Challenges of edtech for college instructors and learners a review of the literature

Trang 1 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND LAWS Challenges of EdTech for college instructors and learners A Review of the LiteratureLecturer: Dr Truong Cong BangStudent name: Tran Xuan Anh Duon

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND LAWS

Challenges of EdTech for college instructors and learners

A Review of the Literature

Lecturer: Dr Truong Cong BangStudent name: Tran Xuan Anh Duong – K214020173

Luu Vu Khanh Linh – K214021497

Loc Ha My – K214020177Tran Thi Yen Nhi – K214021501Tran Thi Thuy Quynh – K214021503

Literature review

Ho Chi Minh city, March 2022

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HCMC

Challenges of EdTech for college instructors and learners

Introduction

As emerging technologies constantly contribute to human activities (Mishra, 2009), especially in learning and teaching methodologies, the educational systems have undergone a profound transformation Instead of embracing the paradigm shift in both large and scale that technology innovation has brought (King et al., 2017), in this essay, the inevitable associated risks of operating educational technology and other information-communication technology in higher education include the growing concern in the learner’s perception involve abating academic performance (Wentworth & Middleton, 2014) with distractions and prompting cheating, learners limited budgets and in the teacher’s perception with lack of technical competencies (Basarmak & Hamutoglu, 2019)and lack of time are in-depth scrutinization

What is Educational Technology (EdTech)?

According to the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), the current definition of Educational Technology is the field of practicing and applying technological components to foster the learning process, including surpassing the performance of learners and educators (Mishra, 2009) by operating “appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski et al., 2008, p 1)

Challenges for learners

Distraction

For centuries, psychologists have recognized that the prominent problem of human perceptual capacities is deficient attention abilities, which means a person is incapable of completely responding to all the encountered environmental stimuli (Broadbent, 1958; Pashler, 1994; Scalf et al., 2013) and utterly restraining the distracting details (Scalf et al.,2013) Align with that ubiquitous understanding, in this paper’s context, the first overarching challenge of applying EdTech is distraction (Mooers, 2020; Escuate, 2020), which has “become a chronic behavior problem” (Wu & Xie, 2018, p 2) for higher education learners According to a respondent from Neiterman and Zara’s investigation in

2019, in this modern era, a class with no technical equipment is “unrealistic” (p 5) and reported a universal rate of college students having access to the Internet when studying (Wentworth & Middleton, 2014; CoSN’s 2018-2019 Annual Infrastructure Report in 2019) This high level of EdTech causes the phenomenon of attention failure called divided attention and “problematic Internet use” or “Internet addiction” (Ko et al., 2010,

p 1) among learners due to the diverse functions of technical devices (Wu & Xie, 2018) Cheng and Peng’s (2008), Jelenchick et al.’s (2011) and Tonioni et al.’s (2012) questionnaires classified groups of students who have long screen-time exposure (over 40hours) as heavy technical users or excessive users After observations, these users are reported to suffer from learning difficulties to fulfill academic responsibilities,

particularly in exam performance (Cheng & Peng, 2008, p 469) Neiterman and Zaza's (2019) survey included 478 students at the University of Waterloo concluded that over a half of students with technological implements were distracted and underwent a decrement in academic outcomes (Junco & Cotton, 2011; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Wainer et al., 2008; Wurst et al., 2008 as cited in Wood et al., 2012) A similar result was also discovered in Glass and Kang’s (2018) study, because of the distraction from using electronic devices in class, in the final exam, students performed deteriorate than those who were forbidden to use

Figure 3

The results of a within-student analysis of the effects of allowing and using electronic devices in the classroom on percent correct on classroom quizzes and a subsequent unit exam and the final exam.

Classroom Unit exam Final exam

Not Allow Use - Not Allow Not Use - Allow

Source: Adapted from Glass, A., & Kang, M (2018) Dividing attention in the classroom

reduces exam performance Educational Psychology 39, (3), 395-408

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1489046

Lee et al., (2012) and Mooers (2020) claimed that media multitasking - a form of divided attention that required performing multiple media tasks simultaneously (Lee et al., 2012, p 95) - has detrimental effects on undergraduates to moderate their chances andabilities to retain information and abate the rates of high scores and GPAs (Grade Point Average) (Wentworth & Middleton, 2014; Glass & Kang, 2018) Lee et al.’s test of 137 volunteers from several courses in the College of Education at a major southern university in the United States in 2012 revealed that participants with free-technology devices achieved the reading test far better than those in the hybrid condition

Limited budgets

Operating educational technologies in the classroom also imposes a heavier financial burden on the student's expenditure for the learning process and cost is reported as the biggest barrier for applying EdTech (Gibson, 2021) EdTech and ICT such as

smartphones, computers and even Internet Data Packet (IDP) are prohibitively exorbitant

to the middle-income nationals in less developed nations Access to computers and the internet is not guaranteed for all students in developing countries (Tadesse & Muluye, 2020) Ethiopia clearly exemplifies the situation, it is out of reach for the underprivileged

as beyond 80% of residents in distant regions could not access electricity, let alone havingmobile phones at their disposal (Tiruneh, 2020) Another example of these complications

is that merely 56 million students in Sub-Saharan Africa could not be served by mobile networks (Tadesse & Muluye, 2020) The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also pointed out that in the developing contexts, especially under thecircumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, the high cost of Internet access and additional payment for online courses and activities outside the traditional class poses a threat on thestudent’s budget as well as their opportunities for learning comprehensively (Hillman et al., 2021) In the first week of July 2020, UNESCO reports the pandemic virtually has theconventional classroom paralyzed the world over However, over half of the worldwide student population (826 million) cannot afford for computers and Internet access at home.Furthermore, 56 million students found it hard to surmount the woeful inadequate provision of learning facilities where mobile networks are not capable of covering all remote areas

Technology integration also requires large budgets and financing evident in the cost forconsistent investment in technical equipment as well as the university’s infrastructure (Cuban, 2001) The expenditure here not only includes purchasing new tools and software but also maintaining and upgrading the school's infrastructure for installing Wi-

Fi, designing and putting plugs for incorporating technological devices in class (Schoep, 2004; Afreen, 2014) However, EdTech firms - EdTech suppliers - reported that learners are unwilling and unable to pay for the frequent payment and that is a huge struggle for firms to generate EdTech (World Bank Group, 2020), and as a result, the continuous learning progress will be affected

Cheating

The desire to get ahead (Simkin & McLeod, 2009, p 441) is the general answer for cheating which is the norm in the hybrid classroom latterly because of students’ proficiency in digital tool use It is unequivocal that the virtual learning allows students tosecretly access to online data and free-of-charge information on the Internet during test time (Cole et al., 2014), subsequently, in Curran et al 's (2011) finding, 75% of college undergraduates admitted cheating in their exams, 85% of undergraduates believed that cheating is an essential technique for score progressing and significantly 90% of them claimed that cheaters cannot be caught (p 55) This is compounded by the fact that the proctoring platforms are somewhat impuissant to penalize students for their frauds although online instructors inevitably comprehend that students have smartphones and books at their fingertips to readily cheat on their exams through academically web-based

classes for good grades which most students pay much attention to (Cole et al., 2014) This statement proves that the e-cheating is palpable as the absence of face-to-face invigilation, including tone and facial expressions during online classes This also rendersstudents’ academic performance far more taxing to assess and inadvertently spawns an educational environment devoid of equality.

Cheating appeared more frequently over years in online courses with over 70% of college students stated that it is more straightforward for cheating in online time with technical support (King et al., 2009) According to a Watson and Sottile’s survey in 2010 involving 635 undergraduates and graduates, college students self-reporting dishonest behaviors via virtual classes was higher than in live activities with 32,7% compared with 32,1% respectively Besides, the rate of being caught for that behavior in distance learning was half of that in physical classes Students also confessed that they were four times more likely to cheat in an online environment than in a live class

Table 1

Students Self-Reporting Dishonest Behaviors for Live and Online Courses.

percentage

Online classespercentage

I have cheated on an assignment, quiz, or a test 32.1% (185) 32.7% (130)

I have submitted others’ work as my own 6.5% (37) 4.4% (17)

I have had someone give me answers during a class quiz or

test

18.1% (104) 23.3% (91)

I have received answers to a quiz or test from someone

who has already taken it

33.2% (193) 20.3% (78)

I have used instant messaging through a cell phone or

handheld device during a quiz or exam

3.0% (17) 4.2% (16)

100% (17)

11

Tự luận có đáp án môn quản trị học că…

100% (12)

11

SWOT- NestleQuản trị

học căn… 100% (4)

8

Đề thi tiếng Anh lớp

7 giữa kì 1 - Đề số 1Quản trị

học căn… 100% (5)

2

Word CS1 Qtdvh Case study 1 - CS1 -…Quản trị

-học căn… 100% (1)

8

I have copied another student’s work without their

permission and submitted it as my own

4.2% (24) 1.8% (7)

I have knowingly copied passages from an article or book

directly into a paper without citing it as someone else’s

Source: Adopted from Watson, G., & Sottile, J (2010) Cheating in the Digital Age: Do

Students Cheat More in Online Courses? Westga.edu Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html

King and Case (2014) provided that 78% learners in Khan & Balasubramanian review committed cheating using ICT and EdTech (p 21) Especially, when it comes to talking about the ease of cheating in distance learning, in the total of 1817 participants for a period of five years surveyed, 29% of learners who have taken an online course showed that it is effortless to cheat and 45% of them thought that it’s also relatively easy to cheat

in the year 2013

Table 5

Ease of Cheating on Online Course Exams (Students had taken an online course)

Ease of cheating 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Somewhat easy to cheat 40% 39% 39% 45% 45%

Very difficult to cheat 8% 7% 6% 10% 7%

Source: Adapted from Darwin L, K., & Carl J, C (2014) E-CHEATING: INCIDENCE

AND TRENDS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Issues In Information Systems 15(1),,

20 - 27 https://doi.org/10.48009/1_iis_2014_20-27

Trading HUB 3Xác suấtthống kê 96% (28)

36

Furthermore, almost 30% of cheaters were reported and in the average, there were over three online exams cheating per student in every year of the survey (King & Case, 2014).

Source: Adapted from Darwin L, K., & Carl J, C (2014) E-CHEATING: INCIDENCE

AND TRENDS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Issues In Information Systems 15(1),,

tools and sources as well as teaching methodologies to construct an efficient educational environment for students However, under the technology acceleration, this becomes an extreme pressure for instructors because they do not have enough time for in-depth investment (Tondeur et al., 2016) According to a Frandom’s survey in 2019 with over

1000 teachers, almost 60% of them assumed that time was the most prominent challenge

Admist

ive s

upport

Time Be f 0

Source: Adopted from Francom, G (2019) Barriers to technology integration: A

time-series survey study Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 52(1), 1-16

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1679055

Barbera et al (2014) expressed that the time for implementing EdTech is costly and also imposed an extra workload for educators to advance in this aspect Quadri et al (2017) conducted a study with 257 respondents in a university reported that in the

Instructor’s Dimension, “Lack of Time to Develop E-courses” is the highest mean value, which accounted for 3.70 (p 101).

Table 6

Barriers: Instructor’s Dimension

Lack of E-Learning knowledge 3.63 257 1.367

Li (2014) pointed out that consistent with a previous research of Yang and Huang in

2008 with 332 English teachers, lack of preparation time is one of the main interrelated issues that made EdTech integration difficult Time constraint frustrated teachers because they feel that they do not have enough time for carefully teaching students with no distractions to plan a new pedagogy for the continuous changes of EdTech Even when classes go successfully, educators still consume a significant level of time for adapting new strategies and finding proper sources (Li, 2014) Respondents from Steel and Hudson’s (2001) survey expressed that they was lack of time for rethinking their teachingand for carefully developing open materials for the learners due to the fast speed of EdTech and ICT

Lack of technical competencies

The significant obstacles for instructors in integrating technical assistants relate to the low level of technological competency and inadequate training supports (Cuhadar, 2018;

Mercader & Gairín, 2020; Ertmer et al.,2012; Johnson et al., 2016) Although Hughes (2005) has claimed that it is a huge challenge for teachers to adopt and accomplish EdTech due to its “constant evolution” (Krish & Zabidi, 2007; Mellati & Khademi, 2019;Moores, 2020), there are frequently devoid of systematic procedures for coalescing digital applications in the teaching process (Chukwunonso & Oguike, 2013; El Semary, 2011; Mercader & Gairín, 2020) Consequently, Cuhadar (2018) claimed that the level of effective EdTech operating was defective, albeit the high rate of investments in ICT and EdTech TEDMEM - an educational institution belonging to the Turkey Educational Association - also evaluated that in 2015, the required programmes for educators to successfully integrate ICT in classes are inadequate, thus bringing about the severe problems related to the teacher’s relevant skills (Cuhadar, 2018) Koehler and Mishra (2009) further agreed that the insufficient proficiency among educators in the EdTech domain is greatly caused by the lack of assistance for blended classroom initiatives and the shortage of experience about the utilization of these technologies In a survey conducted by Cuhadar in 2018, the findings showed that pre-service teachers provided with sufficient training and support for ICT integration are below the average level (p 67) Also, Francom(2019) categorized that training and technical support stand at the second highest barriers for integrating technology in education with 37,6% agreement Besides, when

Figure 2

Percentage

of people from both rounds who respond that this items was a barrier to educational technology integration

Source:

Adopted from

supp

t

TimTe

her bef 0