t
h
ei
a
f
or

j
ou
r
n
a
l
ofe
du
c
a
t
i
on
T
e
c
h
n
ol
og
i
e
s&E
du
c
a
t
i
onS
pe
c
i
a
l
E
di
t
i
on-S
u
mme
r2015
E
di
t
or
s
:
Be
r
n
a
r
dMon
t
on
e
r
i
&Va
s
i
l
e
i
osP
a
l
i
k
t
z
og
l
ou

I
S
S
N:
2
1
8
7
0
5
9
4

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

iafor
The IAFOR Journal of Education
Technologies & Education Special Edition 2015

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

IAFOR Publications
Executive Editor:
Joseph Haldane
The International Academic ForumThe IAFOR Journal of Education
Special Edition Editors:
Bernard Montoneri, Providence University, Taiwan
Vasileios Paliktzoglou, University of Eastern Finland, Finland, Bahrain Polytechnic, Bahrain

Published by The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications. Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward, Aichi, Japan 460-0008

Executive Editor, IAFOR Publications: Joseph Haldane
Design: Bernard Montoneri

The IAFOR Journal of Education
Special Edition 2015

IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2015
ISSN: 2187-0594 (Online) http://iafor.org/educationjournal.html

Cover Image by: Texas A&M University-Commerce Marketing Communications
Photography/Flicker.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tamuc/14120904350/

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Notes on Contributors
Dr Dave E. Marcial held various positions in many professional organizations in the Philippines.
He is the founding president of the ICT Association of Dumaguete & Negros Oriental (ICT-Dgte),
Philippines. He is formerly President of the Philippine Society of IT Educators (PSITE), former
Board Member of the Computing Society of the Philippines (CSP) and Board of Trustee of thePhilippine e-Learning Society (PeLS). He is also member of the Technical Committee forInformation Technology of the Philippine Commission on Higher Education. His research interest
lies in ICT in Education, local knowledge computing, and information systems where he has been
the recipient of some local, national and international research grants. Currently, Dr Marcial is
Officer-in-Charge of the College of Computer Studies, Silliman University, Dumaguete City,
Philippines. E-mail: demarcial@su.edu.ph
Dr Behdja Boumarafi holds a a BA in foreign languages from Algeria, a master and PhD in LIS
from UK and an EMBA. She worked in Malaysia as an Assistant Professor in LIS and moved to
the United Arab Emirates to work as a founding Dean of University of Sharjah libraries. Dr
Boumarafi worked also as a faculty member at the college of communication at the University of
Sharjah. Now she holds an Associate Professor position at the Institute of Library & Documentationin Algeria. Dr Boumarafi worked as a library consultant in a number of institutions. She publishes
in English, French & Arabic in areas of social media, knowledge management, institutional
repositories, LIS education, e-learning. the author has a number of papers published in peer
reviewed journal in English, Arabic & French. E-mail: bboumarafi@gmail.com
Pradeep Kalansooriya is a Doctoral Student in Information Science and Control Engineering in
the Department of Information and Management Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University ofJapan. He obtained his B.Sc. degree in Computer Science, Physics and Chemistry from the
University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, and Master in Information Technology from University ofColombo Sri Lanka in 2008 and 2012 respectively. His research interested are: Digital holography,
Technology enhanced learning, Computer and society, Virtual environment, Kansei Enginieering,
Remote sensing and Database management. E-mail: lpkalan@gmail.com
Dr Ashu Marasinghe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information and Management
Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan. He obtained his B.Sc. degree inPhysics and Mathematics from the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, M.Sc. in Computer Science& Engineering from the University of Aizu, Japan and PhD in Computer Science & Engineeringfrom the University of Aizu in 1997, 2001, and 2004 respectively. His research interests are: Public
Health Informatics, Artificial Life and Intelligence, Neuroscience, Neural Network, Fuzzy System,
Intelligent Control System, Multi Agent System, Ubiquitous System, Social Informatics, andKansei Engineering. E-mail: ashu@kjs.nagaokaut.ac.jp
K.M.D.N. Bandara is a Master Student in the Department of Information and Management
Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan. He obtained his B.Sc. degree inTown & Country Planning in 2011 from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. He was employed
as a lecturer in the same university until 2015. His research interests are: Urban simulation, Remotesensing, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Social informatics, and Kansei Engineering. Email: dumindatcp@gmail.com
Dr Peter Tsvara holds PhD in Education Management from University of South Africa, Masterof Education in Educational Administration, Planning and Policy Studies from Zimbabwe Open
University, Bachelor of Education in Educational Administration, Planning and Policy Studies anda Certificate in Education from University of Zimbabwe. He was formerly a Science and1

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Mathematics Educator in the Department of Education, Limpopo, South Africa. He is a SeniorLecturer at Solusi University in Zimbabwe. E-mail: tsvarap@webmail.co.za
Manzira Francis Mungofa holds a joint Master degree programme in International Managementof Information Technology that was hosted by the partner universities: Tilburg University,
Netherlands, Turku School of Economics & Business Administration - Finland, IAE Aix-enProvence, Graduate School of Management in France, a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in
Information Systems from the Midlands State University-Zimbabwe. He is currently a Lecturer inBusiness Information Systems at the University of Venda – South Africa. E-mail:francis.manzira@univen.ac.za
Dr Ana Niño has a background in Applied Linguistics and holds a PhD in Machine Translation
and Computer Assisted Language Learning from The University of Manchester. Since September
2006 she has been Spanish and Portuguese co-ordinator at the Language Centre, University ofManchester. Ana teaches courses in general and Medical Spanish. In the last few years she has
been heavily involved in developing various e-learning resources for the Spanish VLEs. Her
research interests revolve around translation, corpus linguistics and the pedagogy of teachingspecialized languages, with particular emphasis on the use of emerging technologies and innovative
resources for independent language learning. E-mail: Ana.M.Nino@manchester.ac.uk
Baylie Hart Clarida is a final year PhD student at Bournemouth University and Initial Teacher
Training Lecturer at City College, Southampton. Her research interests are concerned with howtechnology can be used effectively in blended learning environments. E-mail:bhartclarida@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr Milena Bobeva is a Principal Lecturer at Bournemouth University. A key advocate of education
innovation through staff-student collaboration and Technology Enhanced Learning. Her subject
expertise is multidisciplinary, with key focus on system analysis, business process improvement,
blended and e-learning, and performance management. E-mail: mbobeva@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr Maggie Hutchings is an Associate Professor at Bournemouth University. An educational
practitioner and researcher, leading and supporting innovations in learning, teaching andassessment, contributing to education programmes, leading projects, and pursuing researchinterests in pedagogical scholarship. E-mail: mhutchings@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr Jacqui Taylor is an Associate Professor in Psychology Education at Bournemouth University
and has a particular interest in the ways in which 'psychological literacy' can be developed within
undergraduate education. Jacqui is a Chartered Psychologist and has held many roles within the
British Psychological Society (for example Honorary Editor of the BPS publication Psychology
Teaching Review and Chair of the Division of Academics, Researchers and Teachers in
Psychology) and Jacqui is a reviewer for the HEA and several scholarly Educational andComputing journals. E-mail: jtaylor@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Assistant Professor in the Bachelor and Masters degree programs in
the School of Social Work at Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
combines the applied practices of community mental health within an academic setting toeffectively contribute to the advancement of knowledge, research and program delivery. Key
research areas of interest include advancing technology in the teaching of social work, community
mental health children’s programming and evaluation, evidence-based group work methodology,
and furthering field education in social work. Alice’s 20-year extensive social work
practice experience includes a specialization in community mental health that contributes to her
clinical, teaching and research social work interests. E-mail: ashanbidge@uwaterloo.ca
2The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Dr Nicole Sanderson is a Lecturer at Renison University College. She teaches courses in
Sociology of Education, Sociology of Adolescences, History of Education and Gender Relations
within Educational Institutions for the department of Social Development Studies. Her researchinterests include teacher education, curriculum development, teaching and learning in higher
education, feminist theory, and equity issues. She is also a certified elementary and secondary
schoolteacher with the Ontario College of Teachers. E-mail: nbsander@uwaterloo.ca
Tony Tin is the Director of Library and Information Services at University of Waterloo’s Renison
University College Library. Tony was a featured speaker at The Asian Conference on Language
Learning and The Asian Conference on Technology in the Classroom, 2015. Tony had coordinatedmany mobile learning projects which won the International E-Learning Association’s E-learning
Award 2012. His Mobile Library project received the Canadian Library Association Library
Research and Develop Grant Award in 2006. His Mobile ESL project received an honorable
mention for Excellence and Innovation in Use of Learning Technology from the Canadian Network
for Innovation in Education in 2008. He has published articles and book chapters and presented atconferences on topics such as library technology, digital libraries, mobile libraries and information
literacy. E-mail: tony.tin@uwaterloo.ca
Assistant Professor Dr. Saisunee Termsinsuk holds her master degree, M. Ed. in Teaching
English from Srinakharinwirot University (SWU) and her doctoral degree, Ed.D. in Curriculum
and Instruction from Khon Kaen University (KKU). Both degrees were obtained in Thailand where
she was born. She has worked as a lecturer in her country for 22 years; she teaches English andteaching English as a foreign language to teacher students at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat
University (NRRU). Her research interests are reading, writing, and teaching writing. E-mail:saisunee_nrru@hotmail.com
Dr Suleiman Alhaji Ahmad obtained Higher Professional Diploma in Computer Studies (2005)
at Bayero University Kano. He later got Master Degree (M.Ed.) at Bayero University Kano in
Sociology of Education. He proceeded and bagged his PhD from Universiti Utara Malaysia in
Educational Technology with interest in Recent Technologies, Social Networking Sites andInstructional Design. He currently worked with Bauchi State College of Education Azare as
Principal Lecturer. E-mail: suleimanahmad81@yahoo.com
Dr Isyaku M. Abdullahi got Master Degree in Health Education at University of Maiduguri andbagged his PhD from Bayero University Kano with interest in Public Health. He held several postsuch as HOD Physical and Health Education Department, and Chairman Academic Staff Union.
He later transferred to Bayero University Kano as Lecturer and University of Maiduguri before
returning to College of Education Azare as Provost. E-mail: nasirukanoningi@yahoo.com
Dr Muhammad Usman obtained his PhD from Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi. He
worked with Bauchi State Ministry for Education, before he joined College of Education Azare as
Lecturer and later transferred to Federal College of Education Potiskum. He also moved to
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi as senior lecturer. He is also a visiting lecturer with
Gombe State University and Federal University Kashere. He held several post such as HOD
Education Foundation Department and Deputy Dean Faculty Technology Education ATBU Bauchi.
He is currently the Rector Gombe State Polytechnic Bajoga. E-mail: jillahi57@gmail.com

Journal of Education Editors

3

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Editor: Dr Bernard Montoneri
Tamkang University, Taiwan
Bernard Montoneri is the co-founder of the Journal of Education. He earned his PhD (African,
Arab, and Asian Words; History, Languages, Literature) and his BA in Chinese from the Universityof Provence, Aix-Marseille I, France. He taught Literature (European, Children, American, andBritish) and languages (French, English, and Italian) at Providence University for 16 years. He iscurrently an Associate Professor at Tamkang University, French Department, Taiwan. Bernard hasaround 40 publications, including journal papers (including SSCI, SCI, and THCI), conference
papers, and books and has obtained many teaching and research projects. His research interests
include French literature, children literature, English writing, automated scoring systems, teaching
and learning evaluation, data envelopment analysis, networking, and teaching methods. He is areviewer for top academic journals such as Review of Educational Research (ranked #1 in
Education), American Educational Research Journal, Teaching and Teacher Education, andEuropean journal of Operational Research. E-mail: montonerishu@gmail.com
Associate Editor and co-editor of the Special Issue: Vasileios Paliktzoglou
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Bahrain Polytechnic, Bahrain
Vasileios has several years of experience in universities such as the University of Pisa, the Aegean
University, Robert Gordon University, Mediterranean University College and the University ofWales having an active role as: Researcher, Tutor, Supervisor, Lecturer and Program Manager. He
is active in research with papers presented at international conferences, and published at academic
journals. His research interests are in the fields of social media, web 2.0, communities of practices,e-learning in which he is actively involved in several international research projects. He is currently
a doctoral researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and faculty member at Bahrain
Polytechnic. E-mail: paliktzoglou@gmail.com
Associate Editor: Dr Cassandra Atherton
Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Australia
Cassandra Atherton is an award winning writer, critic and senior lecturer at the Alfred Deakin
Research Institute. She has a Harvard Visiting Scholar's position from August 2015 - September
2016 to work on a project concerning public intellectuals in academe. A Visiting Fellow at Sophia
University, Tokyo in 2014 and an affiliate of the Monash Japanese Studies Centre in 2015,
Cassandra is currently working on a book analysing Miyazaki Hayao's anime. Cassandra has
published 8 books and was invited be on the judging panel of the Victorian Premier's LiteraryAwards, Prize for Poetry in 2015. E-mail: cassandra.atherton@deakin.edu.au
Members of the Editorial Board
Dr Askhat F. Safiullin
Chonbuk National University, South Korea
Askhat F. Safiullin earned his PhD (International Studies) and his BA in International Relationfrom the Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. He is currently an Adjunct Professor at Chonbuk
National University, Jeonju, South Korea and Adjunct Professor at the Graduate School ofInternational Studies at Yonsei University, Seoul. South Korea. He is also a Visiting Professor at
Sonkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea. He teaches a wide spectrum of subjects inInternational Relations ranging from Diplomacy and Global Governance to the Korean Research

4The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Design. Askhat has published a number of journal and conference papers and a chapter in a book.
His research interests include International Relations and related spheres, and effective teaching
and learning methods. E-mail: koktube@gmail.com
Associate Professor Yilin Chen
Providence University, Taiwan
Yilin Chen (PhD in Drama and Theatre, Royal Holloway, University of London) is an Associate
Professor at the Department of English Language, Literature and Linguistics, Providence
University in Taiwan. She studies Shakespeare and theatre history from 1600 to the present. She
has published in several drama and theatre journals. Her most recent publication is “Staging
Sexuality in an All-male Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet” in Studies in Theatre and Performance(Routledge 2014), which investigates the audience’s receptions and diverse erotic tensions
generated in the contemporary cross-gender Taiwanese Shakespearean production. Her current
research interests are the global dissemination of Japanese manga Shakespeare and therepresentation of gender and sexuality in manga adaptations of Shakespeare. She is also funded by
the Ministry of Education to undertake a MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) project on thesubject of Global/Local Shakespeare in 2014. E-mail: yc276@yahoo.com
Assistant Professor Massoud Moslehpour
Asia University, Taiwan
Dr Moslehpour is assistant professor of Business Administration and Foreign Languages at Asia
university. He has obtain his Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri,
in December 1995 (Support Areas: Higher and Adult Education; Curriculum Development;
Spanish). His major areas of interest are: Marketing, Management, Culture and Foreign Languages.
During the past ten years he has written several textbook related to: Internet English, Culture
through Movies and Presentation Skills. He has also published several journal articles in various
international peer-reviewed journals in the areas of: Purchase Intention, Customer Satisfaction,
Customer Loyalty, and Freshman English and Internet Addiction. E-mail: writetodrm@gmail.com
Jillian MarchantJames Cook University, Australia
Jillian Marchant holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration with a major in Policy and ispresently a PhD Candidate with the School of Education at James Cook University in Australia.
She is a published author of several articles that seek to appreciate the unfolding association
between increasingly accessible formal adult learning and social development in remote andsparsely populated areas. As a resident of a community that is relatively isolated and has a low
population density, Jillian remains committed to exploring the ways in which adult tertiary
education may be facilitated to assistant the inhabitants of these fragile areas. She is an invited ad
hoc reviewer for Australian education conferences as well as recently contributing as an associate
editor at Common Ground Publishing. Her research interests include the impact of adult educationon the life chances of individuals and other practices that interrupt social and political stratification.
E-mail: jillian.marchant@my.jcu.edu.au

Dr Santosh Kumar Behera
Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, India

5The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Dr Santosh Kumar Behera is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education, Sidho-KanhoBirsha University, India. After completion of a Graduate Degree from Fakir Mohan University,
Orissa, he was admitted to the M.A. in Education program at Vinaya Bhavana, Visva Bharati andthen did his PhD entitled “An Investigation into the Attitude of SC and ST Children of Southern
Orissa towards Education” at Vinaya Bhavana. He has also published several research papers andarticles in various journals and edited volumes of national and international repute across thecountry. He is the Editor-in-Chief, EDUQUEST, An International Refereed Journal in Education(ISSN: 2277-3614), International Journal of Academic Research in Education and Review (ISSN:
2360-7866) and Academic Research Journal of History and Culture (ARJHC). E-mail:santoshbehera.jkc@gmail.com, santoshbehera.skbu@gmail.com
Dr Andrzej Sokolowski
Texas A&M University (Integrated Math & Sci. Department)
Andrzej Sokolowski earned his PhD in Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in Mathematics
Education from Texas A&M University. He advocates the teaching and learning of mathematics
that integrates elements of scientific inquiry. Andrzej has published several journal articles, andbook chapters. He is also a reviewer for journals such as Review of Educational Research,
International Journal of STEM Education, and Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science, andTechnology Education. He recently published a book Mathematical Modeling; Synthesis ofqualitative Research. E-mail: Andrzej.Sokolowski@lonestar.edu
Dr Richard Mather
Buckinghamshire New University, United Kingdom
Richard Mather is a Course Leader in the Department of Computing where he teaches software
engineering and co-leads research in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). He holds postgraduate
qualifications in software engineering (MSc, Oxford) and in environmental sciences (DPhil,
Oxford; MSc, UCNW). His pedagogic research and Ph.D. supervision include adaptive assessment
practices, technologies and collaborative behaviours for learning computer science subjects. For
the past twenty years he has also provided services to education, governments and industry
concerning the development and use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote
Sensing for environmental management. In 2010 he was awarded The Institution of Analysts andProgrammers Prize for Software Engineering after developing a system to automate vegetation
mapping from aerial imagery. His geospatial project outputs provide a rich source of case studies
for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. E-mail: Richard.Mather@bucks.ac.uk

6

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Table of Contents
Notes on Contributers

pp. 1 - 3

Journal of Education Editors

pp. 4 - 6

Editors Introduction

pp. 9 - 11

Teacher Education Perceptions of a Proposed
Mobile Classroom Manager
Dave E. Marcial

pp. 13- 29

Social Media Use in Algerian Universities: Universityof Constantine 2 Case StudyDr Behdja Boumarafi

pp. 31- 41

Assessing the Applicability of 3D Holographic Technology
as an Enhanced Technology for Distance Learning
Pradeep Kalansooriya
Ashu Marasinghe
K.M.D.N. Bandara

pp. 43 - 57

Social Media in Tertiary Education-Vhembe Further
Education Training College Case Study
Manzira Francis Mungofa
Peter Tsvara

pp. 59 - 71

Language Learners Perceptions and Experiences on the
Use of Mobile Applications for Independent Language
Learning in Higher Education
Ana Niño

pp. 73 - 84

Strategies for Digital Inclusion: Towards a Pedagogy
for Embracing and Sustaining Student Diversity andEngagement with Online Learning
Baylie Hart Clarida
Milena Bobeva
Maggie Hutchings
Jacqui Taylor

pp. 86 - 106

Using Mobile Technology to Enhance Undergraduate Student
Digital Information Literacy Skills: A Canadian Case Study
Alice Schmidt Hanbidge
Nicole Sanderson
Tony Tin

pp. 108 - 121

Development of a Blended Instructional Model via
Weblog to Enhance English Summary Writing Abilityof Thai Undergraduate Students
Saisunee Termsinsuk

pp. 123 - 138

7

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

General Attitude and Acceptance of Holography
in Teaching Among Lecturers in Nigerian Colleges of Education
Suleiman A. Ahmad
Isyaku M. Abdullahi
Muhammad Usma

pp. 140 – 160

Guide for Authors

pp. 162 - 1648

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
It is our great pleasure and honour to introduce this special issue of IAFOR Journal of Education.
This issue is a selection of papers submitted directly to our journal as well as studies presented
during:
1. The Sixth Asian Conference on Education and The Second Asian Conference on Society,
Education & Technology, ACE & ACSET 2014, “Transforming and Changing Education:
Individuals, Communities, Societies”, held in Osaka in October-November 2014.
2. The Asian Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2015. ACTC2015.
3. The European Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2014 (ECTC2014).
The conference held in Brighton, UK, in July 2014
4. The European Conference on Education 2014, Brighton, UK, in July 2014 (ECE2014)
5. The IAFOR International Conference on Education 2015, IICE2015, Dubai, UAE.
The focus of this special issue is on “Emerging Technologies in Teaching and Learning”.
The aim is to discuss issues and address the challenges of using emerging technologies in learningand teaching. Additionally, this issue attempts to answer different questions regarding the impactof emerging technologies adoption in instructional activities, and presents cases from different
fields and applications, in various countries.
This special edition focuses on how emerging technologies are being used to transform teaching
and learning practices in education, which may lead to qualitative outcomes in education. Ourjournal is proud to introduce scholars from all over the world:
The first paper entitled "Teacher Education Perceptions of a Proposed Mobile Classroom Manager"
is authored by Dave E. Marcial. The paper examines the acceptability of a mobile classroom
manager among teacher educators in Central Visayas, Philippines. Marcial specifically details his
findings from an empirical investigation on the level of perceived usefulness and ease of use of themobile classroom manager. The paper concludes that teacher educators will intensely adopt the
proposed instructional tool and integrate it into their teaching and learning activities. The paper
ended with a recommendation that the mobile classroom manager application will be developed inaccordance with the teaching practices of the teacher educators.
The second paper entitled "Social Media Use in Algerian Universities: University of Constantine
2 Case Study" is authored by Dr Behdja Boumarafi. This paper investigates Algerian students’
engagement to understand the developmental implications of academic achievement. The authorseeks to advance the use of instructional interactions in two ways: i: enhancing the academic
validity of social networking, ii: making the link to students’ collaborative learning explicit. Datais collected from 300 students. Findings show that social media are used for a multitude of purposes
mainly for networking and socializing and sparingly used for informal academic activities. All
participents declared having a facebook account in addition to other social network. Social media
is useful for buiding relationships, improving communication skills, and improving foreign
language skills. However, it may violate privacy, could be time consuming. Concerns are raised as
far as the quality of information posted by students on their network site.
The third paper entitled "Assessing the Applicability of 3D Holographic Technology as an
Enhanced Technology for Distance Learning" is co-authored by Pradeep Kalansooriya, Ashu
Marasinghe, and K.M.D.N. Bandara. They have assessed the applicability of 3D Holographic
Technology as an enhanced technology for distance learning. It was analyzed on the experiences

9

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Editionand perceptions of expertise on video based education and hologram based education. Accordingly,
in the initial evaluation, they found that interactive teaching methods and effective communication
are the factors rated high in the comparison of factors of effective teaching environment (Interactive
teaching methods, Effective communication, Diversity in method of presentation, Classroom
environment, Lecture breaks). Later in the comparison of factors of effective teaching environment
for video based education and hologram based education has revealed that hologram based distanceeducation is superior and more suitable than video based education for factors other than ‘Lecture
breaks’. ‘Lack of infrastructure’ and ‘High initial cost of infrastructure’ have been identified as themain two barriers. Additionally ‘Limited bandwidth’ was also identified as a secondary roadblockin the process of implementing 3D Hologram based classroom. However there is a controversy inexpert view points on responses. Authors suggested to increase the sample size and diversity to
avoid such controversy.
The fourth paper ("Social Media in Tertiary Education-Vhembe Further Education Training
College Case Study") is co-authored by Manzira Francis Mungofa and Peter Tsvara. This paper
focus on social media technologies usage in higher education. It was based on a case study area ofa further education training college located in the rural part of South Africa. It focused on a broad
range of social media technologies that are being used in higher education across the world. Data
was collected through questionnaire survey and analyses using software package used for statisticalanalysis (SPSS). Findings revealed that students in the rural areas have adopted social media
technologies in their learning process although there were notable challenges such as cost of
bandwidth, costof smart phoness, network availability that prohibited them from having a fullaccess and unlimited use of such technologies as: Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and Youtube,
which have become popular. The use of social media in higher learning enables student interaction
with content they can create individually or share with colleagues. Furthermore, potential learning
occurs outside the classroom or independent of location as students can be able to accesseducational resources as long as they are connected to internet. Results indicate that students enjoy
and indeed benefit from the use of social media technologies that have positive effect on theirperformance and growth.
The fifth paper, written by Ana Niño, is entitled “Language Learners Perceptions and Experienceson the Use of Mobile Applications for Independent Language Learning in Higher Education”. Ana
Niño explored the potentials and limitations of using mobile applications for independent language
learning in Higher Education with a view to investigate (i) how language learners use mobile apps
to enhance their learning experience, and (ii) how these could be integrated in the language class.
The sixth paper ("Strategies for Digital Inclusion: Towards a Pedagogy for Embracing andSustaining Student Diversity and Engagement with Online Learning") is co-authored by Baylie
Hart Clarida, Milena Bobeva, Maggie Hutchings and Jacqui Taylor. The paper reports on the
progress of a PhD research study. The research study will eventually develop a conceptual
framework for effective teaching and learning approaches that influence digital inclusion andexclusion of students from diverse backgrounds. The focus of this paper is to outline the research
to date. Two initial phases have been completed and are reported in this paper. Findings suggestthat digital exclusion cannot be predicted or dealt with by categorising students into groupings of:gender, age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status and educational background. The paper
also discusses how digital exclusion is influenced by organisational factors, such as elements ofthe course content or navigation of the virtual learning environment rather than intrinsic factors
such as individual technological skills.
The seventh paper, entitled “Using mobile technology to enhance undergraduate student digital
information literacy skills: A Canadian case study”, is co-authored by Alice Schmidt Hanbidge,
Nicole Sanderson, and Tony Tin. An overview of the development and administration of an

10

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

innovative mobile information literacy tool to enhance information literacy training was exploredwith the aim to contribute to the understanding of the innovative practice for mobile technology
academic learning. A mixed method non-experimental research study with university arts faculty
students investigated the frequency of access to the information literacy tool and the change influency of information literacy skills using mobile devices. Study participants completed thirteen
mobile information literacy lessons (online), pre- and post-tests and a questionnaire. Collaborative
efforts between faculty and library staff provided recommendations to support anytime, anywherem-learning.
The eighth paper, entitled “Development of a Blended Instructional Model via Weblog to Enhance
English Summary Writing Ability of Thai Undergraduate Students”, is written by Saisunee
Termsinsuk. The main objective of this research was to develop an effective blended instructionalmodel via weblog to enhance English summary writing ability of Thai undergraduate students. The
study was divided into 4 phases: Analyzing the context, synthesizing the instructional model,
developing the efficiency of the model through action research, and studying the effect of the model
on English summary writing of the university students through an experimental research. It was
found that the blended instructional model via weblog comprised three stages of blended activities:
extracting information via face to face instruction, summarizing via weblog, and publishing on
weblog. It was named “S2A Model.” The model was effective in enhancing the university students’English summary writing ability as the post-test scores of the students met the set criterion of thestudy.
The ninth paper, entitled “General Attitude and Acceptance of Holography in Teaching Among
Lecturers in Nigerian Colleges of Education”, is co-authored by Suleiman A. Ahmad, Isyaku M.
Abdullahi, and Muhammad Usman. The study has a general focus on holography and its
application in education. Four objectives were identified such as: 1. To investigate on the attitude
toward holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of education teachers 2. To find out theextent of acceptance of holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of education Educators 3.
To identify the gender difference among Nigerian colleges of education educators in the attitude
towards holography in teaching 4. To identify the attitudinal difference towards holography inteaching among Nigerian colleges of education educators in terms of their designation/level. The
paper identifies the ICT penetration as very low and the digital divide also quite wide in Nigeria.
It also states that none of the Nigerian tertiary institution in records practically employs or evenattempted to test the holography as a course or as practical experience in the process of teaching
and learning.
Please note that we welcome original research papers in the field of education submitted by teachers,
scholars, and education professionals. They may send their manuscript even though they did notparticipate to one of the conferences held by IAFOR.
We also welcome book reviews, reviews of the literature in the field, and contributions introducing
key educational scholars. The next issue scheduled for February 15, 2016 will also be a selectionof papers submitted during the above mentioned conferences. IAFOR publications are freely
accessible on the website (Open Access).
Moreover, there is no publication fee for authors. Please find the guidelines at this end of this issue
and follow our guide for authors before submitting your paper.
Best regards,
Bernard Montoneri and Vasileios Paliktzoglou

11The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

12

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Teacher Education Perceptions of a Proposed Mobile Classroom Manager
Dave E. Marcial

13

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
In a knowledge-driven enterprise, mobile learning introduces new ways for students to learn andeducators to teach. This paper investigates the acceptability of a mobile classroom manager among
teacher educators in Central Visayas, Philippines. Specifically, this paper presents findings froman empirical investigation on the level of perceived usefulness and ease of use of the mobile
classroom manager. A total of 383 responses from 76 private and public higher education
institutions were included in the analysis. The instrument used in data gathering was a survey
questionnaire adopted from the first Technology Acceptance Model by Davis (1989).
The study reveals that a mobile class record application is highly useful as perceived by the
respondents (x̄ = 5.48). A mobile class record application is also perceived to be good in terms of
its ease of use (x̄ = 5.32). The result implies that the respondents will assuredly accept and use themobile tool in their classroom. It can be concluded that teacher educators will strongly adopt the
proposed instructional tool and integrate it into their teaching and learning activities. It is highly
recommended that the mobile classroom manager application will be developed in accordance withthe teaching practices of the teacher educators.
Keywords: ICT in education; mobile learning; mobile technology; technology acceptance model.

14

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Mobile learning revolutionized the traditional way of classroom learning (Vinu, Sherimon &Krishnan, 2011), for both formal and informal contexts (Martí and Ferrer, 2012). El-Hussein and
Cronje (2010) defined mobile learning as “any type of learning that takes place in learning
environments and spaces that take account of the mobility of technology, mobility of learners andmobility of learning”. Students have a high level of acceptance of mobile learning that can be
explained by their position as digital natives . Digital natives are generation of people who wereborn during or after the rise of digital technologies (Prensky, 2001). Mobile learning is viewed
positively by students in terms of accessing information quickly, communicating and collaborating,introducing a variety of ways to learn, and situated learning like game-based learning (Gikas &Grant, 2013). Students in higher education have a high level of personal innovation and mobile
readiness (Jazihan Mahat, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, & Su Luan, 2012). In fact, many mobile
applications are targeted primarily at students. Mobile technologies involve applications thatstudents use semi-independently in a classroom or after-school setting to supplement or enhanceteacher-led instruction.
Mobile learning requires a technology that can build and deploy applications. Mobile technology
devices range from basic mobile phones to tablet PCs, and include PDAs, MP3 players, memory
sticks, e-readers, and smartphones (UNESCO, 2011). Mobile technologies refer to a combinationof hardware, operating systems, networking and software, including content, learning platforms,
and applications. Further, a mobile application, referred to as an app, is a software application
designed to run on Smartphones, tablet computers and other mobile devices. They are available
through application distribution platforms, which are typically operated by the owner of the mobile
operating system, such as the Apple App Store, Google Play, Windows Phone Marketplace andBlackBerry App World. Some apps are free, while others are not. Usually, they are downloaded
from the platform to a target device, such as an iPhone, BlackBerry, Android phone or Windows
Phone 7, but sometimes they can be downloaded to less mobile computers, such as laptops or
desktops (Siegler, 2008).
Although there are many mobile apps available in the market, there is no app that is specificallydesigned for teacher educators who are Filipinos. It is in this context that a research project on thedevelopment of a mobile classroom manager is submitted and approved by the Philippine’s
Commission on Higher Education through Philippine Higher Education Research Network(Marcial, 2014).The proposed mobile app is called m-APP, and it will contain several features thatwill integrate some of the related features found from the existing mobile apps in the market likeclassroom management, attendance checking and scores recording. On top of these features, theproposed mobile app will be unique because it will include a vocabulary of terms for teacher
education and training as handy and quick guide for teachers in the education program. This
innovation is aimed to support the teaching instructions of Filipino teacher educators.
This paper examines the acceptability of the proposed mobile learning tool among teacher
educators in the four provinces in Central Visayas, Philippines. Specifically, it investigates theperceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the proposed mobile classroom manager among
the teacher educators in Central Visayas, Philippines. It also explains the relationships between the
respondent’s demographic profile such as sex, age, status, institution, number of years in teaching,highest educational attainment and the acceptability of mobile classroom manager. Likewise, italso shows the relationship between the respondent’s technology ownership of a desktop,
Smartphone, tablet, and a laptop and a mobile classroom manager. Moreover, the paper alsopresents the relationship between Internet accessibility and perceptions towards a mobile classroom
manager.

15

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Literature Review
Mobile technology is applied and accepted in many areas such as in government operations(Aloudat, Michael, Chen, & Al-Debei, 2014), commerce (Chen, Li, Chen, & Xu, 2011; Gerpott,2011), advertising (Liu, Sinkovics, Pezderka, & Haghirian, 2012), health (Selma Limam Mansar,
Shashank Jariwala, & Maahd Shah, 2012), security (Mekonnen, Lerasle, & Herbulot, 2013) androbotics (Quintía, Iglesias, & Regueiro, 2010). Most importantly, many mobile development
projects support instruction, both in and outside of classrooms (Dykes and Knight, 2012). Issues
such as classroom management, information sharing, collaboration, grade control and among
others, are issues and topics that appeal most to teachers. Young (2011) listed some features of amobile app that teachers would want to have, these are: taking attendance, collecting data, reading
scholarly articles, recording notes, and using textbook tools. Moreover, table 1 lists some of themobile apps for teachers in the market today. As shown in the table, most of the applications arevery specific to a single purpose and do not offer a complete, comprehensive service for teachers.
Table 1. Common Mobile Apps for teachers
Name
AttendanceClassDroid

EducateSubscription
Paid

Free

Free

Evernote

Free

Flipboard

Free

Grade Rubric

Free

GradePad

Paid

iGradePaid

PowerTeacher

Free

PrimaryPad

Free

Features
Allows attendance recording, can be used for meetings andgroup gatherings, unlimited courses, move students fromone class to another, photo recognition, customizableattendance statuses.
Alows teachers control many areas of the classroom
information, supports images stored on a Wordpress site,which are available using a web browser on any webenabled device, students and parents can then view theirwork and grades online
Attendance monitoring, student photos for each student,
address book or student information importing

Captures the information in any environment using any
device, and makes everything accessible and searchable,from anywhere, captures teacher’s ideas, snapshots, voice
memos, and just about anything else that a user want toremember.

Alows to set twitter feeds, and then re-presents it in a
magazine format, makes online textbooks for specificclasses or even further reading lists
Records grade
Manages groups, do assessments, track performance, andshare data.
Manages all student information including notes, tardinessand absences, provides teachers with detailed statistics inreal time, lesson plans can be designed using the notes
sectionRecords student scores and make observations about
student progress from individual student desks, the gym,
playground, at a sporting event or while on a field trip
Helps teachers collaborate in real time with other teachersand pupils, anyone can edit and create new information,and it is on the screen so that everyone can benefit fromthe shared information

16

PlatformiOS

Android

iPad
Microsoft
Windows,
Mac
OSX,
ChromeOS,
Android,
IOS,
WebOS
iPad
Android
iPhoneAndroid

iPad

Android

The IAFOR Journal of Education

RtM
Schmoop

Teacher Pal

Teacher Tool

Free
Free

Free

Free

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Offers task management, can sync it between devices
Calculates test scores, supports English, Spanish, andFrench languages, helps teachers with their lesson plans
since it makes grading easier.
Enables teacher to organize classes, and students, tracks
the attendance, grades and behavior of their students,
simple tapping of attendance, grade books, enter gradewith an intuitive touchpad, import, export data files fromand to CSV files.
Saves grades and makes suggestions for grades, saves
remarks about students and presents them to you in theupcoming lesson, remembers the date of any grade and lets
the teacher store comments along with it, keeps track
students‘ absences

Android
Android

iPhoneand iPadMac

The literature iterates that there are many issues to consider in mobile learning apps. Usability,
technical and functional aspects are significant issues in mobile learning (Bidin & Ziden, 2013;
Economides & Nikolaou, 2008). Likewise, Abachi & Muhammad (2014) reveal that accessibility
is a top concern in a mobile learning service. They assert that this matter includes, but not limited
to bandwidth, speed, network coverage, security and reliability of the service provider. In the samemanner, Gikas & Grant (2013) also found that mobile learning may generate frustrations among
learners. These frustrations include anti-technology instructors in other classes, device challenges,
and devices as a distraction.
Moreover, the acceptance of mobile technology challenges the digital immigrants such inadequate
skills, lack of infrastructure, and other behavioral and institutional related concerns. Because of thechallenges, there is a need to have a clear understanding of technology adoption theory. According
to Oliveira & Martins (2011), the most used technology adoption theories include: Technology
Acceptance Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology, Diffusion on Innovation Theory, and the Technology, Organization, and Environment
Framework. Likewise, Kim & Crowston (2011) listed the same theories including the Social
Cognitive Theory.
Merriam-Webster dictionary online defines innovation as “the act or process of introducing new
ideas, devices, or methods”. The proposed instructional technology for teachers is not new in theknowledge enterprise, however, the tool, especially the process of integration is a new method forthe faculty in the teacher education program. Because of this innovation, it is noteworthy to havean explicit understanding of Diffusion of Innovation theory. Diffusion and innovation theory “seeks
to explain how innovations are taken up in a population” (Robinson, 2009). Surry & Farquhar(1997) assert that Innovation Theory is potentially valuable to the field of instructional technology
for three reasons.
First, most instructional technologists do not understand why their products are, or are not, adopted.
Second, instructional technology is inherently an innovation-based discipline. Lastly, the study ofdiffusion theory could lead to the development of a systematic, prescriptive model of adoption anddiffusion. Shown in Figure 1 is the innovation-decision process. Innovation-decision process “isthe process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation; to forming
an attitude toward an innovation; to a decision to adopt or reject; to implementation of the new idea;
and to confirmation of this decision” (Rogers, 2003).

17

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 1. A Model of Five Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process (captured from Rogers, 2003)
On the other hand, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is also considered carefully being
one of the most influential extensions of the theory of reasoned action, shown in figure 2. TAM isan information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The
model suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors influence
their decision about how and when they will use it. First, perceived usefulness (PU) which isdefined as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance hisor her job performance". Secondly, perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) that is defined as "the degree towhich a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort" (Davis, 1989).
The TAM has been continuously studied and expanded the two major upgrades being the TAM 2(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). TAM 3 has also been proposed (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).

Figure 2. Technology Acceptance Model (captured from Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)
It is highly noted that the perceived usefulness and ease-of-use are significant variables linked tothe behavioral intention to adopt any technology (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Chuttur,

18

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition2009). Indrayani (2013) asserts that perceptions of ICT users will determine a person’s attitudes
and behavior towards the use and integration of ICT. The Technology Acceptance Model explainsthat “users are driven to adopt an application primarily because of the functions it performs forthem, and secondarily for how easy or hard it is to get the system to perform those functions”.
Further, the model suggests that adoption and actual system use is correlated with high behavioral
intention to use. Attitudes and perceived usefulness are useful indicators of behavioral intention inusing mobile technology (Aloudat, Michael, Chen, & Al-Debei, 2014). Brown and Town (2002)
reveal that perceived usefulness is not a major factor in technology usage particularly in web-basedlearning technology. Moreover, user training is a crucial factor in any technology use andimplementation. Petter, William, & Ephraim (2008) assert “user training and education weresignificantly related to use in the earlier stages of the information system”. Orientation about thetechnology has a significant direct effect to increase perception to new innovation (Alkhaldi,
Khraim, & Ta'amneh, 2014).
Methodology
Design and Environment
The study implemented a descriptive-correlational design that begins with description, based on
observation, of an event or events, from which theories may later be developed to explain theobservations as well as a survey method. All of the study was conducted in recognized higher
education institutions (HEIs) offering any teacher education programs in the four provinces inregion 7, the Central Visayas in the Philippines. The teacher education program refers to degree
programs such as Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education and Bachelor of Science inElementary Education offered in both public and private HEIs. All private and public HEIs
including community colleges were included. The respondents of the study are all full-time facultyteaching any professional or specialization courses of the teacher education program in theprovinces of Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental and Siquijor.
Respondents
All HEIs offering teacher education programs in Central Visayas were considered. A complete
enumeration of respondents was administered during the identification of respondents . The
identification of HEIs was based from the list given by the Philippine’s Commission on Higher
Education CHED Region 7 office, dated January 31, 2013. Table 2 shows the summary of thenumber of HEIs offering teacher education programs in the region.
Table 2. Summary of HEIs offering teacher education program in region 7
Type of
HEIs
PublicPrivate
Total

Bohol
n
7
13
20

%
35.00
65.00
100.00

NegrosOriental
n
%
9
42.86
12
57.14
21
100.00

Cebu
n
17
45
62

%
27.42
72.58
100.00Siquijor
n
1
3
4

Total

%
n
%
25 34 31.78
75 73 68.22
100 107 100.00

A total of 76 out of 107 HEIs participated during the administration of the survey as shown in table
3. All schools in Bohol and Siquijor participated in the study. In Negros Oriental, 12 out of 21
schools from Negros Oriental involved and included in the analysis of the study. Five HEIs in
Negros Oriental are not anymore offering teacher education program as listed in CHED’s database.
Some HEIs in Negros Oriental did not return the questionnaires. In Cebu, 40 out of 62 HEIs were
included in the analysis of the study. There were filled-up questionnaires from two schools rejected
due to the qualifications of the person who answered the survey questionnaire. Some Cebu schools
19The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

opted not to participate in the study, and some did not return the questionnaires after several daysof extension. In total, responses from 23 (30.26%) public and 53 (69.74%) private HEIs were
included in the analysis of the study. In total, 383 responses were accepted and included in theanalysis coming from 76 private and public HEIs in the four provinces.
Table 3. Summary of HEIs participated in the study
BoholType of HEIs
PublicPrivate
Total

n
7
13
20

%
35.00
65.00
100.00

Cebu
n
12
28
40

%
19.35
45.16
100.00

NegrosOriental
n
%
3
25.00
9
75.00
12 100.00

Siquijor
n
1
3
4

%
25
75
100

Total
n
%
23 30.26
53 69.74
76 100.00

Instrument
The instrument used in data gathering to accomplish the specific objectives of the study was asurvey questionnaire. Questions related to perceived usefulness and ease of use are adopted fromthe first Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). Respondents were asked to evaluate thelevel of their competency according to the seven possible choices: 1 – extremely unlikely, 2 – quite
unlikely, 3 – slightly unlikely, 4 – neither, 5 – slightly likely, 6 – quite likely, and 7 – extremely
likely.
Data Gathering and Statistical Treatment
The survey administration process was done into two distribution periods due to unexpected delaysin the project funding. The first administration was done on April 1 – 30, 2013 by the assigned area
coordinators. Field enumerators are also identified to assist during the distribution and collectionof the self-administered questionnaire for each province. A briefing was done before the survey
administration with an emphasis on the ethical standards and protocol. A post - enumeration
meeting was also conducted to gather relevant issues during the data gathering. An endorsement
letter from the CHED regional director was attached in all survey questionnaires. As part of the
protocol, the program or school head was met first, and they are the source of information in termsof the total number of eligible respondents. Only those who were present at the time of the visit
were given a questionnaire to fill and they were collected before leaving the school. Copies of thequestionnaire were also left for the school staff to be distributed to all qualified respondents who
were not present at the time of the delivery. Retrieval of these questionnaires was done during thelast week of April, 2013.
There are some schools in Cebu and one school in Negros Oriental that were not visited becauseof the geographical concern and distance considerations. Instead, printed copies of questionnaires
with a return postage stamp were sent via a courier addressed to the school head in reference to the
CHED regional’s database. Follow-up processes were limited to a telephone call, as well as sending
text messages to the respondents who did not respond by the indicated deadline. A weekly followup through email was also done to encourage greater participation from HEIs. The first distribution
was done only from April 1-30, 2013 in order to get a result necessary to the skills enhancement
training on May as scheduled. In order to improve the number of responses from the respondents
and participation from other HEIs, the second distribution was done from July to August 2013.
Printed copies of the questionnaire were sent to all respondents who were on vacation leave during
the April visit. The questionnaires were mailed through a speed mailing service with the inclusionof a prepaid post stamp. All questionnaires were sent directly to the dean or head of the teacher
education program. Filled-up questionnaires from unqualified respondents were rejected, including

20

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

those questionnaires that are mostly unanswered. In this case, 40 survey questionnaires were
rejected. The statistical tools employed in the data processing are the weighted mean for measuring
the competency level and chi-square for testing the relationships.
Results and Discussion
Perceived Usefulness of m-APP
The study shows that a mobile classroom manager, m-APP is quite likely useful as perceived by
the respondents (x ̅= 5.48), shown in table 4. The results imply that a mobile classroom manager is
acceptable and very important to the teaching job of the respondents. It is highly noted that allindicators of the perceived usefulness are rated with a description ‘quite likely’. Like with many
literatures on the technology acceptance model, perceived usefulness had significant positive
impact on participants’ attitude toward the system (Zhou, Mohammed, & Zhang, 2012). Further,
the result of study contradicts to the study of Brown and Town (2002).
Table 4. Perceived Usefulness towards m-APP
NegrosSiquijor
Oriental
(𝑥̅ )
(𝑥̅ )
(𝑥̅ )
(𝑥̅ )
Description Description Description Description
Bohol

Perceived Usefulness
a. Using them-APP in my job
would
enablemetoaccomplish
tasks
more
quickly.
b. Using m-APP would
improve my job performance.
c. Using m-APP in my job
would
increasemyproductivity.
d. Using m-APP would
enhance my effectiveness on
the job.
e. Using m-APP would makeit easier to do my job.
f. I would find m-APP usefulin my job.
Aggregate Mean

Cebu

(5.30)
Quite
Likely(5.42)
Quite
Likely(5.46)
Quite
Likely(5.42)
Quite
Likely(5.32)
Quite
Likely(5.34)
Quite
Likely(5.35)
Quite
Likely(5.32)
Quite
Likely(5.33)
Quite
Likely(5.33)
Quite
Likely(5.46)
Quite
Likely(5.46)
Quite
Likely(5.42)
Quite
Likely(5.38)
Quite
Likely(5.42)
Quite
Likely(5.43)
Quite
Likely(5.53)
Quite
Likely(5.56)
Quite
Likely(5.51)
Quite
Likely(5.60)
Quite
Likely(5.57)
Quite
Likely(5.54)
Quite
Likely(5.69)
Quite
Likely(5.62)
Quite
Likely(5.69)
Quite
Likely(5.69)
Quite
Likely(5.69)
Quite
Likely(5.63)
Quite
LikelyTotal(𝑥̅ )Description(5.40)
Quite Likely(5.50)
Quite Likely(5.50)
Quite Likely(5.49)
Quite Likely(5.50)
Quite Likely(5.50)
Quite Likely(5.48)
Quite Likely

Perceived Ease-of-use of m-APP
In the same manner, the study shows that the perceived ease of use of a mobile classroom manager
is evaluated with a mean of 5.32 described as ‘quite likely’ (table 5). The result suggests that amobile classroom manager is appropriate and very user-friendly that would provide flexibility to
the teachers. Specifically, learning to operate a mobile classroom manager and to instruct it what
to do is rated with a description ‘slightly likely’. The result shows that the respondents somewhat
agree that a mobile classroom manager is appropriate and user-friendly. Interestingly, respondents
in Bohol and Cebu rated all indicators ‘slightly likely’ while respondents from Negros Oriental andSiquijor rated all indicators ‘quite likely’. The result is analogous to Zhou et al. (2012) study that
21

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

found out that ease-of-use positively affected attitude toward the system and ease-of-use had apositive influence on perceived efficiency. Venkatesh (2000) articulated that perceived ease-of-use
is “a key driver of technology acceptance, adoption, and usage behavior”. He added that thestrongest determinants of perceived ease-of-use is the individual’s general beliefs about computers.
Table 5. Perceived ease-of-use towards m-APP

Perceived ease-of-use

a. Learning to operate mAPP would be easy for me.
b. I would find it easy to get
m-APP to do what I want it
to do.
c. My interaction with mAPP would be clear andunderstandable.
d. I would find m-APP to beflexible to interact with.
e. It would be easy for me tobecome skillful at using mAPP.
f. I would find m-APP easy
to use.
Aggregate Mean

Bohol

Cebu

(𝑥̅ )
Description(4.94)
Slightly
likely(4.99)
Slightly
likely(4.89)
Slightly
likely(5.04)
Slightly
likely(5.05)
Slightly
likely(4.97)
Slightly
likely(4.98)
Slightly
likely(𝑥̅ )Description(5.08)
Slightly
likely(5.09)
Slightly
likely(5.11)
Slightly
likely(5.16)
Slightly
likely(5.12)
Slightly
likely(5.07)
Slightly
likely(5.11)
Slightly
likelyNegrosSiquijor
Oriental
(𝑥̅ )
(𝑥̅ )
Description Description(5.51)(5.54)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.53)(5.54)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.57)(5.69)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.56)(5.54)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.54)(5.54)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.90)(5.54)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.60)(5.57)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikelyTotal(𝑥̅ )Description(5.27)
Slightly
likely(5.29)
Slightly
likely(5.32)
Quite
Likely(5.33)
Quite
Likely(5.31)
Quite
Likely(5.37)
Quite
Likely(5.32)
Quite
LikelyTable 6.Summary of Acceptability Level towards m-APP
Bohol

Cebu

(𝑥̅ )
Description(𝑥̅ )Description(5.33)
Quite Likely(5.43)
Quite Likely(4.98)
Slightly
likely(5.16)
Slightly
likely(5.11)
Slightly
likely(5.27)
Slightly
likelyAcceptability

Perceived Usefulness

Perceived ease-of-use

Overall Mean

NegrosSiquijor
Oriental
(𝑥̅ )
(𝑥̅ )
Description Description(5.54)(5.63)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.60)(5.57)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikely(5.57)(5.60)
Quite
Quite
LikelyLikelyTotal(𝑥̅ )Description(5.48)
Quite Likely(5.32)
Quite Likely(5.40)
Quite Likely

Essential features of m-APP
When asked about important features that a mobile classroom manager should have, 376 (97.66%)
respondents believe that a module for management of classroom information, attendancemonitoring and test score calculation must be included (table 7).The result implies that teachers
give more importance to the formative assessment activity, and they want this feature to be the first22

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

to develop in any mobile learning application. It may support to the claim of Hwang & Chang(2011) who asserts “formative assessment-based approach is helpful to the students in improving
their learning achievements in the mobile learning environment”. About 97% of the respondents
also agreed that a dictionary of general educational terms must be integrated with a mobile
classroom manager. It is followed by features that teachers can store grades and comments alongwith it as well as a task management module where almost 97% respondents agreed. 361 (93.77%)
respondents believe that a mobile classroom manager must contain address book and grouping
management modules. A feature that can suggest grades is also rated important by 356 (92.47%)
respondents. Surprisingly, only 339 (88.05%) respondents agreed that it is necessary for? teachers
can upload photos for each student in a mobile classroom manager.
Table 7. Ranking of the Features of the proposed m-APP
Features
Teachers can manage classroom information
Teachers can monitor attendance
Calculates test scores
Dictionary of general education terms
Offers task management
Stores grade and let the teacher store comments along with it
Address book
Manages groups
Make a suggestion for a grade
Teachers can upload photos for each student

Yes (%)
376(97.66)
376(97.66)
376(97.66)
374(97.14)372(96.62)
372(96.62)
361(93.77)361(93.77)356(92.47)
339(88.05)

Ranking
2
2
2
4
5.5
5.5
7.5
7.5
9
10

Relationship between Perceptions towards m-APP and the Respondent’s Demographic andTechnology Ownership Profile
Table 8 shows the results of chi-square computation for determining if significant relationships
exist between the acceptability of a mobile classroom manager and demographic profile among the
respondents. It is interesting to note that the study shows no significant relationship between themobile application and the respondent’s sex, age, status, institution, number of years in teaching
and highest educational attainment. Age category is based on Erikson’s stages of development,such as young adulthood (19-40), middle adulthood (41-65), and maturity (66-death). The results
may be compared to the study of Lishan Xuea, et al., (2012). They found out that age andeducational attainment are predictors of a mobile phone-based intervention.
Similarly, this study is opposite to the result of Ronggang Zhou, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Wei Zhang,& Damin Zhuang (2012) who found out that age is an important factor in using mobile devices.
Further, the result may compare to the results of Fezile Ozdamli, Emrah Soykana, & Ezgi Pelin
Yıld (2013) who found that the level of use of mobile devices for male students was higher thanfemale students. Perhaps, the result of this study is due to being based in HEIs.
Table 8. Relationship between acceptability of a mobile application manager and the respondent’s
demographic profile
Acceptability andSex
Age
StatusType of Institution
No. of years in teaching𝑥 2 Value
9.31
9.31
2.32
1.33
17.80

23

P value
0.157
0.503
0.804
0.970
0.603

df
6
10
5
6
20

Remarks
Not Significant
Not Significant
Not Significant
Not Significant
Not Significant

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Highest educational
attainment

7.09

0.717

10

Not Significant

On the other hand, table 9 shows the results of chi-square computation for determining if significant
relationships exist between the acceptability of a mobile classroom manager and respondent’s
technology ownership. The study shows that there is evidence of a significant relationship between
the acceptability of a mobile classroom manager and the respondent’s ownership of desktop (x2 (6,N = 383) = 19.40, p<.01). Acceptability level is affected also by smartphone ownership (x2 (6, N= 383) = 13.00, p<.05).Laptop ownership is correlated with the acceptability of a mobile classroom
manager (x2 (6, N = 383) = 12.60, p<.01).Further, internet accessibility in school is may affect also
the acceptability of a mobile classroom manager (x2 (6, N = 383) = 18.20, p<.01). Surprisingly,
there is no enough evidence that tablet ownership has a significant correlation with the acceptabilityof a mobile classroom manager. The result can be interrupted as the respondents having scant ideas
on how tablet computers support mobile learning as a new pedagogy in teaching and learning.
Table 9. Relationship between acceptability of a mobile application manager and the respondent’s
technology ownership profile
Acceptability and
Desktop Ownership
Smartphone Ownership
Tablet Ownership
Laptop Ownership
Internet accessibility in the school𝑥 2 Value
19.40
13.00
12.30
20.60
18.20

P value
0.004
0.043
0.055
0.002
0.006

df
6
6
6
6
6

Remarks
Significant
Significant
Not Significant
Significant
Significant

Summary and Conclusion
The acceptability of the teacher educators towards to the development of a mobile classroom
manager is very high, positive and encouraging. The perceived usefulness and perceived ease-ofuse are significant variables linked to the behavioral intention to adopt any technology (Davis, 1989;
Venkatesh and Davis, 1996; Chuttur, 2009). It may be concluded that teacher educators in Central
Visayas, Philippines will vigorously adopt the proposed instructional tools and integrate mobile
learning into their teaching and learning activities. In reference to the Technology Acceptance
Model, it is highly likely that the proposed m-APP is likely to be adopted. In the same manner,
adoption of the proposed m-APP is likely to be more successful if the preferred features are taken
into consideration. It is further recommended that a similar study should be conducted among
academic administrators in the teacher education program and measure if there is a significant
difference between the two groups of respondents. Further, a user training on the use of the
proposed mobile classroom manager must be conducted.
Acknowledgements
The funding support provided by the Commission on Higher Education through the Philippine
Higher Education Research Network (PHERNet), facilitated by Silliman University throughResearch and Development Center is gratefully acknowledged. The research expertise of Dr.
Enrique Oracion and the involvement of Dr. Pablito de la Rama are very much appreciated. The
assistance of Jeambe Rendal and Kristel Puno, as well as the coordination of Ms. Mitzi Fortich,
Ms. Dawn Iris Calibo and Dr. Jonathan Etcuban, is deeply appreciated. The same appreciation is
also given to all the field assistants and enumerators namely: Rose Ann Digal, Ma. Hazel Pantoja,
Melissa Tamayo, Rosie Namoc, Mary Ann Caliao, Aahron M. Dinauanao, Cynthia S. Abellanosa,
Venancio B. Fernandez, Rafael Calvo, Fritzie D. Skinner, Marites C. Melendres, Glenn A. Arnado,
Robbie Austen Vailoces, Lyviendo Dales, Ramcer Dy Teves, Sheila Garcia, and Edit Albit. We

24

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Editionare very grateful also to all school heads for accommodating us during the survey. Further, I would
like also to recognize The Asian Conference on Technology, Information and Society 2014, held
on November 20-23, 2014 at the Rihga Royal Hotel Osaka, for the comments and suggestions in
improving this article.

25

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Abachi, H. R., & Ghulam, M. (2014). The impact of m-learning technology on students andeducators. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 491–496. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.018.
Alkhaldi, A. N., Khraim, H. S., & Ta'amneh, I, Y. (2014). Effect of User Training on Perceptionof Ease of Video-conferencing Use: The Moderating and Direct Effect of Time Orientation
Cultural Values in Jordan. Research Journal of Science and IT Management, 3(6). Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.theinternationaljournal.org/ojs/index.php?journal=rjitsm&page=article&op=vie
w&path%5B%5D=2534.
Aloudat, A., Michael, K., Chen, X., & Al-Debei, M. M. (2014). Social acceptance oflocation-based
mobile government services for emergency management. Telematics and Informatics, 31,
153–171. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.02.002.
Bidin, S., & Ziden, A. A. (2013). Adoption and Application of Mobile Learning in the Education
Industry.
Procedia-SocialandBehavioral
Sciences,
90,
720 – 729.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.145.
Brown, I. T. (2002). Individual and Technological Factors Affecting Ease of Use of Web-based
Learning Technologies in a Developing Country. The Electronic Journal on Information
Systems in Developing Countries, 9(5), 1-15. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2./index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/50/50.
Chen, Z.-S., Li, R., Chen, X., & Xu, H. (2011). A Survey Study on Consumer Perception of MobileCommerce
Applications.
Procedia
Environmental
Sciences,
11,118-124.
doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.12.019.
Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments andFuture Directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). Retrieved July 20,
2015, from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance ofInformation Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=02767783%28198909%2913%3A3%3C319%3APUPEOU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A
Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, 35, 1989, 982-1003.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.vvenkatesh.com/it/organizations/theoretical_models.asp.
Dykes, G., & Knight, H. R. (2012). Mobile Learning for Teachers in Europe. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002161/216167e.pdf.
Economides, A. A., & Nikolaou, N. (2008). Evaluation of handheld devices for mobile learning.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(1), 3-13. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.conta.uom.gr/conta/publications/PDF/Evaluation%20of%20Handheld%20Devic
es%20for%20Mobile%20Learning.pdf.

26

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

El-Hussein, M. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education
Landscape. Educational Technology and Society, 13(3), 12-21. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.ifets.info/journals/13_3/3.pdf.
Ozdamli, F., Soykana, E., & Yıld, E. P. (2013). Are Computer Education teacher candidates readyfor M-Learning? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1010-1015.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.188.
Gerpott, T. J. (2011). Attribute perceptions as factors explaining Mobile Internet acceptance of
cellular customers in Germany–An empirical study comparing actual and potential adopterswith distinct categories of access appliances. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 2148-2162.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher
Education, 19, 18–26.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to
improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers and Education, 56,
1023–1031. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002.
Indrayani, E. (2013). ICT Culture of the Implementation of Academic Information System (AIS)
at Higher Education (Case Study: Higher Education in the City of Bandung). International
Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 7-11.
Innovation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation.
Jazihan Mahat, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, & Su Luan, W. (2012). An Assessment of Students’
Mobile Self-Efficacy, Readiness and Personal Innovativeness towards Mobile Learning in
Higher Education in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 284-290.
Kim, Y., & Crowston , K. (2011). Technology Adoption and Use Theory Review for Studying
Scientists ’ Continued Use of Cyber-infrastructure. ASIST. New Orleans, LA, USA.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://crowston.syr.edu/system/files/ASIST2011-CyberinfrastructureTheoryReview-FinalVersion-1.pdf.
Lishan Xuea, Ching Chiuan Yena, Leanne Chang, Hock Chuan Chan, Bee Choo Tai, Say Beng
Tan, . . . Mahesh Choolani (2012). An exploratory study of ageing women’s perception onaccess to health informatics via a mobile phone-based intervention. Inernational Journal of
MedicalInformatics,
81,
637-648.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.04.008.
Liu, C.-L. E., Sinkovics, R. R., Pezderka, N., & Haghirian, P. (2012). Determinants of Consumer
Perceptions toward Mobile Advertising — A Comparison between Japan and Austria. Journalof Interactive Marketing, 26, 21–32.
Marcial, D. E. (2014). ICT in Teacher Education in Region 7. Technical Report to the Commission
on Higher Education-Philippine Higher Education Research Network, Silliman University,
College of Computer Studies, Dumaguete City.
Martí, M. C., and Ferrer, G. T. (2012). Exploring learners' practices and perceptions on the use ofmobile portfolios as methodological tool to assess learning in both formal and informal
contexts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3182-3186.

27

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Mekonnen, A., Lerasle, F., & Herbulot, A. (2013). Cooperative passers-by tracking with a mobile
robot and external cameras. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 117, 1229–1244.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2012.12.004.
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. (2011). Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption
Models at Firm Level. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110121. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.ejise.com.
Petter, S., William, D., & Ephraim, M. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models,dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17,
236–263. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.15.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved July 20,
2015,
from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.
Quintía, P., Iglesias, R., & Regueiro, C. V. (2010). Simultaneous learning of perception and action
in mobile robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58, 1306-1315.
doi:10.1016/j.robot.2010.08.009.
Robinson , L. (2009, January). A summary of Diffusion of Innovations. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_Diffusion_Theory.pdf.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (Fifth). New York: The Free Press. Retrieved July20, 2015, from https://teddykw2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/everett-m-rogers-diffusion-ofinnovations.pdf
Ronggang Zhou, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Wei Zhang, & Damin Zhuang. (2012). Mobile phone use
while driving: Predicting drivers’ answering intentions and compensatory decisions. Safety
Science, 50, 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.013.
Selma Limam Mansar, Shashank Jariwala, & Maahd Shah. (2012). A Usability Testing Experiment
For A Localized Weight Loss Mobile Application. Procedia Technology, 839 – 848.
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.093.
Siegler, M. (2008, June 11). Analyst: There's a great future in iPhone apps. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://venturebeat.com/2008/06/11/analyst-theres-a-great-future-in-iphone-apps/.
Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997, May). Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology.
Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1). Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/surry/papers/dtit/dtit.htm.
UNESCO (2011). UNESCO Mobile Learning Week Report. Paris. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ICT/pdf/UNESCO%20ML
W%20report%20final%2019jan.pdf.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic
Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems
Research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.vvenkatesh.com/downloads/papers/fulltext/pdf/venkatesh_bala_ds_2008.pdf.

28

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://www.vvenkatesh.com/IT/Abstract/6.asp.
Vinu, P., Sherimon, P., & Krishnan, R. (2011). Towards pervasive mobile learning – the visionof 21st century. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3067 – 3073.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.247.
Young, J. R. (2011, January 2). 6 Top Smartphone Apps to Improve Teaching, Research, and Your
Life. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/6-Top-Smartphone-Appsto/125764.
Zhou, L., Mohammed, A. S., & Zhang, D. (2012). Mobile personal information management agent:
Supporting natural language interface and application integration. Information Processing andManagement, 48, 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.08.008.

29

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

30

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Social Media Use in Algerian Universities: University of Constantine 2
Case Study
Behdja Boumarafi

31

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
Social media technologies initially used for socializing, and entertainment have in recent years
expanded their reaches into learning activities providing an open space for students’ engagement.
The positive effect of such technologies on pedagogy is to make learning applicable to the cyberenvironment to achieve independent and collaborative learning. Students learn to communicate andcollaborate electronically. This requires rethinking the way pedagogical activities are carried out
to develop synergistic learning relationships to create the best learning model in line with this new
educational paradigm.
This paper investigates Algerian students’ engagement to understand the developmental
implications of academic achievement. The author seeks to advance the use of instructional
interactions in two ways: i: enhancing the academic validity of social networking, ii: making thelink to students’ collaborative learning explicit. Data is collected from 300 students. Findings showthat social media are used for a multitude of purposes and Facebook is most popular.
Keywords: Social media; students; Algeria; collaborative learning; academic achievement.

32

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
The unprecedented developments of information and communication technology (ICT) and related
digital technologies have ushered in many changes in all spheres of life. They have changed theway people communicate, work and study. Furthermore, the speed at which such technologies are
penetrating education institutions and offering new ways and tools for the delivery of knowledge
across the globe making the cyber-space a borderless learning sphere. By the adoption of social
media in academia, instructors are shifting some of their teaching activities to students seeking
their involvement in enhancing self and collaborative learning. Documented literature that attempts
to shed light on social media adoption in learning indicates an increase in the use and popularity ofsocial network sites among students. Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, Skype, YouTube, MySpace,
Google+ among others are making a considerable impact as essential tools to promote exchange ofknowledge and to create virtual academic communities.
The internet revolution is creating a new culture in learning and instruction activities. It is veryclear that education industry worldwide is in the midst of a revolution caused by the evolving
technologies such as the web 2.0 and the advent of web 3.0 allowing students to create content,
exchange ideas and share knowledge. So much so that in the last few years there has been extensive
discussion and heated debate exploring social media in journal articles and conferences. Much ofthis discussion has focused on developing a clearer understanding of the capabilities of suchtechnology as a new platform for enhancing students’ independent learning and how muchacademic achievement social networking has yielded and whether it could be used as new
pedagogical tools outside the classroom. At the same time, the ubiquitous presence of social media
has attracted researchers to study both positive aspects and concerns of using such tools in various
settings offering new and various ways of using computers or/and mobile devices. (Paliktzoglou
and Suhonen, 2014).
As education institutions are embracing social media there is a need to optimize the positive effectof such technologies to bring them into pedagogy to make instruction and learning active andapplicable to the cyber environment of the new millennium. In recent years, more and moreeducation institutions are making a presence in social networks such as blogs, twitter, YouTube,
Facebook to create effective ways for the establishment of collaborative and interactive online
learning system. Therefore, technology-driven culture is featuring prominently in all pedagogicalactivities. Hence, the focus of learning and instruction needs to be viewed from a newer perspective“without gathering students and teachers in the same physical space” (Maney, 2009). In otherwords, learning is no longer tied to a particular location and a particular time table.
For a generation immersed in a world of evolving technologies where internet applications,specifically the web 2.0 tools are having a considerable impact on the way people work, study, play,and communicate. Social network sites promise the opportunity to motivate students to constantly
quest for new learning experience out of the physical locations of the university encouraging themto create and share ideas rather than simply memorizing lecture notes. The use of social networks
in education has created a paradigm shift; from emphasis on teaching content to helping students
develop the ability to create content tailored to their learning needs and share it with peers.
Basically, social network sites provide open avenues for “collaborative education which in essence
creates a synergy by bringing together technologically learners and instructors with a shift towards
less instructor led teaching to a greater student’s involvement” (Boumarafi, 2010). It is therefore,
pertinent to say that the use of social network sites extend far beyond their traditional purpose ofcommunication and entertainment to promote students’ self-reliance in learning through enquiry
and sharing.

33

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

This underscores the need to empower students to take charge of their own learning taking placeanytime anywhere. This highlights the necessity for rethinking the way core pedagogical activities
are carried out and assess their effect on both learners and instructors. The purpose of this study isto provide a better understanding of how students at the University of Constantine 2 (Algeria) areinvesting their technological skills and learning time, in using social networks for better academic
achievements and examine factors affecting their use. The study will build upon the existing bodyof documented literature that seeks to explore the use of social media in the academic environment.
To explore such understanding further, the following objectives were set forth:Seek Algerian students’ insights about the use of social network sites in learning;
Identify which social network sites are more popular among students;
Identify the raisons for social networking.
Identify which personal information users reveal when using social media.
Literature Review

Boyd and Ellison (2008) traced the history of social network sites (SNs) use back to 1997 whensixdegrees.com, was launched. Since then several social networks were established between 1998
and 2000. However, it was not until the introduction of Friendster, MySpace and Facebook thatSNs started to grow in popularity and gained significant mainstream and worldwide popularity(comScore, 2007). The use of social media in academic environment was explored by Jabr (2011)
who argued that people use social media for interacting to exchange information, brainstorm ideas,
search for new friends, and share everyday news. Back in 1996, Blake and Sikkal declared that in
the academic environment, new technological developments specifically Web 2.0 applications willgroup students into virtual communities whose homogeneity in interest and intellect will create asynergy to learn and benefit from their heterogeneous cultural background and experience. In asimilar context, Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, (2007) observed that Facebook supports resource
sharing by establishing the social foundation between students and their peers. In essence theadvent of social networking technology is also the advent of new learning systems and a rapid
growth in educational technology.
There is a whole host of surveys that pointed to the increased use social network sites by academic
community and their impact on instruction and learning activities. Just as social networks extended
the function of communication, they also extended their usefulness to learning and instruction
allowing for better “communication, collaboration, community creativity, and convergence”.
(Friedman and Friedman, 2008). The best example of this is the increasing trend towards what istoday called collaborative and interactive learning where students' self-governed and problemsolving activities are considered the focal point of a new learning process. For example,
Tiryakioglu and Erzurum (2011) moved the focus to Facebook as an educational tool. They
reported that the majority of participants they surveyed have a Facebook account. Most of themused it as a communication tool. 80% agreed that it contributed to communication between
classmates. Results of their study also indicate that most faculty members are willing to use
Facebook to create academic groups to share information about their courses. Al Muitairi’s (2013)
study also highlighted that Facebook is used as an educational supporting tool offering faculty at
the University of Kuwait a substitute channel to enrich their educational experience through acommunication channel for both students and educators.
Jabr (2011) used online questionnaire to explore the use of social networks by students at Sultan
Qaboos University in Oman. The study revealed that 70% of the 650 respondents use Facebook,
26% have a MySpace account, 9% use Twitter and only 5% use LinkedIn. The study confirmedthat these are mostly used for communication and socializing purpose at a percentage of 91 andonly 23% use social networking for assignment preparation. In a similar context, Paliktzoglou and34

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Suhonen (2014) used questionnaire and interview to empirically investigate the use of Facebook to
support problem-based learning (PLB) of Bahraini students. Results of the survey showed
experimental evidence of a positive reception of the tool by participants. Findings revealed also
popularity of Facebook among students and engagement as self-directed learners and instructors as
facilitators in enhancing independent learning. Alexakis, Paliktzoglou and Suhonen (2012)assessed the familiarity and use of wikis by Students in Cyprus. They found that participants are
more familiar with the social networks highlighting a frequency of use among students. The authorsemphasized the need for formal training to help students overcome the technophobia and lack ofskills that are causing a negative reception of web 2.0 tools, specifically the wiki and support themas collaborators, more confident and self learners. In another study, Paliktzoglou, Stylianou, andSohenen (2014) examined the reception of students towards Google educational applications. They
found evidence that Google apps can support pedagogical activities by increasing students’
engagement and team work.
Some researchers are not convinced that social networking can be used as a medium of education.
For example, results of a survey conducted by Malesky and Peters (2012) showed that 40% of
students and 30% of faculty believe that it is inappropriate for professors to use SNs. Other surveys
have painted a different picture. For instance Reuben (2008) contends that there is a great potential
in education for Facebook and YouTube. SNs have been utilized by institutions of higher education
to connect with, and disseminate information to current students, potential students, and alumni.
Universities have links to Facebook and Twitter on their homepage; they use them to relay
information to students (Malesky and Peters, 2012). In retrospect it is important to learn how tointegrate evolving technology into learning strategies; not just for technology’s sake, but for theadded value that these tools already familiar to learners provide Brotherton (2011).
Social media can cause negative feelings and reduce members’ life satisfaction. A survey of 600
Facebook users reported that more than one third developed feelings of frustration and envious
when reading friends’ postings, checking news feeds and browsing photos related to friends’ travel
and leisure posted on the platform. This may cause a negative effect on users’ satisfaction with
their own life. (Krasnova and Buxmann, 2012). Despite the contradictory results of some surveys,
what is clear is that a considerable portion of the digital era students consider the traditional modeof learning and instruction no longer the most appropriate model of education. However, thegrowing use of social network sites by students for learning has increased concerns about thequality of knowledge exchanged among them and how do they assess its credibility.
Although social network sites tools are not created for educational purposes, Dalsgaard (2005)
argues that they can be used to support learning. Using social software can help facilitate an
approach to e-learning which differs from using learning management systems and which bettersupports self-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities. Basically, the purpose is toprovide students with tools which they can use to solve problems on their own and/or incollaboration with other students.
Battouche (2012) conducted a seminal study to investigate the use of social networks by Algerian
youth aged 8 to 24. He found that 84% of the surveyed population used Facebook, 8% used twitterand only 4% used MySpace. 37% of respondents indicated that making new friends was the main
reason for using social networks, 40% cited their usefulness in acquiring new knowledge, 11%mentioned effective communication and 18% networking. The results of the study also show that
65% of the surveyed population benefited from social networks in improving their foreign language
skills, 25% in strengthening national identity and belongingness and 11% in acquiring the ability
to convince in debates.
Research methods

35

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Data collection
To collect data for this study, a questionnaire instrument was designed based on the previous
literature. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) completely
inappropriate as a learning tool to (5) completely appropriate. The statistical package for social
sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. Four students and two faculty members pre-tested
the questionnaire. Based on their suggestions, the questionnaire was revised to its final form.
Survey population
Participants of this study consisted of master students at the Institute of Library and Documentation
Science at the University of Constantine 2. A request for participation along with 300
questionnaires was e-mailed to participants through the “Infocomdz” group. This is a discussion
group created by students of the University of Constantine 2 and using it to communicate and share
information and knowledge. Respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire which included
questions on type of social network used, frequency of use of social network sites, purpose for theuse of social network sites, perception about the usefulness of social network sites, and drawbacks
of social network sites. 140; a response rate of 46.66% usable questionnaires were subjected toanalysis.
Results
Participants
All respondents were master students at the Institute of Library and Documentation Science.
Female student participants (n=90; 64.28%) out- numbered male participants (n=50; 35.71%). In
actual fact the number of female students outnumbers the male students’ intake in general in
Algerian Universities. The age group of students is 21-28, those who grew up as active users ofdifferent internet applications i.e. the internet generation. All participants (n=140; 100%) reported
using social network sites (SNs) for different purposes and some of them have more than one social
media account.
Type of social network preferred by students
Respondents were asked which social network they prefer to use. Their preferences are summarizedin table 1. As expected, all respondents 140 (100%) gave the top rank to Facebook at a mean of
4.95. Previous studies also identified Facebook as the most frequently used SNs (Tiryakioglu andErzurum, 2011; Jabr, 2011; Battouche, 2012; Al Muitairi, 2013). Twitter is used by 70 (50%)
respondents as the second most popular social network site with a mean of 3.95. Respondents put
YouTube in third position in terms of importance with 40 (28.57%) users and a mean of 3.78. Othersocial network sites scored lower means i.e.: 2.75 for Skype that respondents use to communicate
with family and friends abroad. LinkedIn scored 2.01. MySpace is ranked last with only 5 (3.58%)
respondents at a mean of 1.40.
Table 1. Preferred social network sites (n=140)
Type of social
network
Facebook
YouTubeTwitter
Skype
LinkedInMySpace

Mean
4.95
3.95
3.78
2.75
2.01
1.40

Standard
Deviation
2.98
1.83
2.78
2.04
1.97
2.52

36

Numberof users
140
70
40
15
10
5

percentage Rank
100
50
28.57
10.70
7.15
3.58

1
2
3
4
5
6

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Purpose for using Social network sites
Respondents were asked to indicate the purpose for using social network sites. According to theresults in Table 2, it is clear that social network sites is primarily used as a communication tool for
exchanging e-mails, receiving the top rank with the highest mean 4.5. Keeping in touch with family
and friends is ranked second at a mean of 4.1. Making new virtual friends scored 3.98, followed bysharing photos, tracing an old friend, with means of 3.95 and 3.85 respectively. These results match
the findings of Gentzler and Oberhauser (2011) who reported that students use social networks
mostly for communication and socializing. Respondents use social networks to discuss groupproject works, share assignments and course work as well as files and lecture notes also scoringhigh means ranging from 3.78 to 3.35 and creating content and exchanging ideas at means of 2.98
and 2.50 respectively. This indicates that the surveyed population of this study uses social networks
not just for socializing and communication but also for academic activities. Respondents seem to
be interested in becoming global citizen by having a presence in the virtual world. Surprisingly,
the study found that joining discussion forums, searching for a job and downloading videos andaudios were the least reasons for using social network sites among the surveyed population. The
most likelihood is that participants are using other websites for online discussion and looking forjobs in other job announcement sources i.e. newspapers and job sites.
Table 2. Purpose for using social network sites (n=140)
PurposeCommunicate with others through e-mailKeep in touch with family and friends
Make new virtual friends worldwide
Share photos
Trace old friends
Have a presence in the virtual world
Discuss group project works
Share assignments and course work
Share files and lecture notes
Create content
Exchange ideas
Join discussion forums
Searching for a job
Download videos and audios
Make a presence in the cyber-space

Mean
4.5
4.1
3.98
3.95
3.85
3.83
3.78
3.50
3.35
2.92
2.50
2.35
2.25
2.00
1.98

Standard deviation
.62
.98
.74
1.00
1.05
.93
1.18
1.15
1.08
1.99
1.87
2.50
2.90
1.89
2.00

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Students’ perception about the usefulness of social network sites
The study intends to explore the students’ opinion about the usefulness of social network sites.
Results in table 3 show that SNs are primarily used for building relationships with a mean of 4.90
followed by “improve communication skills with 4.50 and develop social skills ranked third at amean of 4.30. These findings support the results in table 2 that indicate that social networking is
still more popular among Algerian students for communication and socializing. Respondents
perceive social networking appropriate for improving their foreign language skills. This could be
the reason for “making new virtual friends worldwide” being the fourth most important reason forusing social networks as shown in table 2. Participants seem a little less clear about the using SNs
to ‘‘share ideas, improve learning, make contact with faculty easier, and enhance academic
achievement” giving them means less than the mid-point 3. This could be attributed to the fact thatthe use of social networks in academic activities is still new and not perceived as a very important
tool for academic purposes (Al-Muitairi, 2013).
Table 3. Usefulness of social network sites (n=140)

37

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Statement
Build relationships with others
Improve communication skills
Develop social skills and modify
one’s behavior
Improve foreign language skills
Improve one’s personal image
Self regulated learning
Share ideas and promote creativity
Create Peer to peer learning
communities
Personalization of learning content
Improve learning in general
Make contact with faculty easier
Enhance academic achievement

Mean
4.90
4.50
4.30

Standard deviation
1.96
1.65
2.05

Rank
1
2
3

4.05
3.98
3.90
3.85
3.80

1.15
2.01
2.00
1.99
1.15

4
5
6
7
8

3.75
3.50
2.00
1.30

1.75
1.70
1.22
1.90

9
10
11
12

Drawbacks of using social network sites
Participants were asked to indicate the problems and drawbacks related to the use of social networksites. Their answers as reported in table 4 indicate that students are very much concerned about theviolation of their privacy rating it first with a mean of 3.73. They report that social networking istime consuming at a mean of 3.58. Participants seem to believe that social media is inappropriate
for formal academic activities. This finding is supported by previous literature which indicated thatsocial networks are used for some sort of informal academic purpose; for revision, arranging groupor project work, often initiated by students themselves and not part of a formal requirement of acourse (Downes, 2004). The reason for this are concerns about quality control of information
posted by students on social networks. Participants reported “discouraging face-to-facecommunication” ranking it before last with the lower mean score of 2.43. Finally, participants
believe that having a presence in the virtual world may turn them into schizophrenic leading two
separate lives; one in virtual world and one in real world. Respondents do not seem to provide
wrong information about themselves in that “it is easy to lie about one’s life” is ranked last. Some
respondents mentioned the use of YouTube and Skype where they can see whom they are
networking within a virtual environment.
Table 4. Social network sites drawbacks (n=140)
Statement
Violates privacy
Time consuming
Concerned about the quality of information
Not appropriate for formal academic activities
Discourages face-to-face communication
Can cause schizophrenia
Easy to lie about one’s situation

Means
3.73
3.58
3.35
2.87
2.43
2.25
2.00

Standard deviation
1.18
2.18
2.03
1.94
1.82
1.78
1.55

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Conclusion
Professional literature indicates an increase in the use of social network sites highlighting their
popularity among students. They are gradually making inroads as educational tools, and seem tohave the potential to support collaborative instruction and learning. The purpose of the present
study is to validate students’ perception of social media as support tools for enhancing academic
achievements. Results indicated a high use of social network sites. Participants showed a preference

38

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

for Facebook as the most popular tool. This is supported by Tiryakioglu’s and Erzurum’s (2011)
study. Participants are using social media mainly for communication and socializing. It is also used
for independent and collaborative learning and extending social networking. This is emphasized ina number of studies (Jabr, 2011; Dalsgaard, 2004; Palktzoglou, Stylianou, & Suhonen, 2014;
Paliktzoglou and Suhonen, 2014). However, perceptions of respondents expressed through thesurvey do not indicate that the use of social media is enhancing their academic achievements.
On the contrary, previous research provided experimental evidence that social media; specifically
Facebook is a great tool for collaborative learning. Results of the study indicate that respondents
are somehow apprehensive about social networks thinking that they violate their privacy, are time
consuming and discourage face-to-face communication. They also expressed concerns about
quality control of information and integrity. The same is expressed in the literature raising concerns
about privacy as well as information security and integrity as argued by Paliktzoglou and Suhonen,(2014). Results of this study cannot be generalized as they reported the views expressed by themaster students of Library and Documentation; only a small portion of students at the Universityof Constantine 2 (Algeria). Nevertheless, they provide an indication that social media gradually
making its way as a learning tool in Algerian universities. This suggests as faculty and students
become more engaged in learning and instruction through communication and collaboration, thisnew form of learning will get widespread in education.

39

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Alexakis, C., Paliktzoglou, V., & Suhonen, J. (2012). Assessment of familiarity, -adoption, and useof educational technology by higher education students in Cyprus. Cyprus In: Design
Thinking in Education, Media + Society Edited by:C Vrasidas, P Panaou. 154-163. ISBN:
978-9963-2802-1-6.
Al-Muitairi, S. (2013). Use of Facebook by faculty in Kuwait University. Proceedings of the
SLA/Gulf Chapter 19th Conference on the future of library profession. University of Qatar.
Battouche, K. (2012). Social networks and the globalization of culture: a study of Algerian youth
institutions. A paper presented at the second international conference on “the place of social
sciences and their role in studying contemporary issues: orientations and future prospects”
Oman, December 16-18 (paper in Arabic).
Blake, Y., & Sikkal, J. (1996). Will the Internet revolutionize business education and research?
Sloan Management Review, 37(3), 34-41.
Boumarafi, B. (2010). Strategies for the delivery of e-information services to support the e-learning
environment at the University of Sharjah. The Electronic Library, 28(2), 276-285.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Brotherton, P. (2011). Social network enhance employee learning. ABI/INFORM Complete, 65(4),18.
comScore. (2007). Social networking goes global. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1555.
Dalsgaard, C. (2004). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm.
Downes, S. (2004). From classrooms to learning environments: a midrange projection of e-learningtechnologies. College Quarterly, 7(3). Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.collegequarterly.ca/2004-vol07-num03-summer/downes.html.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" social
capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer MediatedCommunication, 12(4), 1-26.
Friedman, L. W., & Friedman, H. H. (2008). High impact areas of the new media technologies: A
review. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.morexpertise.com/download.php?id=97.
Gentzler, A., & Oberhauser, A. (2011). College students’ use of electronic communication withparents: links to loneliness, attachment and relationship quality. Behavior and Social
Networking, 14, 71-75.
Jabr, N. H. (2011). Social networking as a tool for extending academic learning and communication,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 93- 102.
Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2012). Facebook make users envious and dissatisfied. Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.hu-berlin.de/press-portal/nachrichtenen/nr1301/nr_130121_00.

40

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Malesky, L. A., & Peters, C. (2012). Defining appropriate professional behavior for faculty anduniversity students on social networking websites. Higher Education, 63, 135-151.
Maney, K. (2009). "Next: an internet revolution in higher education." Bloomberg Businessweek.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2009/tc20090914_969227.htm.
Palktzoglou, V., Stylianou, T., & Suhonen, J. (2014). Google educational apps as a collaborative
learning tool among computer science learners. In: Assessing the Role of Mobile
Technologies and Distance Learning in Higher Education Edited by: P. Ordóñez de Pablos,
R.D. Tannyson, M.D. Lytras. 272-296 IGI Global isbn: 9781466673168.
Paliktzoglou, V., & Suhonen, J. (2014) Facebook as an assisted learning tool in problem-basedlearning: the Bahrain case International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning
Environments, 2(1), 85-100.
Reuben, R. (2008). The Use of social network sites in higher education for marketing andcommunications: a guide for professionals in higher education. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://convergeconsulting.org/eduguru/2008/08/use-social-media-higher-educationmarketing-and-communications-guide-professionals-higher-education/.
Tiryakioglu, F., & Erzurum, F. (2011). Use of social networks as an educational use. Contemporary
Education Technology, 2(2), 135-150.
Zuckerberg,
M. (2011).
Facebook.
RetrievedJuly20,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1371433/Mark-Zuckerberg.

41

2015,

from

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

42

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Assessing the Applicability of 3D Holographic Technology as an Enhanced
Technology for Distance Learning
Pradeep Kalansooriya, Ashu Marasinghe, and K.M.D.N. Bandara

43

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
Distance learning has provided an excellent platform for students in geographically remotelocations while enabling them to learn at their own pace and convenience. A number oftechnologies are currently being utilized to conceptualize, design, enhance and foster distancelearning. Teleconferences, electronic field trips, podcasts, webinars, video conferencing andonline courses are among such technologies used in providing distance learning opportunities.
However limitations in those existing technologies have affected to the increase of distance learners
dropout rates. As an attempt to overcome the limitations in the currently adopted distance learning
practices, the study aims to utilize 3D Hologram Technology (3DHT) in the Engineering discipline.
3D hologram facilitates live and life size 3D telepresence that can interact with remote audiences.
A survey had been conducted, using Delphi Technique to gather data from the experts in the field
to evaluate the potential of 3DHT over existing technologies. Results of the survey suggested that
3DHT as a good distance learning technology and have the potential of overcoming existing
limitations. Lack of infrastructure, High initial cost of infrastructure and Lack of technical know
how are the main encounters identified by the experts in the sample. It is expected to develop aclassroom environment with 3DHT and to evaluate its effectiveness for the distance learning in thenext stage of the study.
Keywords: Distance learning; 3D hologram technology; 3D telepresence; classroom environment.

44

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Distance Education
Distance Education or Distance Learning is a field of education that focuses on teaching methods
and technology with the aim of delivering teaching, often on an individual basis, to students who
are not physically present in a traditional educational setting such as a classroom (Subrahmanyam& Ravichandran, 2013). Fundamentals of distance education are that teachers and students are indifferent places for all or most of the time that they teach and learn. Hence it requires some formof communication technology to connect the teacher and the student. Accordingly, Bratt (1977)
stated that history of distance education dates back to the early 18th century, nonetheless conclusive
evidences were found in 1833 in the form of advertisement by old Swedish university city of Lund,
which offered opportunities to study through the medium of the post. Another early attempt toprovide distance education was made in England by Isaac Pitman who taught shorthand on
postcards (Holmberg, 2005).
Distance Education has progressed in leaps and bounces due to the fast evolution of communication
technology allowing faster and convenient opportunities for the students and teachers. Webinar,
Teleconference, Podcast, Virtual world and Blogs are some of the modern communication
technologies used in Distance Education. Some of the modern communication technologies andtheir advantages and disadvantages had been summarized in Table 1. Accordingly, difficulty ofinteracting between teacher and student was noticeable in different levels on almost every
technology compared to the conventional classroom interaction with teacher and student. Hencedeveloping innovative communication technology, which eliminates difficulties of interacting
between teacher and student, will be exciting area of research.
Table 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of exiting communication technologies of Distance
Education
Communication
Technology
Webinar

Virtual world

PodcastDescription

Advantages
Ability of real timesharing of knowledge
and learning
Opportunity for
immediate access tothe instructor to ask
questions and receive
answersComputer simulated
environment thatenables users tointeract with each other 
without geographicalconfines. An avatar
represents each user.
(Harris & Rea, 2009)

Ability of interacting
large number ofcommunities
Ability of costeffective and robust
simulation for
educational activities

Ability of using thematerials repeatedly
Ability of using any
time user want

 Only one sided
interaction is possible
 They are stagnant.
Once created, theycannot be changed or
modified

Instructor leads thelearning, and alllearners are logged on
simultaneously andcommunicate directlywith each other (Shi &Morrow, 2006)

It involves
downloading a seriesof audio or video
broadcasts (files) onto
a digital media player,

Disadvantages





45





Only 2D
communication can be
possible, hence goodinteraction cannot be
possible
Requires quality
bandwidth andcomputing power
Avatar or graphicalrepresentation is not
real, so that theinteraction between theparties are artificial
Requires quality
bandwidth andcomputing power

The IAFOR Journal of Education

via a computer, over a
period of weeks(Evans, 2008)
Text basedmaterials

Technologies & Education Special EditionElectronic fieldtrip

Use digital andcomputer visualization
techniques based on
the personal computerand internet(Qiu & Hubble, 2002)




No special facilities
or equipment areneeded to use it
Ability of easy
navigating; random
access of specificportions is convenientand fast
Ability of presenting
trips to inaccessible
areas
Provide an alternativeof fieldwork, whentime, expenses,
and/or logistics arereal issuesInteractivity is moredifficult to achievewith print than withsome other media

Do not convey the true
three-dimensional
nature of objects
Do not convey the nonvisual and aural
feelings of touch, smell
etc

Among all these technologies, Virtual Environments (VE) have been subjected to many researches
over the years for its potential of facilitating for education in many disciplines, such as, learningsciences, computer science, psychology, communication, etc… (Bailenson et al, 2008). There arenumber of learning opportunities provided by VEs as learning modules stems from their ability to
implement contexts and relationships not possible to achieve in a traditional learning setting.
Embodiment of agents that teach and learn
In recent studies many efforts have been made to create intelligent virtual agents who teach alearner about a specific domain. Rickel and colleagues’ work (1998) on evaluating the possibilityof using virtual agents in performing complex mechanical tasks in a learning VE, the creation of avirtual tutor for teaching the fundamentals of hardware and operating systems developed based on
the natural language processing interface (Hill et al., 2003), the digitally augmented dollhouse thatencourages children to tell stories as a way of promoting literary competencies (Cassell, 2004) aresome of the noteworthy examples of such. Virtual agents not only allow a user to enter into alearning experience at his or her own convenience, but they can also provide personalized one-onone learning experiences tailored to the individual that would be prohibitively expensive otherwise(Baylor & Kim, 2005).
Existence of Co-learners
There is a factual reality on the success rate of students learning in groups outperform students inindividualistic conditions (Johnson, Johnson, & Skon, 1979; Wood, Willoughby, Reilly, Elliot, &DuCharme, 1995). Therefore, in the reality, it is a substantial shortcoming of the typicalindividualized learning environments with virtual teachers. However the introduction of colearners in VEs, as a solution for the aforementioned issue, have been thoroughly studied andconfirmed conceivably better than a traditional classroom since virtual co-learners can be
programmed to behave specifically to enhance each user’s learning process (Bailenson et al., 2008).
Studies conducted to evaluate the credibility of having virtual co-learners in the process of learningsuggest that co-learner’s positive behavior can enhance a user’s increased performance (Ju, Nickell,Eng, & Nass, 2005).
Visualizations

46

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Visualization is one of the salient features of VEs. It helps the users with visual, haptic and auditory
cues to enhance and swift between different perspectives of a given set of complex information.
For an example, the study conducted by Perdomo and the team in 2005 concluded that abstract
concepts such as architectural settings, engineering setups, or chemical structures can beconveniently understood by the user, if they were enabled to create, alter, and rotate in real time
three dimensions. In addition enabling users with multiple perspectives on the same situation central, peripheral, bird’s-eye view, and so on, assist them in the learning process through allowing
them to understand different aspects of the situation clearly (Ellis, Tharp, Grunwald, & Smith,1991).
Synthesis of archived behaviors
One of the strong suits of VEs, which was highly noted by many scholars, is that every single actionthat is rendered must be formally represented in order to appear to the users. Subsequently every
action carried out by the users can be constantly recorded over time, and assimilation of such data
can be used to evaluate behavioral profiles (Bailenson et al., 2008). For example, Rizzo andcolleagues (2000) automatically collected the gaze behavior of students in a virtual classroom via
head-tracking devices and used patterns of attention and gaze to diagnose deficits in attention
among children. Bailenson and team (2008) clearly mentioned that when the behavioral tracking
systems become more elaborate, the ability to use this information to track student performanceand consequently improve learning systems should become a major advantage of using virtual
classrooms.
3D Hologram Technology
Evolution of 3D Hologram Technology (3DHT)
Holography can be referring to as a method of obtaining photographic image in three dimensions(Ahmad, 2014). It involves the use of a laser, interference, and deflection, light intensity recording
and suitable illumination of the recording. (Upadhye, 2013) specified that the term hologram becomposed of the Greek terms, "holos" for "whole view" and gram for "written". However thetechnical term for the holography is wave front reconstruction.
Dennis Gabor Hungarian Physicist is considered as the father of Holography as he invented thistechnique when he was working on to improve his electron microscope. However (Chavis, 2009)
noted that the technique was not fully exploited till 1960s, as the laser technology had not been
improved to standards. Records indicate that by the time of 1962 scientists in both in United Statesand Soviet Union had developed 3D holographic technology. Today Holograms is expanding its
boundaries from science fictions to one of world’s attractive communication method. Live andrealistic 3D hologram representations can now interact with their distance audiences whether they
are a band or artist performing on stage, a politician delivering a keynote speech, announcers
broadcasting a live program simultaneously from different places or a CEO holding an interactive
meeting with colleagues around the world.
Process of 3DHTAs per the following figure 1 the two laser beams reach the recording medium, their light waves
intersect and interfere with each other. Those interferences are imprinted on the recording medium
and can be considered an encrypted version of the scene. In order to view its contents require alaser beam identical to the original light source used to record the hologram. When such laser isbeamed at the developed film, it illuminates the hologram and it is diffracted by the hologram's
surface pattern. This phenomenon produces a light field identical to the one originally produced by
the scene and scattered onto the hologram. The image this effect produces in a person's retina is
known as a virtual image.
47

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 1. Recording a hologram
About some of the famous examples, which are recognized as implications of 3DHT, there aresome contradictive opinions expressing that those are truly not 3DHT implications. Narendra
Modi’s election campaign and Michael Jackson performance on the 2014 Billboard Music Awards
are two such events that commonly considered implications of 3DHT but have contradictive
opinions. Some expertise argues that those events are advancement of Pepper Ghost Technology.
“Pepper’s Ghost” occurs when a semitransparent image appears in front of a background and it
involves reflecting an image from a beam splitter placed in front of a scene. "Pepper's Ghost"provides only a single reflection. It does not allow multiple planes of transparent images.
Furthermore, it cannot produce images that pass through each other in a direction parallel to theoptical path to the viewer. Figure 2 simply graphically demonstrates the process of Pepper’s Ghost.
Table 2. Recent real-world implications of 3DHT
ExampleNarendra Modi’s
election campaign

Description
The prime minister of India, Modi usedholographic technology in his election
campaign 2012. He Addressed thevotersindifferent
locations
simultaneously through filmed speeches
by broadcasting them live via a satellite
uplink to the stages. (Musion, 2014)

Electionresult At the election coverage program 2008
broadcasting
on in America announcer in Chicago was
CNN - 2008
beamed up into Wolf Blitzer's studio in
New York with a very realistic display.
This event attracted millions viewers towatch the hologram effect via aYouTube clip.

Features
Offered a 3D convincing
view of the president.
Addressed different
locations simultaneouslySensed that two announcers
were at same place.
Interaction between
announcers were attractive
and efficientRealistic view of theannouncer

Michael Jackson Beaming Michel Jackson’s performance Performance was creative andperformance on the on to the stage commenced billboard attractive as the famous
2014
Billboard Music Award 2014. (Gallo, 2014)
character brought to life again.
Music Awards

48

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 2. Reconstructing a hologram
Despite the contradictive arguments most of those implications are considered as implications of
3DHT. To conclude appropriate definition and process requires deep review of literature, which is
not in the scope of this study. Hence both those processes are considered under 3DHT and
implications from both processes are taken in to consideration in latter parts of this study.
Implications of 3DHT
Currently 3DHT is 3DHT has been used in many fields due its increasing popularity. Some of therecent implications are summarized in the table 2. “Narendra Modi’s” election campaign by using
3DHT was noteworthy example. As India is a very large country successful election campaign is achallenging task. Using 3DHT for the election campaign helped the speakers to address different
locations simultaneously through filmed speeches by broadcasting them live via a satellite uplink
to the stages. Those views of the politicians were very convincing, thus it was very attractive andtouched the people who had never seen a politician addressing them so close to them. Anotherexample of 3DHT, which attracted millions of YouTube viewers, was Election result broadcastingon CNN – 2008. It allowed two announcers in two different places to broadcast the results with
better interaction and creativity. Michael Jackson performance on the 2014 Billboard MusicAwards was another exciting example 3DHT. It was a fascinating and creative performance for thefans of Michael Jackson as the famous character brought to life again. In addition to above
examples, some Museums use 3DHT to bring world-renowned masterpieces to life again.
The importance of 3DHT on education
It may possible to take advantages of some of the features mentioned in the table 2. Those featuresin the table 2 can be review and summarized as follows:






Ability of offering convincing and realistic view of the user
Ability of communicating users in different locations
Ability of attractive and efficient communication
Ability of bringing famous characters back to life

49

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Students and teachers can afford to communicate and interact even though they were very far fromeach other. Students might benefit from the realistic and convincing views of the study materials.
The hologram teacher appears to be in the classroom, and can see and speak to the students as if
they were all in the same room, which enables attractive and efficient interaction between student
and teacher. Further to that it can enhance the educational process by bringing famous charactersto life again from the past, and they speak about themselves and/or explain something as an
assistant teacher would be attractive for the students. However those potentials have not been
testified realistically yet. Thus this study attempts to provide an initial groundwork for the above
purpose.
Methodology
Questionnaire and sampling procedure
The questionnaire adapted in this study comprised with three parts with an objective of evaluating
experience and ideas in a distance-learning environment. First part of the questionnaire aimed tocompare important factors in teaching environment and evaluate the level of importance of video
based education and hologram based education. Important factors in teaching environment whichwere used in the questionnaire is shown in figure 1. Second part of the questionnaire focused on
the evaluation of the applicability of hologram technology in classroom environment by identifying
major barriers and technical difficulties in implementing a hologram based classroom. Finally, thethird section comprises of general information of the responder. Qualitative responses were
quantified through a 1 to 5 Likert scale where 1 indicated the strong disagreement while 5 indicatedthe strong agreement level.

Figure 1. Factors and indicators of effective teaching environment

50

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Since, 3DH is a developing technology therefore the awareness about 3DHT is at a lower point
among general public, experts’ views were considered for the study. The Delphi technique 1 wasused in selection of the sample of 25 each from two categories; University Academia, and IT related
professionals. Only 17 (43.6%) and 22 (56.4%) participants have responded and considered valid
for the analysis of the study respectively.
Analysis Procedure
Data obtained from the survey had been analyzed in three stages using Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), Descriptive analysis, and Analysis of Variation (One-Way ANOVA) consecutively. AHP
was used to conduct a pair wise comparison of factors of effective teaching environment andthereby to evaluate the suitability (according to the perceptions of participants) of Video technology
based education and Hologram technology based education. Means and Standard Deviations of thedependent variables; Likability to use 3DHt, Cost effectiveness, and Students’ active involvement,
were used to describe the behavior of the sample. Finally, the mean differences of groups within
separate categories; gender, experience, Profession/ Expertise were calculated using Analysis of
Variation (One-Way ANOVA).
Analysis
Pairwise comparison of importance of factors related to teaching and learning environment
Each respondent in the sample was given an opportunity to make pair wise comparison between‘Effective communication’, ‘Interactive teaching methods’, ‘Diversity in method of presentation’,‘Lecture breaks’, and ‘Classroom environment’ and requested to give weights according to thelevel of importance. According to AHP ‘Interactive teaching methods’ and ‘Effective
communication’ are the factors rated highly with generalized weights of 26.58% and 24.13%
respectively.
Table 1. Results of pairwise comparison of factors related to teaching and learning environment
FactorInteractive teaching methods
Effective communication
Diversity in method ofpresentation
Classroom environment
Lecture breaks

Weights
(%)
26.58
24.19
19.88
16.71
12.65

Comparison of video based education and hologram based education for the factors related
to teaching environment
The participants were asked to rank the level of importance on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is thelowest and the 5 is the highest. The Figure 2 and Table 3 illustrate the level of importance that eachfactor received for both teaching mechanisms. Almost all the factors were recorded important otherthan for lecture breaks for both categories. Additionally Hologram based distance education wasrecorded important for factors other than ‘Lecture breaks’ in relation to video based education.
Further it was statistically proven by the generalized mean of 3.892 (Standard Deviation: 0.453).

1"The Delphi technique is well suited as a method for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires delivered
using multiple iterations to collect data from a panel of selected subjects."(Hsu & Sandford, 2007).

51

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Table 2. Comparison of video based education and hologram based education

Video based distance education
Hologram based distanceeducation

N
39

Minimum Maximum
1.608
4.355

39

2.759

4.747

Mean
2.948

Std.
Deviation
0.710

3.892

0.453

Figure 2. Comparison of video based education and hologram based education for the factors
related to teaching environment
Perceptions on 3D Hologram based classroom environment
One –way ANOVA statistical test was performed to test whether there are differences between
independent variables; gender, experience, and employment groups.
Likability to engage
Table 3. Perceptions on likability to engage in 3D Hologram based classroom environment

Male
Female≤10 year experience>10 year experience
University
Academia
IT related
professionals
Total

N
(%)
61.5
38.5
48.7
51.3

Mean
3.96
4.47
4.42
3.90

Std.
Deviation
1.429
0.640
0.607
1.553

Minimum
1
3
3
1

Maximu
m
5
5
5
5

43.6

3.59

1.583

1

5

56.4
100

4.59
4.15

0.503
1.204

4
1

5
5

There is a statistically significant difference between University academia and IT related
professionals (F (1,37) = 7.851, p = 0.008). No other groups have indicated heterogeneity withingroups mentioned above. Tukey post-hoc test was not possible, since there is no any group consists
with at least three sub categories.

52

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Cost effectiveness
Table 4. Perceptions on cost effectiveness of 3D Hologram based classroom environment

Male
Female≤10 yearexperience>10 yearexperience
University
Academia
IT related
professionals
Total

N
(%)
61.5
38.5

Std.
Mean Deviation
3.33
0.868
3.40
0.910

48.7

3.53

0.841

1

4

51.3

3.20

0.894

1

4

43.6

3.18

1.015

1

4

56.4
100

3.50
3.36

0.740
0.873

1
1

4
4

Minimum Maximum
14
14There is no statistically significant difference between groups mentioned above.
Students’ active involvement
Table 5. Perceptions on active involvement of students in 3D Hologram based classroom
environment

Male
Female≤10 yearexperience>10 yearexperience
University
Academia
IT related
professionals
Total

N
(%)
61.5
38.5

Mean
3.38
3.60

Std.
Deviation
1.279
1.183

48.7

4.11

0.937

1

5

51.3

2.85

1.182

1

5

43.6

3.24

1.348

1

5

56.4
100

3.64
3.46

1.136
1.232

1
1

5
5

Minimum Maximum
15
15There is a statistically significant difference between experience groups (F (1,37) = 13.417, p= .001). No other groups have indicated heterogeneity within groups mentioned above. Tukey posthoc test was not possible, since there is no any group consists with at least three sub categories.
Major barriers in implementing 3D Hologram based classroom
Participants responded vividly to the question regarding major barriers in implementing 3DH basedclassroom. ‘Lack of infrastructure’ and ‘High initial cost of infrastructure’ have been identified as
the main two barriers with Mean values reached more than 4.00. Additionally ‘Limited bandwidth’
was also identified as a secondary roadblock in the process of implementing 3D Hologram basedclassroom (Table 7, Figure 3).

53

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Table 6. Major barriers in implementing 3D Hologram based classroom

Lack of infrastructureHigh initial cost of infrastructure
Bandwidth limitations
Backwardness in adapting to new
trendsLack of technical know-how

Minimum Maximum Mean2
5 4.362
5 4.232
5 3.46
1
1

5
5

3.08
3.92

Std.
Deviation
0.811
0.872
0.854
1.265
1.178

Figure 3. Graphical representation of major barriers in implementing 3D Hologram basedclassroom
Perceived benefits of 3D Hologram based classroom
At least 30% of the respondents believed that 3DH classrooms enhance the real time experience ofstudents through 3D perceptual effects and effective in both theoretical and practical subject
content delivery. Fifteen percent of the sample believed that 3DH classrooms in distance learning
have the power to enhance effective interaction between student and teacher while reaching out formass audiences regardless of distance and time barriers (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Perceived benefits of 3D Hologram based classroom
Discussion and Conclusion
3DH is recognized as an applicable and strongly appreciated technology for distance education in
the comparison with the video based distance learning. All the experts, irrespective to their domain,interviewed in the study shared the common conception that 3DH is far better than video based
education for distance education. However, the experts have no clear cut idea about the costeffectiveness and active involvement of students in 3DH classroom. There is a significant
54

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Editiondifference in perceptions between University academia and IT related professionals on likability toengage 3DHT based classroom. IT related professionals share a stronger level of agreement onlikability to engage 3DHT based classroom than the University academia. University academia
seemed to conceive the idea of 3DHT as an encounter rather than a feasible and encouraging modeof education in real world application. However an explicit demonstration is due in the next stepof this study. Even though the participants disagreed upon the applicability of 3DHT, all of themslightly agreed that it is a cost effective mode of distance education. Further, the perceptions on
cost effectiveness of 3DHT based classroom did not show a significant difference under any groupclassification selected in this study. There is a significant difference in perceptions between
experience level groups on active involvement of students in 3DHT based classroom. Participants
with less experience strongly suggested that students will accept 3DHT and involve actively inlearning process while the participants with higher level of experience didn’t. The reasons givenby the experienced experts were again related with the reason given by university academia onlikability to engage 3DHT based classroom.
Lack of infrastructure, High initial cost of infrastructure and Lack of technical know how are themain barriers identified by the experts in the sample. Nevertheless, majority of respondents
believed that 3DH classrooms enhance the real time experience of students through 3D perceptual
effects and is an effective mode of delivery in both theoretical and practical subject content.
In the study design authors had to confine the size of the sample since it wasn’t easy to find enoughexperts for the interview and some aspects of the study found obsolete because of theaforementioned. Therefore it is suggested to redefine the sample size in the next step of study alongwith interactive demonstrations on the applications of 3DHT.
However finally it was concluded that 3DH is an applicable and strongly appreciated technology
for distance education with some drastic measures in the design of subject modules offered in
distance learning programs.

55

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Ahmad, S. A. (2014). Holography in the Nigerian education system: readiness for a redress.
Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education
ICHE2014. 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 291-310.
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of
immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students,and social context. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102-141.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogicalagents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,15(1), 95-115.
Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a model of technology and literacy development: Story listening
systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 75–105.
Chavis, J. (2009). 3D holographic technology. Retrieved July
http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_5448579_holographic-technology.html.

20,

2015,

from

Ellis, S. R., Tharp, G. K., Grunwald, A. J., & Smith, S. (1991). Exocentric judgments in realenvironments and stereoscopic displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 35, No. 20, pp. 1442-1446). SAGE Publications.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher
education. Computers & education, 50(2), 491-498.
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers &Education, 49(4), 1147-1160.
Gallo, P. (2014, May 18). Michael Jackson Hologram Rocks Billboard Music Awards: Watch &Go
Behindthe
Scenes.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.billboard.com/articles/events/bbma-2014/6092040/michael-jackson-hologrambillboard-music-awards.
Harris, A. L., & Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on IS
education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 137.
Hill Jr, R. W., Gratch, J., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., Swartout, W. R., & Traum, D. R. (2003). Virtual
Humans in the Mission Rehearsal Exercise System. Künstliche Intelligenz, 4(3), 5-10.
Holmberg, B., Hrsg. Bernath, & Busch, F. W. (2005). The evolution, principles and practices of
distance education (Vol. 11). Bis Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität
Oldenburg.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.unioldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/c3l/master/mde/download/asfvolume11_eBook.pdf.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Skon, L. (1979). Student achievement on different types of tasks
under cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditions. Contemporary educational
psychology, 4(2), 99-106.
Ju, W., Nickell, S., Eng, K., & Nass, C. (2005, April). Influence of co-learner agent behavior onlearner performance and attitudes. In CHI'05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 1509-1512). ACM.
Perdomo, J. L., Shiratuddin, M. F., Thabet, W., & Ananth, A. (2005, July). Interactive 3D
visualization as a tool for construction education. In Information Technology Based Higher

56

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Education and Training, 2005. ITHET 2005. 6th International Conference on (pp. F4B-23).
IEEE.
Musion. (2014). Musion. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://musion.com/?portfolio=narendramodi-campaign-2014.
Qiu, W., & Hubble, T. (2002). The advantages and disadvantages of virtual field trips in geoscienceeducation. The China Papers, 13, 75-79.
Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1998, May). STEVE (video session): a pedagogical agent for virtual
reality. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Autonomous agents (pp.
332-333). ACM.
Rizzo, A., Klimchuk, D., & Mitura, R. (2004, March). The Virtual Classroom: A Virtual
Environment for the Assessment of Attention Processes in Children with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder. In Virtual Reality for Public Consumption, IEEE Virtual Reality 2004
Workshop, Chicago IL (Vol. 27).
Subrahmanyam, V., & Ravichandran, K. (2013). Technology Online Distance Mode of
Learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(1), 5-13.
Shi, S., & Morrow, B. V. (2006). E-Conferencing for Instruction: What Works? Educause
quarterly, 29(4), 42.
Upadhye, S. (2013). Use of 3D Hologram Technology in Engineering Education. IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 62-67. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/sicete(mech)-volume4/43.pdf.
Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Reilley, S., Elliott, S., & DuCharme, M. (1995). Evaluating students'
acquisition of factual material when studying independently or with a partner. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 65(2), 237-247.

57

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

58

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Social Media in Tertiary Education-Vhembe Further Education Training
College Case Study
Manzira Francis Mungofa and Tsvara Peter

59

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
Social media technologies are being widely used by students in institutions of higher education andthese are transforming their way of learning, social conduct, communication and networking. The
intend of this research was conducted to determine value of social media technologies to students
in higher education but with a focus that was directed towards students in a vocational training
college. A random sample of 105 students from Vhembe Further Education Training College (FET)
participated in the study and they were the following departments, Business/Finance, Engineering,
Hospitality and Tourism. Analysis of results was executed through application of SPSS statisticalpackage. Findings show that social media technology has infused a new culture of learning among
students. In addition, social media applications which are being widely used by students forlearning activities that include studying, access of education content, and social communication
are: Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and YouTube.
Keywords: Learning culture; social media; social networking technologies.

60

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Background of study
Trends in technology developments are altering the course of some existing models andmethodologies of enhancing student learning to those who are who are engaged in both formal andinformal education. Most initiatives for educational technologies are affected by a broad range ofchallenges that include weak bandwidth, lack of qualified personnel in the field of technology andold infrastructure, (Carr & Czerniewicz, 2011). Social media technology usage has increased in thepast five years due to a combination of factors that entails affordability of the mobile devices andincreased internet bandwidth amongst the consumers. (Bell, 2010; Selwyn, 2012). This paper willaddress the concept of social media technologies being used in the field of higher education. Social
media is being widely used through desktop computers and mobile devices. Trubitt and Overholtzer(2009) indicated in their research that social networks have been embedded in people’s cultures
resulting in creation of personal and professional networks.
The most popular interfaces being used are Facebook, Flicker and Twitter although the list of someis endless. Users can connect in cyberspace, creating groups that enable sharing and exchanging of
information and ideas. According to Zanamwe, Rupere and Kufandirimbwa (2013), social
networking technologies were received with mixed reactions by academics in developing countries
although the trend seems to be in their favor of adoption. The social networking technologies
improve computer skills of a student who may not have had access to formal introductory computer
courses. The increase of social media tools has contributed towards an increase in user generated
content through use of self-help tutorials that are freely available from the internet.
Research Objectives
This research seeks to establish whether social media technologies are being considered as
disruptive or complimentary technologies in the context of Further Education Training College
located in the rural environment. Another aspect will focus on how the technologies are benefiting
students in the rural environment where technological changes lag behind unlike in the urban areas.
Literature review
Social media in learning
Social media technology is now an essential requirement in people’s daily lives contributed by a
combination of factors that include growth of affordability of mobile computing devices, improved
internet wireless bandwidth, social media technologies and several other web 2.0 technologies(Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). The present day college students are exposed toexisting, new and emerging technologies in many aspects of their lives (Browning, Gerlich, &Westermann, 2011). They use the following devices on daily basis: e-readers, tablets, desktop
computers, laptops, and cell phones / mobile devices to actively engage in social networking, text
messaging, blogging, content sharing, online learning, and much more (Cassidy, Griffin,
Manolovitz, Shen, & Turney, 2011). Paliktzoglou and Suhonen (2014) argued that concept behindsocial media tools were not a new phenomenon as interfaces such as chat rooms, internet forums,
message boards, web communities and blogs were being used since the revolution of internet.
In social media, people use the web based and mobile applications for social interaction. In addition,individuals and organizations can generate new content, share existing content in the cyberspace.
A number of interfaces used for social media have increased with Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp,

61

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

MySpace, and Flicker being among the top. (Davis, Deil-Amen, Rios-Aguilar & GonzalezCanchem, 2012; Junco, Heibergert, & Loken, 2010).
The social media tools and networking sites enables students to engage with one another, express
and share their creativity. There are drawbacks associated with social media technology especiallywhen students develop a continuous usage of internet which encompasses reduction in higher-orderreasoning processes. In addition continuous internet use is likely to exposes students to interactive,
repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure, WCER (2011).
Zanamwe, et al. (2013), Greenhow and Gleason (2012), Junco, Elasky and Heighberger (2012)
revealed in their research, that students who improved in their communication, technology andresearch skills, assist in helping student connection with application concept as well as increasing
student engagement in course material, through the use of social media which are critical in theirdevelopment. This is an indication that social media technologies contribute positively behind theclassroom but to a student’s life experience, knowledge and skills this develops over a period oftime. Application of social media in education would imply that learners have to take lead byparticipating, producing knowledge rather that consuming only which in turn contribute towards
support of personal life goals and needs (Lee & McLoughlin, 2010). A point to note is that learners
do not only engage in social interaction on the social media but contribute in the shaping of theircareer and personal life that form key components of personal development.
Application of social media in student recruitment
International universities have embraced social media for international recruitment of students due
to increased competition and reduced funding by the governments. In order to meet the recruitment
targets, it is important for colleges and universities to adapt to changes as the social media
technology platforms enable them to reach out a large target of potential students across the world(Choudaha, 2013). The use of websites by the institutions reduces communication costs overgeographic distances and in addition, disintermediation will reduce the communication channel
since students are able to connect directly. However institutions need to remain guarding against
loss of information control due to the unlimited number of social applications available. It should
be noted that social media conversations are informal which requires high interaction for the parties
involved which enables deep engagement with prospective students intending to enroll at a given
institution.
Disruptiveness of technologies in higher education
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have significantly invested in electronic learning technologies
such as Blackboard, and Moodle, but they have not been universally adopted and used by students
and staff. Instead, other technologies such as social media or social networking technologies which
are not owned or controlled by the institutions are widely used to support learning and teaching(Flavin, 2012). Disruptive technologies are those that disrupt established practices, often startingwith a small number of users, but growing over time to the extent that they displace a previously
dominant, incumbent technology. Christensen's theory of Disruptive Innovation (1997) emphasizes
that the disruptive technologies are not designed explicitly to support learning and teaching inhigher education, but have educational potential. The theory propounded by Christensen (1997)shows that new technology can disrupt existing practices which may run a risk of rejection, butalso that the new technology can go on to change the practice itself. Facebook is a success story inhigher education when compared to other social networks because of easy to use features and isdeemed as a lightweight technology (Boyd & Ellison, 2010). As such, educators’ interests haveincrease both in use and research of Facebook.

62

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

However, Facebook, Google, and other web based applications can simultaneously seize andfragment a human being’s attention. They have the possibility to subvert higher-order reasoning
activities, that include the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence that is necessary for criticalthinking and intellectual development (Wisconsin Centre for Education Research, 2011).
Significance of technologies in higher education
Social media supported learning seems to be occurring more outside the formal higher education
system as opposed to the internal systems since several platforms are being used to distributelearning content and courseware, and a list among them include YouTube, EDU, iTunes U,
Academic Earth. Applications used by students do differ from across the continent although there
is a list of popular interfaces widely accessed, (Selwyn, 2011). In the South African context, MXit
which is an indigenous mobile social networking platform, has played a crucial role in the spreadof the mobile Internet in South Africa (Bosch, 2008; Chigona, Chigona, Ngqokelela, & Mpofu,
2009; Nitsckie & Parker, 2009). The cost of social media technology is minimal to such an extent
that students can be able to afford both the devices and amount of data required to accessapplications such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and Mixit. For example, more than 7.4 million
registered MXit users (Worldwideworx, 2014) in South Africa pay only 1 South African cent
(US$.0012) per instant message. A latest encouraging trend among the general population that willentail the overall population of students was the announcement by CNBCAFRICA (2014) that gave
East African customers free access to Facebook social networking site across all mobile networks
after a strategic partnership with Tigo. A very positive development was the ability of the Facebook
site to be offered in English and Swahili, the national language of Tanzanians and the majority ofpeople in East, Central and Southern Africa. Below was a quote from the general manager, Diego
Gutierrez.
“Facebook has been a fantastic driver of data on mobile networks. With this unique partnership,
we are making Tigo stand out from the crowd and giving many customers their first taste of theinternet and social media, including in Swahili. That’s what creating the digital lifestyle all isabout, and it reinforces our strategy to encourage more Tigo customers to use data as part of their
daily communications activity,”
Paliktzoglou and Suhonen (2014)’s research findings support that using Facebook can increase
student engagement through communication and collaboration which makes it an importanteducational tool to support Problem Based Learning, (PBL).
Past research indicates that incorporation of social media in learning and teaching has the power tobring new ways of enquiry, communication, collaboration, knowledge development; in addition it
can have negative or positive cognitive, social and emotional impacts. (Gao, Luo, & Zhang, 2012;
Greenhow & Burton, 2011; Pimmer, Linxen, & Grohbiel, 2012; Ranieri, Manca, & Fini, 2012).
Methodology
Case study approach was considered most suitable for this study as it seeks to “build up a rich
picture of an entity, using different kinds of data collection and gathering the views, perceptions,experiences and/or ideas of diverse individuals relating to the case.” (Hamilton, 2011). Yin (1994),
defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within
its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are notclearly evident and it relies on multiple sources of evidence”. This enhances the understanding of
the reality in the rural settings thereby enhancing the development of conclusion that will enable todetermine the contribution of social media technology in higher education. This research covered
Vhembe Further Education Training College. A questionnaire was used to collect primary data. It
comprised of three sections namely demographics, experience in the use of social media and

63

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

benefits of using social media technology. A random sample of 105 students from all the
departments (Business and Finance Engineering, Hospitality and Tourism) at the institution weredrawn that formed sample size of the population. Thirteen students were used to pre validate thequestionnaire. A mixed methodology approach for this research was adopted and a combination ofquantitative and qualitative data was collected, through the use of a case study that involved
questionnaires being administered. A single case study was used as this enabled data to be collected
data from a wider range of different subjects which in the case are students. The case study
approach allows for multi-perspective analysis in such that there is the interaction of the researchers
and a relevant group of actors involved (Tellis, 1997).
Results
This section shows the analysis and discussion of results of the study that was conducted after thesurvey. In this analysis, there were various presentation of graphical tools used to illustrate varying
responses that were solicited from the survey.
Table 1. Gender of respondents
GenderMale
FemaleTotal

Frequency
58
47
105

Percent
55.2
44.8
100.0

Table 1 shows the demographic information of the participants. A total number of 105 students
participated in the survey and their gender showed that there were 55.2% male and 44.8% female
students as shown in table 1.

100
90

Percentage

80
70
60
50
40

87

87
69

30

48

20
10

54

29

20

7

13

0

social media application
Figure 1. Social media application usage
Figure1 shows the responses of the students and their frequencies to the use of various social media
application. High usage of the applications can be noted on Facebook which has 87%, andWhatsApp (87%) which are at par, followed by Twitter (69%), YouTube (54%) and Google+ (48).
Although there are other applications included in the survey, their usage among students is below
30% and these include LinkedIn, MySpace, Skype, and Hangout.
64

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

frequency

internet connection device
60

120

50

100

40

42

80
49

30
20

56

98
63

10
0

86

56

19
7

91
49
14

60
40

yes

20

no

0

DeviceFigure 2. Devices used to connect to internet by students

Frequency

Figure 2 shows the devices used by students to access internet connectivity. The highest percentage
is depicted on cell phones which tops 56%, followed by laptop (49%) and desktop (42%). This
indicates that students access internet from their mobile devices through the use of 2G or 3G
network. All other remaining handheld devices that include tablets, iPads and smartphones, rank
low in terms of their usage by students (below 20%).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Yes
No

Activity

Figure 3. Social media usage
A result depicted in Figure 3 indicates that students use the social media application in their various
study activities which are listed along the horizontal axis. Highest response confirms that social
media is being widely used for studying purposes followed by research, and reading both news andnotes.

65

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition120
Severaltimes a day
100
Once a day

frequecny

80
Severaltimes aweek

60

Once aweek
40
Severaltime amonth

20

Once amonth0
Never usedtheapplication

application

Figure 4. Time spent on various social application media
Figure 4 shows the frequency of access to a wide range of social media applications used by thestudents who were involved in the study. It can be deduced that they spent more time on the social
networking sites. WhatsApp is being the popularly used application on a daily basis. Facebook is
the second in category and twitter being on third position. However results indicate that there areapplications which were rarely used and this point to MySpace, Hangout and Skype.

66

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Social media requires no training
to become a contributor, can befree or cheap to use, and isregulated lightly
14%

As a student, I don't just consume
posted material, I share it,
develop it, and add to it.

16%

12%

Social media tools to provide
educational content, in one formor another.

22%
Easy to access the content

16%

20%

Social media provides acommunication platform built onhonest opinions and experiencesof current students and alumni.
In terms of cost, social media overcomes geographic distances in acost -effective manner.

Figure 5. Benefits of using social media technology
The results in Figure 5 shows that summarize the benefits gained by students through the use ofsocial media technologies. 22% of the respondents highlighted that social media enabled them tolearn from the past experiences of their current and former counterparts who shared information,
20% indicated the easy access to content. 16 % of the respondents indicated that they either usedsocial media as source of educational learning content or its affordability with less training
required. Geographic distances and costs are reduced as indicated by the 14% population of the
respondents who participated in the study.
Discussion
Research findings indicate that the popularly used social media applications by the students are
Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and YouTube. Furthermore the results showed that students spentquite a considerable amount of their time as shown by the frequencies of access to theseapplications. These findings conform to the results of Reuben (n.d.), Paliktzoglou and Suhonen(2014), Pewinternet (2013) which reflects a growing number of Facebook users on comparativebasis of year 2012-2013. WhatsApp which has become the most popular tested application as it isdistributed among various smart-phone platforms is being widely used by the students because ofreasons that include affordability of smartphones, decreasing data costs and improved internet
bandwidth, (Schrittwieser, Fr̈ uhwirt, Kieseberg, Manuel, Mulazzani, Markus Huber, & Weippl,2012).
Findings show that social media technology has infused a new culture of learning among students
which is in line with the research of Thomas and Seely-Brown (2011). In addition, students
attending the Vhembe FET in the rural settings are benefiting from use of technology throughinteraction and exchange of information online with counterparts from within the local community

67

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Editionand outside the geographical boundaries. It is evident that internet is replacing traditional
publishing, digital camera on handheld mobile devices is replacing film photography, anddownloadable media such as movies from YouTube are replacing theaters, mobile cell phones are
replacing pay phones and hardwired home phones, massive online open courses (MOOCS) are
replacing the traditional classroom, Redding and Walberg (2012). In addition, the students have
opted for the technologies as they enable them to create self-content as depicted in Figure 5.
Furthermore results from the study indicate that students have adopted the new technologies which
are enhancing their learning and networking process in college setting.
Conclusion
The use of social media in higher learning enables student interaction with content they can create
individually or share with other students. Furthermore, potential learning occurs outside theclassroom or independent of location as students can be able to access educational resources aslong as they are connected to internet. Results indicate that students enjoy and indeed benefit fromthe use of social media technologies that have positive effect on their performance and growth.
This concurs with findings from the research results of Zanamwe, et al. (2013); Gikas & Grant(2013).
However it is worth mentioning that one specific limitation of the study was that the students who
participated were from a single rural further education training college. It would be advisable toexpand further studies with a broader set of participants from institutions across provinces in the
country. As a result there was no opportunity to carry out a comparative analysis of more than one
institution which would have enabled the researchers to gain a broader view of social media
technologies in higher education institutions located in rural settings. Further research is required
to cover institutions in the whole region of South Africa.

68

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Bell, F. (2010). Network theories for technology-enabled learning and social change: Connectivism
and Actor Network theory, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked
Learning, 526-533.
Bosch, T. (2008). Wots ur ASLR? Adolescent girls' use of MXit in Cape Town. Commonwealth
Journal of Youth Studies, 6(2), 52-69.
Boyd, D.M. & Ellison, N.B. (2010) ‘Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship’,Engineering Management Review, IEEE, 38(3), 16-31.
Browning, L., Gerlich, R., & Westermann, L. (2011). The new HD classroom: A “Hyper Diverse”
approach to engaging with students. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1-10. Retrieved July20, 2015, from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10701.pdf.
Carr, T., & Czerniewicz, L. (2011). Growing educational use of technology in a fast changing
environment. Presentation at conference of rectors, Vice Chancellors and Presidents ofAfrican Universities (COREVIP), 30 May –June 2011, Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Cassidy, E., Britsch, J., Griffin, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Turney, L. (2011). Higher
education and emerging technologies: Student usage, preferences, and lessons for libraryservices. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(4), 380-391.
Chigona, W., Beukes, D., Vally, J., & Tanner, M. (2009). Can mobile Internet help alleviate social
exclusion in developing countries? Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing
Countries, 36(7), 1–16.
Chigona,W., Chigona, A., Ngqokelela, B., & Mpofu, S. (2009). MXIT: Uses, perceptions and selfjustifications. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 4, 1–16.
CNBCAFRICA (2014). Facebook to be Made Free on All Mobile Networks Across East Africa.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/technology/2014/04/25/facebook-to-be-made-free-intanzania/.
Davis, III C. H. F., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & González Canchém, M. S. (2012). Social
media and higher education: A literature review and research directions. Report printed by the
University of Arizona and Claremont Graduate University.
Flavin, M. (2012). Disruptive technologies in higher education, Research in Learning Technology,
20, ALT-C 2012 Conference Proceedings, King's Learning Institute, King's College, London,
UK.
Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: a critical analysis of research on micro
blogging in education published 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(5), 783–801.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher
Education, 19,18–26.
Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Help from my “friends:” social capital in the social networksites of low-income high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2),223–245.

69

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Greenhow, C. & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: tweeting as a new literacy practice. The
Educational Forum, 76(4), 463–477.
Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in theage of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402.
Hamilton, L. (2011). Case studies in educational research. British Educational Research
Association on-line resource. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from https://www.bera.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Case-studies-in-educational-research.pdf?noredirect=1.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: assessing outcomesfor student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology,
44(2), 273–287.
Junco, R., Heibergert, G. & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement
and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132.
Lee, M., & McLoughlin, C. (2010). Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for
Tertiary Teaching. Kapitel 16, Hershey, PA: IGI global, 301-318. Tilgængelig: 10.4018/9781-60566-294-7.ch016.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use
among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1-51. Retrieved July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_A
dults_Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf.
Nitsckie, W. B., & Parker, M. B. (2009). Mobile instant messaging: “Help at the fingertips of
addicts ” . Informatics & Design Papers and Reports, Cape Peninsula University ofTechnology. Cape Town. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://dk.cput.ac.za/inf_papers/24.
Paliktzoglou, V., & Suhonen, J. (2014). Facebook as an assisted learning tool in problem-basedlearning: the Bahrain case. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning
Environments, 2(1), 85-100.
Pewinternet (2013). Social Media Update. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/08/social-media-update-2013/social-media-sites-20122013.
Pimmer, C., Linxen, S., & Grohbiel, U. (2012). Facebook as a learning tool? A case study on
the Appropriation of social network sites from mobile phones in developing countries. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 726–738.
Ranieri, M., Manca, S., & Fini, A. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks?
An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 754–769.
Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (2012). Promoting Learning in Rural Schools, Center on Innovation& Improvement, Academic Development Institute.
Reuben, R. (n.d.). The Use of Social Media in Higher Education for Marketing andCommunications: A Guide for Professionals in Higher Education, unpublished. Retrieved July20, 2015, from http://www.ciff.net/seminarioformanciononline/DocumentoSeminarioII.pdf.

70

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Schrittwieser, S., Fr̈ uhwirt, P., Kieseberg, P., Manuel, L., Mulazzani, M., Markus Huber, & Weippl.
E. (2012). Guess Who’s Texting You? Evaluating the Security of Smartphone Messaging
Applications. In 19th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS’12).
Selwyn, N. (2012). Social Media in Higher Education, The Europa World of Learning 2012.
Tellis. W. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology, The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1-17.
Thomas, D., & Seely-Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning. Charleston, SC, Createspace.
Trubitt, L., & Overholtzer, J. (2009). Good Communication: The Other Social Network for
Successful IT Organizations. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(6), 90‐100.
WCER (2011). Wisconsin Centre for Education Research. ISSN 1073-1822, 22(4), Summer 2011.
Worldwideworx (2014). South African Social Media Landscape. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.worldwideworx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Exec-Summary-SocialMedia-2014.pdf.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. London, Sage.
Zanamwe, N., Rupere, T., & Kufandirimbwa, O. (2013). Use of Social Networking Technologies
in Higher Education in Zimbabwe: A learners’ perspective. International Journal of Computerand Information Technology, 2(1), 8-18.

71

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

72

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Language Learners Perceptions and Experiences on the Use of Mobile
Applications for Independent Language Learning in Higher Education
Ana Niño

73

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
With the widespread use of mobile phones and portable devices it is inevitable to think of Mobile
Assisted Language Learning as a means of independent learning in Higher Education.
Nowadays many learners are keen to explore the wide variety of applications available in theirportable and always readily available mobile phones and tablets. The fact that they are keen to takecontrol of their learning and autonomy is thought to lead to greater motivation and engagement,
and the link with games-based learning suggests that the fun factor involved should not be overseen.
This paper focuses on the use of mobile applications for independent language learning in higher
education. It investigates how learners use mobile apps in line with their classes to enhance theirlearning experience. We base our analysis on a survey carried out in autumn 2013 in which 286
credited and non-credited language students from various levels of proficiency at The Universityof Manchester express their perceptions on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of mobile
applications for independent language learning, together with examples of useful apps andsuggestions of how these could be integrated in the language class.
Keywords: Mobile assisted language learning (MALL); mobile language learning; higher
education (HE); student perspectives; independent language learning.

74

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Mobile technologies are expanding very rapidly providing multiple resources, including interactive
apps, suitable for independent language learning opening up new contexts for learning (Pachler et
al. 2010) where the students are at the centre of the scenario deciding which technologies are bestfor their own learning styles, according to their command of the language, own interests and/or
needs. These ubiquitous technologies in this respect constitute a simple yet appealing means tocreate meaning and improve accuracy by exposing students to the language in a more autonomous
way. Connecting this independent practice with the contents seen in class and with social context
for meaningful interaction, however, requires tutor’s monitoring and guidance leading to a more
efficient and enriching way of teaching.
This investigation looks at the results of a survey on the use of Mobile Assisted Language Learning(MALL) apps by students at Higher Education to learn about the language learners’ perceptions
and experiences on their use of mobile apps for independent language learning.
We will start by defining MALL and its relation to m-learning and CALL, for it provides thetheoretical foundations of this investigation. Then we will guide you through the results of thisstudy, which will provide answers to the following open ended questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

How do students use MALL?
How do they perceive its usefulness?
How MALL can be integrated in the class according to students?
What implications does this have for the future? both from the learning and teaching point ofview.

Research questions 1 and 2 will be answered in the Results and findings section, whereas questions
3 and 4 will be dealt with in the sections Students suggestions for integrating MALL in the language
class, and Pedagogical implications.
Theoretical background
Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) constitutes the theoretical framework for this study.
MALL describes an approach to language learning that is enhanced through the use of a handheld
device or mobile technology, such as pocket electronic dictionaries, e-books, personal digitalassistants (PDAs), MP3 players and, most recently, ultra portable tablet PCs and smartphones.
MALL is a subset of both m-learning and CALL. M-learning or mobile learning is defined as"learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal
electronic devices” (Crompton 2013: 4). Sharples et al. (2005:225) put it this way: M-learning is“a process of coming to know through conversations across multiple contexts among people andpersonal interactive technologies”. The common factors in this state-of-the-art way of learning aremobile devices that allow for social interaction and collaboration in various contexts.
According to Kukulska-Hulme and Shield 2008, MALL differs from CALL mainly “in its use of
personal, portable devices that enable new ways of learning, emphasizing continuity or spontaneityof access and interaction across different contexts of use”. This emphasises the role of students asmain experimenters/explorers and the role of teachers as mere guiders or facilitators in their mobile
applications endeavours outside the class. Let’s not forget that, precisely, one of the main
advantages of MALL is the freedom to use language-learning resources at anytime from anywhere,
as well as the freedom to communicate with fellow students and with the tutor. In this sense it
makes sense to learn more about the students’ preferences, needs and motivations to use mobile
devices with a view to experiment innovative effective ways to maximise their language acquisition.

75

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Pedagogical approaches such as Social Constructivism (Vygovksy 1978) and Connectivism arewell suited for MALL. Constructivism stresses on social learning, and must be viewed as an active
student-centered process where learners actively construct their knowledge through theirinteraction with mobile devices and with each other. Task-based and problem-based cases arecommonly used with a view to progress in their language learning. Connectivism describes thenature of learning as a process of making connections with people, resources, and networks, andcreating networks of personal knowledge mediated by ubiquitous technology (Downes, 2007;
Siemens, 2007).
In this paper we will explore contexts in which MALL can be used and examples of social andcontent interactions for independent language learning as suggested by students at Higher
Education.
In terms of how can MALL enhance language learning, Kukulska-Hulme (2006) identified fourmain ways in which mobile devices are typically used at the moment:
1.
2.

3.
4.

To support communication, arranging students in groups to encourage collaborative practice.
For content delivery and creation, for mobile devices allow for a faster turnaround of learning
resources creating a continuum of in-class and outside-class learning resources andopportunities.
To encourage personal engagement by social interaction and personalisation.
In contextual learning, where students use mobile devices as part of a larger activity, e.g. fordata collection, location awareness, collaboration or to support retention or understanding ofspecific learning items.

These main uses of mobile technologies will be revisited in the last sections of this paper where wewill present various examples of the use of mobile apps for independent language practice by
students, together with discussions around their integration in the language class.
In this theoretical background we would also like to mention a couple of factors that we deem as
essential to better understand the findings and pedagogical implications of language learning in a
mobile technologies setting. Firstly, an efficient use of in-class time, especially if this is rather
limited, by expanding the opportunities for language exposure outside the class to ensure language
acquisition (Kennedy and Levy 2009). Mobile technologies in this respect allow frequent
independent informal practice for the students, which according to Kukulska-Hulme (2012),
constitutes an essential requirement for foreign language mastery. Secondly, we should not forgetthe major language areas and skills to be considered for language acquisition to take place.
According to Levy (2009), these areas, in CALL, are grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing,pronunciation, listening, speaking and culture. This study considers these areas in terms of students’reported use of mobile apps and the learning benefits and limitations they perceive. The types ofapps that are used by language learners are also described in the results and discussion section.
Given the growing availability of mobile devices in the university language class, we wereinterested in investigating the educational use of this omnipresent mobile technology from thestudents’ perspective. We sought to find out whether students use mobile apps for their independent
language learning, and, if so, which are these and how they use them, what do they think about
their use for independent language learning purposes, and whether they had any recommendations
on how language tutors can implement MALL in the class.
For this purpose in autumn 2013 we run a survey for language students at The University ofManchester. Participants ranged from credited students studying a language or more as their maindegree, to credited non-specialist students, non credited students and MoPs (members of the public).
As represented in table 1, there were a total of 252 respondents (n=252) and the languages being
studied ranged from widely studied languages such as French (74), Spanish (67), German (53),76The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

English (32), Arabic (27) or Chinese (21), to other languages such as Italian (21), Portuguese (9),Korean (7) or Urdu (1).
Table 1. Respondents’ languages of study
LANGUAGE
FRENCHSPANISHGERMANENGLISH
ARABICCHINESEITALIAN
JAPANESERUSSIANPORTUGUESE
KOREANPOLISHPERSIAN,HEBREW, DUCTHURDURESPONSE TOTAL
74
67
53
32
27
21
21
15
10
9
7
6
2

RESPONSE PERCENT
29%
27%
21%
13%
11%
8%
8%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
1%

1
252 TOTAL RESPONDENTS

As for the level of the language of the students participating, the great majority of them had an A1
level (91%), followed by a B1-B2 level (21 and 19% respectively), A2, 17%, with only a 14%
having a C1 and just 7% with a proficient /C2 level (see figure 1).

A1
B1
B2
A2
C1
C2

Figure 1. Respondents’ language level
Results and Discussion
As pointed out before, one of the main purposes of this paper is to provide some indication of how
do Higher Education students use MALL. For this purpose, we presented them with a series ofclosed questions with multiple choice options which are easier to code and allow for statisticalsummaries of a large number of cases. Some questions also gave respondents the opportunity toanswer them in their own words.

77

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

To the question Have you used mobile apps to support your language learning? 33% of the
respondents replied Often, followed by a close 31% Sometimes, however, 36% of them had Neveror rarely used them and this will show in their comments later on.
To the question How often have you used mobile apps? it is clear that they great majority of themused them often or sometimes with a total of 80% as opposed to just a 20% who never or rarely
used them.
With regard to the students’ actual use of mobile apps for language learning, students were enquired
to complete the statement For my language learning I use mobile apps in order to … and promptedwith various suggestions of use (see table 2 below). These were the results by order of frequency:
Table 2. Use of mobile apps for language learning
RESPONSES%

Look up words, phrases and idiomatic expressions

156

72

Translate words/phrases I do not understand into my language

115

53

Translate words/phrases into the language I am learning

106

49

Listen how words are pronounced

93

43

Look for definitions in the target language

92

43

Revise and practise vocabulary

84

39

Help me conjugate verbs

68

31

Look up synonyms in the target language

59

27

Listen and repeat to improve my pronunciation

51

24

To read48

22

To revise and practise grammar

47

22

To listen to mp3s, podcasts, radio, etc.

45

21

For social networking

40

19

To listen to music

35

16

To speak with my friends, conversation exchanges, etc.

30

14

To watch authentic videos and TV

26

12

To play games

22

10

To chat20

9For professional networking

84

For checking infographics for inspiration

5

2

STATEMENTS

By far the most frequent use was looking up words, phrases and idiomatic expressions with a 72%
of responses, followed closely by translating words/phrases into the L1 first (for comprehension
purposes), and into the L2 secondly (for production purposes). Two other main uses were listening
how words are pronounced, looking for definitions in the target language or revising and practicing
vocabulary. This suggests that the meaning of small chunks of language (and their pronunciation)is at the top of students’ priorities when checking their mobile apps, and suggests we can be mainly
looking at beginners’ level students. The quickness of access to these apps whilst completing alanguage task inside or outside of class reinforces retention and accuracy, thus simplifying thelanguage task process.
Steel (2012) curiously came up with similar results in her study reporting that mobile apps benefited
most with vocabulary (particularly for memorization, accessing meaning and contexts for use) andwith reading, writing, grammar and translation tasks. Within vocabulary apps, she highlighted

78

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

those that offer mobile versions of language dictionaries, translators and verb conjugators andlabeled these as “indispensable” in any language learning portable device.
Surprisingly, in our study the conjugation of verbs only had a 31% of responses. This is a common
concern at all levels, especially in Romance languages such as French or Spanish, followed bylooking up synonyms into the target language (27%), which may suggest a more advanced leveluse. Reading use reported a 22% with apps such as e-books, digital newspapers and magazines,
followed by a 22% of grammar revision use and 21% listening use, mainly MP3s, podcasts andradio.
Social networking had a return of 19% followed by other leisure-associated uses such as listening
to music, speaking to friends over Skype, watching authentic videos, playing games, chatting,professional networking or checking infographics for inspiration. As for the usefulness of mobile
apps for independent language learning, an overwhelming 88% of the students questioned
considered them helpful for this particular purpose.
Mirroring the results from an aforementioned question (For my language learning I use mobile
apps in order to …), table 3 below shows answers to the question In what ways do you find mobile
apps useful? 73% of the students thought the main usefulness of these apps is their helping increase
vocabulary. The portability and freedom of use for extra practice at any time and at the students’
own pace was regarded as the second most important practicality, followed by help memorizing(41%), reading comprehension (32%), and the fact that it makes revision fun (39%).
Table 3. Usefulness of mobile apps for language learning
RESPONSESSTATEMENTS
Helps increase vocabulary
Provides resources for extra practice at any time and at myown pace
Helps memorizing words, phrases, genders, conjugations,etc.
Helps improve reading comprehension
Makes revision easier/fun
Helps improve pronunciation and intonation
Helps sentence building
Helps improve oral comprehension
Helps improve grammar accuracy
Helps me write properly

%
154
100

73
48

86

41

68
82
70
69
68
67
44

32
39
33
33
32
32
21

Other ways in which students found mobile apps useful were in improving pronunciation andintonation, in sentence building and oral comprehension, which also suggests a lower level (A1B1), or, at least, that the student is still exploring the first stages of learning a language. Last in thelist stand help improve grammar accuracy and help write properly, which usually demand moreformal learning and a more deep knowledge of the language, together with contextualized practiceand feedback or some way of interaction.
Most of the students questioned were widely aware of the various mobile apps available for
language learning and this showed in their answers to the question Can you mention examples ofapps that you found useful for your independent language learning? (see table 4 below).
Table 4. Examples of mobile apps respondents found useful for independent language learning
TYPE
DICTIONARIES AND
CONCORDANCERS

APPS
WordReference, Dict CC, LEO Pons, Jisho, Pleco, Arabic Dict, Linguee

79

The IAFOR Journal of Education

TRANSLATORSL PRACTICE
FLASHCARDSCONJUGATORSPODCASTS
NEWSPAPERSVIDEOSGAMESNOTESMESSENGERS

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Google Translate, iTranslate
Duolingo, Busuu, Babble
Quizlet, Memrise, Brainscape, Anki
Iverbs French, I Verbi, Wiktionary, El Conjugador
Itunes Podcasts, Chinese Pod, Deutsche Welle, France Culture, Tfs
Radio Germany
Courier International, Der Spiegel, El País
YouTube, RTVE, Atres Player
Mind Snacks
Notes, Notability
Whatsapp, FaceBook Messenger

These mobile apps could be grouped in the following categories:

Dictionaries and concordancers such as Wordreference with fast accurate translations ofwords, idioms and collocations, and language forums to discuss various linguistic issues;
the overlay QuickDict and bidirectional offline dictionaries such as Dictionary CC or
Arabic Dict, online dictionary apps such as Pons, Jisho, Pleco, or even a powerfulcombined offline and online dictionary plus concordancer such as Linguee.

Translation apps such as Google Translate that students use to translate words between
two languages back and forth quickly and easily. They were aware, though, that it does notwork as well with full phrases, sentences to use in real life or grammar. Of Google Translatethey liked the fact that it produces a list of synonyms with the translation, that it enables
audio so you can hear the words you are translating, input words into the translator throughyour own voice and play back the words.



Language practice apps such as Duolingo, which students find good for revision of basic
and more advanced language skills. The fun and interactive tasks help enhance reading,writing, oral and listening skills and you can also set goals and do mini tests to monitor yourprogress and achievements. Their comments on this app provide lots of clues of mobile
features they value such as the fact that they can have grammar and meaning explanations,translate to and from the language, practice their vocabulary and conjugations for a limited
period of time (5 minutes), listen to the correct pronunciation of words, do speaking practice,and even compare themselves with their friends because the app is paired with Facebook.
They also like the fact that they receive a reminder to practice every day. Similar apps toDuolingo are Busuu and Babble, a speech to text and text to speech app to practice accurate
pronunciation of short phrases and sentences and challenges to you repeat them correctlyin 4 seconds. Some advantages pointed out by students were that it has various levels to
help you build up, you are given feedback and you can see your improvements over time.

Among the Flashcard applications that they highlighted were Quizlet, to record their own
vocabulary and be tested on it, Memrise which combines memorizing and gaming features,and similar tools such as Brainscape and Anki. Students seemed to enjoy not only thesharing and personalization of resources that these apps allow, but also the challenge andcompetition involved.
Many of the students also suggested the use of conjugation apps such as I Verbs French,
I Verbi, Wiktionary or El Conjugador to check for irregular verb use and help with theirgrammatical accuracy.

For listening comprehension they seemed to make extensive use of podcasting apps andtools such as ITunes podcasts, Notes in Spanish, Chinese pod, France Culture , tfs Radio
Germany with different accents and increasing oral understanding, or Deutsche Welle
where they found useful its manageable speaking speed and transcriptions.
80

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition



They also mentioned newspaper apps such as Courier International, Der Spiegel or El
Pais not only for reading and cultural awareness, but also for oral comprehension skills.

Video apps such as YouTube, RTVE or Atresplayer with multiple opportunities for practice(watching video clips, TV extracts, full movies, listening to music with lyrics, etc.).

Games such as MIndsnacks, which are great incentives, fun and allow you to unlock moregames as you go up. On the negative side, they mentioned they can get repetitive after some
time.



Note taking apps such as Notes or Notability to write words and phrases and make learning
more accessible and easier to memorize.

And, finally, chat or messenger apps such as Whatsapp or Facebook Messenger tocommunicate with other people on the go.

These types of mobile apps suggested by the students cover areas and skills such as grammar,
vocabulary, reading, writing, pronunciation, listening, speaking and culture, which were alreadyidentified by Levy (2009) as benefiting learning and contributing to language acquisition in CALL.
Students’ suggestions for integrating MALL in the language class
Our research also looked into how can MALL be integrated in the class. To the question Would it
be helpful if your tutor would embed the use of mobile apps for language learning as extra
materials in class or via the VLE? a great majority, 82% of the students, found this Always (50%)
or Sometimes helpful (50%), as opposed to a 16% who would Rarely or never find it useful, mainly
claiming that mobile apps are not for everybody, that they work best as additional optional practiceto use in their own time (for independent revision, rather than as a main part of the course), andthat not everybody has smart phones so some people would be missing out.
In the last part of the survey we asked students to share their views on the educational potential ofmobile apps inside and outside the language class. Students comments will be commented on in
the form of suggestions for integration in a language course as well as pedagogical advantages andhindrances of their use.
Among the suggestions for integration in a language course, students provided the following:








giving links on the VLE to some useful apps and sign posting these in classlinking apps to pop up on your mobile to be able to learn at your own pace during the day
setting problem-solving tasks as homework or challenges within class e.g. looking forsynonyms
as a 15 min. revision exercise in classincorporating interactive games to support covered topics per week for fun extra practiceon the move, together with vocabulary lists, translation of phrases/words and shortgrammar/pronunciation online tests to help learning and progression, or even to compete
against the class, in order to link them to contents seen in class so there is a sense of
progression andto post on discussion fora about new apps as recommended by their fellow students.

Based on these suggestions, it appears that students are realizing the educational potential of mobile
apps for language learning. Their suggestions are representative of how mobile devices are
currently used for language learning purposes (as pointed out by Kukulska Hulme 2006), namely,
their use in contextual learning (e.g. problem solving tasks), content delivery and creation (asexemplified by their suggestions on how to provide links and apps in a VLE), for personal

81

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

engagement and interaction (as suggested by the use of games, vocabulary lists and online tests),
and for communication (via discussion fora, wikis and social media). However, they seem to needguidance to link all these components to the contents seen in class and realize the usefulness ofthese to practice the various linguistic skills involved in language learning. Tutors could encourage
this by providing good examples of app use and presenting relevant contexts with clearly set
learning outcomes in which these could be used as part of a larger language in-class or outside-ofclass learning task for authentic, collaborative practice. We believe that, well conducted, this canimprove learner engagement and motivation as well as foster language retention in the long term.
Pedagogical implications
Finally, we will discuss some of the pedagogical implications of the use of MALL for the future.
Overall, it is clear that MALL has a lot of potential for blended VLEs, that it encourages
autonomous learning, motivation and, we believe, social interaction as well, especially if the app
is somehow connected to a form of social networking or there is a degree of competition involved.
Key attributes such as the use of personalized, situated, authentic, spontaneous and informal tools(Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler, 2007) are also to be taken into consideration in the “rethinking”
pedagogy for the use of mobile apps by language learners.
On the other hand, some pedagogical hindrances of the use of mobile apps for language learning,as identified by students, include the fact that there is not much current scope for extensive practiceof speaking and writing skills. As opposed to authenticity, some words or phrases as used in mobile
apps may become obsolete or different to real life use. Similarly, the free version of some apps may
become boring and repetitive after a while, therefore affecting motivation. Students also realizedthat the quick automatic translations, especially of phrases and sentences, as produced by apps such
as Google Translate, cannot always be trusted. This provides a good example of positive students’evaluation of language learning resources, where readiness and quickness of use does notnecessarily lead to misuse and plagiarism. Students can then be encouraged to explore more fruitful
resources such as concordance apps to look for parallel collocations and structures in the target
language.
It is also true, as students well pointed out, that mobile technology is not suitable for all kinds ofstudents and learning styles, that some students may not have smart phones and would
automatically be left out.
Finally, students also pointed out that some apps are just condensed versions of websites or demandfurther guidance for their proper use and, therefore, are commonly left unused. This highlights theimportance of induction, guidance and follow-up when it comes to implementing the use of
applications inside and outside the language class.
On a final note, our investigation hinted that MALL does not always facilitates synchronous
collaborative practice among students. We have seen a few example apps for this purpose such as
messenger apps or videoconferencing apps, however, their use for independent language learning
seems rather unexplored and the design of the tasks and appropriate /relevant context of learning
would make it only suitable for one-to-one distance learning. In other words, students enrolled ina language course may still prefer the face-to-face interactive conversation practice with theirfellow students, for example.
Conclusions
From the results of this survey and to conclude we can say that among the pedagogical benefits of
MALL, as pointed out by our surveyed students, we can highlight its suitability for passive
language skills such as vocabulary acquisition, written and oral comprehension, pronunciation,
vocabulary and grammar practice in particular.
82

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Students also indicated that other advantages of the use of mobile apps for language learning
include convenience (as a quick check they are always available, at any time and from any place),use of authentic resources (which always trigger cultural awareness) for various language skills,
the fact that they provide fun and interactive progression over a wide range of topics in a limited
period of time, offer immediate feedback and several opportunities to personalise authentic
language practice (for example setting goals in line with their own interests and ideas, creating
quizzes on students’ own resources, beating game scores, etc.).
Future research
Overall, our survey revealed that, although there is evidence of the use of mobile apps by Higher
Education students for independent language practice, students and, undoubtedly, tutors still could
benefit from further guidance and support to ensure effective educational use inside and outside
the language class. In this respect, listening to students’ needs and preferences, together with aclose collaboration between language tutor communities and educational technologists can help inthe search of innovative, meaningful and appropriate tasks that involve the use of mobile apps andcan be successfully integrated into the language curriculum.

83

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education.
In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning, Florence, KY:
Routledge, 3-14.
Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. In D. Ley (Ed.), Emerging technologies forlearning, Coventry, UK: Becta, 19-27.
Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and CALL: Factors for success in a context ofchange. Computer-Assisted Language Learning 22(5), 445-463.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Mobile language learning now and in the future. In Svensson, P. (Ed.)
From vision to practice: language learning and IT. Sweden: Swedish Net University, 295310.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Designing for mobile and wireless learning. In Beetham,H. and Sharpe, R. (Eds.) Rethinking pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering
E-learning. London: Routledge.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An Overview of Mobile Assisted Language Learning:from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 249-252.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095834400800013X.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Language learning defined by time and place: A framework for next
generation designs. In Diaz-Vera, Javier, E. (Eds.) Left to my own device: Learner autonomy
and mobile assisted language learning. Innovation and Leadership in English Language
Teaching, 6, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1-13.
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal,
93, 769-782.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices.
London, United Kingdom: Springer.
Sharples, M., J. Taylor, & Vavoula, G. (2007). A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. The Sage
Handbook of E- learning Research. R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite. London, Sage: 22147.
Siemens, G. (2007). Connectivism: Creating a learning ecology in distributed environments. In T.
Hug (Ed.), Didactics of microlearning: Concepts, discourses and examples Munster,Germany: Waxmann Verlag, 53-68.
Steel, C. (2012). Fitting learning into life: Language students' perspectives on benefits of using
mobile apps. In Brown, M. Hartnett, M. and Stewart, T. (Eds.) Future challenges, sustainable
futures. Proceedings Ascilite Welllington, 875-880.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Published originally in Russian in 1930.

84

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

85

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Strategies for Digital Inclusion: Towards a Pedagogy for Embracing andSustaining Student Diversity and Engagement with Online Learning
Baylie Hart Clarida, Milena Bobeva, Maggie Hutchings and Jacqui Taylor

86

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
This paper reports on the progress of a current PhD research study. The research study will evolve
through four phases and eventually develop a conceptual framework for effective teaching andlearning approaches that influence digital inclusion and exclusion of students from diverse
backgrounds. It will also seek to identify differences in learner characteristics and how thesecharacteristics impact on needs, experiences and engagement with technology for learning,
specifically within a blended learning programme. The research will move away from traditional
definitions of diversity and explore the differing characteristics of a varied learner population.
The research adopts a critical realist perspective, using a qualitative multi-phase methodology thatwill evolve sequentially in the future. The focus of this paper is to outline the research to date.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been completed and are reported in this paper. Findings suggest that
digital exclusion cannot be predicted or dealt with by categorising students into groupings of:gender, age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status and educational background. Additionally,
the findings indicate that digital exclusion is influenced by organisational factors, such as elementsof the course content or navigation of the virtual learning environment rather than intrinsic factors
such as individual technological skills.
Keywords: Diversity; characteristics; digital exclusion; blended learning.

87

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Diverse Students (Intrinsic Factors that Influence Digital Inclusion and Exclusion)
The current trend for encouraging widening participation in higher education institutions (HEI)(Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2012) and the vast range of courses on offer in
the United Kingdom (UK) has resulted in a more varied learner population, compared to the
traditional university population (Universities UK, 2012). Demographic measures, such as gender,
age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status and educational background, once used todetermine learner involvement with technology could now be seen as outdated. In a recent studyof learner’s participation in online learning, Johnson (2011) observes that it is essential tounderstand learner characteristics and how they may influence the learning process and outcomes.
Johnson however, had not explored further the types of characteristics. By contrast, Draffan andRainger (2013) are more specific saying, of blended learning,‘to ensure inclusive and accessible learning experiences that meet any challenges to theacquisition of knowledge, development of skills and experience, it is also important to take
into account the full spectrum of learner characteristics. These include physical, sensory,and perceptual skills, abilities, attitudes and prior knowledge’ (P. 55).
While both the afore mentioned studies discuss the importance of learner characteristics, as withall other studies, the onus of characterizing the learner is with the researcher or educational
institution. What distinguishes this research is that it seeks to understand what characteristics
learners themselves identify in relation to digital exclusion.
Digital Exclusion (Extrinsic Factors or Organizational Factors that Influence Digital
Inclusion and Exclusion)
Blended learning is fast becoming the teaching and learning method of choice by HEI. Blended
learning is more than simply blending face to face and online learning. It is an opportunity forteachers to maximize the strengths of both approaches in order to create a more effective way tolearn and is gradually becoming one of the most important mediums for education reform today(Picciano et al., 2014). So and Brush (2008) suggest that blended learning can increase student
satisfaction therefore impacting on retention (Liu, Gomez and Yen, 2009). Benefits of blended
learning are the opportunities it provides teachers to combine human relationships between learners
and teachers with emerging technologies, to produce a learner centered approach that enables
collaborative inquiry. With the development of digital communications, Web 2.0 and the Internet
have provided rich learning environments in HE (Laurrillard, 2002). Within a blended learningmodel, networked collaborative learning is ideally placed to offer formal enhanced learning
opportunities through collaborative inquiry and group discussions (Hutchings, 2002). On the other
hand, object-oriented sociality theory (Conole et al., 2008) explains how effective social networks
are not reliant on the relationships between the learners but on the value found in social objects.
Implications of this in a blended learning environment is that course creators should endeavor toencourage social networks built around social objects, that is subjects and activities that are ofinterest to the learners. Not only is networked collaborative inquiry ideally placed for formal
learning opportunities but is used by learners to communicate and learn informally.
The term social media defines a multiplicity of technologies that promote social aspects ofconnectivity through a channel of communication and is often linked to the term Web 2.0 (Dabbagh
and Reo, 2011). Examples of social media include, Facebook, Twitter, Blogging, wikis, YouTube,
LinkedIn and Apps that enable document sharing. Over 31 million people in the UK use Facebook(Social Media Today, 2014) and they are using such media for both informal and formal learning(Dabbagh and Kitsantis, 2011). Likewise, HEI are using social media to enable teaching and88

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

learning activities (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 2007). For example, educators are using
blogging platforms to encourage group discussions and collaborative projects (Pachler et al., 2012).
Literature Review
The review presented below encompasses an understanding of student diversity, drivers in student
engagement in Higher Education Institutions (HEI), blending learning programs, the potential for
digital exclusion, digitally inclusive learning practices, and potential digital exclusion attributes.
Student Diversity
Diverse students are categorized by a widely used set of demographics. As far back as the 1800’s
authors and researchers refer to diversity in education. For example, Sir Edward Taylor (1870)
writes about “race”, “origin” and “culture” (p.2) when he discusses language learning in his book.
Yet much of the literature that focuses on student diversity was before technology was common
place in education and certainly does not reflect the rapidly gaining momentum of advances intechnology and its impact on the learner and their needs. Furthermore, it is entirely possible thatsome students will fall into one or more of the groupings (Taylor and House, 2010). A review ofhistorical and recent literature documenting diverse students shows that only demographics suchas gender, age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status and educational background are used.
Drivers in Student Engagement
University costs have soared in the UK since the 2010 coalition government came to power, (UCAS,
2013) so financial savvy students have become more selective consumers looking for a productthat meets all of their needs. Gone are the days when a university campus would mainly consist ofcollege and sixth form leavers pursuing a four year taught degree to start a career. HEI now strive
to cater equally for non-traditional students undertaking short and top up courses, foundation
degrees and professional development, as they do for once conventional students. An exploration
into five aspects of higher education by Haggis (2006) found that with so many non-traditional
students, choosing HE, conventional support is unrealistic and that it is up to the educational
establishments that provide for these students to move away from traditional support networks andconcentrate on new teaching and learning approaches. Importantly, adapting courses so as to utilize
new technology, may enable the diverse student population to access and learn the subject.
Blended Learning Programs
Not only has the student population and courses on offer evolved but the way in which the courses
are delivered has advanced too. A modern online learning environment can offer blended learning
programs that provide opportunities to access course materials, collaborative software, discussion
boards, wikis and other learning technologies at university, from home or on ubiquitous mobile
devices (Holzinger et al., 2005) and can assist the learning process, (Means et al.,2009). There aremany definitions of blended learning, including the ratio of the methods being blended, theblending of different pedagogical models and the variation of learner experience (Oliver andTrigwell, 2005). According to Garrison and Vaughan (2008) a misconception of blended learningis that its aim is to combine face-to-face (f2f) and online delivery, often to minimize lecturer
workload. Additionally, Launer (2010) suggests that blended learning does not even have to
involve online learning but could utilize a blend of f2f delivery and self-research. However, thisresearch defines blended learning as the facilitation of teaching and learning using a combinationof f2f and online methods, where technology replaces elements of a unit (Mason, 1998) and it is
this combination that this research will investigate.
Potentialities in Digital Exclusion

89

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

The rapid momentum that ICT gains in its development signifies an urgent re-evaluation of whether
students’ experiences of digital exclusion and inclusion are the same now as they were before
technology was a ubiquitous part of life.
Historically, Information Communication Technology (ICT) use (or non-use) has been measured
by researchers and educational establishments by categorizing students into non-traditional
participation groupings such as: gender, age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic status andeducational background. For example Boonaert and Vettenburg’s (2011) research of young people
discuss a digital divide as ‘unequal access to the internet and its use’ that is influenced bydemographic factors such as age, gender and socio-economic status. More recently Ofcom (2012)
has suggested that traditional conceptions of this divide might be out of date and misplaced as over
95% of UK households with children now have access to the internet. Encouraging widening
participation in higher education institutions (HEI) (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,2012) and the vast range of courses on offer in the United Kingdom (UK) has resulted in a morevaried student population, compared to the traditional university population (Universities UK,2012). It is fair to say that the basic set of measures above, once used to determine student
involvement with technology could now be seen as outdated. In a recent research of student’s
participation in online learning, Johnson (2011) observes that it is essential to understand student
characteristics and how they may influence the learning process and outcomes.
Digitally Inclusive Organizational Practices
A search for e-learning pedagogy in the literature revealed a lack of research into specific models
and frameworks directly influencing teaching and learning using technology. Mayes and DeFreitas(2004) concluded in their e-learning review that there were no e-learning models, only eenhancements of existing teaching and learning models and frameworks. An example of this is
Mason’s (1998) models which are influenced by distance learning. He states:
All of the elements I am about to discuss are very familiar educational approaches - they
are simply being adapted and re-discovered in their online form (p. 3)
Gilly Salmon’s 5 Stage E-Moderating Model (2004) has been offered as an alternative, but thisspecifically describes the stages of participation in an online community and does not set out toaddress e-learning pedagogy per se. The most recent and influential review of e-learning was
conducted by Conole in 2010. Her report sought to review pedagogical models and how they werebeing used in an e-learning context. Conole’s review follows a number of other comprehensive
reviews on e-learning pedagogy (Mayes and DeFreitas, 2004; Beetham, 2004; Dyke et al., 2006;
Conole, 2008; Ala-Mutka, 2009) but as technology is a moving target with regards to development,
dated reviews, although important, cannot account for these new advances. Additionally, all ofthese reports (on the most part) reviewed how e-learning ‘fits’ in with different pedagogicalapproaches, almost shoe-horning technology into something within which it can be given apedagogical label. JISC’s E-learning Program (2012) goes much further to understanding elearning pedagogy. JISC ran a series of studies that incorporated different aspects of e-learning but
nothing specifically investigating blended learning and student characteristics since 2009 (Conole
et al., 2009), which looked at e-learning in a practice-based context. In practice, experienced
teachers often use a tried and tested approach to designing activities that subconsciously
incorporate theories and approaches to teaching and learning. With new technologies introduced
into the learning environment there can be a difficulty in understanding how and why to use them
(Falconer and Conole, 2006).
Potential Exclusion Attributes: Age, Gender, Socio-economic Status, Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds and Geographical Locations and Life Experiences

90

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

A research study of university students conducted by Yorke and Longdon (2008) found thatstudents failing to adjust to different and unfamiliar teaching and learning environments were ‘atrisk’ of withdrawing from their program of study. Of those, mature students are more likely to‘drop out’ in the first year compared to younger students (Coffield et al., 2004). According toKnowles (2012), older learners, argued to be ‘digital immigrants’ by Prensky (2009), learn in adifferent way to their younger counterparts. This humanistic view of andragogy, the science behind
the teaching of adults, proposes that adult learners may need different support networks to younger
learners such as, academic, technical or pastoral support for self-managed learning. Recently, agreat deal of literature has argued against Prensky’s digital native/digital immigrant concepts(McKenzie, 2007 Kennedy et al., 2010). Prensky’s assertions concerning digital immigrants canbe misunderstood. When he discusses digital immigrants, he refers to the time in which they wereborn and not the level of technological competence they possess. However, despite these gloomy
assertions for older learners, over two thirds of students obtain qualifications later in life (Instituteof Education, 2013). This signifies that older learners are using HE to improve life and careerchances more than ever.
Gender can impact on how students learn (Bennet and Marsh, 2003; Wehrwein et al., 2006). Female
students are less likely to speak out in a traditional face to face classroom environment yet in online
course discussions are more likely to voice contributions, in turn impacting on perceived deeper
learning, (Anderson and Haddad, 2005). Kay (2008) reports that male learners have higher selfefficacy than females when learning online but females are slightly more positive about the online
learning experience and perform better on computer-related tasks. In contrast, research exploring
gender perceptions of e-learning found that female learners place more importance on the planningof e-learning activities and value contact with the teacher (González-Gómez et al., 2012).
Teacher contact and more specifically monitoring of student progress and support, was found to be
essential elements to successful online learning for multi-cultural students according to McNaught
and Vogel (2004). A number of researchers have studied the preferences of different ethnic groups
towards online learning (Chin et al., 1999; Munro-Smith, 2002). However, Boyette (2008) points
out that there is little research on some ethnic groups with reference to online learning. Online
content itself is a cause for concern. Heemskerk (2005) suggests that on a practical level, certain
ethnic groups are under-represented in e-learning materials.
According to some of the literature, where students live impacts on their use of technology. There
are areas in the UK that are ‘digitally unengaged’ (Longley and Singleton 2008). Longley andSingleton’s research showed that approximately 1.15 million people in England live in an area ofdigital unengagement, in turn impacting on educational success with technology. Unengaged areas
are more often than not linked to areas of material deprivation but not always. In some coastal andrural areas the geographies are different. There is little material deprivation but other factors
influence digital unengagement, such as lack of or slow bandwidth is a major factor along with theages of the population.
As previously mentioned, geographical unengagement is often linked to material deprivation.
Generally, the digital divide represents the gap between people who can use and have access totechnology and those that do not. Chen and Wellman (2004) describe the digital divide as‘differences between those who have all the necessary resources to participate in current society
and those who do not ‘ (Eynon, 2009, p.27). Lichy (2011) talks about a ‘second-level’ digital divide
within the UK. Their research investigated students and their use of the internet. Largely down to
the Labor Government’s 2008 ‘Home Access’ scheme, which provided lower income families with
IT equipment and internet packages, they concluded that there was no longer a significant ‘divide’
between students being able to access the internet or not; the ‘second-level divide’ appeared in theway in which the internet was being used. Although this scheme has now ceased, families will still
benefit from the equipment provided and as stated earlier, 95% of families now have internet access
91

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition(Ofcom, 2012). Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds used the internet more forschool and home work than lower socio-economic groups. This is backed up by an Ofcom (2012)
research that suggests that internet access at home is now close to entirety across all economic
classes. These are encouraging reports considering that school pupils who are eligible for Free
School Meals (FSM) are less than half as likely to go to university as other pupils (BIS, 2012).
Many universities in the UK encourage students to enroll on courses regardless of previous
academic success but with evidence of career experience in the subject. This has resulted in mixed
academic (proven) ability within cohorts, (Wooden et al., 2001). Students who enter HE with ‘nontraditional’ qualifications could be disadvantaged due to the lack of preparation for essay writing
and research skills (O’Driscoll et al., 2010). Students who are most likely to say they are notinterested in connecting to the internet are those with lower levels of education (Helsper andGodoy-Etcheverry, 2011). However, Koivusilta et al. (2007) propose that links between
educational background and technology use is in the activity itself and not the time spent on it. In
particular, digital gaming was linked to poor school achievement in some cases.
Summary
It can be seen from the literature that there is no shortage of research investigating how diverse
groups interact with technology. Studies which include research on these groups go some way to
explain the challenges that certain students may face when using ICT within an HEI environment.
Fewer studies however, have considered combinations of groups and no research could be locatedthat has investigated whether there are other characteristics that may be influential in technology
use or non-use. Additionally, e-learning pedagogy, which sets out effective strategies for online
teaching and learning, seem to be adapted from traditional pedagogical frameworks, may be
outdated in the context of emerging or disruptive technologies or are influenced by other forms of
online learning such as distance learning.
Research Approach
The aim of the research is to identify differences in learner characteristics and how thesecharacteristics impact on their experiences of using technology for learning. The findings will
eventually be incorporated into a conceptual framework for effective teaching and learning
approaches and of factors that influence digital inclusion and exclusion.
Specifically, the objectives of this research and discussed in this paper are:
1. To explore the characteristics of learners and analyze their influence on digital exclusion andinclusion.
2. To investigate what current and emerging pedagogies are being used for engaging students withtechnology enabled learning (TEL).
The first two phases of this research will be discussed in this paper and will form the starting point
for the next two phases (3 and 4) which will be conducted in 2015. The objectives of Phases 3 and
4 are:
1. To assess the value of current and emerging pedagogies with a diversity of learners.
2. To examine what students need to be effectively engaged with a blended learning program.
3. To incorporate the findings into a conceptual framework for effective learning approaches andof factors that influence digital inclusion and exclusion.

92

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

By combining a sequential mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, Table 1 below
demonstrates how through four phases, a conceptual framework will eventually be created.
Table 1. Illustration of whole research design
Phase
1Year ofCommencement
2013

MethodSampleSemi structured
interviews

Undergraduate Heath andSocial Care students,
Bournemouth University
Undergraduate Heath andSocial Care students,
Bournemouth University
Undergraduate students(mixed schools),
Bournemouth University
Undergraduate students,
External Universities

2

2014

Semi structured
interviews

3

2015

Survey4

2015

Action research

Research Design
A qualitative multi-phase approach will be used sequentially in this research. (Creswell and Plano
Clark, 2007). The research takes place at Bournemouth University (BU) in the south of England.
Two samples of undergraduate Health and Social Care (HSC) students were the focus of Phases 1
and 2. The interviews took place after the completion of a particular unit on a blended learning
course (Phase 1 in 2013 and Phase 2 in 2014). The Program Leader was approached to confirm thatthe unit remained the same from the previous year with no variables that could affect the analysis.
The research uses a critical realist approach. In the social sciences, critical realism has been a
prominent approach for the past thirty years (Miller and Tsang, 2011) and a key feature is that
ontologically you believe in one real world that exists independent of human perception andconstruction, yet at the same time, epistemologically believe that the world can be interpreted indifferent ways by each of us (Frazer and Lacey, 1993). In line with a critical realist approach, semistructured interviews will allow participants to describe their experiences of digital inclusion andexclusion in their own words. Semi-structured interview techniques were adopted as the initial
method to encourage rich descriptions (Kvale, 2008). This method will also expose whichcharacteristics affect barriers to digital inclusion and uncover the wide-ranging needs that influenceengagement with blended learning programs.
Since the research is concerned with identifying which characteristics affect digital inclusion andexclusion, the interview would start with an open question: ‘Tell me a bit about yourself’. It was
hoped that this opening question would allow the participant to voice their characteristics in theirown words without being influenced by any pre-determined (correct or incorrect) knowledge
gained from literature. For example, the following excerpt was taken from one participant,‘… I am a mature student. I have two children, […] and […]. I worked in […], my careerin the beginning in […]. We came to Bournemouth in […] and wanted to change my careerso that I’m doing a […] degree. I always wanted to work in this kind of work with people[…], so the reason I decided to do […] and that is quite hard at the moment because as you
can imagine it was more than […] years ago that I studied and now I'm going back to thatsort of studying more. Everything is really hard work for me and English is my second
language so it makes it even harder.’93The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

They were then given the opportunity to express their experiences of technology during theirprogram. It was not until the end of the interview that usual demographic questions such as: gender;
age; ethnicity; geography; socio-economic status and educational background, (ONS, 2013), wereasked.
A thematic analysis framework was adopted to analyze the data. At a rudimentary level, thematic
analysis is a method for recognizing, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data. Thematic
analysis is favored for a critical realist approach (Roulston, 2001) although its flexibility allows it
to be utilized across many epistemological and theoretical stances. Braun and Clarke’s (2006)
hierarchy for qualitative data analysis has been adapted for the analytical process using Nvivo
software to manage the data. To ensure a level of trustworthiness and quality in the research, theresearcher used a triangulation of methods as suggested by Guba and Lincon (1989; 1994) as wellas the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist adaptedfrom Tong et al. (2007).
Findings and Results: Phase 1
As a result of the data analysis, themes were generated from the nodes. Further, characteristics wereidentified from the participant’s narratives and compared to the existing literature.
Diverse Students
After the themes had been identified, characteristics that were revealed by the interview
participants, were organized to indicate which were dominant, that is most prevalent in each theme.
They were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Age
Geographics
Previous jobs/life experiences
Year of research
Course of research
Motivations
Hobbies
FamilyPrevious qualifications

The most interesting revelation from the data is that there appears to be no age limit to digital
exclusion or inclusion. Additionally, many of the students who shared characteristics across anumber of themes also fell into one or more of the traditional groupings. This highlights thecomplexity of students and erroneous task of trying to group them in order to predict how theymight engage with technology. Any age can experience aspects of exclusion. This is contrary tomuch of the literature that suggests that older learners experience digital exclusion more than their
younger counterparts. Furthermore, digital exclusion was not greatly attributed to the othercharacteristics.

Digital Exclusion
Digital exclusion is defined in this research as being unable to access or use technology, or use it
in the way it was intended to facilitate the learning process for any reason. 13 out of the 16
participants disclosed attitudes indicating digital exclusion in some form. The main themes thatemerged are discussed below:

94

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Table 2. Themes and sources
Theme
Appropriate Content
Compatibility
ClarityPeers
M-learning
IT Support
Equipment
Navigation
Logging in
Online Submission

Sources
8
5
6
6
4
6
6
3
4
3

Note. Sources: number of participants expressing experiences of exclusion within the theme.
Appropriate Content
The data revealed that the most significant area of exclusion for the sample is in perceived irrelevant
or confusing content of course material. Feelings of frustration and stress can be experienced if
online content is not clear. For example, one participant states,‘…there was one unit that we started in our first year evidence to support guide practice.
And it was just everyone hated it. There was no point in it and to be honest I don't think itshould be part of the course. I don't see how it makes us better nurses. Replace it withsomething that is relevant.’Moreover, unclear face to face content can influence the frustration when students then work
independently online. This mirrors a similar research by Beaudoin et al. (2009) who researchedstudent’s online experiences that affected satisfaction. As discussed in the literature review,
Anderson and Haddad (2005) found that female students’ perceptions of deeper learning were
facilitated by online discussion. It could be the case that the students were not participating asplanned or did not appreciate why they were being asked to complete this part of the course as they
were.
Compatibility
Another significant finding is the experiences of participants with compatibility. A common patternof frustration was not being able to access information at home due to incompatibility issues. One
participant stated that,‘…I can’t access everything I need to access, and umm last week apparently- I had tried tolook at the formative test but I could only see the answers I could select, I couldn’t actually
see the questions, and I can’t , can’t rectify this. Apparently it’s because my operating
system is too old to support the technology used. So I found that quite frustrating.’
This is a potentially significant problem for those students who are to research a blended learning
program.
Clarity
The data clearly shows that regardless of age, students need clear instructions and structure to
online content for it to be effective. One participant voices this in the following way,95

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition‘…OK we’re adults we need to do self-study but you need to give clear structure to me andI’ll be able to follow it.’Feelings of frustration and stress can be experienced if online content is not clear. Moreover,unclear face to face content can influence the frustration when students then work independently
online.
Peers
Peers can contribute to digital exclusion by not participating appropriately in collaborative tasks.
One participant stated,‘…I suppose if you did have a number that didn't pull their weight as much, it would makeit quite awkward.’
This can lead to other students feeling awkward and possibly not completing the task to their best
ability. Peers also contribute to the problems that are encountered on group Facebook pages,
generating rumors and false information.
IT support
The data reveals that IT support within the university is widely offered and utilized. There are anumber of support networks in place within HSC that students seem to be unaware of. One
participant stated,‘… they {IT Services}need to change some aspect of the support they’re giving to theirstudents.’
Phase 2 will pursue the reasons for this in more depth.
M-learning & Equipment
M-learning is described as the use of handheld technology that relies on wireless and mobile phone
networks, to aid teaching, learning and support, (m-learning.org). With this in mind, the BU app isvery much part of the student’s support network. However, some participants were unable to use it
effectively, especially with iPhones and iPads. The app was installed on one participant’s
smartphone but was still unable to use it effectively. They stated that,‘ … the new I_BU app crashes a lot sometimes.’
Navigation and logging in
Negotiating the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) through a number of tabs and entering yourstudent password and ID three or four times to access one form causes some frustration with theparticipants. One participant was vocal about navigational problems with the VLE system. They
state that,‘… The format of myBU umm, I know that’s it customized, or you can customize it to someextent but it’s just very messy, umm everything is under sub headings, and it makes it very
difficult to access very simple information sometimes because you need to go through, youknow, like several links to get to one thing. And I don’t think that’s very clear.’Online submission
A number of forms and assessments now utilize the technology for submission. One participant
said of her placement form,

96

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition‘… you have to fill out your evaluation to get your next bit of placement time, so once you
fill out the form {POW}, it tells you where you are located next, so if the whole systemcrashes and you lose all of your answers, you lose your timetable for the next bit of yourplacement.’
Others reveal that submitting essays online can be problematic if left until the last minute as others
are also trying to submit and the system can crash. This is particularly concerning when a deadline
has to be met.
Summary
The research presented here demonstrates that factors in the university structure of digital delivery
were more likely to produce exclusion than characteristics of diverse students. This is evidenced
by a wide variety of individuals from varying age groups reporting digital exclusion. The next
section discusses Phase 2 of the research.
Findings and Results: Phase 2
Phase 2 addressed the points raised in Phase 1. A new sample was interviewed who completed thesame unit as the sample in Phase 1. Ten participants were interviewed. The iterative process of data
analysis produced some interesting results.
Diverse Students
Of the participants, 8 out of 10 reported that that there was an element of a ‘Chinese whispers’
effect that happens on the groups Facebook page. 5 of which went as far to say that this generated
a sense of panic within the group. Looking at the characteristics of these 5 participants, there is nopattern as to which students experience this. Although most of the participants admitted to a
‘Chinese whisper’ phenomenon, this did not deter them from using the Facebook group as a support
network, as what they gained from it was far more beneficial to them. The social circles within thissample that are created using social media play a part in constructing attitudes towards digital
exclusion in as much as misinformed or incorrect posts lead to anxiety and concern. This did only
seem to happen on social media sites as although rumors could spread verbally this did not seemto cause any panic as it was limited to the immediate social circle and not the whole Facebook
group.
Previous Experiences with Technology
Phase 2 did not confirm that previous experiences influenced current perceptions of technology per
se: it did however find that previous experiences of technology generated feelings of self-doubt
towards using technology. 9 of the 10 participants voiced feelings of uncertainty with thetechnology to be used on the course and whether they had used it before. The older participantsthat had entered the course after a long period of employment perceived the technology to bedifferent to that they had been using at work or at home and therefore unable or difficult to use.
These feelings of self-doubt were experienced prior to the course starting but developed into
something positive when the course started. Whereas the younger participants who shared similarviews were not anxious about the technology until after the course had started and they knew which
technologies they were to use. The older participants all agreed that it had not materialized inpractice and that they were able to use the technology without any problems that related to theirskills.
Age as a Barrier to Learning

97

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Additionally, none of the older students shared any experiences of digital exclusion due to a lackof personal technological skills. Any experiences they had faced with new technologies, such as
blogs, they had met with an opportunist and positive view which allowed them to pick up the newskills quickly. Phase 2 confirmed the findings from Phase 1 with regard to the digital
native/immigrant debate. Phase 1 discovered that age played no part in digital exclusion. During
Phase 2, this hypothesis was investigated further. Interestingly, the younger participants,
considered by some to be digital natives, perceived the older participants, considered by some to
be digital immigrants, as facing certain challenges with technology, yet none of the older
participants interviewed shared this view. While the older students would admit that sometechnologies were new to them, they did not consider this to be a hurdle only an opportunity tolearn something new. Furthermore, the older students perceived the younger students as having
previous knowledge and experience of using new technologies, therefore an advantage. The
younger students also perceived themselves as having an advantage with technology; however thisdid not translate into practice.
Digital Communication
The younger students in this sample were limited in which technologies they used, being very
capable of using social media for communication and informal learning but not as comfortableusing social media for formal learning. Additionally, they were unconfident of finding informationon the internet for research purposes and using the VLE. This runs parallel with the literature fromthe Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Teo, 2009) which emphasizes younger students’
perceived ease of use with ubiquitous technology and using technology for consumption and not
creation (Bennett et al., 2011). A hypothesis for this could be that as technology evolves andbecomes more ubiquitous in education and everyday life, older learners, through experience havecaught up with younger learners. So even though older learners who are ‘digital immigrants’ due
to being born before technology was commonplace, are now as comfortable using technology as
their younger counterparts. Perhaps a renaming for this younger group: ‘digital communicators’
would now be more appropriate than ‘digital natives’.
Digital Exclusion
Again, with the Phase 2 sample ‘support’ was a significant theme that emerged from the data. The
support networks at the university that were commonly used by this sample were IT support andLibrary support. The group’s Facebook page was an important source of support (academically andemotionally) and some participants relied on peers and lecturers for face to face support. 7 of the
10 participants were aware of being informed about support networks during their induction at thestart of the course, however as the support was not needed then, they did not store the information.
This raises an important point. Most universities will prepare a carefully organized induction for
their new students in order to inform them of all the necessary information that they may needduring their time there, yet it could be argued that most of that information is lost and only the
information that is significant at that time is remembered. There is an argument here for universities
and other institutions to stagger the induction process so that certain information is given later at atime when it might be more relevant.
Summary
The research presented here goes some way to confirm that factors in the university structure ofdigital delivery were more likely to produce exclusion than characteristics of diverse students.
However, this phase also found links between age and digital exclusion. Younger students weremore likely to experience challenges using unfamiliar technology, especially for formal learning
purposes. Whereas older students faced with unfamiliar technology considered it as a positive98

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

learning experience. This is evidenced by a variety of individuals from differing age groups
reporting digital exclusion.
Table 3. A summary of the results from Phase 2
Participants report experiences ofdigital exclusion in the form of;SupportSelf-doubt and perceptions oftechnology
Learning
Perceptions of influence of own
age and perceptions of influenceof others’ age
Self confidence
Convenience of learning and mlearning
Collective opinions
Beginning of the course
Frustrations with the VLE
Social MediaInteractivity

Characteristics ofparticipants;
Previous Jobs
Age
Year of ResearchChildrenMotivations
FamilyGeographic’s

Preliminary Discussion-Diverse Students
This research suggests that there is no typical attribute that is more closely associated with digital
exclusion or inclusion than any other. Most of the participants that took part in the researchexperienced exclusion of some form or other during the unit studied. Significantly, links between
age and digital exclusion were not as expected. Younger students were more likely to experiencechallenges using unfamiliar technology, especially for formal learning purposes. Whereas older
students faced with unfamiliar technology considered it as a positive learning experience. Younger
students use social media to communicate and learn informally with friends and peers but are lesswilling to use social media for formal learning. This sentiment was not shared by the older
participants who valued the opportunity to use social media for both informal and formal learning
purposes.
In line with a critical realist approach, the participants shared their own perceptions of digital
exclusion, which were unique to them, whilst recognizing that certain factors, such asorganizational factors, were potentially the same for everyone on their program.
Preliminary Discussion-Digital Exclusion
Most of the participants felt exclusion in the form of the content being used to facilitate the unit
and not their own technological skills. It could be argued that technological advances within IT are
so ubiquitous and widespread in our homes, learning to cope with technology is becoming alifestyle. Many of the perceptions of the participants were similar. Even in the cases of misguided
information about support networks for example. If you consider Salmon’s five stage e-moderating
model (2004) to communicating online, a prerequisite of achieving Stage 1 is that the learners know
how and where to access help and support. It would seem that as students talk with each other, it
may be the case that a miscommunication of information or a ‘Chinese whisper’ scenario candevelop amongst cohorts. Additionally, this can be fuelled by the student’s Facebook group.

99

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

The timing of when information is given was found to be important. Information given during theinduction process at the start of a program of study can be futile, as students in this research want
to be given the information at relevant times, for example immediately before they will need to usethat information. This suggests that a staggered induction process could be beneficial, giving out
information throughout the program of study.
Limitations
As this research utilizes interview data collection techniques and is grounded in critical realism
beliefs, it is subjective and based on personal interpretations of the researcher. The findings arelimited to one unit of a course being studied within one school at Bournemouth University. The
unit is delivered with a blended learning model but it is recognized by the researcher that othercourses/units may have a different blend of methods. It is also recognized that the samples in bothphases were fairly small, although saturation had been reached.
Future Directions
The obligation by HEI to provide competitive TEL offers, results in an abundance of studies andreports into pedagogical must haves for successful designs however, further investigation is needed
into whether this is being translated into practice. For example, the disparity between what a student
needs to do to be a successful e-learner, what the student actually does and whether they understand
why they are doing it. This confirms the need for e-learning strategies to address the new factors
determining the divide. The future direction of this research is to implement Phase 3 to evaluate
the trustworthiness of the data analysis in Phases 1 and 2. The final Phase 4 will be the creation ofa conceptual framework for effective learning approaches and of factors that influence digital
inclusion and exclusion.

100The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Ala-Mutka, K. (2009). Review of Learning in ICT-enabled Networks and Communities. Institutefor Prospective Technological Studies, 24061.
Anderson, D., & Haddad, C. (2005). Gender, Voice, and Learning in Online Course Environments.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 9(1).
Beaudoin, M., Kurtz, G., & Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and Opinions of E-learners: What Works,
What are the Challenges, and What Competencies Ensure Successful Online Learning.
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects. 5. IJELLO special series of
Chais Conference 2009 best papers.
Beetham, H. (2004). Review for JISC pedagogy Programme, Developing e-Learning Models for
the JISC Tutor Communities, Version 2.1. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/elearning_pedagogy.html.
Bennett, S., & Marsh, D. (2003). Widening Participation and e-Learning: Meeting the Challenge
within a Foundation Degree. Journal of Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 5(3).
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Carrington, L. (2011). Understanding the complexity of technology
acceptance by higher education students. In T. Teo (Eds.), Technology acceptance ineducation: Research and issues, 63-77. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense
BIS (2011). Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System. London: Department for
Business,Innovation
andSkills.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.bis.gov.uk//assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/h/11-944-higher-educationstudents-at-heart-of-system.pdf.
Boonaert, T., & Vettenburg, N. (2011). Young people’s internet use: divided or diversified?
Childhood, 18(1), 54-66.
Boyette, M. (2008). An investigation of the online learning environment in higher education
through the observations and perceptions of students of color (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=etd.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. ISSN 1478-0887.
Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide – within and between countries. IT &society, 1(7), 39-45.
Chin, K., Chang, V., & Bauer, C. (1999). The impact of cultural differences on web-based learning.
Paper presented at the CAL'99 Conference. London, UK.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles:
what research has to say to practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre. London.
Conole G. (2008). The role of mediating artefacts in learning design. Handbook of research on
learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies, 108-208.
Information Science Reference.
Conole, G., Culver, J., Williams, P., Cross, S., Clark, P., & Brasher, A. (2009). Cloudworks: Social
networking for learning design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 763782.
101

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Conole, G. (2010). Review of pedagogical models and their use in e-learning. Retrieved July 20,
2015, from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2982.
Conole, G. Thorpe, M., & Edmunds, R. (2009). Learners’ experiences of blended learning
environments in a practice-based context. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140702233839/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwed
o/programmes/elearningpedagogy/pblxp.aspx.
Creanor, l. Trinder, K. Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2006). LEX The Learner Experience of Elearning.
JISC
Final
Report.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and selfregulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internetand Higher Education. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.
Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2011). Impact of Web 2.0 on higher education. In D. W. Surry, T. Stefurak,& R. Gray (Eds.). Technology integration in higher education: Social and organizational
aspects, 174–187. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2012). Widening Participation in Education.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/wideningparticipation-in-higher-education--4.
Draffan, E., & Rainger, P. (2013). In Seale (2013). Approaches to Developing Accessible Learning
Experiences. Conceptualising Best Practice. Routledge.
Dyke, M., Conole, G., Ravenscroft, A., & De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning theories and technologies.
In, Conole, Grainne and Oliver, Martin (eds.) Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning
Research: themes, methods and impact on practice. Abingdon, GB, New York, USA,
Routledge.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (2007). The seven things you should know about. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-knowabout-citizen-journalism.
Eynon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: implications for learning and education.
Learning, media and technology, 34, 277-290.
Falconer, I., & Conole, G. (2006). LADIE gap analysis. Report for the JISC-funded LADIE project.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.elframework.org/refmodels/ladie/guides/.
Frazer, E., & Lacey, N. (1993). The Politics of Community: a Feminist Critique of the Liberal
Communitarian Debate. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hemel Hempstead
Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles,and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons. NY.
González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Rodriguez, O., & Alonso, M. (2012). Gender differences in elearning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromdoi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.017.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park. CA. Sage.
102

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. and
Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of ‘dumbing
down’. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 521-535.
Heemskerk, I., Brink, A., Volmanw, M., & Ten Dam, G. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in
education: a focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 21, 1–16.
Helsper, E., & Godoy-Etcheverry, S. (2011). The long tail of digital exclusion: The social context
of digital (dis)engagement in Chile and the UK. In The linked world: How information andcommunication technology is transforming societies, cultures, and economies. Washington,
MA. Conference Board Press.
Holzinger, A., Nischelwitzer, A., & Meisenberger, M. (2005). Mobile phones as a challenge for mlearning: Examples for mobile interactive learning objects (milos). Third IEEE International
Conference on Pervasive Computing & Communications Workshops, 307-311.
Hutchings, M. (2002). Enhancing learning with computer mediated communication: teacher
intentions and student conceptions of online learning. In Rust, C. (ed.) Improving Student
Learning Using Learning Technologies. Oxford Centre for Staff Development, 99-111.
InstituteofEducation(2013).
Retrieved
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/newsEvents/85353.html.

July

20,

JISC’sE-learning
Programme(2012).
RetrievedJuly20,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy.aspx.

2015,

from

2015,

from

Johnson, R. (2011). Gender differences in e-learning: Communication, social presence, andlearning outcomes. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 23(1), 79-94.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from doi:10.4018/joeuc.2011010105.
Kay, R. (2008). Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present andfuture. In T. T. Kidd & I. Chen (Eds.), Social information technology: Connecting society andcultural issues. 12-30. Hershey, PA. Information Science Reference. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-774-4.ch002.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., & Dalgarno, B. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types ofnet generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5).
Knowles, M., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. (2012). The adult learner. Routledge.
Koivusilta, L., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, A. (2007). Orientations in adolescent use of informationand communication technology: a digital divide by sociodemographic background,
educational career, and health. Scandinavian journal of public health, 35(1), 95-103.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An Overview of Mobile Assisted Language Learning:from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 249-252.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095834400800013X.
Kvale, S. (2008). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Launer, R. (2010). Five assumptions on blended learning: What is important to make blended
learning a successful concept? In Tsang, P., Cheung, S., Lee, V. and Huang, R. (Eds.). Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 6248, 9-15. Berlin. Springer.
103

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for theeffective use of learning technologies (2nd Edition). London, UK: Routledge Falmer
Lichy, J. (2011). Internet use behaviour in France and Britain: exploring socio-spatial disparity
among adolescents. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 470-475.
Liu, S., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade:
Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165-182.
Longley, P., Ashby, D., Webber, R., & Li, C. (2006). Geodemographic classifications, the digital
divide and understanding customer take-up of new technologies. BT Technology Journal,
24(3), 67-74.
Longley, P., & Singleton, A. (2008). Social Deprivation and Digital Exclusion in England. Urban
Studies, 46(7).
Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN Magazine, 2(2).
Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC
e-learning models desk research, 1.
McKenzie, J. (2007). Digital nativism, digital delusions, and digital deprivation. From Now On.
The educational Technology Journal, 17(2), Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.fno.org/nov07/nativism.html.
McNaught, C., & Vogel, D. (2004). The converging streams of globalisation and eLearning.
Stretching the comfort zone. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer and R. Phillips(Eds). Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, 637-646.
Perth, 5-8 December.
Means, B., Toyama, R., Murphy, Y. Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, D. C: U.S. Department of Education.
Miller, K., & Tsang, E. (2011). Testing management theories: critical realist philosophy andresearch methods. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 139–158.
m-Learning (2014). Mobile learning is for everyone. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.mlearning.org/.
Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic research.
Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48.
Munro-Smith, N. (2002). A tale of two cities: Computer mediated teaching and learning in
Melbourne and Singapore. In A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young, & T. Clear (Eds.), Windsof change in the sea of learning: Charting the course of digital education. Proceedings of the
19th ASCILITE Conference. Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/105.pdf.
O’Driscoll, M., Allan, H., Simpson, V., & Sequeira, L. A. (2010). How can the University use elearning to improve the learning experience of non-traditional students? Internal report,
University of Surrey's Widening Access Fund.
Ofcom (2012). Children and parents: media use and attitudes report. Research document.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/medialiteracy/oct2012/main.pdf.
104

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘‘Blended Learning’’ be redeemed?. E-learning, 2(1), 7–
26.
ONS (2013). Office for National Statistics. Young People Not in Education, Employment orTraining (NEET). Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html.
Pachler, N., Ranieri, M., Manca, S., & Cook, J. (2012). Editorial: Social networking and mobile
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 707-710.
Picciano, A., Dziuban, C., & Graham, C. (Eds.) (2014). Research Perspectives in Blended Learning.
Research Perspectives, 2. Routledge.
Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital
wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3).
Roulston, K. (2001). Data analysis and 'theorizing as ideology'. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 27930.
Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating (2nd edn) London, Routledge Falmer.
Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating-The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Second edition.
Routledge Falmer, UK.
So, H., & Brush, T. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence andsatisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computers& Education, 51(1), 318–336.
Social Media Today (2014). UK Social Media Statistics for 2014. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/uk-social-media-statistics-2014.
Taylor, E. (1870). Researches into Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization.
Bradbury, Evans and Co., London.
Taylor, J., & House, B. (2010). Motivations, identity and concerns in widening participation
students at different stages of the student life-cycle. Psychology Teaching Review, 16, 46-57.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A research of pre-service teachers.
Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research(COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group. International Journal for
Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.
UCAS(2013).
Student
Finance.
Retrieved
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/students/studentfinance/.

July

20,

2015,

from

Universities UK (2012). Patterns and Trends in UK Higher Education. Higher Education:
Analysinga
DecadeofChange.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/PatternsAndTrendsinUKHigherEducation2012.aspx#.Uup-aRuPPmQ.
Wehrwein, E., Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. (2006). Gender differences in learning style preferencesamong undergraduate physiology students. doi: 10.1152/advan.00060.2006 Adv Physiol Educ,31(2), 153-157.

105

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Wooden, M., Vanden Heuvel, A., Cully, M., & Curtain, R. (2001). Barriers to training for older
workers and possible policy solutions. Department for Education and Training and YouthAffairs. University of South Australia.
Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The First Year Experience of Higher Education in the UK. York.
Higher Education Academy.

106The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

107

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Using Mobile Technology to Enhance Undergraduate Student Digital
Information Literacy Skills: A Canadian Case Study
Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Nicole Sanderson, and Tony Tin

108

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
Learning essential information literacy skills through the use of mobile phones is an innovative mlearning pilot project that was collaboratively undertaken in a Canadian university college over thecourse of two academic terms by faculty and the library staff. The research pilot project involved
ninety one undergraduate students in five different classes majoring in psychology, social work,
education or social development studies in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of using
mobile technology to enhance students’ information literacy skills and learning experiences. Pre
and post-test measures, and survey questionnaires generated quantitative and qualitative data that
was analyzed to determine the degree of changes in frequency of mobile device information literacy
access and fluency in digital literacy skills. The article highlights the Mobile Information Literacy
innovation and includes the development and design of the mobile lessons, interactive exercises,
and its applications. The study’s main results and conclusions are also discussed. Additionally, thesuccesses and challenges of the pilot to support anytime, anywhere student mobile information
literacy eLearning training that engages mobile learners and enhances their learning experience are
identified and critically reflected upon to improve the innovation for stage two of the project.
Keywords: Mobile learning; information literacy; e-Learning; digital literacy; post-secondary
education.

109

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
University students frequently use academic material both on and off campus, there is demonstrated
need to provide easily accessible tools to assist them (Baggaley, 2004; Brown, 2004; Perry, 2000).
Academic literature has emphasized the value of teaching information literacy skills, clearly linked
with academic and critical thinking skills, as part of a comprehensive university education (Kim &Shumaker, 2015; MacPherson, 2004; Tumbleson & Burke, 2013). Information literacy iscommonly defined as the ability to locate, to access, evaluate, and use information that cuts acrossall disciplines, all learning environments, and all levels of education (Association of College &Research Libraries' Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, 2000;
Saunders, 2012). Despite the aspiration towards pedagogical innovation in higher education, theinclusion of information literacy in undergraduate education often remains an objective rather thana fully realized ideal/accomplishment
This project supported the development and administration of the mobile information literacy (MIL)
tool, being a web search application for use by undergraduate arts and humanities students at
Renison University College, affiliated with the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Participants had the opportunity to utilize this tool and reported on their level of satisfaction withthe tool. Project objectives were to develop best strategies, from a user perspective, for deliveringand accessing information that enhances student information literacy skills through mobile
technology. With the MIL tool, the research team hypothesized that students would improve theirliteracy skills and would increase their access, retrieval and evaluation skills, to ascertain andunderstand reliable and credible academic information. The research team also felt that other schoolcommunities would benefit from the MIL tool to assist them to complete academic assignments
and research projects. Our research aims to contribute to the understanding of the innovative
practice for mobile technology academic learning (m-learning).
The pilot study was a mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) non-experimental approach that
included both pre- and post- digital literacy tests and student questionnaires. All study participants
completed a digital literacy pre-test and a digital literacy post-test. Undergraduates in threeparticipant groups completed thirteen mobile information literacy lessons (online) before
completing the post-test and questionnaire. Students in the comparison group received a one hour
research skills library workshop and completed the pre and post digital literacy test. The
comparison group participants did not participate in the thirteen online literacy lessons.
Literature Review
M-learning involves the use of mobile devices to deliver electronic learning materials with built-in
learning strategies to allow access to knowledge from anywhere and at any time (Ally, 2004). Mlearning or “education on the go” utilizing mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets,
expands the boundaries of anytime, anywhere learning and will play an important role in the futureof learning (Keegan, 2002; Wu et al., 2012). As this type of learning is an emerging field, the fullpotential of m-learning is still untapped and best-practice guidelines for m-learning are still
unknown. Although using mobile technology for information literacy training is limited, there area few programs in universities and colleges in the United States, England and Australia that include
infusing information literacy and technology into the educational experience in for-credit courses
and a certificate provided upon graduation for completion of the lessons (DaCosta, 2010; Kraemer
et al., 2007; Salisbury& Ellis, 2003; Warnken, 2004).
Research on m- learning is a recent development and there has been limited research conducted inthis area (Attewell, 2005; British Educational Communications Technology Agency, 2004; Keegan,
2002; Savill-Smith & Kent, 2003). A study conducted by DaCosta (2010) on the integration of110

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

information literacy skills in selected post-secondary higher education curricula in England and theUnited States found limited integration of information literacy in the curriculum across a variety ofacademic disciplines, including arts, education, sciences and engineering. Although information
literacy skills were deemed to be important tools by faculty and librarians for students,
opportunities for integration were limited. There appears to be no consensus among faculty on
when students should learn the skills or if they need to be taught information literacy in the
curriculum (DaCosta, 2010). This highlights the gap between understanding the level of importanceof the information literacy skills and embedding them into the curriculum. Another identified
challenge is the misperception by some faculty that computer literacy equals information literacy(Salisbury & Ellis, 2003). Osmosis does not work for the development of such skills, but rather
pedagogical collaborations between faculty and librarians can be encouraged and established toassist in incorporating information literacy into higher education curriculums.
Typically, information literacy competencies are highly valued by faculty in various disciplines atcolleges and universities, however little has been written on information literacy outside of thelibrary literature. The transformation of information literacy from a library-centered issue to amainstream educational issue is just beginning (DaCosta, 2010; McGuinness, 2006; Owusu-Ansah,
2004). Often, there is limited interaction between faculty and librarians and the seeming
unwillingness of academic faculty to partner with librarians may have less to do with a lack ofrespect for the position, and more to do with a lack of understanding of how librarians cancontribute to and support their instruction (Saunders, 2012). The pilot study described in this paper
aimed to enhance the collaborative efforts between these two roles in order to allow them to share
responsibility for teaching students information literacy skills in an innovative way.
More research, from a user perspective, is needed to discover the best strategies for maximizing mlearning, including discovering what is the best mobile device for accessing digital information
tools such as the MIL, and what form the content needs to take to contribute to effective m-learning
to engage mobile learners. The passion to help student learners improve their information skills
using mobile devices shaped the research framework for this project. Overall, the research on the
educational use of mobile devices is in the early stages and limited research includes case studies
of different implementations. Cross-faculty and library collaborations are still needed.
Outcomes of this project will have several meaningful and significant contributions to the emerging
knowledge in the field of m-learning. To be successful and independent learners for life, students
must graduate with the ability to successfully navigate electronic environments. Understanding andusing both the information and technology related to their fields of study is deemed critical. With
emergence of new technology, ways to develop information and digital literacy skills in the
curriculum that interact with mobile technology offers exciting possibilities (Sandars, 2012;
Saunders, 2012).
We ask the question, “Is m-learning the next evolutionary step of e-learning?” To fill the gap in the
research, this innovative project was designed and implemented to support and enhance m-learningpedagogy at Renison University College. Students enrolled in both the Bachelor of Social Workand the Bachelor of Social Development Studies degree programs are required to write numerous
academic papers over the course of their programs. Many students struggle with information
literacy in searching for appropriate information and evaluating the validity of sources. It isespecially critical that students understand how to conduct research and be self-reliant in theelectronic information environment at a time when there is less need to consult with a librarian or
to access a library.

111

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

It is anticipated that m-learning will grow quickly in the next few years. With the development ofa variety of mobile devices that are more powerful, portable and have increased Wi-Fi access, thisresearch will serve as a foundation for developing and promoting segments of mobile learning
among students, the community and beyond. There is an apparent gap between the information
literacy skills that faculty want their students to have and those that they actively support anddevelop. It is a gap that faculty and librarians from various faculties are best placed to fill as
collaborators and bridge builders. This project begins this collaborative, bridge-building process.
Methodology and methods
Our study used a mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) non-experimental approach,including both pre- and post- literacy tests and student questionnaires. This project and the survey
instruments were approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Waterloo. Ninetyone university undergraduate students participated in the project during the fall 2014 and winter2015 school semesters as part of their course activities from five Social Development Studies (SDS)and Social Work classes at Renison University College. University participants ranged in year of
study from their second year to their fourth year. Undergraduates in four of the five participantgroups completed a pre-test, thirteen mobile information literacy lessons (online) before
completing the post-test and questionnaire. These students accessed their personal smart phones
and tablets to complete the exercises in their spare time (e.g. riding a bus). Students in thecomparison group (n=32) received a one hour research skills library workshop and completed the
pre and post digital literacy test, but they did not participate in the thirteen online literacy lessons.
A short training session on the use of the MIL tool was provided by the librarian to students before
completing the on-line lessons. At the start of the session, participants completed paper and pencil
pre-tests to determine a baseline understanding of information literacy. On-line student participants
completed pre-test/post-test surveys through a web link accessed using their course newsfeed in
the university’s course management learning system. Survey questions explored participants’knowledge about accessing data, including the university’s library database system, Primo.
Administration of pre and post-test surveys occurred during the first week of classes and in the
final week of the term respectively. Additionally, students provided an assessment of their use of
the MIL tool at the end of the semester. All study participants received a 1% bonus mark in theircourse at the end of the completion of the study.
Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected and coded. Statistical analysis of the completed
surveys and questionnaires was done using Survey Monkey`s Analyze tool and by reviewing theraw data through the program Wordpress (https://wordpress.org). Opened ended questions werecoded and thematically analyzed while usage of the MIL web app tool was explored through
Google Analytics. The data was analyzed for program improvement, MIL tool enhancement andexpansion, and as basic research in the emerging field of information literacy instruction.
Findings
Data collected through a Survey Monkey link, an online cloud-based survey tool, retained
participant demographic information and survey results. Almost 60% of students were in a postdegree Bachelor of Social Work program, while 25% of students were in an undergraduate SDS
program and the remaining students (about 15%) identified their programs as other arts faculty or
humanities programs (psychology, sociology, French or fine arts). The comparison groupdemographics closely matched with other participant groups and consisted of thirty two Bachelor
of Social Work students. Most study participants were female (90%) and 77% of the participants
were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, while 3.5% of participants indicated they were

112

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

over fifty years of age. Prior to participating in this MIL pilot study, almost 87% of students had
not received any type of literacy skills training.
Close to ninety-eight percent of participants owned a smartphone and 58% of these participants
were Apple iPhone users. This group reported using their phone and other mobile devices (i.e.
tablets) on a daily basis. Only twenty-eight percent of this group used a mobile device to search foracademic related information despite daily usage, while thirty-six percent of them made phone callswith their device. Texting was their main use (86%), while 35% browsed the internet and less than
10% of students played games on their smartphones.
Students who accessed academic information or conducted research on their phones significantly
preferred using a Google search engine (69%)over other search tools, such as the University ofWaterloo’s research and discovery tool, Primo (29%), other research databases, including Google
Scholar (30%), or RefWorks (3%), a web-based citation and bibliography tool.
Variations in accessing the mobile lessons by study participants were noted (see Table 1) as somelessons proved to be more frequently accessed than others.
Table 1. Access to the mobile lessons by study participantsLessons

Response Percent

60.2%

Locate: Lesson 1: An Introduction to Primo Central

44%

Locate: Lesson 2: The Basics: How to Search

78.3% (3)Locate: Lesson 3: Finding Articles

82.3% (1)Locate: Lesson 4: Finding Peer Reviewed Journals

73.3% (4)

Evaluate: Lesson 5: Evaluating Information Sources

60%

Evaluate: Lesson 6: Peer Review Process

73.2% (5)

Evaluate: Lesson 7: Popular Vs. Scholarly Resources

67.9%

Use: Lesson 8: Using the Web for Resources

61.3%

Use: Lesson 9: RefWorks

79.3% (2)Use: Lesson 10: When to Cite Your Articles

64.1%

Use: Lesson 11: Types of Written Articles

68.2%

Use: Lesson 12: How to Approach Assignments

56.8%

Use: Lesson 13: What is a Paragraph?

Seventy-nine participants completed the pre and post-tests, the MIL questionnaire, and all thirteen
information lessons. A majority of those participants (77.2%) gained or maintained their MIL
knowledge as evidenced by the test results. Of those, 50.63% improved their information literacy
knowledge while 26.58% maintained their knowledge from beginning to end of the semester. There
was a decrease in test scores noted in 23% of participants.

113

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Study Findings: Information Literacy Knowledge
Several key findings emerged during the review of the information literacy knowledge pre andpost-test scores for participant and comparison group scores (see Table 2). These included: 1) threeof the four participant group score averages (participant groups A,B, and D) increased substantially(about 50%), 2) Group B, who had the least number of participants (n=4), varied significantly infinal scores in relation to all other groups and increases in knowledge were not reported, 3) manyof the online participants (75%) had significant improvements in their post test scores, 4) over onequarter (28%) of the study participant’s information literacy knowledge decreased from beginningto the end of the semester while about half that number (12.5%) of comparison participants
information literacy knowledge declined, and 5) comparison group participant post-test scores were
surprisingly strong and actually surpassed the post test scores of the participant students thatcompleted the MIL lessons via smartphones.
Table 2. Information Literacy Knowledge Pre-Post Test Score Results
Number ofparticipants
TOTAL participants 99
On-campus participants
A. SDS-01
B. SDS-02
C. Social Work
Online participants
D. Social Work
onlineParticipants(A+B+C+D)
Comparison group
E. Comparison
Group (SW)

Increase

Decrease

Maintain

N

%

N

%

N

%

27
4
16

16
0
8

59.3%
0%
50%

7
3
4

25.9%
75%
25%

4
1
4

14.8%
25%
25%

100%
100%
100%

20

13

65%

5

25%

2

10%

100%

67

37

55.2%

19 28.4%

11

16.4%

100%

32

16

50%

4

12

37.5%

100%

12.5%

Total
%

Notable enhancements (55%) in information literacy knowledge occurred for three of the four
participant groups from the beginning to the end of the semester, whether they completed themobile lessons online or through their smartphones (see Table 3). For participant group A (n=27),
a class in SDS, almost 60% (16 of 27) of the students demonstrated an increase in information
literacy knowledge from the start of classes to the end of the semester. Almost 38% maintained theinformation literacy knowledge throughout the semester. These students were required to write
research paper proposals, which were then used as the starting point for their course research papers.
Perhaps group A students were able to apply what they learned from the MIL tool directly to theircourse assignments.
The smallest participant group B (n=4) varied significantly from the other groups. This small group
did not improve their information literacy scores by the end of the semester (0%), rather the scores
decreased for three of the four students while the fourth student retained the information literacy
knowledge from the beginning to the end of the semester. As voluntary participation in this project
was offered to students and only four volunteered from this class, perhaps the results may not be
representative due to small numbers.
Seventy-five percent (12 of 16 students) in the social work Group C (n= 16) participant groupretained or increased their information literacy knowledge over the course of the semester. Online

114

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

learners, Group D (n=20) demonstrated the greatest increases (65%) in information literacy of thestudy participants. Seventy-five percent of those online students who increased their post test scores
recorded gains of thirty to forty percent. Could this be a reflection of a student’s familiarity andcomfort with online learning where they easily gravitated to the online modules?
Scores between the pre and post-tests decreased for some students in all participant groups
indicating a loss of information literacy knowledge. The loss of information literacy knowledge
was greater for those students in the online class (about 25%) than the participants in thecomparison group (12.5%). The decline could reflect the negative impact on study participant
memory recall arising from the lapse in time between the completion of lessons early in thesemester and the post-test many weeks later.
Comparison group E members that received the in-class information literacy tutorial demonstrated
significant gains during the semester. Twelve comparison group students (40%) maintained theirinformation literacy knowledge at the same level, as compared to twenty (65%) of the online Social
Work class. It is interesting to note that over eighty-seven percent of the students who received
their information literacy lesson in person retained or increased their information literacy
knowledge as compared to forty-eight (71.6%) of the students who received the information via
their smartphones. Not all students in the participant groups completed all the thirteen lessons
which may explain the decline in their follow up test scores. The research team also recognizes thisis a pilot study and future development, enhancement and refinement of the MIL tool, pre and post
tests and the questionnaire are necessary which may impact outcomes and may address the variancein scores.
Table 3. Information Literacy knowledge Pre-Post Test

Information Literacy Knowledge Pre-Post Test
80
70

Percent

60
50
40

Increase30

No change

20

Decrease

100

The authors of this paper present the study findings in Table 3 as preliminary results and a reflection
on lessons learned from our pilot study. These results will inform Stage 2 of the MIL project e.g.
testing the revised MIL tool, revised pre/post-test surveys and questionnaires, and a larger sample
size.
Description of the MIL Tool

115

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

The MIL web app contains 13 lessons, focusing on how to locate, evaluate and use information(Figure 1) and is accessible at URL: http://beam.to/renmil. The learning contents are designed foruse with the University of Waterloo’s library resources and services. The lessons contain multiple
instructional videos about topics such as Boolean operators, database functions, writing searchstrategies using keywords, and bibliographic management tools such as Refworks.

Figure 1. Web App
Many information literacy studies indicate that interactivity and assessment can help to reinforce
concepts learned (Grassian & Kaplowitz, 2001; Yarmey, 2011). For these reasons, each MIL lesson
has interactive exercises providing instant feedback including True/False, Multiple Choice, Text
Impute, and Drag and Drop as demonstrated in Figure 2.

116

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

True/False Multiple Choice Text input

Drag and Drop
Figure 2. Different types of interactive exercises
The web app also provides two types of assessment tools to evaluate students’ progress as shownin Figure 3. The formative assessment allows students to complete one question and then view theirresults before moving on to subsequent questions. The summative evaluation permits student toview their results at the end of the lesson exercise and to compare their results with peers.
The web app also tracks the amount of time that students spend completing the exercises. The web
app supports knowledge construction, dissemination and collective intelligence, by encouraging
students to post their search tips at the mobile friendly site.

Formative Evaluation

Summative Evaluation

117

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 3. Summative and formative response
The MIL web app runs on WordPress (https://wordpress.org), an open source content management
system based on MYSQL and PHP. It generates content on the fly without any html programming
involved. MIL utilizes a mobile plugin to auto-detect the mobile browser and load the mobile
version of the MIL site. For assessment, a plug-in program called Wp-Pro-Quiz generates different
types of quizzes and the web app also tracks users’ scores and generates statistical reports. Google
Analytics was used to analyze student use and engagement, especially time spent on the MIL siteand detects the content students interacted with the most.
Discussion
MIL training for students, especially mobile learners will enhance mobility and flexibility inlearning, as well as enable students to be “spontaneous, personal, informal, contextual, portable,ubiquitous, and pervasive” (Kukulska-Hume, 2005, p.5). Most participants in the pilot study
expressed a positive experience using the mobile web app technology to learn information literacy
skills, and appreciated the flexibility of “anytime” availability of the MIL materials. Study
participants identified positive experiences with m-learning. They felt that this project gave thema new opportunity to learn: about information literacy; an appreciation for the visual aspects of the
MIL tool; a better understanding of how mobile phones can be used as tools for efficiency;
accessibility to the vast quantity of information available on the internet (especially Wi-Fi access),
and the speed with which the lessons could be completed using the tool.
One common concern voiced by participants regarding the use of smart phones was the cost ofaccessing Internet data. Availability of more Wi-Fi capable phones and accessible locations should
address the issues of the cost of access. Additional issues raised by the participants with regards to
MIL training, included: eye strain caused by small mobile screens; difficulty inputting data on
small keyboard or the phone lacked a keyboard altogether; need to use more multimedia, including
videos and interactive exercises; MIL web app is only optimized for IOS use, thus causing some118

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

viewing issues on Android devices (e.g. Drag and Drop exercises work with touch screen devices);and slow Internet connectivity may impact access to videos in MIL lessons.
Some concerns raised by participants can be addressed by incorporating more sophisticatedinstructional design and by improving the accessibility and functionality of the mobile friendly
website, while others such as the size of the screen and the limitations on band width are inherent
limitations of the current technology. Shurtz and von Isenburg (2011) contend that increased screen
size and touch features on contemporary mobile devices are expected to increase the use of mobile
technology in education.
The MIL tool has the potential to be an important aid for m-learning, however to make it more
effective some enhancements and upgrading of features in the tool and in the lessons will be
required. Not all MIL contents are fully interactive. Phase 2 of this study/tool will aim to enhance
student learning and will do further testing of learning analytics. With these enhancements, students
will be better able to access MIL training resources with interactive module formats on demandwith multimedia-rich content (such as text, audio, and video),with the aim of increasing learnermotivation and interest while facilitating more self-directed study. Future implementation of
HTML5 will allow better animation, smooth video playback, and the capability to run the app andstore content on the local device even when disconnected from the Internet. We suggest that
information literacy training could be delivered more effectively if MIL was embedded in the
curriculum.
Analysis of the data gathered in the pilot and sharing of the lessons learned from the process will
benefit future research. Phase 2 will begin in September 2015 with the goal of increasing thenumber and scope of student participants.
Conclusions
Notwithstanding the general increase in mobile applications, our research indicates that there is aneed to collect more information to develop a strong underlying evidence base to support thebenefits to students of m-learning and information literacy training. Information literacy is not a
standard part of classroom content, but appears to be provided only to those students who actively
seek out the information. Based on our early findings, it appears that students’ information literacy
knowledge may be linked to specific training. This leads the authors to advocate that information
literacy be embedded as part of the classroom curriculum. This project has reinforced our belief
that both learners and educators need to develop a range of information literacy skills and that they
be provided supportive materials to take full advantage of and make the best use of the emerging
technologies.

119

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Association of College and Research Libraries (2000). Information literacy competency standards
for higher education, information literacy defined. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm.
Ally, M. (2004). Designing effective learning objects for distance education. In R. McGreal (Ed.),
Online Education Using Learning Objects (pp. 87-97). London: Routledge Falmer.
Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and mlearning projectsummary. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Baggaley, J. (2004, November). M-learning how to M-teach. Diverse Newsletter. Retrieved July20, 2015, from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/diverse/diversenl1104jb1.htm.
British Educational Communications Technology Agency. (2004). What the research says about
portable ICT devices in teaching and learning: 2nd Edition Revised and Updated. Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.becta.org.uk/corporate/publications/documents/Research3_Portable%20Devices.
pdf.
Brown, T. (2004). The role of m-learning in the future of e-learning in Africa. In D. Murphy, R.
Carr, J. Taylor & W. Tat-meng (Eds.), Distance education and technology: Issues and practice(pp. 197-216). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
DaCosta, J. W. (2010). Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An examinationof
faculty perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the United States andEngland. College & Research Libraries, 71(3), 203-222. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://derby.openrepository.com/derby/bitstream/10545/254393/1/C%26RL_May2010.pdf.
Grassian, E. S., & Kaplowitz, J. R. (2001). Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice.
Information literacy sourcebooks. Edison, NJ: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Keegan, D. (2002, November). The future of learning: ZIFF papiere 119: From eLearning tomLearning. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZP_119.pdf.
Kim, S.U., & Shumaker, D. (2015). Student, librarian, and instructor perceptions of information
literacy instruction and skills in a first year experience program: A case study. The Journal of
Academic
Librarianship.
(In
Press).
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.04.005.
Kraemer, E. W., Lombardo, S. V., & Lepkowski, F. J. (2005). The librarian, the machine, or a littleof both: A comparative study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University.
College & Research Libraries, July (68), 330-342. doi:10.5860/crl.68.4.330
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Introduction. In A. Kukulska-Hulme& J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile
learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 1-6). London: Routledge.
McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think: Exploring the barriers to information literacy
development in undergraduate education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 574-582.
Macpherson, K. (2004). Undergraduate information literacy: A teaching framework. AustralianAcademic & Research Libraries,35(3), 226-241.

120

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2004). Information literacy and higher education: Placing the academic
library in the center of a comprehensive solution. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,30(1), 3-16.
Perry, D. (2000). Portable computers in primary schools: Literature review. London: Lambeth
Education Action Zone. Psion netBooks Project.
Salisbury, F. & Ellis, J. (2003). Online and face-to-face: Evaluating methods for teaching
information literacy skills to undergraduate arts students. Library Review, 52(5), 209-217.
Sandars, J., Homer, M., Pell, G., Crocker, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and social software: The medical
student way of e-learning. Medical Teacher, 30, 308-312.
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 226–236
Savill-Smith, C., & Kent, P. (2003). The use of palmtop computers for learning: A review of theliterature.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.mlearning.org/docs/the_use_of_palmtop_computers_for_learning_sept03.pdf.
Shurtz, S. M., & von Isenburg, M. (2011). Exploring e-readers to support clinical medical education:
Two case studies. Journal of Medical Library Association, 99(2), 110-117.
Tumbleson, B. E. & Burke, J. J. (2013). Embedding librarianship in learning management systems:
A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. Chicago, IL: ALA.
Warnken, P. (2004). The impact of technology on information literacy education in libraries.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 151 -6.
Wu, W. H., Wu., C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review oftrends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 59(2), 817827.
Yarmey, K. (2011). Student information literacy in the mobile environment. Educause Quarterly,34(1). Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/studentinformation-literacy-mobile-environment.

121

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

122

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Development of a Blended Instructional Model via Weblog to Enhance
English Summary Writing Ability of Thai Undergraduate Students
Saisunee Termsinsuk

123The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
The objective of this research and development was to develop an effective blended instructionalmodel via weblog to enhance English summary writing ability of Thai undergraduate students. A
sample group in the English program of Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University was studied inacademic year 2010-2013. The research instruments were an effective semi-structured interview
form, the learning and instructional record format, the test of English summary writing ability, andthe English summary writing criterion. The data were analyzed by percentage, means, standard
deviation, and the t-test. It was found that the blended instructional model via weblog comprised
three stages of blended activities: extracting information via face to face instruction, summarizing
via weblog, and publishing on weblog. It was named “S2A Model.” The model was effective inenhancing the university students’ English summary writing ability as the post-test scores of thestudents met the set criterion of the study.
Keywords: Blended instruction; weblog; summary writing; 21st century writing.

124

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
English is important among Thai university students for at least two reasons. First, it is a means forboosting job opportunities following graduation. Second, it is beneficial for use in further advanced
studies, both in Thailand and abroad. Thus, fundamental courses in English are offered at Thai
universities that cover a range of different topics.
Although the Thai government has tried to support English instruction at all levels of education,
the students have confronted various difficulties in their English studies. Students can read, butcannot write effectively in English, as shown by the English test results of 12,000 foreign graduate
students in Australia in 2007 which revealed that 50 percent of Thai students scored low(Charoenwongsak, 2008). This finding was similar to the results of other written test scores for
Thai undergraduate students where low scores pointed to weaknesses in (1) paragraph and an essay
writing, (2) writing mechanics, and (3) grammatical structure, parts of speech, and sentence
structures (Tidthongkam, 2008; Khansamrong, 2004). Similarly, the study of academic writing
problems at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University in 2009-2010 found that most students had
confronted some difficulties in locating topic sentences and details, organizing ideas, using
grammatical structures and vocabulary, and summary writing (Termsinsuk, 2010).
In accordance with instructional methods and methodology for teaching writing in the 21st century,
writing in English is taught through the use of technology, teaching fully online, or in a blended
way. Using technology web 2.0, a web for educational medias like wikis and weblogs, makes
students become more interested in attending online training among real readers, whereas teaching
face-to-face assists students in learning the right rules and principles and in obtaining usefulfeedback (Newman, 2009; Prinz, 2010; Crane, 2009). Using both of these techniques is called
writing through blended instruction.
Blended instruction via weblog has been studied and almost all of the study revealed its positiveeffects on learning. For the effect in a language classroom, most practitioners in Japan, Turkey and
Korea found that after using blended instruction via weblogs, the students’ writing abilities wereincreased (Oh & Park, 2009; Bahce &Taslaci, 2009; Kizil & Arslan, 2010; Miyazoe & Anderson,2010).
To solve the problems of undergraduate students in Thailand and boost the ability of the students
in this century, the blended instructional model via weblog should be developed, with anappropriate amount of stress placed on summary writing ability.
Research Objectives
The research objectives were to:
1. Develop a blended instructional model via weblog to enhance English summary writing
ability of Thai undergraduate students.
2. Develop the efficiency of the blended instructional model via weblog to enhance English
summary writing ability of Thai undergraduate students.
3. Study English summary writing of the university students taught by the blended
instructional model via weblog.
4. Study the effect of the blended instructional model via weblog on English summary writingof Thai undergraduate students.

125

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Literature Review
English summary writing ability is the use of the English language to write a brief account of theconcepts contained within a text. This ability focuses on accuracy of information, content clarityand organization, use of different vocabulary, sentence structure, writing mechanics, and citations.
A good summary writing should be shorter than the original and be written in different words. The
most important thing is that it contains all the main points of the original text, and it is composedusing proper citation, thesis statements, major details, transitions, grammar and writing mechanics,
and having a length of one third the original text. (Langan, 2000; MacMillan, 2009; Newman, 2009;
Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2009).
To produce good summary writers, an effective model of instruction should be developed first. An
instructional model is an explanation of learning activity procedures, teachers’ roles, students’roles, and the learning environment. It consists of four components: principles, objectives,
instructional activities, and evaluation. To design an effective instructional model, thedevelopmental sequence should be considered.
A model can be developed through spiral activities consisting of analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation (Clark, 2000). Analysis is a contextual study to discover need andfeasibility of the theoretical framework while designing instructional model for 21st century
learning focuses on three aspects: (1) knowledge, work and the new economy; (2) cognitive
methods of instruction; and (3) technology and training. Development takes the form of a draftedmodel and is explained in more detail via the four components. Implementation is used for effectivemodel development to investigate whether learning can be improved. Evaluation appears at the endof the implementation and shows that the model is proven to produce effective results.
It is important to recognize the three drivers in the new design for building an instructional model,
as proposed by Clark in 2002. The first driver responds to social need for the new economy which
requires people with decision-making ability and problem-solving skills. That’s the way to teachthinking to students. The second is a learning process through integration of new information andprior knowledge within an individual’s memory. The process is related to the three types of memoryin brain: sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. Viewing the screen of a computer monitor
firstly affects learning in a sensory way, followed by the process of retrieving information in shortterm memory, and then by storing permanent knowledge and skills in long-term memory. The final
driver is the use of a computer as a medium for developing and revising the learning task as part ofa process. This responds to the characteristics of students’ learning methods in the twenty-first
century. Use of these three drivers as components blended instruction should be considered for
instructional model development in the twenty-first century.
Presently, modern model development is concerned with how students learn amidst the technology
changes that are spreading all over the world. These changes have brought about opportunities forthe use of educational technology called technology web 2.0. It provides both teachers and students
with real situations for language use as two-way communication, especially when teaching writing(Crane, 2009).
Teaching writing in the 21st century could be modernized in four components as suggested by Prinz(2010); multimodality of text which are audio design, spatial design, visual design, and linguistic
design that make the content interesting, screens as emerging dominant media is a monitor which
is a mediated presenting writing tasks such as weblog and wikis, instead of presenting throughpapers, transformation blog mode and medium constellations are writing mode adaptation forwriting process such as collaborative and online interaction, changing social structures and relations

126

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

is a traditional writing structure and a writing format that could be adjusted into a two-way
communication which can be responding immediately. These four components make teachingwriting effective in this era, when weblog is used in teaching as a tool for two-way communication.
Weblog is a tool of technology web 2.0 used for learning mediation that connects face-to-facelearning and online learning. It is mediated in three ways of learning: linking to other weblogs,
publishing written tasks of student writers, and performing as an electronic portfolio on the internet.
Besides this, the use of weblog in social networks builds teacher-to-student friendships, studentsto-student friendships, and students-to-“any other” friendships. With this communication, students
improve their writing skill, being more autonomous writers, presenting their ideas freely, andposting more creative works on their weblogs (Prinz, 2010; Llach, 2010; Clark & Olson, 2010;
Babaee, 2012).
On the other hand, Bahce & Taslaci (2009) found in an EFL experimental study at university levelthat weblogs affect EFL student writers, as they were used for language improvement, as well as
for sharing and exchanging ideas, (not just for being a writing classroom). From this researchfinding it can be inferred that weblog, as full online learning, will not be suited for EFL learners,
but will instead be used in a blended way that is more practical.
Blended instruction via weblog is a combination of in-class learning and online learning activities
using weblog as a mediated form of learning. The mediation fare are used for searching among thelinks between learning sources in the world wide web, for publishing writing tasks, and forcollecting the written tasks as portfolios that can be reached at anytime and anywhere (Lee & Lee,
2007; Oh & Park, 2009; Fujishiro & Miyaji, 2010; Prinz, 2010; Tiantong, 2011).
Considering the problems with English writing in Thailand mentioned previously, and the findingsof blended instruction presented, the blended instructional model should be developed in Thai
universities. Consequently, it should also be investigated whether Thai undergraduate students’summary writing ability is increased after learning via the model.
Related Study
The study of blended instruction is mostly conducted in EFL context as follow:
Miyazoe & Anderson (2010) conducted an experimental study in order to study a development ofwriting ability and satisfaction of the 61 second year students in Tokyo University using blended
instruction via weblog, forum, and wikis. The face to face activity in class and online writing
practice out of class were designed and used. All students were taught via the three technology
medias. The lesson started with forums for an online discussion through a key board about a reading
passage whereas a blog was used for writing activity after the discussion. Then Wikis was used fortranslating from English into Japanese for collaboration. All activity was done once a week. For
writing, students practiced on blogs and a teacher also followed their progress via blogs. The
finding were revealed that the students presented their positive attitudes to the blended instruction
and the students has shown their writing progression as they used higher level of vocabulary andmore complex of sentence writing.
In the same year, Kizil & Arslan (2010) found a significance of his blended instruction study
through experimental research. The aim of the study was to study EFL writing integrated to process
writing via weblog. A group of samples used in the study were 27 students who were studying
English as a foreign language in Turkey University for 16 weeks. The group of students owned two
blogs for each, for publish writing tasks and for follow up tasks. The tutor’s blog was used formaterial delivery on line. The finding has shown that weblog affected writing performance in all

127

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

aspects, weblogs affected writing learning in all steps, weblogs affected feedback and revisingwriting task, and weblogs positively affected interest and motivation in using technology forlearning.
Oh and Park (2009) surveyed the use of blended instruction and attitude of the university lecturers
in Korea through questionnaires. All participants were 151 lectures from 33 different universities
and representative teaching official from Office of the Higher Education Commission of Korea.
The finding were revealed that 1) 64.4 percents of the lecturers used online instructional materials
in class 2) 95.9 of the participants designed, developed, and revised online learning materials withthe positive attitude towards blended instruction. 3) 70.6 percents of lectures were lack ofmotivation and 61.8 percents were also lack of enthusiasm in using blended instruction. They allneed supporting facilities from faculties which is workshop about instructional design andtechnology that supports blended instruction in order to increase the use of blended instruction at
tertiary level in the country.
Bahce and Taslaci (2009) had conducted an experimental research in order to study writing abilityof the students using blended instruction via weblog learning and face-to-face learning. 55 studentsof Anadolu University in Turkey were used in this study for 1 year (around the year 2007-2008).
Teaching time is 6 hours a week. Learning activities were weblog orientation, face-to-face learning,
and writing practice via blogs. At the end of the study, the results indicated that 1) blog is aninteraction resource in real life which the students can directly experience in three folds: learning
output, technology, creativity, and learning innovation. 2) Blogs is an effective learning resourcethat provides real effective learning output 3) blog provides opportunity for interaction at anytime
and anywhere with unlimited learning. 4) Blogs is a place for collaborative resource for language
development, not a language classroom.
In conclusion, blended instruction via weblog can probably enhance the university students’summary writing in effective ways. The idea of blended instruction is designed for orientation first,
and then flowed by both in class and out of class activity via weblogs.
Methodology and Methods
The mixed methodology was conducted in academic year 2010-2013 with four phases: analyzing
context using a qualitative procedure, synthesizing the instructional model using document
analysis, developing the model’s efficiency through action research, and study the effect of themodel on English summary writing ability of the university students. To achieve the objective of
the study, it was conducted and implemented in academic year 2010-2013 as shown in figure 1
below:

128

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 1. Phases of the study
Figure 1 shows phases of the study which can be explained as follows:
Phase 1: Analyzing context. The objectives of this phase were to study some vital information ofundergraduate students at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, concerning their problemssolving of English summary writing ability, and to study a conceptual framework. Participants werecomposed of thirty students majoring in English. Other participants were two selected lecturers in
the English program. Data collection was informal interview using semi-structured interview form
and a test. After that document analysis from various sources was reviewed and analyzed. Then
typology technique was used to categorize the information. The output was a conceptual framework
prepared for the instructional model design and construction.
Phase 2: Synthesizing the instructional model. The objective of this phase was to construct the
instructional model. It was constructed via the conceptual framework without participants. The
instructional model was synthesized and quality-checked its construct validity by three experts.
The experts were qualified in curriculum and instruction, specific in teaching English of at least 10
years of teaching English experience at the university level. The output of this phase was a proposed
blended instructional model via weblog for enhancing summary writing ability of Thai
undergraduate students.
Phase 3: Developing the model’s efficiency. The objective of this phase was to develop the
efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed instructional model using action research. It was
implemented through three action research cycles (Costello, 2003). The criterion was set at 80
percent of the target group achieving the English summary writing criterion at 70 percent of thetotal post-test scores. Fourteen students majoring in English of Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat
University were volunteers as a target group. The instruments used were lesson plans, a semi-

129

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

structured interview form, the learning and instructional record format, the record format ofindividualized ability development, efficient writing criteria, and an effective test for English
summary writing.
Eight experts were used in this phase. Three of them were phase-two experts for examining andquality-checking the model and its lesson plan, a semi-structured interview form, the learning andinstructional record format, the record format of individualized ability development, efficient
writing criteria, and an effective test for English summary writing. Another three experts werequalified in master degree in English and teaching English as a foreign language and hold acertificate in testing and material production for examining and quality-checking a scoring rubric.
Another two experts were qualified in master degree in English and English Study and have at least
teaching English experience of the campus for 3-5 years for being co-raters of the scoring rubrics
with a researcher.
The average mean score of construct validity among three experts was 3.89; its quality was at avery good level of construction according to theories contained in the conceptual framework.
Average scores of reliability among three experts of the proposed model, lesson plan, the record
format of individualized ability development, the learning and instructional record format, teaching
behavior record format, learning behavior record format, and a semi-structured interview form
were 4.08, 4.00, 3.80, 3.92, 3.92, 4.00, and 3.67, respectively. Also, a writing criterion had its
validity at 4.00 with its relevancy among three raters considered in three couples were at 0.73, 0.75,
and 0.79 which were at a very high reliability for those written test that could be evaluated byanyone. Besides, an average score of IOC index among three experts of a written test of English
summary writing was at 1.00.
The target group took a pre-test then studied a summary writing via the proposed model and its
quality-checked lesson plan for three cycles. During each cycle of action research was done, thedata were gathered via a semi-structured interview form, the learning and instructional record
format, the record format of individualized ability development, and efficient writing criteria.
Instructional activities were altered according to unsatisfied data from each cycle, until the set
criterion was achieved. The group took posttest at the end of the study. The data were then analyzed
by percentage, means, standard deviation, and the t-test for dependent samples. The output is anefficient blended instructional model via weblog to enhance English summary writing of Thai
under graduate students.
Phase 4: Studying the effect of the efficient blended instructional model. The objective of thisphase was to investigate the effect of the efficient model on English summary writing of university
students. A “one group post-test only design” was used as a research design at this phase. The
criterion was set at 80 percent of the students achieving the English summary writing criterion at
75 percent of the total post-test scores. A sample group was formed of forty-one students majoringin English who registered for an academic writing course in semester 2 of academic year 2013. The
instruments were all taken from phase 3. The data were then analyzed by using percentage. The
output was the effective blended instructional model via weblog to enhance English summary
writing for Thai undergraduate students.
Results
1. A proposed blended instructional model via weblog to enhance English summary writing abilityof Thai undergraduate students was synthesized based on the conceptual framework. All instruction
activities were described in the five components: background of the model, locating modelcomponents, principles, objectives, contents, learning activities, media, and assessment and

130

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

evaluation. The instruction consisted of preparations, taking notes, summarizing, and publishing.
The first three were face-to-face activities, whereas the fourth was on weblog.
2. After three cycles of action research, the proposed model was found to be effective. The model
was revised by changing some learning activities based on the qualitative data from the students’interview. Then, two phases of instruction were carried out: the preparatory phase and the
instructional phase. The first one concerning the lecturer’s and the student’s preparation forteaching and learning, and medias preparation relating to the tutor’s and students’ weblogs. The
second is the instructional phase containing three stages of instruction. Firstly, extracting
information involves four activities in class: surveying text, identifying key sentences, taking notes,
and analyzing key-words. Secondly, summary writing via weblog comprised of three activities inprocess writing; drafting, reviewing and revising, and editing. The final stage of instruction:
publishing on weblog comprises uploading files, studying comments, selecting possible comments,and visiting classmates’ weblogs.
According to the three-staged activities of the instructional model, it was also found in cycle 3 that
100 percent of the students had achieved the writing criterion set at 70 percent (34 scores) of thetotal post-test scores as shown in table 1.
Table 1. Post-test scores of the students compared to the set criterion at 70 percent of the total
scores (34 scores; N=14).
Test

Posttest

Total
scoresAverage

48

41.43

(X)

Numbers ofstudents passed

Percentage ofstudents passed

14

100

Table 1 shows post-test scores of the students compared to the setting criterion at 70 percent of thetotal scores. It was revealed that the average score that students obtained was 41.43, with 100 percentsof students achieving the criterion at 70 percent of the total post-test scores.
3. It was also revealed that the post-test scores of the students after the model implementation
was higher than the pretest scores at .05 level of significance as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. A summary of writing ability pretest and post-test scores after teaching through the use of
the proposed model.

Test

N

X

S.D.

t

Sig.

Pretest14

22.7857

3.23867

14.945*.000

Posttest

14

41.4286

3.79705* significant level .05

Table 2 shows a summary of writing ability pretest and post-test scores after teaching through theuse of the proposed model. It was revealed that post-test scores were higher than pretest scores at .05
level of significance. From the results in table 1 and 2, it can be concluded that after teaching using
the proposed model, the students significantly improved their summary writing ability.

131The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

4. After teaching with the effective model using pre-experimental research, it was revealed that
more than 80 percent of the students achieved the writing criterion set at 75 percent of the total
post-test scores as shown in table 3.
Table 3. Average post-test scores for English summary writing compared to the set criterion at 75
percent (36 scores) of the total scores (48 scores) N=41).
Test

Total
scoresNumberofstudents

Posttest

48

41

Number Averageof(X)
students
passed41

43.88

Percentage
of students
passed100

Table 3 shows post-test scores of the students compared to the set criterion at 75 percent of the total
scores. It was revealed that the average scores students obtained was 43.88, with more than 80
percents of the students achieving the criterion at 75 percent of the total posttest scores.
For qualitative data gathered during three action research cycle, they affected the instructional
activities lead to some changes of instructional activities as shown in figure 2 below:

132

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 2. Changes of instructional activities among three cycles of the action research.

133

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 2 show the changes of instructional activities among three cycles of the action research.
Considering cycle three, the instructional model was effective, as the criterion was achieved by 100
percent of the students, with its activities comprised two preparatory phases and three instructional
stages as follow:
1. The preparatory phase. There are three activities for teachers and students;
1.1. Lecturer’s preparation for teaching.
1.2. Student’s preparation for learning.
1.3. Medias preparation concerning the tutor’s and students’ weblogs.
2. The instructional phase. The instructional phase containing three stages of instruction;
2.1. Extracting information involves four activities in class: surveying text, identifying key
sentences, taking notes, and analyzing key-words.
2.2. Summary writing via weblog comprised three activities in process writing; drafting, reviewing
and revising, and editing.
2.3. Publishing on weblog comprises uploading files, studying comments, selecting possiblecomments, and visiting classmates’ weblogs.
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the model constructed by the researcher was
effective, as it increased student’s English summary writing ability at all phases of the study. At
the end of the study, the model was named “S2A Model” (S two A Model) which stands for“Summary Writing in Academic Area Model”.
Discussion
The model is effective in enhancing writing ability of the students as shown in table 1-3. The
effectiveness may be due to the following reasons:
1. The model is designed based on drivers of the new instructional design that develop problemsolving skills, thinking skills, and writing skills via technology web 2.0. In other words; theylearned and practiced using searching skills, chunking skills, and using computer skills. Theseabilities supported their writing skills by helping them discover vocabularies they needed via thelinks between networks, grouping the main points leading to accurate summarizing, andconveniently producing and publishing their written tasks via two-way communication technology.
Therefore, the criterion was achieved both in phase 3 and 4. The result is related to the ideas of
Clark (2002) who stated that modernized instructional design responds to computer literacy, which
in turn support writing literacy of students in this era.
2. The model consisted of a combination of face-to-face learning activity (in class) and online
practice activity via weblog (out of class); therein focusing on collaboration among students in alearning environment with interesting technology. Students acquire accuracy of knowledge along
the correct methods used for finding it in terms of the right citation through the use of online
learning supports and group works. This resulted in students obtaining direct experience during
their face-to-face activities in class. When writing, they would receive feedback from the teacher
that affected their self-practice out-of-class in positive way. Thus the model is effective inincreasing students’ writing ability. The result is related to the finding of Kizil & Arslan (2010)that positive feedback via learning supports are caused by effective blended instruction via weblog.

134

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

3. Weblog helps in solving writing problems such as using words in context, grammar, sentence
types, and writing mechanics that students can access from the links a teacher provides in the tutor’s
blog. This is the help that students need while writing when they are both in and out of class. Also,
weblog plays an important role in terms of an electronic portfolio that can be reached at anytime
and anywhere, a place for sharing and publishing their written assignments, and having interaction
among friends by linking to each other’s weblogs. Furthermore, after face to face activity, students
practiced on weblogs, with a teacher also following their progress via weblogs. This boosted theeffectiveness of the model as shown in the study.
The finding was similar to the research results of Bahce & Taslaci (2009), Miyazoe and Anderson(2010), and Babee (2012) who reported that weblog was a place for online collaborative learning
during completion of the assignments, and it was two-way communication that helped students
improve their summary writing skill via interaction.
4. The findings showed that the blended instructional model via weblog is effective. It clearly
revealed its effectiveness with its blended learning activities both in and out of class. The model
led the students to boost their writing summary skills, as they summarized using more academic
vocabulary, accurate punctuation, accurate content and clarity, and accurate citation. These abilities
result from the effective learning activities included in the model. The successful finding is related
to the results of Bahce and Taslaci (2009), Kizil & Arslan (2010), and Miyazoe & Anderson (2010)
who found significant results which showed that undergraduate students acquired effective writing
skills after they were taught using blended instruction via weblog.
Conclusions
According to the results of each phase of the study, it can be concluded that the blended
instructional model via weblog was effective with its steps of instruction that significantly
enhanced the English summary writing of Thai undergraduate students.
The out- put of this study was the effective model of instruction to enhance English summary
writing ability of Thai university students. The model was synthesized and explained in four
components: Principles, objectives, instructional activities, and evaluation techniques.
The instructional activities consisted of the following activities:
1. The preparatory phase. There are three activities for teachers and students: (1.1) Lecturer’s
preparation for teaching. (1.2) Student’s preparation for learning. And (1.3) Medias preparation
concerning the tutor’s and students’ weblogs.
2. The instructional phase. The instructional phase contains three stages of instruction: (2.1)
Extracting information involves four activities in class: surveying text, identifying key sentences,taking notes, and analyzing key-words. (2.2) Summary writing via weblog comprised three
activities in process writing; drafting, reviewing and revising, and editing. (2.3) Publishing on
weblog comprises uploading files, studying comments, selecting possible comments, and visitingclassmates’ weblogs.
The model is effective as the finding is revealed that it had enhanced the summary writing abilityof the Thai undergraduate students. Therefore, the blended instructional model via weblog toenhance English summary writing of university students constructed by the researcher or “S2A
Model” is the effective model of instruction that is practical in teaching summary writing in Thai
university.

135

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nakhon Ratchasima
Rajabhat University. Thanks for colleagues in the English program of the faculty and Dr. Rosarin
Pimolbunyong, associate professor from faculty of Education who provided insight and expertisethat greatly assisted the research.
Thanks for a group of outsider expertise; Dr. Paisan Suwannanoi, associate professor from Khon
Kaen University, Dr. Padung Petsuk, assistant professor from Nakhon Ratchasima University, and
Dr. Khongsak Sangkhamanon, assistant professor from Rajamangala University of Technology
Isan, Nakhon Ratchasima for assistance with particular techniques, methodology, and research
instruments, and Mr. George Blomfield, a native –speaker lecturer at Rajamangala University ofTechnology Isan, Nakhon Ratchasima for providing language help and comments that greatly
improved the manuscript.
I would also like to show my gratitude to the IAFOR editorial board for some comments on thearticle.
The article would not be possible without them.

136

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
Babaee, M. (2012). E-portfollio in social media for facilitating language learning. The Internet
Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 35, 29-35. Retrieved May 18, 2013, fromhttp://www.aaref.com.au/attachment.aspx?id=2195.
Bahce, A., & Taslaci, N. (2009). Learners’ perception of blended writing class: Blog and face-toface. Turkish Online Journal of Education, 10(4), 1-6. Retrieved January 15, 2012, fromhttp://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/45035176/learners-perception-blended-writingclass-blog-face-to-face.
Chareonwongsak, K. (2008). Language skill…main factor for studying abroad. Retrieved February
10, 2012, from http://blog.eduzones.com/drkrieng/7131.
Clark, M. A., & Olson, V. (2010). Scientific writing: A blended instructional model. Journal ofCollege Teaching & Learning, 7(6), 35-38. Retrieved August 9, 2011, fromhttp://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/TLC/article/viewFile/128/125.
Clark, D. (2000). Instructional System Design: The ADDIE Model. Retrieved June 10, 2010, fromhttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat.html.
Clark, R. C. (2002). Applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance
Improvement,
47(7),
10-16.
Retrieved
June
20,
2013,
from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pfi.4140410704/abstract.
Costello, P. J. (2003). Action research. London: Continuum, (Chapter 1).
Crane, B. E. (2009). Using web 2.0 tools in the K-12 classroom. New York: Neal-Schuman,(Chapter 2).
Fujishiro, N., & Miyaji, I. (2010). The effects of blended instruction on oral reading performanceand their relationships to a five-factor model of personality .Knowledge Management & ELearning: An International Journal, 2(3), 225-245. Retrieved May 15, 2012, fromhttp://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/ viewFile/73/54.
Khansamrong, S. (2004). Problems and need in learning English I course of the first year monk
students, Mahachulalongkornrafvidyalaya University Chiangmai campus. Retrieved February
10, 2012, from http://202.28.109109./service/researchonline/images/file/00014.pdf.
Kizil, A. S., & Arslan, R. S. (2010). EFL students’ experiences with blog-integrated writing
instruction. International Conference, ICT of Language Learning, 5th edition. Retrieved May 11,
2013,
from
http://conference.pixelonline.net/ICT4LL2012/common/download/Paper_pdf/56-IBT12-FP-Kizil-ICT2012.pdf.
Lee, S., & Lee, J. (2007). Blended learning revisited: A new approach to foreign language
education. Multimedia-assisted Language Learning, 10(2), 147-149. Retrieved August 15,
2011, from http://kmjournal.bada.cc/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10-2-7Lee.pdf.
Llach, M. A. (2010). Examining the role of L2 proficiency in L2 reading-writing relationships.
Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 18, 35-52. Retrieved May 21, 2013, fromhttps://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/EIUC/article/download/EIUC1010110035A/7628.
MacMillan (2009). MacMillan dictionary.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com.

137

Retrieved

December

17,

2011,

from

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Erratum to learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of
online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended
learning setting. System, 38, 185–199. Retrieved May 18, 2013, fromhttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terumi_Miyazoe/publication/250734272_Erratum_to_L
earning_outcomes_and_students_perceptions_of_online_writing_Simultaneous_implementa
tion_of_a_forum_blog_and_wiki_in_an_EFL_blended_learning_setting_System_38_(2010)_185199/links/544598cc0cf2f14fb80f006a.pdf.
Newman, J. M. (2009). Literacy and learning: Glossary. Retrieved December 2, 2011, fromhttp://www.lupinworks.com/roche/pages/paradigms.php.
Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational
Technology & Society, 12(3), 327-342. Retrieved November 10, 2012, fromhttp://www.ifets.info/journals/12_3/26.pdf.
Prinz, J. (2010). Teaching writing 2.0-the impact of web 2.0 technologies on teaching writing in
the EFL. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://othes.univie.ac.at/9901/1/2010-0429_0404182.pdf.
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2009). Guide to writing. (5th ed.). New York: Pearson,(Chapter 1).
Termsinsuk, S. (2010). Academic writing problems analysis of undergraduate students in Nakhon
Ratchasima Rajabhat University (A classroom research report, p.7). Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Tiantong, M. (2011). Some ideas on blended learning for research. Retrieved January 10, 2012,
from http://202.44.34.144/kmit/file/km-1272552-16141.pdf.
Tidthongkham, T. (2008). A study of essay writing abilities in English to answer an essay questionof the fourth year undergraduate of English major students in private tertiary education
institutions.
Retrieved
February
10,
2012,
from
http://dllibrary.spu.ac.th:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/1333.

138

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

139

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

General Attitude and Acceptance of Holography in Teaching Among
Lecturers in Nigerian Colleges of Education
Suleiman A. Ahmad, Isyaku M. Abdullahi, and Mohammed Usman

140

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Abstract
E-learning is a byproduct of instructional design. Thus online learning designers, in theirapproaches are expected to be familiar with the epistemological underpinnings of several theories
and their consequences on the process of instruction. In the same vein constructivism holds
assumptions, that learning is an active process whereby the learner constructs knowledge base on
experience. Secondly, learning occurs when there is disequilibrium. It therefore takes place in asocial context. Recently, technological developments are playing an important role in improving
the educational process especially the integration of holographic presentation in the area. A
hologram is a three-dimensional record of the positive interference of laser light waves. Teacher
training in virtual holographic classrooms could help the new teachers adapt to a real problematicclassroom with such tools. Nigeria being one of the moderately growing economy and a successful
and relatively stable democracy, educational development is always on the increase due tocommitment of government in the area.
Holography is a virgin area in the Nigerian educational mindset. Colleges of education in Nigeria
are basically teacher training institutions. Teachers are the backbone of education every
development. This brought about the need of this study to investigate on the perception,
appreciation attitude as well as acceptance of holography in teaching among the academicians incolleges of education in the Nigerian context. This study therefore in a small sample of 100 teachers
survey opinions and reported the results in a descriptive statistics as well as variance (t-test and
ANOVA) with regards to gender and designation. On the scale of structural equation modeling(SEM) tool and SPSS regression analysis as well, it presents the actual model of the modified
technology acceptance model TAM. The finding indicates less positive attitude and less general
acceptance of the holographic system in the teaching processes by teachers in the Nigerian Collegeof Education.
Keywords: TAM; holography; teaching; colleges; Nigeria.

141

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Introduction
Hologram Technology

Holography can be referring to as a method of obtaining photographic image in three-dimensions.
The word hologram is Greek, the root words are holos, “whole”; gram, “message”) and translates
into ‘whole picture’. Holograms differ from ordinary photographs, because the holograms record
an extremely accurate three-dimensional (3D) image of the original object. A hologram is a threedimensional record of the positive interference of laser light waves. The structure of a synthetic
hologram is made of thousands of 3D computer graphic images corresponding to as much pointsof view on a three-dimensional scene. These can be done without a lens, that is why is sometimes
called lens less photography. Dennis Gabor in 1947 had the credit of father of holography fortheorizing these principles. His write up become the foundation of modern holography. A hologram
looks so realistic because it is an exact recording of the light waves reflected from the object.
Holograms do not usually reproduce the true colors of the original object. The image’s color mainly
depends on the color of the laser used to make the hologram and is also determined by processing
methods. Multi-colored images are created by using different lasers. The most common type oflaser used is helium-neon (HeNe). Even though some holograms are made from diodes from redlaser pointers, they are usually unstable and less coherent. Although, holography is generally
referred to as “lens-less photography,” it requires lenses. Unlike photography, holographic lenses
spread out beamed light in hologram. The beam splitter is used to divide a beam of light into two(Wilson 2010).
Laser technology
Without light there will be no hologram. The light as is known scientifically is an output of theexcited atoms that give off energy. The atoms themselves are the building blocks of all matter andthey consist of positively charged nucleus of protons and neutrons that are orbited by a cloud ofnegatively charged electrons. Laser beam is a produced collection rays of light. Laser technology
forms the platform for holography. Albert Einstein was the first to suggest the idea regarding thelaser back in 1917. Einstein postulated that light was made up of a series of particles which hecalled photons and were traveling in a continuous move as wave. The technical term for “LASER”
is an acronym which stands for “Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.” Thus,
stimulated emission refers to the act of one light particle (photon) stimulating the emission ofanother photon. Radiation therefore is energy that travels in a wave and spreads out as it goes. In
lasers, the radiation refers to that energy emitted by the laser in the form of radiating light particles
or photons. Other forms of radiation include radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, ultraviolet
rays, and gamma rays.
Holograms process
In (Figure 1) below it illustrates a basic set up of how holograms work. The process involves usinga laser, a beam splitter, two mirrors, two lenses and the object itself. The laser beams light into thebeam splitter, which divides the light into two (Wilson, 2010).

142

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 1. Set up of how laser holograms work (Wilson, 2010)
Before the first lasers, the first holograms weren’t three-dimensional, but flat two-dimensionaltransparencies made from the very slightly coherent light of a sodium vapor lamp. In 1962, Emmett
Leith and Juris Upatienks, at the University of Michigan started making of three-dimensional
holograms. Now hologram can be projected in a complete 360 degree holographic display (figure
2).

Figure 2. Complete 360 degree holographic display
Sometimes back the president of the Microsoft Corporation Bill Gates appeared holographically in
Kuala Lumpur to address a group of people. Prince Charles also addressed a crowd in Abu Dhabi
via holography (Mail Online, 2007). Now a day, I have a dream one day I will holographicallymake my conference presentation somewhere. As a teacher, holography can impact my lesson
through tool approach presentation. It can be use to easily bring teaching materials/aids for thelearners to view. It can be seen now a difficult task, unrealistic, unnecessary and undesirable. None
the less good catch is for the early bird. It has never been early starting from the scratch. Albert
Einstein German-born U.S. physicist puts that “if an idea is not absurd at first, then there is no hopefor it.” Brighter doors are open for better hopes on holography.

143

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to put forward innovative ways in which holographic technologies
can be applied in education. Thus, this work focuses on holography and its application in education.
This research intends to promote further research and development in the field of holography andits application in education considering the fact that it’s a virgin area to many academics especiallyin Nigeria. It therefore needs to be explored.
Objectives
This study aims:
1. To investigate on the attitude toward holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of
education teachers
2. To find out the extent of acceptance of holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of
education Educators
3. To identify the gender difference among Nigerian colleges of education educators in theattitude towards holography in teaching.
4. To identify the attitudinal difference towards holography in teaching among Nigeriancolleges of education educators in terms of their designation/level.
Hypotheses
The research therefore addresses the following hypothesis;
1. There is no significant attitude toward holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of
education teachers
2. Nigerian colleges of education educators do not significantly accept holography in teaching
3. There is no significant gender difference in the attitude towards holography in teachingamong Nigerian colleges of education teachers
4. There is no significant difference in terms of designation/level in the attitude towards
holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of education teachers
Literature
How holography works
The way holography operates is by creating the illusion of three-dimensional imagery. A lightsource is projected onto the surface of an object and scattered. A second light illuminates the object
to create interference between both sources. Essentially, the two light sources interact with eachother and cause diffraction, which appears as a 3D image.

Figure 3. Diagram of the Hologram (Serrao, 2008)

144

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Holography in Future in Nigeria
The theory of constructivism stresses great importance on improving open learning experience andby doing. Nonetheless, for the past two decades major progress has taken place in the field of ICT
usage in learning environments. The advantages offered by ICT in education sector have led manyeducational institutions to integrate ICT services into their respective academic departments
especially in the advanced societies and very few third world countries. These rapid developments
result tremendous changes in many fields and endeavors of life education inclusive. Therefore,
educational institutions quickly took advantages of constructivist technological services byintegrating ICT into education, which in turn has produced new models of education such as elearning, m-learning, interactive learning and blended learning. Recently, technologicaldevelopments are playing an important role in improving the educational process especially the
integration of holographic presentation in the area. Holography will surely enhance research goingon in the field of virtual office concepts and video conferencing. Those studying holographic
technologies will be preferred by educators and students and business trainers. Avatars can be
introduced to assist youngsters in eLearning. This will help with teaching in overloaded classrooms
and increases the learning of the students. However none of the Nigerian tertiary institution
practically employs or even attempted to test the holography as a course or as practical experiencein the process of teaching and learning.

Figure 4. Map of Nigeria (World Fact Book)
The art of ‘public speaking fears’ was defeated. Training teachers in virtual holographic classrooms
could help the new teachers adapt to a real problematic situation in classroom (Winslow, 2007). Of
course such virtual artificial intelligence tools or holographic assistants can come in many forms
such as ‘one on one’ with holographic avatars or for use in training of adults in real life simulation.
A college class may have a guest speaker and soon such virtual holographic speakers ought to be alittle bit cheaper compare to the physical speakers because no flight risk, no hosting and feeding(Harrison, 2009). Presentation and demonstrations on distance e-learning initiatives where theholographic images are broadcast/beam over the internet would be made possible sooner andeverywhere (Lance, 2007; Suleiman, 2014).

145

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Alas! Power being a basic requirement to the technological development is yet to be adequate in
my country Nigeria. There is less or lack of so many infrastructural and technological facilities inmost tertiary institutions in the country. The ICT penetration is very low and the digital divide isquite wide. Nigeria has a total number of 129 approved universities in Nigeria comprising 40
Federal Universities, 39 State Universities and 50 Private Universities (NUC, 2014; Iruonagbe etal., 2015). In 2013, for instance the government allocated and spent over $2.84 billion (N426.53
billion) in running these institutions (Suleiman, 2014; TETFund, 2014). All these geared toward
improving dynamism and positive change and innovations in ascertaining quality education for a
viable development.
Recently, technological developments are playing an important role in improving the educational
process especially the integration of holographic presentation in the area. It has also produced newmodels of education such as e-learning, m-learning, interactive learning and blended learning.
Teacher Training in virtual Holographic Classrooms could help the new teachers adapt to a real
problematic classroom with such tools (Husain 2010). Nigeria being one of the moderately growing
economy and a successful and relatively stable democracy, educational development is always on
the increase due to commitment of government in the area. Holography is a virgin area in the
Nigerian educational mindset. Most Nigerian tertiary institutions have teacher training programs
but holography is not well recognized to be teaching tool in such departments. However, it is wellestablished that teachers are the backbone of education every development (Suleiman, 2014).
Holography and Education
By now, holography is already being used in various aspects of our lives. There are also ongoing
researches in holography by educational institutions to elevate holography from its infant stage.
However, holography as it is has already been tested for the benefit of educational institutions.
Holography being in its infant stage has not been widely used in education even in the advancecountries. However, application of holography in education is not new; it has been used in the past
in a school but technological requirements are hampering its applications (BBC, 2000). In the year
2000, a hologram of Catharine Darnton, a Mathematics teacher was successfully beamed into an
exhibition centre in a school in South London. Although, the distance of transition was minimal,
long distance projection is possible since the images are transmitted over the internet.

Figure 5. Demonstration of a Holoteacher(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/education/2000/bett2000/600667.stm)
Holography differs from video conferencing because the teacher’s full 3D image can be beamed
and appears to be in the classroom. While in video conferencing users can easily notice the image
on a screen from a one camera (BBC, 2000). Several benefits were identified with the use ofholography to t teachers. Darnton, states "I teach further mathematics, we've only got six candidates
in the school doing that. The economics make those sorts of classes difficult to lay on," she said.

146

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition"But if you could have a single teacher being able to see three or four classrooms across a boroughor something like that, then perhaps those sorts of subjects would be viable (BBC, 2000).

Figure 6. Touchable hologram bounces in contact with a human hand (Pescovitz, 2009)
The holographic projection of Darnton was made possible by Edex, the largest supplier of internet
connections in United Kingdom in educational technology market. According to Edex, for thesystem to be usable, fast internet connection is required. Thus, Edex is advocating for a fast national
network for education (BBC, 2000). Haptic holography’s applicability in education is further
enhanced by the possibility of allowing people to feel the presence of the holographic environment
and interact with it by touching (fig 6). This is a system that uses airborne ultrasound tactile display
which was developed and demonstrated at University of Tokyo by group of researchers (Takayuki
Iwamoto & Mari Tatezono) led by Hiroyuki Shinoda. Although such display cannot be feel or sense
without use of retro-reflective device yet there is need for such physical interaction with theholographic environment especially in interactive educational fields for teaching, training andlearning (fig 7) (Takayuki, Mari, & Hiroyuki, 2008).

Figure 7. Samsung mobile functionality displayed using holography (Gizmodo, 2010)
In this area we can take advantage of holography in different forms. For example, holograms now
allow students to be taught by a "virtual teacher" who could be many kilometers away. The process
goes a step beyond video conferencing in that the hologram teacher appears to be in the classroom,and can be seen and can speak to the pupils as if they were all in the same room (Husain 2010).
The system used by Edex was shown in London (BBC, 2000). Moreover, holography can enhancethe educational process by bringing famous characters back to life again from the past. They canspeak about themselves and/or explain something as an assistant teacher. In Seoul's for instance,

147

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition‘Alive Gallery Project Holograms’ and ‘3-D Animation Technology’ bring world-renowned
masterpieces of Western Art to life again. In that project visitors can see the exhibited hologram in
3D animation of ‘Mona Lisa’ (fig.8) answering questions from students, such as "why don't you
have any eyebrows?" She is answering, “when I was alive, a woman who had big forehead wasconsidered a beauty … so most women had their eyebrows taken off for beauty" (Husain, 2010;
Suleiman, 2014).

Figure 8. Display of the Hologram Mona Lisa (http://www.bridgemanimages.com/enGB/explore/news/images-in-action/2011/june11/Alive-gallery-interactive)
Augmented Reality and holography
Holography could be understood in different forms such as augmented reality and SixthSense. This
gives an adjusted real world where images or text are displayed upon real objects (Burdea & Coiffet,2003). Augmented reality is also becoming part of our everyday life which includes mobile
appliances, shopping malls, training, and more importantly education. Sixth Sense illustrates
augmented reality system which can let one (teacher/learner) to project a holographic keyboard on
the table top and/or phone pad onto one’s hand (fig. 10) (Boyd, 2009). The Sixth Sense augmented
reality systems is an innovation by the Pranav Mistry in 1997 at MIT‟s Medialab, it is a wearable
gestural Ambient Intelligence device. The SixthSense adjusts our physical environment with digital
information and enables our natural hand to connect with the displayed information (Tscheligi etal., 2009). SixthSense consolidates our environments (physical and virtual) with digital information(fig. 11) on daily news, weather forecast, travel schedules, global markets prices and so forth.

Figure 10. Holographic display of phone pad onto one’s hand

148

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 11. A 220px-SixthSense_Augmented_Newspaper
Virtual Reality and holography
Virtual reality (VR) is another different form of holography and it is here and everywhere now;
simply because even students at remote places can attend lectures in virtual environment. Virtual
reality allows for mobility since students can access the virtual campus from many other different
locations. This idea emanates back in 1960s from the works of Raymond Goertz at Argonne
National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois, and Ivan Sutherland at the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts all USA. The process of virtual reality creates athree-dimensional computer-generated representation of either a real or proposed object orenvironment. There exists that kind of symbiotic relationship between virtual reality andholography. Holography takes us a step further by bringing the virtual environment into ourphysical presence. There are several potentials and predictions of how the holography technology
can be used as an educational tool in the future (Bellis, 2010). Holographic technologies are
currently being used for many purposes such as security stamps for currencies, display of goods
and services for marketing purposes and now for educational purposes.
Holography may be used in various ways in the educational sector and can change the way people
learn in the future. For instance, using holography to beam a live teacher to various locations aroundthe world may enhance learning and solve some educational problems. One of the problems
identified is the shortage of teachers in educational institutions. Holography can also enhancelearning processes and standard of education. Imagine oneself in a classroom in Nigeria and arenowned researcher or teacher from any part of the world, Japan for instance is beamed throughinto the classroom over there in Nigeria to interact and collaborate with learners. One can interact
with the researcher in real-time and it appears exactly like everyone is in the same room.
Researchers and teachers will not only be able to use verbal communication but also body language
and virtual images to share and exchange information. In addition, education tools which may bephysically unavailable due to cost or scarcity can be projected into the other classrooms asholograms to serve as teaching materials.
Methodology
The design of this study is a quantitative research that surveyed on a piloted small sample (100)assessed from few targeted teacher training institutions in Nigeria consisting of two from each of
the geo-political zone of the country. The researchers collected data by distributing 130
questionnaires physically and by email to some randomly and purposefully selected subjects inform of snowball from the targeted institutions of the accessible population in the scope area of theresearch that is Nigeria. The distribution and collection was also done through the National
Commission for College of Education which is the accreditation body for all the colleges of149

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

educations in Nigeria The distribution cut across various strata with regards to gender and academic
level or designation in institutions from the 12 targeted colleges of education in Nigeria of which
only two were selected from each geo-political zone of the country (Table 1).
Considering the fact that Nigeria has numerous federal, state and privately funded college ofeducation numbered to about 102 (21 federal, 45 state and, 36 private) (NCCE/ FGN, 2014). The
population comprised only of all the academic staff in the public universities in Nigeria totaled toabout 17,951 (assistant lecturer to chief lecturer) (NCCE, 2013). This population was chosen for
the fact that the colleges of education academic staff had been involved in provision and using ICT
tools in their service delivery in the country and to some extent they are moderately fundedalongside other tertiary institutions.
TAM has been applied in numerous studies testing user acceptance of word processors (Davis etal., 1989), spreadsheet applications (Mathieson, 1991), e-mail (Szajna, 1996), web browser (Morris& Dillon, 1997), telemedicine (Hu et al., 1999), websites (Koufaris, 2002), e-collaboration(Dasgupta, Granger, & Mcgarry, 2002), and blackboard (Landry, Griffeth & Hartman, 2006) the
e-learning (Masrom, 2007). Davis (1989) proposes that ease of use and usefulness of technology
are predictors of user attitude towards using the technology, subsequent behavioral intentions andactual usage. Perceived ease of use was also considered to influence perceived usefulness oftechnology.
Table 1. List of colleges of education targeted
S/N

Institutions Sampled

Zone

State

1

Federal College of Education Akoka

South West

Lagos

2

College of Education (Special) Oyo

South WestOyo

3

Federal College of Education Obudu

South South

Cross Rivers

4

College of Education WarriSouth South

Delta

5

Federal College of Education (Tech) UmunzeSouth East

Anambra6

College of Education Enugu

South East

Enugu

7

Federal College of Education Okene

North Central

Kogi

8

College of Education Minna

North Central

Niger

9.

College of Education Maiduguri

North East

Maiduguri

10.

Federal College of Education Yola

North East

Adamawa

11

Federal College of Education Gusau

North West

Zamfara12

College of Education Kano

North West

Kano

Findings and Discussions

Quantitative

150

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

The distribution of the demography indicates gender level (table 2) of the frequency 59 female and41 male (mean=1.4/SD=.49) while the academic level or designation (table 3) shows middle level
having the highest of 49 and the lowest is indicated as other with the frequency of 11 respondents.
(mean=2.1/SD=.91)
Table 2. Frequency distribution on the gender among Nigerian college of education teachers

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Mean

SD

FEMALE

59

59.0

59.0

59.0

1.41

.494

MALE

41

41.0

41.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Table 3. Frequency distribution on the designation/level among Nigerian college of education
Teachers

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

MeanSDlower level (L3-AS)

25

25.0

25.0

25.0

2.12

.91
3

middle level (L2)

49

49.0

49.0

74.0

upper level (CL-PL)

15

15.0

15.0

89.0

other
(emeritus/contract/instructor)

11

11.0

11.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

The reliability test was carried out on the main construct attitude thus, the Cronbach Alphareliability indicates .841 at the initial this suggests high internal consistency reliability (table 4).
Table 4. Reliability Cronbach's Alpha
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items
.841

35

To address the issues on the general attitude and acceptance of holography in teaching among
Nigerian colleges of education educators the proposed technology acceptance model (TAM) wastested with regression analysis and the actual model (figure 11) and the regression statistics (table
5 and 6) were present as follows:151

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Figure 11. SEM actual models on attitude and acceptance of holography in teaching among
Nigerian colleges of education educators
Table 5. Regression model summary on the actual model on attitude and acceptance of holography
in teaching among Nigerian colleges of education educators
Model Summary
Model
1

R

R Square.159a

Adjusted R Square

.025

-.027

Std. Error of theEstimate
2.79639

a. Predictors: (Constant), ANXTY, EASE, AVL, INT, USE

Table 6. Regression model coefficients on attitude and acceptance of holography in teachingamong Nigerian colleges of education educators

152

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized CoefficientsB
1

Std. Error(Constant)

7.758

2.231

AVL

.192

.134

USE

.019

EASE

StandardizedCoefficient
s

T

Sig.

Beta
3.477

.001

.152

1.431

.156

.089

.023

.211

.834

.030

.104

.030

.291

.772

INT

-.055

.117

-.050

-.469

.640

ANXTY

.006

.129

.005

.047

.963

a. Dependent Variable: ATT

The table 5 and 6 present the regression analysis of the actualized model where the significancelevel were presented raging from highest (beta=0.15) (p=0.15) on availability to lowest(beta=0.005) (p=0.96) on anxiety. The r square level indicates (0.025) representing (2.5%) whichis quite less significant considering the standard error of the estimate at (2.79). This suggests thatthe model is not quite fit, meaning that the availability, intention, use, ease of use and level anxiety
over holography partially influence attitude positively which consequently lead to the less general
acceptance of the holography in teaching among the teachers of colleges of education in Nigeria.
It can be glean that the higher the availability the higher the attitude. Similarly, it suggest that thehigher the anxiety the lower the attitude. It also indicates that the lower negative in the intention touse holography the higher the attitude towards it.
To also address the issues on the attitudinal differences in terms of gender and designation among
the educators of Nigerian colleges of education the t-test and ANOVA results were presented(tables: 7, 8, & 9) as follows:
Table 7. Independent sample t-test on the attitudinal difference on holography in terms of genderamong Nigerian college of education teachers
ATT

Levene's Test
for Equality of
VariancesF

assumednotassumed

1.149

Sig.

t-test for Equality of Meanst.286 1.104

Df

Sig.
(2tailed)

Mean
DifferenceStd. Error
Difference

95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

98

.272

.61893.56053-.49343

1.73130

1.125 91.459.264.61893.55021-.47392

1.71178

153

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

On table 7 it shows the variance on general attitude toward holography in terms of gender among
the College of Education teachers in Nigeria. The overall result indicates no significant genderdifferences in their attitude toward holography in teaching because the result shows the significancelevel of (.286) and F value of (1.15) with the degree of freedom (df= 98). Thereby the calculated
value indicates to be greater than the critical value (p>0.05).
Table 8. One way ANOVA on attitudinal difference on holography in terms of designation/level
among Nigerian college of education teachers
Sum ofSquares
ATT

df

Mean Square

BetweenGroups23.4893

7.830

Within Groups

730.625

96

7.611

Total

754.114

99

F

Sig.

1.029

.383

Table 9. Bonferroni multiple comparisons test on attitudinal difference on holography in terms ofdesignation/level among Nigerian college of education teachers
ATT
Bonferroni(I)
Designation/L
evel

Lower Level

Middle Level

Upper Level

Mean Difference(I-J)(ALL3)(L2L1)(PLCL)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% ConfidenceInterval
Lower Bound

Uppe
r
Boun
d

-.21510.653671.000-1.80761.377
4-1.41769.81447.255-3.4019.5665.21510.653671.000-1.37741.807
6-1.20259.71681.290-2.9489.5437

1.41769.81447.255-.56653.401
91.20259.71681.290-.54372.948
9On table 8 it shows the variance on general attitude toward holography in terms of designation/level
among the College of Education teachers in Nigeria. The overall result indicates significancedifferences in their attitude toward holography in teaching in terms of designation/level because
the result shows the significance level of (.383) and F value of (1.02) with the total degree of
freedom (df) of (99). Thereby the calculated value indicates to be greater than the critical value

154

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition(p>0.05). The gap can be identified from the Bonferroni test on Multiple Comparisons (table 9)especially in the significance level and the mean difference between the lower level (L3-AL) cadre
and the upper level (PL-CL). The former assumed to have higher degree of significance of (1.00)
and the mean difference of (-0.21) while the latter appears to have significance of (0.25) and themean difference of (1.41) on the attitude toward the holography. Thus the difference is wider
between the lower level and the upper level.
Table 10. Pearson correlation on the relationship on: availability, intention, use, ease of use, anxiety,attitude and acceptance of holography in teaching among Nigerian colleges of education teachers
ATT
ATT

PearsonCorrelation

AVL

USE

EASE

INT

ANXTY

ACCEP
T

1

.149

.044

.013

-.025

.016

.129

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

1

.225*

-.074

.134

.148

-.040

100

100

100

100

100

100

1

-.225*

.127

.016

-.051

100

100

100

100

100

1

.012

.000

.253*

100

100

100

100

1

.239*

-.021

100

100

100

1

.075

100

100

Sig. (2-tailed)N
AVL

PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)N

USE

PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)N

EASE

PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)N

INT

PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ANXT
Y

PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ACCEP
T

PearsonCorrelation

1

155

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

On table 10 it shows the correlations on availability, intention, use, ease of use, anxiety, as well as
attitude toward holography and its acceptance in teaching among the college of education teachersin Nigeria. The result indicates significance with quite significance between availability and use(.225*), ease of use and acceptance (.253*), and intention to use and anxiety (.239*). On the other
hand the result also suggests none significance between attitude and availability (.149), availability
and intention (.134), availability and anxiety (.134) as well as between attitude and acceptance(.134). The result as well shows negatively none significance on the use and ease of use (-.225*)
and quite negatively high none significance between intention and acceptance (-.021). It further
suggest quite high none significance between ease of use and intention (.012) and a perfect nonesignificance between ease of use and anxiety (0.00)
Discussion of results
From these results some few major things were identified. The results show that majority haveagreed to have like holography and also agreed to use holography in teaching as well as encourageothers to employ it as well. However, it indicates less availability of the tools in their institution
many of the respondents have interest in acquiring such kit for their usage even though it showsthat the tools may be difficult to use especially to non technologist and are very expensive to afford
now a day. The result moreover, indicates positive relationship between the holography andenhancement of teaching and learning. Although hologram technology enhances performed,
effectiveness and improves productivity it will not only change the face of education, especially intertiary education but all aspect of life. That means hologram technology could be a future tool not
only for teachers in the phase of higher education but almost all human endeavours of life.
Holography will be a tool of teacher, because the holography is mainly seen as an effective tool forthe teacher in the future as it eases the teaching process especially for those teachers with proficient
ICT knowledge and solve the problem of inadequate teachers. It is overwhelmingly agreed thatusing holography is worthwhile thus it is postulated that in the near future not far away thisholographic tools just as common projectors would be available in every place thus, holographic
projectors would be everywhere because of increase in positive attitude and zero phobic attitude as
well as collaborations that would exist in using such tools among individuals and across different
global institutions and organizations.
However, ideas vary on whether the integration of the hologram into education it could be readily
accepted or rejected and be prevented. For this, some phobic attitudes among the respondents wererevealed in dealing with holography. However that would not be a major factor which would
prevent them to deal with this technology. This is because it is vulnerable to so many interruptionsat any given moment which may invariably disrupt the smooth flow of the learning process. This
is in consideration specifically with the general requirement of such hologram technology inlearning environment. In Nigeria adequate power supply and high level of techno failures are thepossible barriers identified with holography when to be integrated into the learning environment.
Other things were non commitments as well as poor maintenance culture. These are some of theviews noted on the idea that holography as a teaching tool may get hindered from its integration
into the Nigeria learning environment. For example, majority of the respondents confirmed thatholography reinforces the learning process, as well as potentially being an effective teaching tool
for the future. However, this technology would not change the face of education as claimed bymany teachers. Moreover, other teachers hold the thought that the main barriers that can resist the156

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

integration of such holographic technology into the Nigerian learning environment are the highcost of purchase and installation and requirements of a high-speed internet connection, subscription
and the qualified personnel to manage it.
Possibly teachers can be replaced by holograms. This sounds like a science fiction. Nonetheless isthere anything that would happen if holographic teachers could be sent to you? The reality is that
this technology has been created to bring live holograms from one location and beam them into
any other desired location in the world. It has been possible, because nothing is impossible.
Conclusion and Summary
These findings, suggested main barriers that may hinder the integration of holography into learning
environments. Although holography is very expensive and difficult to integrate with the learning
environment, it is of much very interesting to use this technology in the teaching process even if it
is very expensive to implement at present. Holographic Technologies are not just about art orbusiness communication, they are about safety, security, education, planning and the strength of
our civilization here and beyond. This phenomenon should lead other researchers to investigate
whether Holography will be an effective tool for the teachers in the future. Furthermore, theresearchers wished to explore the main barriers that might prevent holography being integrated intoa learning environment this is in order to move towards an answer in this issue.
As one of the limitations of the study, some of the questionnaires were not returned. It investigatedon the general perception as well as the relationship between the holography and teaching learning
process at different levels of education and gender. It also examine if holography will enhanceteaching learning process in the future. If hologram technology will support the learning process
then what sort of challenges and prospect are there in. The teachers especially in higher educationemphasized the importance of the hologram in supporting the educational process.
Recommendations
For educational institutions to take full advantage of holography, some technologies need to be
developed or introduced. Architectural design of classrooms may also require modification toaccommodate the implementation of holography.
The amount of data needed to transmit and project a holographic environment or real time hologramis enormous. Hence, one of the barriers to holographic environments becoming reality is theInternet speed requirement of 1000 times faster than today’s Internet standard. Other technologies
required to be able to fully utilize the holographic technology are haptics and display technologies.
Haptic sensors are needed to allow people interact with the holographic projection by touching andsuper computers that can make trillions of calculation to produce the holographic environment(Bonsor, 2010).
Another essential infrastructure need to use holography is the display system. The display medium
determines how realistic the projected hologram appears. The display also determines the viewing
angle capability and affects the infrastructural requirement on the receiving end. Holographic
displays capable of projecting holograms into free air are preferable because they may allow
interaction with human. Thus, generating holograms which are touchable using airborne ultrasoundtactile display such as the one demonstrated in 2009 at University of Tokyo Japan (fig 6). Display
into free air will also save space which may have been used for physical display systems. In thisregard Japan claims to broadcast their 2022 world cup to about 360 spectators by means ofholography to 400 stadiums within 208 countries.

157

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Lack of adequate equipment is a daunting problem which makes studying in some Nigerian
educational institutions theoretical, non interactive and based on illusion. For instance, in anengineering program in higher institutions in Nigeria, most teachers rely on theory, such attitude
needs to be redress and address.
Acknowledgement: Our sincere appreciation to Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) in
Nigeria for supporting attendance to IAFOR Asian Conference on Society, Education andTechnology 2014 (Osaka, Japan).

158

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

References
BBC News. (2000, January 13). Meet the hologram teacher. BBC News. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/education/2000/bett2000/600667.stm.
Bellis, M. (2010). History of Holography. About.com – Inventors. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://inventors.about.com/od/hstartinventions/a/Holography.htm.
Boyd , C. (2009). SixthSense blurs digital and the real. The World, WGBH Boston. BBC News.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7997961.stm.
Burdea, G., and Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual Reality Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New
Jersey.
Harrison, D. (2009, Febuary 18) Real-Life teaching in a virtual world. Campus Technology.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/02/18/real-lifeteaching-in-a-virtual-world.aspx.
Husain G. (2010). 3D Hologram Technology in Learning Environment Proceedings of Informing
Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2010. Manchester, UK. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
fromhttp://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p693704Ghuloum751.pdf.
Lance W. (2007). Holographic Projection Technologies of the Future: “Killer Applications”.
OnlineThink.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.worldthinktank.net/pdfs/holographictechnologies.pdf.
Mail Online (2007, December). Prince Charles will appear at conference as a hologram. Mail News.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502599/PrinceCharles-appear-conference-hologram.html.
NCCE/FGN (2014). National Commission for colleges of education. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.ncceonline.edu.ng/.
NCCE (2013). Digest of Statistics on Colleges of Educations in Nigeria. Federal Republic of
Nigeria. ISSN-188-1435.
National Universities Commission (NUC) (2014). List of Nigerian universities. Retrieved July 20,
2015, from www.nuc.edu.ng.
Iruonagbe, C. T., Imhonopi, D., & Egharevba, M. E. (2015). Higher Education in Nigeria and theEmergence of Private Universities. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(2),49-64. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/February2015/05.pdf.
Serrao, J. (2008, November 6). Holobama: 'Holograms' greet election 2008. Telepresence Options
News.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2008/11/holographic_presenters_jessica.
Suleiman A. A. (2014). Holography in the Nigerian Education system: A readiness for a redress.
ICHE2014 e-journal of Humanities and Education (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25
ICHE2014 conference held in March 2014, at Radius Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by World Research Conference. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://www.worldresearchconference.com/iche2014/eproceeding/.

159

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Suleiman A. A., and Usman M. (2013). Technophobia and ICT tools IN Teaching and Learning
Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities in Focus. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3(12),161-165.
ISSN:
2249-555x.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.theglobaljournals.com/ijar/file.php?val=December_2013_1385986444_cc62d_4
8.pdf.
Takayuki, I., Mari, T., and Hiroyuki, S. (2008). Non contact method for producing tactile sensation
using airborne ultrasound. SIGGRAPH '08 Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics andInteractive Techniques Conference Los Angeles, CA, USA — August 11 - 15, 2008.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1401615&picked=prox&cfid=695029054&cftoken=51052
597.
Tscheligi, M., de Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., Wichert, R., Mirlacher, T., Meschtscherjakov, A. &Reitberger, W. (2009). European Conference on Ambient Intelligence, AmI 2009, Salzburg,
Austria, November 18-21, 2009, Proceedings Springer.
Wilson, T. V. (2010). How Holograms Work. HowStuffWorks, Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram.htm/printable.

160

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

161

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Guide for Authors
Article structure
Abstract
A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length of 250 words). The abstract should
state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract isoften presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason,
references should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard
or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their firstmention in the abstract itself.
Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6 keywords.
Introduction
Present purposes of the study and provide background for your work.
Literature Review
Include a pertinent literature review with explicit international connections for relevant ideas.
Discuss the findings of published papers in the related field and highlight your contribution.
Methodology and methods
Provide sufficient detail to allow the context of the work to be thoroughly understood and/or for
the work to be reproduced. Provide sufficient detail for readers to understand how you engaged inyour inquiry. Clear descriptions of your context and participants along with strategies used tocollect and analyze data should be described.
Discussion
This section should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. Combining
your results and discussion into a single section may be suitable. Returning to relevant literaturefrom the introduction should show how your work connects with or interrupts already publishedliterature.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a Conclusions section, which can include
the main findings, the implications, and limitations.
Appendices
If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc.
Acknowledgements
Collate acknowledgements in a separate section at the end of the article before the references anddo not, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here
those individuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing
assistance or proof reading the article, etc.).

162

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

Footnotes
Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using
superscript Arabic numbers.
References
Citation in text
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and viceversa).
Reference style
Text: Citations in the text should follow the referencing style used by the American Psychological
Association (APA). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition,
ISBN 978-1-4338-0561-5.
List: references should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically ifnecessary.
Reference to a journal publication:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2010). The art of writing a scientific article.
Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51–59.
Reference to a book:
Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. (4th ed.). New York: Longman,(Chapter 4).
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G. R., & Adams, L. B. (2009). How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In B.
S. Jones, & R. Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the electronic age (pp. 281–304). New York: EPublishing Inc.
Please follow the checklist:* Times New Roman font (size 12)* Single-spacing throughout the document; paragraphs, justify.
* Double space (instead of indent) to designate a new paragraph or section* Page numbers at the bottom center of each page
* Top, bottom, and side margins 0.87" or 2.2 cm* Page that includes title, authors, their affiliations, their contact information, and the topic of thesubmission* Authors and affiliations repeated at the beginning of the body of the paper* There is no limt of words or pages, but manuscript too short or incomplete will be rejected.

163

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Technologies & Education Special Edition

IAFOR Journal of Education is following the guidelines and advices proposed by top SSCI
academicjournalTeaching
andteacher
Educationon
their
website.
http://www.elsevier.com/journals/teaching-and-teacher-education/0742-051X/guide-for-authors
The IAFOR Journal of Education is indexed in EBSCO Discovery Service, Education Source,
SHERPA/RoMEO and Google Scholar.
The IAFOR Journal of Education – Publication Ethics Statement (PDF)
http://iafor.org/archives/journals/education/Publication-Ethics.pdf

164

t
h
ei
a
f
or

j
ou
r
n
a
l
ofe
du
c
a
t
i
on

I
S
S
N:
2
1
8
7
0
5
9
4