skip to main content
10.1145/3568231.3568266acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessietConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Can Technology Replace the Teachers’ Role in Higher Education Settings? A Systematic Literature Review

Published:13 January 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

As technologies continue to advance and become more complex, they will have significant ramifications for formal education contexts. It is mentioned that digital technologies will remain in our virtual and physical classrooms for the foreseeable future. Moreover, when it comes to the direct contact between students and their teachers, it is challenging to simulate a teacher’s ability to read and respond to students’ emotions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to obtain data from a variety of sources to determine whether technology can replace teachers using PRISMA Protocol as the research methodology with 39 previous studies from the SCOPUS journal. According to the findings of this study, it can be concluded that technology cannot replace the rules and positions of teachers, particularly when it comes to psychological and value issues, because ICTs cannot make every potential decision about other people.

References

  1. Fuad Abdullah, Arini Nurul Hidayati, Agis Andriani, Dea Silvani, Ruslan Ruslan, Soni T Tandiana, and Nina Lisnawati. 2022. Fostering students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through genre-based multimodal text analysis: An action research. Studies in English Language and Education 9, 2 (2022), 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Sulaiman Ainin, Farzana Parveen, Sedigheh Moghavvemi, Noor Ismawati Jaafar, and Nor Liyana Mohd Shuib. 2015. Factors influencing the use of social media by SMEs and its performance outcomes. Industrial Management & Data Systems(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lailatun Nurul Aniq, Nur Arifah Drajati, and Endang Fauziati. [n. d.]. Covid-19 outbreak response: Tracing EFL teachers’ beliefs & practices of TPACK in teaching writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 1 ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Joseph E Aoun. 2017. Robot-proof: higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rafael A Calvo, Sidney D’Mello, Jonathan Matthew Gratch, and Arvid Kappas. 2015. The Oxford handbook of affective computing. Oxford Library of Psychology.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fernando Alonso Gómez Carrillo. 2012. ?‘ Can technology replace the teacher in the pedagogical relationship with the student?Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012), 5646–5655.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jennifer M Cunningham. 2015. Mechanizing people and pedagogy: Establishing social presence in the online classroom.Online Learning 19, 3 (2015), 34–47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gloria Dall’Alba and Robyn Barnacle. 2007. An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in higher education 32, 6 (2007), 679–691.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Patrisius Istiarto Djiwandono. 2019. How language teachers perceive information and communication technology. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8, 3 (2019), 607–615.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Dedi Futra, Indra Primahardani, 2021. Online Learning Management in the Era of Covid-19 Pandemic at Junior High Schools in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education. Research 20 (2021), 351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Joanne Gikas and Michael M Grant. 2013. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education 19 (2013), 18–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Mahmoud Hawamdeh and Emrah Soykan. 2021. Systematic analysis of effectiveness of using mobile technologies (MT) in teaching and learning foreign language. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 11, 4(2021), e202124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Didin Nuruddin Hidayat, Jee Young Lee, Jon Mason, and Teguh Khaerudin. 2022. Digital technology supporting English learning among Indonesian university students. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 17, 1 (2022), 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hr Huriyah and Abas Hidayat. 2022. SECTIONS Model Analysis for Pre-service English Teachers’ Media Selection in Pandemic Covid 19. International Journal of Instruction 15, 3 (2022), 559–610.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rohmani Nur Indah, Ary Setya Budhiningrum, Nur Afifi, 2022. The Research Competence, Critical Thinking Skills and Digital Literacy of Indonesian EFL Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 13, 2 (2022), 315–324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Mohd Arif Ismail 2013. Effectiveness of the CIRCOM Software on Students’ English Performance and Motivation. Asian Social Science 9, 12 (2013), 30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J Julia, Arif Hakim, and Afi Fadlilah. 2019. Shifting Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Songs Teaching Methods: An Action Research Study in Indonesia.International Journal of Education and Practice 7, 3 (2019), 158–167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kartimi Kartimi, RY Gloria, and IR Anugrah. 2021. Chemistry online distance learning during the Covid-19 outbreak: Do tpack and teachers’ attitude matter?Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia 10, 2 (2021), 228–240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. I Putu Indra Kusuma. 2022. EFL teachers’ online teaching in rural schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education 9, 1 (2022), 203–221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Maya Rumenova Lambovska. 2018. Control on teams: A model and empirical evidence from Bulgaria. Serbian Journal of Management 13, 2 (2018), 311–322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Doo Young Lee and Mark R Lehto. 2013. User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education 61 (2013), 193–208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jason M Lodge, Gregor Kennedy, and Lori Lockyer. 2020. Digital Learning Environments, The Science of Learning, and the Relationship Between the Teacher and the Learner. In Learning under the Lens. Routledge, 154–168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiona MacArthur. 2010. Metaphorical competence in EFL: Where are we and where should we be going? A view from the language classroom. AILA review 23, 1 (2010), 155–173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yustinus Calvin Gai Mali and Thomas Lee Salsbury. 2021. Technology integration in an indonesian EFL writing classroom. TEFLIN Journal 32, 2 (2021), 243–266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Titin Nurhayati Ma’mun, Ade Kosasih, Yani Rohmayani, Eka Kurnia Fimansyah, and Mohammad H Al-khresheh. 2021. Foreign language teachers’ technological and pedagogical content knowledge: A study with AFL teachers in Indonesia. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 17, 4 (2021), 1998–2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Beth Mastel-Smith, Jerri Post, and Pamela Lake. 2015. Online teaching:“Are you there, and do you care?”. Journal of Nursing Education 54, 3 (2015), 145–151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. A Dzo’ul Milal, Zuliati Rohmah, Wahju Kusumajanti, Yazid Basthomi, Diana Nur Sholihah, and Meinarni Susilowati. 2020. Integrating character education in the English teaching at islamic junior high schools in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal 31, 1 (2020), 88–107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, Doug Altman, Gerd Antes, David Atkins, Virginia Barbour, Nick Barrowman, Jesse A Berlin, 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine 7, 9 (2009), 889–896.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Gavin Moodie. 2016. Universities, disruptive technologies, and continuity in higher education: The impact of information revolutions. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Safrul Muluk, Zamzami Zainuddin, and Syarifah Dahliana. 2022. Flipping an IELTS writing course: Investigating its impacts on students’ performance and their attitudes. Studies in English Language and Education 9, 2 (2022), 9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Asnawi Muslem, Saiful Marhaban, Hendra Heriansyah, and Rizki Putra Utama. 2022. The effects of using blog-assisted language learning (BALL) in improving non-native students’ English writing skill in higher education; does it work?JOTSE 12, 1 (2022), 21–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Edwin Pramana. 2018. Determinants of the adoption of mobile learning systems among university students in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education. Research 17 (2018), 365.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Pupung Purnawarman, Susilawati Susilawati, and Wachyu Sundayana. 2016. The use of Edmodo in teaching writing in a blended learning setting. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5, 2 (2016), 242–252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Imam Fitri Rahmadi. 2021. TEACHERS’TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND DISTANCE LEARNING ADOPTION AMIDST THE COVID-19 CRISIS: A REFLECTION FOR THE OPTIMISTIC FUTURE. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 22, 2 (2021), 26–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Ammeret Rossouw, Michael Hacker, and Marc J de Vries. 2011. Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 21, 4(2011), 409–424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Febry Khunto Sasongko, Diah Kristina, and Abdul Asib. 2022. Non-millennial teachers’ strategies in coping with the online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies in English Language and Education 9, 1 (2022), 174–186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Andrew K Shenton. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information 22, 2 (2004), 63–75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Didi Suherdi. 2019. Teaching English in the industry 4.0 and disruption era: Early lessons from the implementation of SMELT I 4.0 DE in a senior high lab school class. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 9, 1 (2019), 67–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Lalu Sumardi, Arif Rohman, and Dwi Wahyudiati. 2020. Does the Teaching and Learning Process in Primary Schools Correspond to the Characteristics of the 21st Century Learning?.International Journal of Instruction 13, 3 (2020), 357–370.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Alpino Susanto, Yunisa Oktavia, Sri Yuliani, Pipit Rahayu, Haryati Haryati, and Tegor Tegor. 2020. English lecturers’ beliefs and practices in vocabulary learning. Studies in English Language and Education 7, 2 (2020), 486–503.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Wahyono Wahyono. 2020. The mediating effects of product innovation in relation between knowledge management and competitive advantage. Journal of Management Development(2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Basilius R Werang and Seli Marlina Radja Leba. 2022. Factors Affecting Student Engagement in Online Teaching and Learning: A Qualitative Case Study.Qualitative Report 27, 2 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Oktavia Widiastuti, Fransisca Maria Ivone, Teguh Sulistyo, Didik Hartono, Emy Sudarwati, and Santi Prastiyowati. [n. d.]. CALL-Mediated task-based language teaching: A speaking project with online audience in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 1 ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Bambang Budi Wiyono, Ali Imron, and Imron Arifin. 2022. The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes. Sustainability 14, 9 (2022), 4865.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Ryani Yulian, Putri Yuli Utami, [n. d.]. EFL Slow Learners’ Perception in Speaking with Authentic Multimedia Assisted Language Learning. International Journal of Language Education 6, 2 ([n. d.]), 183–195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Hui Zhao and Lina Guo. 2021. Design of intelligent computer aided network teaching system based on web. Comput Des Appl 19(2021), 12–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Can Technology Replace the Teachers’ Role in Higher Education Settings? A Systematic Literature Review

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SIET '22: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology
      November 2022
      398 pages
      ISBN:9781450397117
      DOI:10.1145/3568231

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 January 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate45of57submissions,79%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)106
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)48

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format