A DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE ON UNIVERSITY LECTURERS’ USE OF INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN TEACHING
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v6i3.1032Mots-clés :
information communication technology (ICT), literacy instruction, higher education, information literacyRésumé
The study sought to establish the use of information technology in literacy instruction by university lecturers. The focus was on the main demographic factors which significantly impact on the use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in literacy instruction. The following variables were of interest: age, gender, highest qualification attained, work experience, tenure and employment status. The research was carried out at Great Zimbabwe University (GZU), a university in Masvingo Town, Zimbabwe. A descriptive survey was used as research design. Interviews and questionnaires were used as data collection instruments to eighty (80) lecturers from the Robert Mugabe School of Education and Culture based at GZU. The current study rides on the knowledge gap that previous studies had a tendency to look at primary and secondary school practitioners’ use of ICT and yet the problem could be at institutions of higher learning. The research looked at GZU’s perspective or policy to the use of ICT, teaching /learning outcomes for both students and lecturers, impediments to the use of technology and uses of technology by both lecturers and students. Quite significant therefore, is the fact that the research empowers all stakeholders to redirect their efforts to address the use of technology to enhance literacy instruction in institutions of higher learning. The results of the study revealed that there is less use of ICTs by lecturers in teaching and learning at the Robert Mugabe School of Education and Culture, Great Zimbabwe University. Variables such as age and gender were seen to affect the use of ICTs. Educational and academic qualifications and use of ICTs had an inverse relationship whereby an increase in one’s educational/academic qualifications showed a decrease in the use of ICTs. It is recommended that the university has to come up with a clear policy to guide lecturers on the use of ICTs in research, lecture preparation and presentation and assessment. Members of staff (Lecturers) were to frequently attend refresher workshops and seminars on the use of ICTs in education. It is also envisaged that personal computers and laptops are availed to teaching members’ offices and computer laboratories. This would result in effective teaching and research.
Article visualizations:
Références
Adika, G. (2003). Internet use among faculty members of Universities in Ghana. Library Review, Vol:52 Issue 1, pp.29 – 37.
Bebell, D., Russel, M. and O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring Teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on technology in education, 37 (1), 45-63.
Bingimals, K. (2009). Barriers to successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environment: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5 (3), 235-245.
Brooks, C. (2008). Introductory Econometrics for Finance. (2nd Edition) Cambridge University Press. New York.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Harvard University Press. London England.
Dambudzo, I. (2016). ICTs and new curriculum framework. Sunday Mail Online May 22, 2016.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merrienboer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Powerful learning environments: unravelling basic components and dimensions, Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier.
Gujarati, D.N. (2004). Basic Econometrics (Vol. 4th Edition) McGraw-Hill Companies.
Hew, K. F., and Brush, T. (2007). Integrating Technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology Research and Development, 55 (3), 223-252.doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Huang, W. H. D., Hood, D. W. and Yoo, S. J. (2012). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 16, 57-65.
Inan, F. A. and Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational Technology Research Development. 58:137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., and Perez, F. S. (2009). US College students’ Internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated communication, 14, 244-264.
Oliver, R. (2000). Creating Meaningful Contexts for learning in Web-based settings. Proceedings of Open Learning 2000. (pp 53-62. Brisbane: Learning Network, Queensland.
Pew Research Center (2012). Demographics of internet users. Internet and American Life Project.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C. and Adey, C. (2011). Parents, pre-schoolers and learning with technology at home: Some implications for policy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (4), 361 – 371. Doi:10.1111/j.1365 – 2729.2011.00432.x
Shafika, I. (2007). Survey of ICT and Education in Africa : South Africa Country Report. InfoDev ICT and Education Series. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10659 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Spector, J. M. et al (eds). (2014). Handbook of the research on Educational Communications and Technology, DOI10.1007/978 – 1 – 4614 – 3185 – 5_9© Springer Science + Business Media. New York
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Lenhart, A. and Pattern, E. (2011). The Digital Revolution and Higher Education, Pew Research Center.
Teo, T. S. H. (2008). Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet usage activities. Internet Research. Vol II, Issue 2, pp.125-137
Volman, M. and Van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education. The Second Decade. Review of Educational Research, 71 (4), 613-634.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
