Abstract
This study investigated the impact of technology in presentations on students’ perception of quality. Students peer reviewed presentations and two external raters evaluated the presentations based on a rubric adapted from Savory (2009). Students reviewed activity using two assessment instruments: a seven-point attitudinal scale and a 1–5 ranking scale. The study utilized a mixed-methods, embedded QUAN:qual design, where statistical analysis of Pearson Correlation coefficient was paired with qualitative description to discuss the data gathered. The findings showed that students’ scores on the attitudinal scale and their holistic rankings correlated positively with the degree of technology employed in the presentations. The greater the integration of technology in a presentation, the higher the peer rating. However, the external raters’ evaluations did not generally accord with the student-raters’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information System Research, 9(2), 204–215.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Amiri, E. (2012). A study of the application of digital technologies in teaching and learning English language and literature. International Journal of science and Technology Research, 1(5), 103–107.
Barker, C., & Sparrow, C. (2016). Technology and presentation skills teaching: Activity theory as a tool for the design and evaluation of strategies for the use of video as a learning tool in presentation skills teaching. European Journal of Law and Technology, 7(3), 1–25.
Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169–177.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Davies, T. L., Lavin, A. M., & Korte, L. (2009). Student perceptions of how technology impacts the quality of instruction and learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1, 2–16.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 749–760.
Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects? A systematic narrative research review. Education Research Review, 7(2), 107–122.
Garcia, K., Davis, L., Jones, Q., Choi, J., & Dawson, M. (2012). Student perceptions of multimedia technology integrated in classroom learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(11), 67–70.
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361–377.
Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as “agents provocateurs” in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175–191.
Hamidi, F., Meshkat, M., Rezaee, M., & Jafari, M. (2011). Information Technology in Education. Procedia Computer Science, 3(2011), 369–373.
Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effect of e-learning on students’ motivation Proceeding – Social and Behavioural. Science, 181, 423–430.
Harper, B. (2018). Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 214–225.
Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004-2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142.
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579.
Hunt, L., Eagle, L., & Kitchen, P. J. (2004). Balancing marketing education and information technology: Matching needs or needing a better match. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 75–88.
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., Wilson, A., Zhu, T., & Cockle, V. (2018). Improving achievement using digital pedagogy: Impact of a research practice Partnership in new Zealand. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 183–199.
Jones, T. H., & Paolucci, R. (1998). The learning effectiveness of educational technology: A call for further research. Educational Technology Review, 9, 10–14.
Kim, S. Y., & Lim, Y. J. (2001). Consumer’s perceived importance of and satisfaction with internet shopping. Electronic Markets, 11, 148–154.
Kim, Y., B. Grabowski, & Song, H. (2003). Science teachers’ perspectives of web-enhanced problem-based learning environment: A qualitative inquiry. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved: May 12, 2005 http://www.ed.psu.edu/~bgrabow/pub12. Accessed 12 May 2018
Kirkgöz, Y. (2011). A blended learning study on implementing video recorded speaking tasks in task-based classroom instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 1–13.
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–34). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control (p. 5). Boulder: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K-12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325–372.
Lumadi, M. W. (2013). E-learning impact on academic performance of student -teachers. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, (14), 4.
Maier, P., & Warren, A. (2000). Integrating Technology in Learning and Teaching. London: Kogan Page.
McCabe, D. B., & Meuter, M. L. (2011). A student view of technology in the classroom: Does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education? Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 149–159.
Milliken, J., & Barnes, L. P. (2002). Teaching and technology in higher education: Student perceptions and personal reflections. Computers & Education, 39(3), 223–235.
Montrieux, H., Vanderlind, R., Scheelens, T., & Marez, L. D. (2015). Teaching and learning with mobile technology: A qualitative explorative study about the introduction of tablet devices in secondary education. PLoS One, 10(12), e0144008.
Mugo, D. G., Njagi, K., Chemwei, B., & Ochwagi Motanya, J. (2017). The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its application to the utilization of Mobile learning technologies. British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science, 20(4), 1–8.
Murphy, D. (2016). A literature review: The effect of implementing technology in a high school mathematics classroom. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 295–299.
Oye, N. D., Ilahad, N., Madar, M. J., & Rahim, A. (2012). The impact of e-learning on students’ performance in tertiary institutions. Journal of Computer Networks and Wireless Communication, 2(2), 121–130.
Özad, B. H., & Kutoğlu, Ü. (2004). EFL students use of technology in the presentations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 16–20.
Peart, D. J., Rumbold, P. L. S., Keane, K. M., & Allin, L. (2017). Student use and perception of technology enhanced learning in a mass lecture knowledge-rich domain first year undergraduate module. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(40), 2–11.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
Portnov-Neeman, Y., & Barak, M. (2013). Exploring students’ perceptions about learning in school: An activity theory based study. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(3), 9–25.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103–112.
Qing, L. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.
Quinones, D. (2010). Digital media (including video!) resources for the STEM classroom and collection. Knowledge Quest, 39(2), 28–32 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sanders, R. (2006) The “imponderable bloom”: Reconsidering the role of Technology in Education, Innovate: Journal of Online Education 2(6) August/September https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ae/&httpsredir=1&article=1125&context=innovate (accessed June 9 2018).
Savory, P. (2009). Rubric for presentation evaluation. Industrial and Management Systems Engineering – Instructional Materials, 7.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. New York: Software Publishers Association.
Summak, M. S. (2010). Technology readiness of primary school teachers: A case study in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 2671–2675.
Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage. MIS Quarterly, 11(9), 561–570.
Tugrul, T. O. (2012). Student perceptions of an educational technology tool: Video recordings of project presentations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64(2012), 133–140.
Turney, C. S. M., Robinson, D., Lee, M., & Soutar, A. (2009). Using technology to direct learning in higher education: The way forward? Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 71–83.
Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Technology projects as a vehicle to empower students. Educational Media International, 4, 316 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behaviour. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130–142.
Availability of data and materials
Data used in this article is held with the first author. It is not publically available given the privacy issues involved. Access can be requested by contacting the first author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S., Hill, C. The impact of integrating technology into students’ presentations on peer evaluation in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 24, 3745–3765 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09936-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09936-w