Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 65–82 | Cite as

Digital Learning Resources and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education

  • Mark Anthony Camilleri
  • Adriana Caterina Camilleri
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

This research explores the educators’ attitudes and perceptions about their utilisation of digital learning technologies. The methodology integrates measures from ‘the pace of technological innovativeness’ and the ‘technology acceptance model’ to understand the rationale for further ICT investment in compulsory education. A quantitative study was carried out amongst 241 educators in Malta. It has investigated the costs and benefits of using digital learning resources in schools from the educators’ perspective. A principal component analysis has indicated that the educators were committed to using digital technologies. In addition, a stepwise regression analysis has shown that the younger teachers were increasingly engaging in digital learning resources. Following this study’s empirical findings educational stakeholders are better informed about how innovative technologies can support our students. In conclusion, this contribution puts forward key implications and recommendations for regulatory authorities and policy makers for better curricula and educational outcomes.

Keywords

Digital learning resources ICT in education Educational technologies Technology acceptance model Principal component analysis Stepwise regression analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any competing interests in the manuscript.

References

  1. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report. European Schoolnet. http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc254_en.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2011.
  3. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2013). Framing ICT-enabled Innovation for Learning: The case of one-to-one learning initiatives in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosnan, M. J. (1998). The impact of computer anxiety and self-efficacy upon performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. (2013). Success, failure or no significant difference: Charting a course for successful educational technology integration. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 38–45.Google Scholar
  6. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Duart, J. M., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatzoglou, P. D., Sarigiannidis, L., Vraimaki, E., & Diamantidis, A. (2009). Investigating Greek employees’ intention to use web-based training. Computers & Education, 53(3), 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Currier, S., Barton, J., O’Beirne, R., & Ryan, B. (2004). Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process. Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 5–20.  Google Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58, 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EU. (2008). The use of ICT to support innovation and lifelong learning for all—A report on progress. European Commission, Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/2629/COM_SEC%282008%292629_EN.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2014.
  16. EU. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission, Brussels. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/129en.pdf. Accessed May 13, 2014.
  17. EU. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in Education, Digital Agenda for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  18. European Schoolnet. (2012a). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. http://essie.eun.org/. Accessed June 12, 2014.
  19. European Schoolnet. (2012b). Survey of schools: ICT in Education. Country Profile Malta. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Malta%20country%20profile.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  20. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles, USA: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  21. Fullan, M. (2008). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, Canada: Pearson.Google Scholar
  23. Fullan, M., & Smith, G. (1999). Technology and the problem of change. http://www.michaelfullan.ca. Articles_98-99/12_99. Pdf. Accessed March 10, 2014.
  24. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graesser, A., Chipman, P., Leeming, F., & Biedenbach, S. (2009). Deep learning and emotion in serious games. Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, 6, 83–102.Google Scholar
  26. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1130–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: The role of functional bases of consumer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halász, G., & Michel, A. (2011). Key Competences in Europe: Interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Land, S. M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–97.Google Scholar
  30. Harkema, S. J., & Schout, H. (2008). Incorporating student-centred learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hefling, K., & Feller, B. (2012). No Child Left Behind: 10 states receive waivers from education law’s sweeping requirements. NBCNews. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46323704/ns/politics/t/official-states-given-waiver-no-child-left-behind-learning-laws#.VUcgnfBNqCk. Accessed on February 1, 2015.
  32. Hoskins, B., & Crick, R. D. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang, Y. M., Huang, Y. M., Huang, S. H., & Lin, Y. T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: Evidence of active/passive attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use. Computers & Education, 58(1), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ICT in Schools. (2008). Investing effectively in Information and Communications Technology in Schools. A report of the Irish minister’s strategy group. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Investing-Effectively-in-Information-and-Communication-Technology-in-Schools-2008-2013.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2014.
  35. Jackson, J. D., Mun, Y. Y., & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50(4), 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz, I. R. (2013). Testing information literacy in digital environments: ETS’s iSkills assessment. Information technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinshuk, S. P., Spector, J. M., & Schrum, L. (2007). Special issue introduction: A critical view of technology-enhanced learning and instruction in the digital age. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lauri, M. A., Borg, J., Günnel, T., & Gillum, R. (2010). Attitudes of a sample of English, Maltese and German teachers towards media education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ling, P., & Ze, Z. (2011). Developing digital learning resources for the College Market in China. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(4), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayo, P., Pace, P. J., & Zammit, E. (2008). Adult education in small states: The case of Malta. Comparative Education, 44(2), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2009). Beyond Textbooks: Digital Learning Resources as Systemic Innovation in the Nordic Countries Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy1.bath.ac.uk/education/beyond-textbooks_9789264067813-en. Accessed December 12, 2014.
  49. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pedró, F. (2005). Comparing traditional and ICT-Enriched university teaching methods: Evidence from two empirical studies. Higher Education in Europe, 30(3–4), 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. Handbook of Computer Game Studies, 18, 97–122.Google Scholar
  54. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, Mom, I’m learning!: How computer and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help!. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  55. Rosen, L. D., Sears, D. C., & Weil, M. M. (1987). Computerphobia. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ross, A. (2007). Multiple identities and education for active citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(3), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT–The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 54(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
  58. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-century skills development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  61. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Squire, K., Jenkins, H., Holland, W., Miller, H., O'Driscoll, A., Tan, K. P., & Todd, K. (2003). Design Principles of Next-Generation Digital Gaming for Education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–23.Google Scholar
  63. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tyner, K. (2014). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: Evaluation of its educational effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 54–65.Google Scholar
  66. Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT in education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48, 11–27. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Anthony Camilleri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adriana Caterina Camilleri
    • 3
  1. 1.Resident Academic, Department of Corporate Communication, Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences, MAKS603University of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.The Business SchoolUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options