Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Computer-Assisted Instruction, Changes in Educational Practice as a Result of Adoption of ICT

  • Rebecca Lai-wah TamEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_74-1

Introduction

Over the last two decades, information and communication technologies (ICT) are becoming more and more important to organizations across the world. ICT for education has become increasingly influential nowadays, more than ever before. The adoption rate of ICT by higher education institutions has been rapid throughout the world, as tools for teaching, curriculum development, staff development, and student learning (Kumpulainen 2007; Usluel et al. 2008). Though ICTs are capable of improving the quality of teaching and learning, the benefits of ICTs are poorly conceived (Surry and Farguhar 1997). Not much is known about how computer systems affect learning (Koszalka and Ganesan 2004) or change in teaching practice (Becker and Jokivirta 2007). A critical review of existing literature on changes in educational practice is offered here, from a perspective of computer-assisted instruction (that, from the teachers’ perspectives).

Generally, ICTs are developed to design, store,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ally M (2002) Designing and managing successful online distance education courses. Workshop presented at the 2002 World Computer Congress, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson T, Elloumi F (2004) Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd edn. Athabasca University Press, AthabascaGoogle Scholar
  3. Arulchelvan S, Viswanathan D (2006) Pattern of usage of various electronic media by higher education students. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol (IJEDICT) 2(4):100–118Google Scholar
  4. Becker R, Jokivirta L (2007) Online learning in universities: selected data from the 2006 Observatory survey – November 2007. The observatory on borderless higher education (OBHE)Google Scholar
  5. Bender B (2005) Learner engagement and success in CMS environments. In: McGee P, Carmean C, Jafari A (eds) Course management systems for learning: beyond accidental pedagogy. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, pp 107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonham SW, Deardorff DL, Beichner RJ (2003) Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. J Res Sci Teach 40(10):1050–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotherton JA, Abowd GD (2004) Lessons learned from eClass: assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Trans Comput–Hum Interact 11:121–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmean C, Haefner J (2002) Mind over matter: transforming course management systems into effective learning environments. Educ Rev 37(6):26–34Google Scholar
  9. Clariana R, Wallace P (2002) Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. Br J Educ Technol 33(5):593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coaldrake P, Stedman L (1999) Academic work in the twenty-first century. Occasional paper series, higher education division, DETYA, no. 99H. Australian Government Publishing Service, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 38(6):373–384Google Scholar
  12. Dewhurst DG, Williams AD (1998) Investigation of the potential for a computer-based tutorial program covering the cardiovascular system to replace traditional lectures. Comput Educ 31(3):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutton WH, Cheong PH, Park N (2003) The social shaping of a virtual learning environment: the case of a university-wide course management system. Electron J e-Learn 2(1):69–80Google Scholar
  14. Elton LRB (1970) The use of lecture notes and self-tests in university teaching. In: Bajpai AC, Leedham JF (eds) Aspects of educational technology, vol IV. Pitman, London, pp 366–378Google Scholar
  15. Evans C, Gibbons NJ, Shah K, Griffin DK (2004) Virtual learning in the biological sciences: pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the Web”. Comput Educ 43:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eveland WP, Dunwoody S (2001) User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print. Commun Res 28(1):48–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher D L (2003) Using PowerPoint for ESL teaching. Internet TESL J 9(4)Google Scholar
  18. Francescato D, Porcelli R, Mebane M, Cuddetta M, Klobas J, Renzi P (2006) Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Comput Hum Behav 22:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freitas DS, Olive M (2006) How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated. Comput Educ 46:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fu FL, Wu YL, Ho HC (2009) An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in web-based learning. Comput Educ 53:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaensler IE (2004) A study of social constructivist learning in a WebCT-based precalculus course. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffin DK, Mitchell D, Thompson SJ (2009) Podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice: what are the pedagogical benefits? Comput Educ 53:532–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunasekaran A, McNeil RD, Shaul D (2002) E-learning: research and applications. Ind Commer Train 34(2):44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herse P, Lee A (2005) Optometry and WebCT: a student survey of the value of web-based learning environments in optometric education. Clin Exp Optom 88(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holm C, Rollinghoff A, Ninck A (2003) WebCT and e learning in Switzerland. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on new educational environments, Luzerne, pp 139–143Google Scholar
  26. Holt RIG, Miklaszewicz P, Cranston IC, Russell-Jones D, Rees J, Sonksen PH (2001) Computer assisted learning is an effective way of teaching endocrinology. Clin Endocrinol 55(4):537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horn A, Friedrich HF (2003) A review of web-based collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. J Comput Assist Learn 19:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huon G, Spehar B, Adam P, Rifkin W (2007) Resource use and academic performance among first year psychology students. High Educ 53:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kekkonen-Moneta S, Moneta GB (2002) E-learning in Hong Kong: comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course. Br J Educ Technol 33(4):423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khadra MH, Guinea AI, Hill DA (1995) The acceptance of computer assisted learning by medical students. Aust N Z J Surg 65:610–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koszalka TA, Ganesan R (2004) Designing online courses: a taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Educ 25(2):243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumpulainen K (ed) (2007) Educational technology: opportunities and challenges. University of Oulu, OuluGoogle Scholar
  33. Latchman H, Salzmann C, Gillet D, Kim J (2001) Learning on demand a hybrid synchronous/asynchronous approach. IEEE Trans Educ 44(2):208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipponen L, Hakkarainen K, Paavola S (2004) Practices and orientations of CSCL. In: Strijbos J, Kirschner PA, Martens RL, Dillenbourg P (eds) What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lockyer L, Patterson J, Harper B (2001) ICT in higher education: evaluating outcomes for health education. J Comput Assist Learn 17:275–283zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lonn S, Teasley SD (2009) Saving time or innovating practice: investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Comput Educ 53:686–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowyck J, Pöysä J (2001) Design of collaborative learning environments. Comput Hum Behav 17(5–6):507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macedo-Rouet M, Rouet JF, Epstein I, Fayard P (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Sci Commun 25(2):99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Macedo-Rouet M, Ney M, Charles S, Lallich-Boidin G (2009) Students’ performance and satisfaction with web vs. paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes. Comput Educ 53:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maki RH, Maki WS, Patterson M, Whittaker PD (2000) Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: I. Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 32:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martens RL, Gulikers J, Bastiaens T (2004) The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. J Comput Assist Learn 20(5):368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin LA, Platt MW (2001) Printing and screen reading in the medical school curriculum: Gutenberg versus the cathode ray tube. Behav Inform Technol 20(3):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKinney D, Dyck JL, Luber ES (2009) ITunes in the classroom: can podcasts replace professors? Comput Educ 52:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moreno R, Mayer RE (2000) Engaging students in active learning: the case for personalized multimedia messages. J Educ Psychol 92:724–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy PK, Long JF, Holleran TA, Esterly E (2003) Persuasion online or on paper: a new take on an old issue. Learn Instr 13:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ngai EWT, Poon JKL, Chan YHC (2007) Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Comput Educ 48(2):250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creation company: the Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Nonaka I, Umemoto K, Sasaki K (1998) Managing and measuring knowledge in organizations. In: von Krogh G, Roos J, Kleine D (eds) Knowledge in firms: understanding, managing and measuring knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 146–172Google Scholar
  49. Oliver R, Omari A (2001) Student responses to collaborating and learning in a web-based environment. J Comput Assist Learn 17:34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paek P (2005) Recent trends in comparability studies. Pearson Educational Measurement Research Reports. Research Report 05–05. Pearson Educational Measurement. USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearson J (2006) Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in face-to-face and online learning environments. Comput Educ 47(1):56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Picciano AG (2002) Educational leadership and planning for technology (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillGoogle Scholar
  53. Pituch KA, Lee YK (2006) The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Comput Educ 47(2):222–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritchie DC, Hoffman R (1997) Incorporating instructional design principles with the world wide web. In: Khan B (ed) Web based instruction. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, pp 135–138Google Scholar
  55. Rosenfield D, Stephan WG, Lucker GW (1981) Attraction to competent and incompetent members of cooperative and competitive groups. J Appl Soc Psychol 11(5):416–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rouet JF, Puustinen M (2009) Introduction to “Learning with ICT: New perspectives on help seeking and information searching”. Comput Educ 53(4):1014–1019Google Scholar
  57. Rui Y, Gupta A, Grudin J, He L (2004) Automating lecture capture and broadcast: technology and videography. Multimed Syst 10:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Selim HM (2007) Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance. Confirmatory factor models. Comput Educ 49(2):396–413MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Surry DW, Farquhar JD (1997) Diffusion theory and instructional technology. J Instr Sci Technol 2(1):24–36Google Scholar
  60. Susskind JE (2004) PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Comput Educ 45(2):203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Threlfall J, Pool P, Homer M (2007) Implicit aspects of paper and pencil mathematics assessment that come to light through the use of the computer. Educ Stud Math 66(3):335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Topper A (2003) Teacher professional development via distance education: assessing student learning in a web-based learning environment (WBLE). In: Proceedings of the society for information technology and teacher education international conference annual. pp 2526–2531. Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  63. Toral SL, Barrero FJ, Torres MR, Gallardo S, Lillo AJL (2005) Implementation of a web-based educational tool for digital signal processing teaching using the technological acceptance model. IEEE Trans Educ 48(4):632–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Toral SL, Barrero FJ, Torres MR (2007) Analysis of utility and use of a web-based tool for digital signal processing teaching by means of a technological acceptance model. Comput Educ 49(4):957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tvedten H, Walter G, Stickle J, Henkel K, Anderson C (1993) Computer-based instruction versus instructor-based instruction of interpretive clinical pathology case analysis. J Vet Med Educ 20(3):640–651Google Scholar
  66. Usluel YK, Askar P, Bas T (2008) A structural equation model for ICT usage in higher education. Educ Technol Soc 11:262–273Google Scholar
  67. West RE, Waddoups G, Graham CR (2007) Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educ Technol Res Dev 55(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yazon JMO, Mayer-Smith JA, Redfield RJ (2002) Does the medium change the message? The impact of a web-based genetics course on university students’ perspectives on learning and teaching. Comput Educ 38:267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK