.
  23. Havice, W., Havice, P., Waugaman, C., & Walker, K. (2018). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrative STEM Education: Teacher and Administrator Professional Development. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 73–90.
  24. Helle, L., Nivala, M., & Kronqvist, P. (2013). More technology, better learning resources, better learning? Lessons from adopting virtual microscopy in undergraduate medical education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(2), 73–80.
  25. Hendriarto, P. (2021). Understanding of the role of digitalization to business model and innovation: economics and business review studies. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 160–173.
  26. Hilton, P., Mislin, G., & Roitberg, J. (2016). Localization of nilpotent groups and spaces. Elsevier.
  27. Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.
  28. Huda, M., Maseleno, A., Teh, K. S. M., Don, A. G., Basiron, B., Jasmi, K. A., Mustari, M. I., Nasir, B. M., & Ahmad, R. (2018). Understanding Modern Learning Environment (MLE) in Big Data Era. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(5).
  29. Kaushal, V., & Srivastava, S. (2021). Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives on challenges and learnings from India. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102707.
  30. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.
  31. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
  32. Koziol, N., & Arthur, A. (2011). An introduction to secondary data analysis. Research Methodology Series.
  33. Liton, H. A. (2015). Examining students’ perception & efficacy of using technology in teaching English. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, 1(1), 11–19.
  34. Maghool, S. A. H., Moeini, S. H. I., & Arefazar, Y. (2018). An educational application based on virtual reality technology for learning architectural details: challenges and benefits. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 12(3), 246.
  35. McDougall, J., Readman, M., & Wilkinson, P. (2018). The uses of (digital) literacy. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 263–279.
  36. McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211.
  37. Mertala, P. (2020). Paradoxes of participation in the digitalization of education: A narrative account. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 179–192.
  38. Noor-Ul-Amin, S. (2013). An effective use of ICT for education and learning by drawing on worldwide knowledge, research, and experience. ICT as a Change Agent for Education. India: Department of Education, University of Kashmir, 1, 13.
  39. Nuere, S., & de Miguel, L. (2021). The digital/technological connection with Covid-19: An unprecedented challenge in university teaching. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 931–943.
  40. Papageorgiou, M., Lambropoulou, D., Morrison, C., Kłodzińska, E., Namieśnik, J., & Płotka-Wasylka, J. (2018). Literature update of analytical methods for biogenic amines determination in food and beverages. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 98, 128–142.
  41. Pedro, L. F. M. G., Barbosa, C. M. M. de O., & Santos, C. M. das N. (2018). A critical review of mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–15.
  42. Rahamat, R. B., Shah, P. M., Din, R. B., & Abd Aziz, J. B. (2017). Students’readiness and perceptions towards using mobile technologies for learning the english language literature component. The English Teacher, 16.
  43. Rahiem, M. D. H. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 1–26.
  44. Rannastu-Avalos, M., & Siiman, L. A. (2020). Challenges for distance learning and online collaboration in the time of COVID-19: Interviews with science teachers. International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing, 128–142.
  45. Ratheeswari, K. (2018). Information communication technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 45–47.
  46. Rehmat, A. P., & Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744–755.
  47. Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. International Society for Technology in Education.
  48. Rickabaugh, J. (2016). Tapping the power of personalized learning: A roadmap for school leaders. ASCD.
  49. Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education, 14.
  50. Setiyatna, H., Junanto, S., Alwiyah, N., & Surahman, S. (2019). The influence of it-based learning media toward attitude, self-efficacy, and motivation of MSMES in developing its business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1), 1–9.
  51. Shen, X., Yi, B., Zhang, Z., Shu, J., & Liu, H. (2016). Automatic recommendation technology for learning resources with convolutional neural network. 2016 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 30–34.
  52. Shin, D., Smith, R. C., & Kim, S. (2018). Evaluating technology for teaching mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(3), 156–163.
  53. Shin, S.-K. (2015). Teaching critical, ethical, and safe use of ICT to teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 181–197.
  54. Simai, M. (2019). The new technological and information revolution and the future of higher education. Köz-Gazdaság-Review of Economic Theory and Policy, 14(3).
  55. Skinner, B. F. (2019). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. BF Skinner Foundation.
  56. Tarrant, A. (2017). Getting out of the swamp? Methodological reflections on using qualitative secondary analysis to develop research design. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 599–611.
  57. Timms, M. J. (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and smart classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 701–712.
  58. Verna, E. C., Serper, M., Chu, J., Corey, K., Fix, O. K., Hoyt, K., Page, K. A., Loomba, R., Li, M., & Everson, G. T. (2020). Clinical research in hepatology in the COVID‐19 pandemic and post‐pandemic era: challenges and the need for innovation. Hepatology, 72(5), 1819–1837.
  59. Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932.
  60. Wentworth, D. K., & Middleton, J. H. (2014). Technology use and academic performance. Computers & Education, 78, 306–311.
  61. Wijoyo, H., Santamoko, R., Muliansyah, D., Yonata, H., & Handoko, A. L. (2020). The Development Of Affective Learning Model To Improve Student’s Emotional Quotient. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(19).
  62. Yulastri, A., Hidayat, H., Ganefri, G., Edya, F., & Islami, S. (2018). Learning outcomes with the application of product based entrepreneurship module in vocational higher education. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 8(2), 120–131.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 680 times
PDF
: 193 times