An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology:  Key Factors for Course Design

Casimir C. Barczyk; Emily Hixon; Janet Buckenmeyer; Heather Zamojski

doi:10.30935/cedtech/6071

An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design

Casimir C. Barczyk ¹ ^*, Emily Hixon ¹, Janet Buckenmeyer ¹, Heather Zamojski ¹

More Detail

CONT ED TECHNOLOGY, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 99-114

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

OPEN ACCESS 1378 Views 1200 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

Students at a regional campus of a Midwestern university were surveyed using an online questionnaire to determine their ownership, skill, and use of technological devices. Four hundred ninety-three students responded to the survey. It was found that the survey sample mirrored the student population at the university. Students owned and used a wide variety of electronic devices. Eighty five percent of the students owned laptop computers, 62% digital phones, 60% desktop computers, and 52% gaming systems. Students used electronic devices an average of 6.03 hours per week on classroom activities and 3.93 hours per week surfing the Internet for pleasure. They perceived themselves as being very skilled at using email, surfing the web, and word processing. It was also found that there was a significant correlation between students’ ownership of and skill with educational technology and their experience with Blackboard. Technological barriers were found to have a negative impact on students’ experience with Blackboard. Those barriers also negatively impacted their technological use and skill. A simple linear regression model explains that students’ experience with Blackboard is enhanced by having greater skill with technology, but is diminished when confronted with technological barriers. Implications for course design are discussed.

Keywords: Educational Technology, Post-Secondary Education, Student Experience with Technology, Barriers to Use Technology, Course Design

References

Al-Alwani, A. (2005). Barriers to integrating information technology in Saudi Arabia science education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Kansas, Kansas.
Baia, P. L. (2008). Instructional technology adoption: A review of existing models in higher education (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved on 29 November 2011 from http://www.docpb.com/RER_ITmodels.pdf
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
Boss, S. (2008). Overcoming technology barriers: How to innovate without extra money or support. Retrieved on 29 November 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-how-to- implement-classroom
Biocchi, M. (2011). Games in the classroom. Gaming in the classroom. Retrieved on 5 November 2010 from http://educationtech.ca/2011/03/24/games-in-the-classroom/
Clifford, P., Friesen, S. & Lock, J. (2004). Coming to teaching in the 21st century: A research study conducted by the Galileo educational network. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary.
Donaldson, S. I. & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.
Educause Center for Applied Research (2004). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: ECAR. Retrieved on 19 December 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/si/esi0405.pdf
Guidry, K, & BrckaLorenz, A. (2010). A comparison of student and faculty academic technology use across disciplines. Educause Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved on 19 December 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/EQ/2010/V33/N2.
Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Leggett, W. P. & Perichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50 years of technology implementation obstacles. TechTrends, 43(3), 33-36.
Levine, L. (2002). Using technology to enhance the classroom environment. T.H.E. Journal, 29(6), 16-18.
Lowenthal, P. R. & Wilson, B.G. (2010). Labels do matter A critique of AECT’s redefinition of the field. TechTrends, 54(1), 38-46.
Luppicini, R. (2005). A system definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109.
Massy, W. F. & Zemsky, R. (1996). Information technology and academic productivity. Educom Review, 31(1), 12-14.
Merriam-Webster (2007). Definition of technology. Retrieved on 29 November 2011 from http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teaching knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Sha, S., Bisht, R.S., & Kapur, P. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the “hole in the wall.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.
Namahoe, K. (2011). New study reveals student perspective on technology use in higher education. Retrieved on 29 November 2011 from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/ 10/03/new-study-reveals-student-perspective-on-technology-use-in-higher-education.aspx
Rice, M. L. & Miller, M. T. (2001). Faculty involvement in planning for the use and integration of instructional and administrative technologies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 328-336.
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472.
Sahin, I. (2005). Understanding faculty adoption of technology using the learning/adoption trajectory model: A qualitative case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), Article 10.
Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1-24.
Tremblay, E. (2010). Educating the mobile generation – using personal cell phones as audience response systems in post-secondary science teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 217-227.

Citation

Barczyk, C. C., Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., & Zamojski, H. (2012). An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

Barczyk, C. C., Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., and Zamojski, H. (2012). An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), pp. 99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

Barczyk CC, Hixon E, Buckenmeyer J, Zamojski H. An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2012;3(2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

Barczyk, Casimir C., Emily Hixon, Janet Buckenmeyer, and Heather Zamojski. "An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design". Contemporary Educational Technology 2012 3 no. 2 (2012): 99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

Barczyk, Casimir C. et al. "An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design". Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071

Barczyk CC, Hixon E, Buckenmeyer J, Zamojski H. An Investigation of University Students' Ownership, Usage, and Skill with Technology: Key Factors for Course Design. CONT ED TECHNOLOGY. 2012;3(2):99-114. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6071