Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors of influence and anticipated consequences

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 274-293

  Parker, Robyn E ^a   Bianchi, Alison ^b   Cheah, Tsui Yi ^c  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom dynamics; Instructional technology; PowerPoint; Student perceptions; WebCT

Indexed keywords

EID: 54149095058     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38 (4), 389-411.
2. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. MIS Quarterly, 18 (2), 159-175.
3. Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310-1333.
4. Atjonen, P. (2005). Effective studies of pedagogical ethics with computers? A quasi-experimental process-product study of two learning modes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49 (5), 523-542.
5. Ayersman, D., & Reed, W. M. (1996). Learning styles, programming and gender on computer anxiety. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 148-161.
6. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426.
7. Boyle, A. B., Duffy, T. & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: the validity and utility of Vermunt's Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 263-290.
8. Campus Computing Project (2006). The 2006 national survey of information technology in U.S. higher education, Retrieved February 7, 2007, from, http://www.campuscomputing.net.
9. Cassidy, J. C. (1998). Student and instructor perceptions of the efficacy of computer-aided lectures in undergraduate university course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 175-189.
10. Colley, A. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school, Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (6), 673-773.
11. nd Ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and dynamics of teaching. Innovations in Higher Education, 31, 147-160.
14. Cyphert, D. (2004). The problem of PowerPoint: Visual aid or visual rhetoric? Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 80-84.
15. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: John Wiley.
16. DuFrene, D. D. & Lehman, C. M. (2004). Concept, content, construction, & contingencies: Getting the horse before the PowerPoint cart. Business Communication Quarterly, 67 (1), 84-88.
17. Finlay, W., Desmet, C., & Evans, L. (2004). Is it the technology or the teacher? A comparison of online and traditional English composition classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31 (2), 163-180.
18. Fisher, S. (2006). Open technologies and resources for humanities - and cooperative consequences. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5 (2), 127-145.
19. Frey, B., & Birnbaum, D. (2002). Learners' perceptions of the value of PowerPoint in lectures, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467192.
20. Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
21. Hansen, J. W. (1997). Cognitive styles and technology-based education. Journal of Technology Studies, 23, 14-23.
22. Harknett, R. J., & Cobane, C. T. (1997). Introducing instructional technology to international relations. Political Science and Politics, 30 (3), 496-500.
23. Heffner, M., & Cohen, S. H. (2005). Evaluating student use of web-based course material. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 74-81.
24. Hoskins, S., & van Hoof, J. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use on-line learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 177-192.
25. Jackson, S. F. (1997). The use of PowerPoint in teaching comparative politics. The Technology Source, Retrieved February 11, 2007, from, http://technologysource.org/article/ use_of_powerpoint_in_teaching_comparative_politics/.
26. James. K. E., Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty versus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business education. Business Communication Quarterly, 69 (4), 374-396.
27. Katz, R. (2006). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2006, Retrieved March 7, 2007, from, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0607/ERS0607w.pdf.
28. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29. Korgen, K., Odell, P., & Schumacher, P. (2001). Internet use among college students: Are there differences by race/ethnicity? Electronic Journal of Sociology, 2, (2). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://epe.lacbac. gc.ca/100/201/300/ejofsociology/2001/v05n03/content/vol005.003/korgen.html.
30. Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19 (3), 265-291.
31. Lonka, K., Olkinuora, E., & Makinen, J. (2004). Aspects and prospects of measuring studying and learning in higher education. Education Psychology Review, 16(4), 301-323.
32. Lou, Y., Bernard, R., & Abrami, P. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (2), 141-176.
33. Mandal, P., Wong, K., & Love, P. (2000). Internet supported flexible learning environment for teaching systems dynamics to engineering students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 8(1), 1-10.
34. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man, New York: McGraw Hill.
35. McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message, New York: Random House.
36. Moore, D. R. (2006). The technology/inquiry typology: Defining instructional technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17 (4), 401-406.
37. Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems: Key findings. Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from, http://www.educause.edu/ers0302/1788.
38. Parker, D., & Gemino, A. (2001). Inside on-line learning: Comparing conceptual and technique learning performance in place-based and ALN formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), 64-74.
39. Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? The New Yorker, May 28, 87-93.
40. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis instrument development in health care research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Schumacher, P., & Morahan, M. J. (2001). Gender, internet, and computer attitudes & experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17 (1), 95-110.
42. Severiens, S., & ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education, 27(4), 487-501.
43. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24 (1), 69-86.
44. Spotts, T. H. (1999). Discrimination factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. Educational Technology and Society, 2 (4), 92-99.
45. rd Ed.), New York: Harper Collins.
46. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Tufte, E. R. (2003a). PowerPoint is evil. Wired, Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html.
48. Tufte, E. R. (2003b). The cognitive style of PowerPoint, Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
49. van Schie, E. G., & Wiegman, O. (1997). Children and videogames: leisure activities, aggression, social integration, and school performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1175-1194.
50. Vermunt, J. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49 (3), 205-234.
51. Warburton, E. C., Chen, X., & Bradburn, E. (2002). Teaching With Technology: Use of Telecommunications Technology by Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff in Fall 1998, Retrieved February 2, 2007, from, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/4_4.asp.
52. Weigel, V. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. Young, J. R. (2004). When good technology means bad teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 (12), Retrieved February 6, 2007, from, http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i12/12a03101.htm.