Skip to main content

Advertisement

The impact of integrating technology into students’ presentations on peer evaluation in higher education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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’.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamidi, F., Meshkat, M., Rezaee, M., & Jafari, M. (2011). Information Technology in Education. Procedia Computer Science, 3(2011), 369–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effect of e-learning on students’ motivation Proceeding – Social and Behavioural. Science, 181, 423–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B. (2018). Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(3), 214–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. H., & Paolucci, R. (1998). The learning effectiveness of educational technology: A call for further research. Educational Technology Review, 9, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. Y., & Lim, Y. J. (2001). Consumer’s perceived importance of and satisfaction with internet shopping. Electronic Markets, 11, 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, J., & Barnes, L. P. (2002). Teaching and technology in higher education: Student perceptions and personal reflections. Computers & Education, 39(3), 223–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özad, B. H., & Kutoğlu, Ü. (2004). EFL students use of technology in the presentations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinones, D. (2010). Digital media (including video!) resources for the STEM classroom and collection. Knowledge Quest, 39(2), 28–32 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summak, M. S. (2010). Technology readiness of primary school teachers: A case study in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 2671–2675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage. MIS Quarterly, 11(9), 561–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Technology projects as a vehicle to empower students. Educational Media International, 4, 316 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash.

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

Table 12 Presentation Rubric (Adapted from Savory 2009)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09936-w

Keywords