Students’ Contextualization on Technology Use in Learning

  • Rose Arceño Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, Palompon Institute of Technology, Palompon, Leyte, Philippines
  • Wadah M. Ali Medical Imaging Department, Faculty of the College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
  • Asaad MA. Babker Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of the College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Keywords: Constructivist Theory, Students’ Contextualization, Technology as a Learning Tool, Technology as a Tutor

Abstract

This research determines the level of agreement of learners on technology use as a tutor and as a learning tool.  It also discussed how the constructivist theory supports the two domains of technology use as a tutor and as a learning tool.  A questionnaire was used in this descriptive research.  Pilot testing was performed before real information collection involving 112 learners registered from Gulf Medical University, Ajman, UAE medical departments.  The answers for Cronbach's tau-equivalent reliability were calculated using SPSS AMOS software version 23. It was discovered that the coefficient of reliability was 0.71.  This value falls into an acceptable category.  The real collection of information used purposeful sampling involving 138 learners of medical imaging.  A six-point Likert scale has been used to categorize the two primary factors; technology as a tutor and as a learning tool. The results were presented as weighted mean values.  Technology as a tutor is a useful and efficient educational instrument for learners with different abilities. They agreed heavily on its use.  Besides technology as a learning tool fosters cooperation among students.  In the same instance, it motivates learners to participate more in learning operations.  They are very much in agreement with this domain.  The constructivist theory supports that learning takes place when learners are actively involved in classroom activities and other locations conducive to them. Then learning is backed up for a lifetime by real-life experiences.

References

G. E. Camelo, J. M. Torres, P. C. Reche, & R. S. Costa. Using an integration of ICT in a diverse educational context of Santander (Colombia): Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE) 8(4): 254-267 Available at https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.314 (Accessed: June 2019).

J. M. Trujillo, I. Aznar, & M. P. Cáceres. Using and involvement analysis of social and collaborative networks in learning communities of the University of Granada (Spain) and John Moores from Liverpool (United Kingdom): Complutense Journal on Education (Madrid), 26, special issue, 2015, 289-311. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2015.v26.46380

F. J Hinojo, I. Aznar, & M. P. Cáceres. Students’ perceptions regarding blended learning at the University. In Communicate. “New forms of communication: cyberworld and mobile means”. Scientific Journal on Educommunication, 2009, 33, 165-174. University of Huelva.

V. Marín, B. E. Sampedro, & E. Vega. Perceptions of University students of the training platform. A case study. RIED: Iberoamerican Journal of Distance Education, 2007, 20(1), 282-303.

E. M. Willis & G. R. Tucker. Using constructionism to teach constructivism: Modeling hands-on technology integration in a preservice teacher technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 2001, 17(2), 4-7.

P. Molebash. Preservice teacher perceptions of a technology-enriched methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2004, 3(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss4/socialstudies/article1.cfm

M. Ataizi & A. Suleyman. Book Review: Book Review: Learning with Technology -A Constructivist Perspective. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2013, 4(2), 150-154. Anadolu University, Turkey.

D. George & P. Mallery. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003.

J. A. Kulik. “Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction”, in Baker and H. O’KNeil, Technology Assessment in Education and Training, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994.

E. Rutz, R. Eckart, J. Wade & V. Maltbie. "Student performance and acceptance of instructional teaching: Comparing technology-enhanced and traditional instruction for a course in STATICS", Journal of Engineering Educational, 2003, Vol. 92, Issue 2.

J. Sivin-Kachala. Report on the effectiveness of technology in school, 1990-1997. Software Publisher's Association U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO), 1998.

E. I. Baker, M. Gearhart & J. L. Herman. "Evaluating the Apple classrooms of Tomorrow", in Baker and H.F. O'Neil, Jr. Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.

J. Hawkins, E. Panush & R. Spielvogel. National study tour of district technology integration (summary report), New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center, 1996.

R. E. Mayer. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

S. Higgins. Partez-Vous Mathematics? In Enhancing primary mathematics teaching and learning, Thompson, I, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2003.

B. Bixler & E. N. Askov. "Characteristics of Effective Instructional Technology", Mosaic: Research Notes on Literacy, 1994, Vol.4, Issue 2.

D. V. Garderen, M. Stormont & N. Goel. Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 2012, 49, 5, (483-497).

D. Laurillard. Technology-enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2008, 42(3‐4):521 – 533. 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

H. J. Becker. How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 1994, 26(3), 291-321.

P. E. Holland. Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2001, 9(2), 245-267.

B. Hunter. Against the odds: Professional development and innovation under less-than-ideal conditions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2001, 9(4), 473-496.

M. Windschitl, & K. Sahl. Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 2002, 39, 165-205.

D. A. Jucan. Abordarea psihopedagogică a activităţii intelectuale: concepte cheie, precizări terminologice, in Ionescu, M., and Chiş, V. (coord). Fundamentări teoretice şi abordări praxiologice în ştiinţele educaţiei, EIKON Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2009.

H. Becker. Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Revision of paper written for the January 2000 School Technology Leadership conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.: 2000.

C. Domínguez, C. & A. Jaime. A project-based approach organized through a course management system. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1312–1320.

Published
2020-01-01
How to Cite
Arceño, R., M. Ali, W., & MA. Babker, A. (2020). Students’ Contextualization on Technology Use in Learning. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 48(7), 208-215. Retrieved from https://www.gssrr.org/index.php/JournalOfBasicAndApplied/article/view/10675
Section
Articles