THESIS psychology hollnagel 2012

Running head: MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY The Benefits and Limitations of Using Online Technology in Education: Students’ and Instructors’ Perceptions on Usefulness and Task-technology-fit Gustav Hollnagel Morningside College1 Fall 2011 Special thanks and expression of gratitude to Dr John Pinto, Dr Larry Sensenig, Dr William Deeds, the entire Morningside College faculty, Duane Benson, and Karla Ruby for supporting this research and therefore contributing to the advancement of science and the mind MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY Abstract This study investigated perceptions of students and instructors on the usefulness of using online educational technology through virtual learning environments Student and instructor perceptions were compared based on perception of utility, merit, comfort level, task-technology-fit, and satisfaction level Both groups were also assessed based on their level of use and exposure to the online learning environment Both groups were also compared on their perceptions on distraction effects that are posed by the pervasive presence of social media Instructors faced additional questions on pedagogical concerns that pertained to the issues they see with immense use of technology in education, particularly blended learning environments A total of 268 students and 50 instructors participated in the study Participants took an online survey that used their responses to compute research-relevant variables The study hypothesized that students would perceive greater usefulness of using online educational technology It was also hypothesized that higher levels of use would stimulate perceptions of more usefulness Students generally indicated more merit, comfort level, task-technology-fit and satisfaction than their instructors Instructors had higher levels of perception on utility than students Perceptions on social media factors indicated an agreement on its distraction ability and general impairment to learning or teaching Pedagogically, results found that teachers are most concerned about the sacrifice of traditional teaching styles Keywords: education, online technology, education, students, instructors, satisfaction, merit, usefulness, task-technology-fit, virtual learning environment, social media, learning MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY The Benefits and Limitations of Using Online Technology in Education: Students’ and Instructors’ Perceptions on Usefulness and Task-technology Fit It is no mystery that we live in a world where technology has improved rapidly, has expanded the capabilities of mankind, and has posed challenges in its application and compatibility to human features Children are exposed to technology in their early childhood Smartphone applications have sped up our ability to access information and can be used socially or occupationally to foster more effective and efficient interaction between individuals Naturally, we always see benefits and limitations with technology Adapting to new technology may take time or a certain skill set based on previous exposure Technology finds a myriad of platforms for application One of them is education Educational environments offer room for innovation and creativity by using interactive technology in and outside the classroom This is true for primary education, but even more so in higher education settings Most colleges and universities rely on technology to improve institutional and educational organization Students and instructors are highly exposed to educational technology in using their computers to manage scholarship and measure academic performance But how is this high level of reliance and exposure to educational technology perceived by students and their instructors? What are the associated benefits and limitations? This research looked at the perceptions on benefits and limitations of using online educational technology The use and exposure to such technology is almost exclusively instituted through course management systems (CMS; perhaps particularly referable to as ‘online learning systems’), or virtual learning environments (VLE) The significance of online technology in higher education Course management systems are educational facilitators that provide organization and structure for academic courses In the context of this study they are more apt to be referred to as MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY virtual learning environments (VLE) or information and communication technologies (ICT) VLE’s are information systems that facilitate the notion of e-learning (McGill & Hobbs, 2008) They are mainly designed to assists students in their learning and instructors in their teaching practices Normally, students are considered end-users of such systems, whereas professors can assume an educational duality of administrative and interactive roles The impact or importance of technology in education has grown exponentially in the last decade Fillion, Limayem, Laferrère and Mantha (2009) argue that in today’s global economic context, educational institutions should strive to innovate their organizations at the human, material, and also technological level The impact that ICT had over the change of the millennium was huge, particularly in terms of corporate management, globalization trends and higher education (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005) The use of ICT has moved traditional face-to-face teaching to a more online oriented approach to learning, which has likewise shifted the approach of understanding and analyzing knowledge acquisition and dissemination (Fillion et al., 2009) Other researchers acknowledge this trend From 2005 to 2008, web-based communication and community building in higher formal education has changed radically (Hemmi, Bayne & Land, 2009) Hemmi et al asserted that the technological infrastructure that scholars termed ‘Web 2.0’ has created possibilities for higher education communities, but their implications have largely been unexplored It ought to be worthy to find insights about the construction of pedagogy and learning community in this digital age (Bayne, 2008) Even though Bayne et al were more concerned about the implication of visuals and virtual interfaces on learning, other research has looked at the relationships between technology-rich onsite learning and online learning per se (Fillion et al., 2009) Fillion et al were particularly interested in the performance-, satisfaction-, and effectiveness-related aspects of onsite and online students MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY The location of the learning process brings up another important notion around VLE’s and ICT: distance education Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Waldman, and Truell (2009) investigated whether distance learners prefer email communication and TV-audio-methods to other learning tools Email, lecture notes, assignments, discussion groups, telephone and voicemail were preferred and supported productivity related to faculty Online learning tools barely impeded functionality for classrooms In fact, “Students preferred to take classes on the Internet for the convenience and flexibility of learning at home, at work, or on business trips, without physically commuting to campus” (Zhao et al., 2009, p 211) A big aspect of this conclusion is that further adoption of such learning environments can allow more people to receive continuing education without facing physical constraints This is moving away from the educational belief in the traditional approach of face-to-face learning and teaching Results from the study by Fillion et al (2009) indicate that the type of professor and his or her teaching practices did not significantly impact the relations of either onsite or online learning environments in terms of student satisfaction, performance, and learning effectiveness Additionally, results from a survey conducted by Surry, Ensminger and Haab (2005) denote that it is more about technological infrastructure than soft factors such as professor’s incentives and motivations The literature discussion therefore finds itself more in consistency with blended, or hybrid learning environments For example, Fillion et al (2009) found that onsite students who were highly exposed to online educational technology performed better than their peers taking the course online Purvis, Aspden, Bannister and Helm (2011) say, “The potential of computer technology may offer students more flexibility in their learning allowing them to engage with their learning at a time and place convenient to them” (p 92) However, these researchers MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY acknowledged that there might be substantial differences between newcomers and experienced elearners, which should be managed by instructors by promoting flexibility and comfort The notion of flexibility reoccurs extensively within the scholarly discussion Guri-Rosenblit (2005) predicted, “Hybrid courses combining various components of face-to-face encounters with online provision will emerge as a growing pattern in many academic institutions” (p 25), as it allows students to “adjust their needs and learning styles to a variety of learning settings and media combinations.” Yet, Guri-Rosenblit also points out that e-learning mechanisms are dangerous, as they are highly responsive to environmental settings Developing countries might benefit from better educational technology but find it hard to adapt immediately Furthermore, a blended approach that relies on consistent use of technology in education adds roles and responsibility to faculty members They are arguably becoming simultaneous facilitators and mediators for knowledge, rather than simply transmitting bodies of knowledge Concerns for collaborative student learning For students, the challenges lie more within the issues of how to communicate effectively and appropriately on online platforms (Purvis et al., 2011) Students may struggle to assess the value of peer feedback and discussions, as well as the idea of collaborative working through shared online learning environments The level of familiarity and experience definitely impacts these challenges, but another deciding factor is the amount of information that can, or should be shared Online collaboration is therefore encouraged in smaller groups or classrooms to not overload the learner or facilitator with too many messages The larger the number of students in online environments, the more collaboration and activity will depend on the confidence of learners to share ideas, opinions, even facts with fellow classmates (Purvis et al., 2011) Firsttime users of social learning environments may also express mixed feelings towards its formal MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY learning context (Hung & Yuen, 2010) Those students reported excitement to share personal interests and the learning experience, but were uncertain as to what counts as knowledge in the learning community Hung and Yuen originally hypothesized that social networking technologies in higher education create opportunities for any kind of learning, they are best implemented in a supplementary fashion to traditional learning methods or communities with local ties Once again, we find a resonation with the approach to hybrid, or blended learning Nonetheless, Hung and Yuen also suggest that future research take careful consideration to learner characteristics, thereby hinting at the difficulty to generalize their findings Some research suggests that there are additional concerns around the proliferation of collaborative online learning approaches Njenga and Fourie (2010), for example, were worried about the relationships between the purpose of learning and the transferal of knowledge versus the growing marketplace agendas of proliferating [educational]2 technology Kompf (2005) undoubtedly placed emphasis on this notion: Consumers of all types purchase ICT to facilitate growth and development in countless ways At best, it is a servant of society, business, industry, and education that improves efficiency in managing and transmitting large amounts of data At worst, it is a monopoly of virtual fashion, promising progress for self and community in the shape of products— educational and otherwise—in the general marketplace (p 220) Guri-Rosenblit (2005) pointed out some of the dangers or serious challenges3 of investing and expanding on educational technology She believed that the nature of such investments is not strictly infrastructural, but also should look at the costs for training of staff, electricity, Author’s note Such challenges can come from numerous factors, such as: an educational organization’s infrastructural potential and limitation; related costs; technological impacts on students based on their background; apt replacement of traditional teaching systems; real-world problems through applying new technologies; the differentiation between knowledge acquisition and construction; and impacts of organizational culture in corporate and academic worlds MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY maintenance, and the need for contextually adjusted learning materials, as well as the notion of e-waste (disposal of obsolete hardware/technology) Aside from the debate about costs, Njenga and Fourie point at the implications from proliferating educational technology on the knowledge building and transmission process They said, “The social and academic interests in knowledge should be well understood” (p 209) One of their cited resources also indicated that academically stronger students benefited the most from e-learning practices This signifies the issues of social and academic interests in light of differing expectations and user characteristics, expressing a concern shared with Hung and Yuen (2010) Social Contexts Technological improvements in education clearly affect the ways educators and learners interact with and among each other This study therefore also creates a discussion that encompasses social factors A set of researchers decided to use the term ‘social technologies’ as a synonym for ‘Web 2.0’ Their reasoning was that online learning environments rely heavily on social interaction among students Hemmi, Bayne and Land (2009) therefore focused more on honesty, self-regulation and self-explanation in collaborative learning environments They found that discussions posed a high level of formality but also raise student encouragement or curiosity to see what peer students thought and learned from class material Blog activities, on the other hand, usually isolated the learner Wiki’s [common editing discussions]4 promoted respect but caused a certain hesitance to share criticism However, Hung and Yuen (2010) found that a majority of their participants “were in favor of the affordances of their class social networks for knowledge sharing” (p 709) Information sharing was generally considered a pedagogical benefit and peer support was highly praised, indicating a high level of student interactivity Hemmi et al came to a similar conclusion Even though some techniques of collaborative online Author’s note MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY learning may pose some challenges, solely conventional lecture settings make it more difficult to “know what other students grasp from the same reading material unless tutorials are structured into the programme”, typically occurring after course inputs (Hemmi et al., 2009, p 27) Overall, they found ambivalence in the use of social technologies: it can reinforce academic values such as understanding concepts and critical thinking, but it may also be restrictive once the advantages are embedded into traditional approaches, mainly due to a propensity of wanting to control the riskier aspects of online education tools In any case, their research said that social networking in the classroom could be time-intensive and create an overload of accumulated information In relation to overload, there is a need to address another form of social interference in learning, namely social media The constant and quick access to social media pages (Facebook, Twitter, Flickr) may become a problem once online technology becomes fully integrated into blended learning approaches In 2010, according to the website ‘digitalbuzzblog.com’, Facebook constituted around 500 million users, 28 percent of them in college and 22 percent of them considered college graduates (Hepburn, 2010) Twitter had around 106 million users and 48 percent of them were in college (plus 28 percent college graduates) In an information graphic (infographic) on students’ smartphone usage for news, Column Five Media (2012) indicated that 54 percent of subjects own smartphones as their primary phones Alexander (2011) highlights the reliance of college students on smartphones: 94 percent text daily (only 73 percent make calls); 97 percent use them for social networking; 75 percent sleep next to them; 88 percent have texted in class Yu (2012) looked at the notion of m-learning (mobile learning), acknowledging that Web 2.0 technologies have strengthened information sharing and collaboration Mobile phones in general could foster these trends Yu explains that m-learning could only be complementary to traditional learning or e-learning Mobile usage is also generally perceived as playfulness and MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 10 relates to doubts about students’ appropriate self-management of learning Therefore, the inclusion of mobile phones as educational technology faces some roadblocks In relation to cell phone usage, a study done by Brett (2011) used 1121 higher education students from the UK to investigate the use of SMS (short message services) as a technological tool to enhance learning The results showed that students liked the interactivity of receiving administrative updates from their instructors However, students did not like to be reachable at all times and felt invaded in their personal space Brett suggests that today’s students will keep upgrading their sophisticated personal technologies, granting growing importance to “the issue of how best to integrate the use of student-owned mobile devices with productive mobile learning opportunities” (p 145) Since most students now own smartphones, an inclusion of mobile phones into the learning community logically would put students even closer to the constant presence of social media An instructor might encourage technology in the classroom but can only plead to students’ dignity and honesty to use it appropriately in class A study by Moon (2011) found that among her 97 participants, Facebook was not significantly changing academic performance, but the amount spent on the Internet per week did She points out that her results may not show a relationship between academic performance as a measurable distraction of Facebook, but it might be negatively related to attentiveness, concentration, and multitasking Rouis, Limayem and Salehi-Sangari (2011) looked at the impact that self-regulation and immersion in Facebook usage create in terms of polychronicity The concept of polychronicity comes into play when assessing the ability to easily two or more tasks at the same time, which may be subject to variation between cultures Rouis et al concluded that, “the inability of some students to manage multitasks simultaneously increases their cognitive immersion on the task that attracts the most of their attention on the platform” (p 984), and that, “Students who are MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 43 approved by the Morningside Institutional Review Board _ I agree to participate in this survey How would you rate your level of overall technological competence? How would you rate your confidence in using/managing Moodle? Use of Moodle – Please select all activities that you use and provide frequently during your teaching experience at Morningside College: Online discussions Requiring active online assignments Requesting submission of course assignments Test-taking Organization of class resources Grade management Evaluative feedback to students Other things relevant to your courses (such as links, additional information) 1) I readily provide online course materials for immediate use 2) I frequently and extensively update the resources on my courses’ Moodle page(s) 3) I provide timely updates to my students via online assignment feedback and/or emails (Zhao et al., 2009) 4) The use of Moodle as an educational tool on campus is effective as to the quality of my teaching 5) The use of Moodle as an educational tool on campus likely increases my students’ academic performance 6) Using Moodle for educational benefits likely increases students’ critical thinking skills, their ability to integrate and analyze facts, their ability to interrelate important topics and ideas, and their understanding of basic concepts (Fillion et al., 2009) 7) Moodle increases my productivity/effectiveness as an instructor (McGill & Hobbs, 2008) 8) The interactive approach of learning in a blended learning environment (use of both traditional and technological methods of learning) promotes a sense of classroom community 9) My comfort level with the use of Moodle as an educational tool in and outside of class gradually increased during my Morningside teaching experience 10) I feel like the use of Moodle connects students to each other and to their instructors MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 44 11) Through Moodle it appears that students bond with classmates and feel supported academically (Summers & Svinicki, 2007) 12) Through the use of technology it appears that students are encouraged to participate more in class discussions (Hung & Yuen, 2010) 13) The educational possibilities of Moodle are compatible with my teaching style/approach to student learning 14) Moodle encourages me to meet classroom requirements and respective learning objectives for my students 15) Moodle is user-friendly and new features are easy to learn (McGill & Hobbs, 2008) 16) Moodle is an adequate learning instrument to promote the correspondence between my tasks and responsibilities as an instructor, and the functionality of educational use of technology (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) 17) Technology should be part of students’ daily learning experience in and outside the classroom 18) My expectations for student learning are fostered through the use of Moodle 19) I am satisfied with the extent to which the use of Moodle is encouraged and expected from me in and outside the classroom 20) I am satisfied with the degree to which students use and embrace Moodle as a learning tool in their courses 21) I am satisfied with the functionality and usability of Moodle (McGill & Hobbs, 2008) 22) Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Texting, Web-browsing) creates a high level of distraction while I teach a class 23) I believe the constant presence of social media decreases students’ classroom participation 24) I believe the constant presence of social media negatively affects students’ actual academic performance 25) Quick and direct access to social media contributes negatively to students’ attention span in class 26) I feel rewarded for the time I put in to prepare and maintain online course activities MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 27) Students generally benefit from my efforts to increase the quality and flexible structure of learning through educational technology 28) Please select all areas of pedagogical concern that you have with the use of technology in education: (Hung & Yuen, 2010) Time consumption/intensiveness Overload of information Discouragement of face-to-face interaction Web-accessibility (user dependency on Internet access) Copyright and/or confidentiality issues Sacrifices/compromises to traditional learning approaches 29) How would you cope with such concerns? (Mark all that apply) (Lin, 2007) Intradepartmental communication/support with peer professors Resort to professional sense of integrity (when facing ethical issues with students and faculty) Consultation of higher authority/management Strict adherence to educational laws and policies Appendix B – Figures Figure – Between-groups means 45 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY Figure – Within-group means for students Figure – Within-group means for instructors 46 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 47 Figure – “Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Texting, Web-browsing) creates a high level of distraction during class.” Figure – “I believe the constant presence of social media decreases classroom participation.” MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 48 Figure – “I believe the constant presence of social media negatively affects actual academic performance.” Figure – “Quick and direct access to social media contributes negatively to attention span in class.” MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY Figure – Areas of concern by instructors with using Moodle (N = 50) 49 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 50 Figure – Coping of instructors to issues with online educational technology (N = 50) Figure 10 – Correlations (within student group) Utility Merit ComfortLevel TaskTechFit Satisfaction Utility Pearson Correlation 715** 483** 593** 580** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 51 N 252 250 245 238 239 Merit Pearson Correlation 715** 681** 755** 718** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 N 250 250 243 236 237 ComfortLevel Pearson Correlation 483** 681** 764** 747** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 52 N 245 243 245 237 238 TaskTechFit Pearson Correlation 593** 755** 764** 820** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 N 238 236 237 238 234 Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 580** 718** 747** 820** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 53 N 239 237 238 234 239 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) Figure 11 – Correlations (combined groups) Utility Merit ComfortLevel TaskTechFit Satisfaction Utility Pearson Correlation 696** 482** 534** 547** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 N 302 299 291 284 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 54 285 Merit Pearson Correlation 696** 688** 758** 728** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 N 299 299 289 282 283 ComfortLevel Pearson Correlation 482** 688** 758** 744** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 55 N 291 289 291 282 283 TaskTechFit Pearson Correlation 534** 758** 758** 824** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 N 284 282 282 284 279 Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 547** 728** 744** 824** Sig (2-tailed) 000 MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY 56 000 000 000 N 285 283 283 279 285 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) MERIT AND LIMITATIONS IN USING ONLINE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY Appendix C 57