Attitudes towards the use of information and communication ...

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2017 VOL. 36, NO. 3, 243–254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212928

Attitudes towards the use of information and communication technology in management education Yen-Chun Jim Wua

, Chia-I Panb and Chih-Hung Yuanb

a

Graduate Institute of Global Business and Strategy, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, Taiwan; bDepartment of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Information and communication technology (ICT) tools are being increasingly used to facilitate teaching in educational institutions. This study examined the attitudes of students and instructors towards using ICT tools in management education. Immediately after conducting workshops that introduced 11 ICT tools used in classroom settings, questionnaires were administered to students and instructors from three public universities in Taiwan. Responses of 242 students and 46 instructors regarding 5 domains of ICT tools – feedback, classroom mobility, publishing, collaboration, and social media – were analysed to investigate their attitude towards the use of ICT. The results revealed that students perceived the ICT tools of collaboration and social media to be helpful in learning and in increasing their future employment; in addition, the teachers found these ICT tools to be useful. Therefore, by integrating collaboration and social media in teaching and course design, teachers can enhance student participation and link students’ learning to their future employment.

Received 18 January 2016 Revised 6 July 2016 Accepted 10 July 2016

1. Introduction Advances in information and communication technology (ICT) have transformed traditional teaching and learning methods (Livingstone 2012). Teachers use ICT to improve the quality and efficiency of their teaching performance. Therefore, considering the potential of ICT tools in teaching, governments worldwide have committed towards integrating ICT into education to facilitate students’ learning. In 2009, the United Kingdom spent US$3.8 billion on education-related ICT, and the United States spent US$4.7 billion to introduce ICT in tertiary education institutions (Nutt 2010). Taiwan, with its strong and innovative R&D capacity and abundant research on digital learning (Hwang and Wu 2012), plays a critical role in the global ICT supply chain (OECD 2015). According to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan (2014), the annual budget allocated for incorporating ICT in Taiwan’s education system averaged US$5.5 million for 2013 and 2014. Technavio (2012) reported that between 2011 and 2015, the global spending on ICT in education exhibited an annual growth rate of 3.9%, with developing countries accounting for most of the growth. Educational institutions continue to increasingly demand ICT tools that can be used to provide requisite knowledge and skills to students. CONTACT Yen-Chun Jim Wu

[email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

KEYWORDS

Collaborative learning; ICT; feedback

Millennials are highly familiar with ICT tools. According to the 2014 Taiwan Personal/Household Digital Opportunity Survey report (Liang 2014), 46.8% of graduate students and 38.4% of university school students had used the Internet for knowledge acquisition in the previous year. In addition, most netizens taking online video courses had either an undergraduate (10.7%) or higher (graduate: 13.8%) degree. The development and evolution of smart phones and mobile networks may also change the learning systems in tertiary education institutes. However, the main obstacle for teachers in the use of ICT tools is insufficient proficiency and knowledge (Tondeur et al. 2012). Although teachers recognise the potential of such technology and believe that it enhances student learning and connect students’ school work with daily activities, they do not believe that it facilitates student teamwork and learning reflection in classroom-based education (Barak 2006). Thomas and Thomas (2012) asserted that ICT tools benefit teachers and promote student learning. Numerous teaching design models that assist teachers integrate ICT into the curriculum have been proposed, such as the generic model and the introduce, connect, apply, reflect, and extend model (Wang 2008). Therefore, to create a student-centred learning environment in tertiary education institutes, teachers must adopt either

244

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

an electronic or a no-electronic policy (Kuznekoff, Munz, and Titsworth 2015). Although business schools employ diverse teaching and learning methods to motivate students and increase their learning performance, regular classes primarily involve lectures, case studies, discussions, small group activities, assignments, projects, textbooks, and speakers (Wu et al. 2010). In business management education, various resources are integrated into coursework to assist students develop abilities such as teamwork, innovation, leadership, and integration. Recently, ICT is increasingly acknowledged as a major driver of innovation and learning (Alavi and Gallupe 2003). Most educators focus on the effectiveness of ICT tools in teaching and their potential benefits for students, teachers, and educational institutions (Yuen, Law, and Wong 2003); certain studies have highlighted that ICT tools provide abundant and valuable learning experiences for students majoring in business (Rienties and Townsend 2012). The use of ICT in education has been previously discussed; studies have individually investigated ICT tools, such as interactive response systems (IRSs) (Bartsch and Murphy 2011), Doceri (Silverberg, Tierney, and Bodek 2014), VoiceThread (Parise 2015), Soapbox (Zweekhorst and Maas 2015), and social media (Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin 2010). ICT tools are classified into five domains: feedback, classroom mobility, publishing/ content creating, collaboration, and social media. With continual increase in the number of ICT tools, whether the tools are capable of nurturing students according to their curriculum and future employment opportunities warrants investigation. The functions of ICT tools, rather than the tools, determine their use in a classroom. Accordingly, teachers must identify ICT tool functions that facilitate teaching and increase study interest. In addition, ICT enhances learning through traditional teaching methods and assists teachers in developing students’ abilities (Thomas and Thomas 2012). Therefore, the present study examined the attitudes of teachers and students towards ICT tools from the perspective of the development of abilities. The study primarily investigated feedback from the students and teachers to determine their attitude towards using ICT as an educational tool. In the teaching and learning process, feedback is one of the most effective methods for promoting student learning (Hattie and Timperley 2007). In tertiary education, feedback is considered the primary assessment approach to foster student development, and the importance of feedback for both students and teachers has been sufficiently confirmed (Bloxham and Boyd 2007). Feedback has a positive effect on education in general (Bodzin et al. 2007). Teachers use student feedback to assess the effectiveness

of their teaching methods, thereby allowing them to modify the methods according to students’ requirements. Similarly, students use feedback to express their opinions and understand their peers’ learning situations. The present study primarily contributes to the literature by discussing not only the five aforementioned domains of ICT tools but also several other ICT tools that have been used in academia or teaching. Although ICT tools facilitate teaching (Kim, Kim, and Han 2013), few studies have simultaneously investigated both students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT tools in classrooms. In the present study, ICT tools were integrated into questionnaire surveys to investigate similarities and differences between teaching and learning. The results may serve as a reference for educators to determine not only how and when to use ICT tools but also which tool should be used in the future. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 introduces studies related to the use of ICT in education, Section 3 describes the study direction and ICT tools, Section 4 explains the study results, and Section 5 presents a discussion, the conclusion, and directions for future research.

2. Literature review Currently, universities are investing considerable resources in the development of digital learning technologies, such as ICT, to support traditional learning methods (Technavio 2012). ICT in education implies that ‘ICT will be used, applied, and integrated in activities of working and learning on the basis of conceptual understanding and methods of informatics’ (Khvilon and Patru 2002, p. 25). Livingstone (2012) stated that ICT is a combination of educational technologies such as information technology, the Internet, books, databases, videos, and audio. Rienties and Townsend (2012) supported the importance of ICT as teaching tools and indicated that their implementation in classrooms enhances student learning and assists students in acquiring new knowledge. Therefore, teachers must possess the ability to effectively integrate ICT into their teaching (Wang 2008). The use of ICT tools to facilitate teaching and learning is divided into four stages: discovering, learning how, understanding how and when, and specialising (Khvilon and Patru 2002). The process of discovering and selecting ICT tools suitable for specific learning situations is complex. Educators must choose ICT tools according to the specific educational goal (Wang 2008). When teachers decide to use ICT tools, they must consider not only the crucial factors of context and method in which the tools are used but also assess the effectiveness

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

and usefulness of the tools (Gómez-Sánchez et al. 2009). Furthermore, how educators use ICT in teaching is strongly related to their previous learning, teaching, and research experiences. Factors explaining why teachers feel unprepared for using ICT tools in classrooms include an insufficiency of time, confidence, technical skills, and knowledge on related software (Tondeur et al. 2012). Rienties, Brouwer, and Lygo-Baker (2013) surveyed 73 academics in nine higher education institutes in the Netherlands and revealed that effective education-related ICT training encourages teachers to use ICT tools in their teaching and improves confidence in their ability to integrate ICT tools into their teaching designs. Similarly, Mishra and Koehler (2006) asserted that education-related ICT learning is a crucial determinant of teachers’ attitudes towards ICT tools. ICT tools facilitate teaching by providing feedback and evaluation and improving learning and teaching mobility. Currently, numerous ICT tools are available for educators, who must examine the advantages and disadvantages of each ICT tool to understand when to use, how to use, and which ICT tools to use in classrooms (Lim 2007). Using the appropriate ICT tool facilitates teaching and increases learning efficiency, thereby elevating students’ interests in learning. Teachers’ detailed understanding of teaching methods, technology, and school subjects facilitates the effectiveness of using ICT tools in education (Mishra and Koehler 2006). In addition, teachers can regularly attend specialised courses and may be required to acquire certifications (Khvilon and Patru 2002). Many instructional design models assist teachers to integrate ICT into their teachings and course designs (Wang 2008). Regular implementation of ICT tools in teaching and research is crucial in overcoming learning obstacles. By surveying 421 students at the Open University in the United Kingdom, Edmunds, Thorpe, and Conole (2012) revealed that ICT tools improve students’ learning and work performance after graduation and that improved learning efficiency is the primary driver of these improvements. Furthermore, they indicated that ICT tools are more useful for work purposes than for learning and recreational purposes. In student learning, teachers play a critical role in both traditional face-to-face and remote educational environments (Barak 2006). Albirini (2006a) employed qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the cultural perception of EFL teachers towards ICT tools and reported that teachers are notably conservative in their perception of the social and educational uses of ICT tools. However, a successful implementation of ICT tools mostly depends on the attitude of educators (Albirini 2006b). Sánchez-

245

Franco, Martínez-López, and Martín-Velicia (2009) also supported the notion that the attitude of educators affects the intended uses of ICT tools. Hakkarainen et al. (2000) investigated the attitudes of students towards the importance of ICT in studies and future life and revealed that female students, particularly younger students, had a positive attitude towards ICT. They also indicated that only a few students had an extremely negative attitude towards the use of ICT as a learning tool. Marriott, Marriott, and Selwyn (2004) interviewed 77 English students who had previously completed an ICT questionnaire and indicated that students with relatively little online study and social media experience were unwilling to consider additional advances, such as other forms of teaching and online tutorials. Junco and Cotten (2012) administered an online questionnaire survey to university students in order to investigate the relationship between multitasking with ICTs and their college grade point average. The results revealed that the use of Facebook or text messaging while completing homework, in general, negatively affects overall academic performance. Bartsch and Murphy (2011) surveyed 52 tertiary education students in an experimental design and revealed that students who used IRSs scored considerably high on a quiz at the end of the course. IRSs enhance student feedback and participation (Kay and Lesage 2009). Traditional classroom settings impair the implementation and innovation of teaching methods and limit student learning. Therefore, the use of mobile devices to assist teachers renders teaching ‘mobile’ and student-oriented and promotes an active learning attitude among students (Zurita and Nussbaum 2004). According to a survey of elementary and high school principals in Sweden, the main advantages of cloud computing systems are that they enable easy access to data and promote information sharing in learning through the Internet (Lim, Grönlund, and Andersson 2015). For example, SlideShare is one of the many resource-sharing platforms currently used in education. Google Hangouts and Google Docs extend traditional face-to-face learning environments by enabling students to complete their projects online. Because social media can be accessed anytime and from anywhere, they have a high potential to support learning. The two most widely used social media are Twitter and Facebook (Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin 2010). On the basis of previous studies and our observations, this study divided ICT tools into five general domains: feedback, classroom mobility, publishing and content creating, collaboration, and social media. Subsequently, this study explored students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards these major domains of ICT tools used in education.

246

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

Table 1. Sample frame. Location in Taiwan No. of workshops NKFUST NSYSU NTNU Total

Student Teacher 2

South South North

14 32 46

Graduate

Undergraduate

3

3

50 55 105

67 73 140

Business (AACSB), whereas the NTNU (a member of the Association of Asia-Pacific Business Schools) is currently applying for AACSB accreditation. In this study, we conducted eight 1-hour workshops; the study sample comprised 46 teachers, 105 graduate students, and 140 undergraduate students (Table 1). 3.2. Procedure

3. Methodology 3.1. Study participants Tertiary education is the highest level of education; therefore, identifying teaching activities and methods that enable students to connect their studies with their future employment or entrepreneurship is crucial. Teaching activities primarily involve teachers and students, and the concepts proposed in related research become more accurate when the ‘range’ of study participants increases (i.e. the study participants comprise a wide range of related individuals). In the assessment of the national ICT development capacity, the networked readiness index (NRI) is the most widely used method. According to the NRI, Taiwan is ranked 18th worldwide and 5th in Asia, following Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong (World Economic Forum 2015). In addition, Taiwan is ranked first in the world as the country with the most research contributions in the areas of mobile, ubiquitous, and digital learning (Hwang and Wu 2012). Therefore, the present study explored the attitudes of teachers and students towards ICT in management education in Taiwan. The study participants were teachers and university students from the College of Management at the National Sun Yat-sen University (NSYSU), National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), and National Kaohsiung First University of Technology (NKFUT). The colleges at NSYSU and NKFUT are accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of

Figure 1. Examples of instruction.

Before conducting a questionnaire survey, we introduced the ICT tools in workshops. The theme of the workshops was ‘using ICT in management education’; the five ICT tool groups were introduced through a presentation. We introduced one to three ICT tools from each group and explained their special features and how to use them. Next, we demonstrated the use of the tool to the participants, who were encouraged to ask questions and discuss the ICT tools to ensure comprehension (Figure 1). After introducing all the ICT tools, we administered a questionnaire survey through an immediate feedback system ‘Zuvio’ developed by a third party. Participants with Internet-capable devices completed the questionnaires by logging into the system through their devices (e.g. mobile phones, tablet computers, and laptops); students and teachers were administered different questionnaires. Smartphone users accessed the questions (Figure 2) by scanning a quick response code to log in to the system. The participants who did not have a smartphone or were unable to log in to the system were provided a paper-based questionnaire survey. The participants answered as many questions as they felt necessary; they were not required to answer all the questions or provide demographic data. 3.3. Questionnaire design We divided ICT tools into five domains: feedback, classroom mobility, publishing and content creating,


247

future employment (1 = not helpful; 5 = extremely helpful), and whether they wanted their teachers to use ICT tools as teaching support in class (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). For the teachers, the questions where whether they deemed the ICT tools useful in teaching (1 = not useful; 5 = extremely useful) and whether they were afraid of using ICT tools to assist with teaching (i.e. 1 = not afraid; 5 = extremely afraid). 3.4. ICT tools The ICT tools in the domains of feedback, classroom mobility, publishing and content creating, collaboration, and social media are described as follows (Table 2):

Figure 2. Examples of QR-code and question.

collaboration, and social media; a total of 11 ICT tools were used. We gathered the questionnaire data through an IRS. The questionnaires adopted a 5-point Likert scale and featured three questions for students and two questions for teachers. Questionnaires provided to the students and teachers differed slightly. For the students, the questions were whether they believed that the ICT tools help improve their learning (1 = not helpful; 5 = extremely helpful), whether it would help them in their

(A) Feedback: Three feedback ICT tools were introduced: an IRS, Diigo, and Kaizena. The IRS, audience response system, classroom response system, and electronic voting system were classified as immediate feedback systems. By integrating ICT tools into teaching activities, teachers can acquire information on students’ reactions to course content during class and implement immediate adjustments, rendering the teaching activities more flexible. Devices that can be used to access feedback-based ICT tools include smartphones, computers, and other Internet-capable hardware. Previous

Table 2. Summary of ICT tools. Domains Feedback

Platform IRS

Diigo Kaizena

Classroom mobility

Doceri Crestron AirMedia

Publishing/Content creating

Brainshark SlideShare Timeline JS

Collaboration

Google products LucidChart

Social media

Facebook

Special features and origin Enables students to ask questions and receive answers in real time by interacting with their teachers through personal communication devices. Interaction can be achieved through group discussions, group-based questionand-answer sessions, and peer assessments http://irs.zuvio.tw/index.php/user/login/1/ENGLISH Enables students to collect and organise web pages, make notes and mark important points on web pages, and share and discuss the content with others https://www.diigo.com/ Enables teachers to track student progress, assess homework, and provide personalised feedback. Teachers can grade homework and provide feedback through audio or video, effectively decreasing the time required for preparing student feedback. https://www.kaizena.com/ By using a tablet computer, users can create educational data, record videos and audio, and control computers remotely (software price: US$30) http://doceri.com/ Utilises automated control systems (hardware) in classrooms (e.g. multifunctional digital classrooms) to facilitate student–teacher interactions (e.g. video-based teaching) http://www.crestron.com/ Enables users to record audio in PowerPoint files to enhance content presentation. Overcomes problems of when face-to-face explanations cannot be given http://www.brainshark.com/ Enables sharing PowerPoint files via browsers on mobile devices. In addition, SlideShare can be linked to blogs so that video content can be embedded in blogs for playback http://www.slideshare.net/ Combines the features of Internet resources and Internet multimedia and enables the visualisation of historical data in a chronological manner http://timeline.knightlab.com/ Enables multiple users to edit and save documents online and conduct group meetings. In addition, Google products (Hangouts, Docs, Drive) feature a revision history function that helps users sort through files without confusion Enables users to draw flowcharts online and share them with others. In addition, users can use a coedit function https://www.lucidchart.com/ Enhances student–teacher interactions through social media

248

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

Table 3. Usefulness in school learning. Domains

Tools

Feedback

IRS Diigo Kaizena Domain Doceri Crestron Domain Brainshark SlideShare Timeline JS Domain Google Lucid Domain Facebook

Mobility Content

Collaboration Social Media N

Graduate 3.679 3.340 3.292 3.437 3.330 3.425 3.377 3.594 3.585 3.689 3.623 4.142 3.698 3.920 3.840 106

Undergraduate 1.047 1.094 1.195 0.872 1.185 1.287 1.125 1.193 1.210 1.190 1.027 1.283 1.346 1.175 1.339

research on IRS has verified that it improves student learning outcomes (Bartsch and Murphy 2011). In Diigo, users can save, categorise, and share webpage information by using the ‘bookmark’ function, highlight crucial information by using the ‘highlight’ function, and discuss topics by using the ‘sticky note’ function. In Kaizena (derived from the Japanese word ‘Kaizen’, which means ‘continued improvements’), users can express their opinions through audio recording functions (e.g. teachers can leave voice comments for their students’ homework) and attach reference materials. (B) Classroom mobility: Two classroom mobility-based ICT tools were introduced: Doceri and Crestron AirMedia. Doceri, which is an iPad application (software price: US$30), enables users to create educational content, record videos, share information, and control computers remotely by using a computer tablet. Crestron AirMedia utilises automated control systems (hardware) in classrooms (e.g. multifunctional digital classrooms) to facilitate flexible student–teacher interactions (e.g. videobased teaching or video conferencing). (C) Publishing/content creating: Three publishing and content creation ICT tools were introduced: Brainshark, SlideShare, and TimeLine JS. Brainshark enables users to record audio in slides to facilitate the integration of clear and improved content into PowerPoint presentations; this function is imperative when face-to-face explanations are impossible. SlideShare enables users to share PowerPoint files on various topics (e.g. technology and education) and offer suggestions through messages. TimeLine JS combines Internet resources and multimedia for visualising historical data chronologically. Users enter the year and event content into the system and the information is listed chronologically as images or videos, rendering the introduction of

3.551 3.331 3.515 3.466 3.309 3.390 3.349 3.647 3.647 3.500 3.598 4.156 3.581 3.864 3.831 136

0.768 0.861 0.966 0.584 1.072 1.103 0.957 0.978 1.051 1.033 0.777 0.863 0.923 0.747 1.015

Pooled 3.607 3.335 3.417 3.453 3.318 3.405 3.362 3.624 3.620 3.583 3.609 4.149 3.632 3.888 3.835 242

0.901 0.968 1.076 0.723 1.120 1.185 1.032 1.076 1.121 1.106 0.893 1.066 1.127 0.956 1.166

historical events and biographies relatively more entertaining. (D) Collaboration: Two collaboration-based ICT tools were introduced: Google products (Hangouts, Docs, and Drive) and LucidChart. The most common functions of these tools, such as communication, file editing, and saving, were introduced. For team-based file editing, the collaboration ICT tools present the total time each team member invests in editing the content. This feature overcomes certain obstacles involved in group assignments. LucidChart provides an online flow chart function and flowchart templates for users, which saves time in developing new flowcharts from scratch. Because the data are saved in a cloud system, they can be shared and collaboratively edited online. (E) Social media: Two social media ICT tools that provided real-time feedback were introduced: Twitter and Facebook. Through these social networks, teachers can interact with students any time and provide prompt advice through announcements.

4. Result This study investigated whether ICT tools assisted students in connecting their learning with their future employment and whether the teachers deemed the tools useful. The opinions of the students and teachers regarding the ICT tools were compared to examine the similarities and differences, the results of which may serve as a reference for educators. Analyses at the student and teacher level were conducted using SPSS Version 21. 4.1. Student Table 3 presents the helpfulness of the ICT tools in learning, which was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale.


Overall, the most helpful ICT tool type was collaboration (M = 3.888, SD = 0.956), followed by social media (M = 3.835, SD = 1.166). Both undergraduate and graduate students indicated that the collaboration ICT tools were most helpful in their learning. In competitive environments, teamwork and problem-solving skills have become increasingly crucial. Educators must encourage cooperation among students to observe, interpret, and contextualise information (Tsai 2001); in addition, they must facilitate teamwork among students, who typically enjoy sharing their feelings, expressing their views, and interacting through social media (Wu, Chang, and Yuan 2015; Zheng et al. 2016). These two indicators infer that students preferred using collaboration ICT tools to collaborate, interact, and communicate with their peers. Regarding feedback ICT tools, graduate students indicated that the IRS (M = 3.679, SD = 1.047) helped with their learning, whereas undergraduate students responded that both the IRS (M = 3.551, SD = 0.768) and Kaizena (M = 3.515, SD = 0.966) facilitated their learning. Regarding the mobility ICT tools, Crestion was more helpful in learning for graduate students (M = 3.425, SD = 1.287) than for undergraduate students (M = 3.390, SD = 1.103). Concerning publishing and content creating ICT tools, the graduate students reported that TimeLine JS (M = 3.689, SD = 1.190) was helpful in their learning because it presented information (e.g. images and videos) chronologically, allowing them to understand the circumstances surrounding various problems during discussions and enabling them to find solutions. Conversely, the undergraduate students indicated that Brainshark (M = 3.647, SD = 10.76) and SlideShare (M = 3.647, SD = 1.051) were the most helpful creation ICT tools. Regarding the collaboration ICT tools, the students indicated that Google products (Hangouts, Docs, and Drive) were the most helpful among all the ICT tools (M = 4.149, SD = 1.060). These tools enabled the students to complete their tasks by sharing files, collaborating in content development, and engaging in instant messaging. The students indicated that the collaboration (M = 3.966, SD = 0.955) and social media (M = 3.778, SD = 1.254) tools were the most helpful for future employment (Table 4). These results indicate that flexible working conditions, such as customer-oriented services and mobile offices and communities, are expected to become highly relevant in future employment. Practitioners in various industries are utilising social media tools to perform work-related tasks (Eyrich, Padman, and Sweetser 2008). Regarding the ICT tools that the students believed would help them with their future employment, the

249

undergraduate students’ responses regarding their preference for the three feedback ICT tools were nonsignificant, whereas the graduate students asserted that Diigo (M = 3.652, SD = 1.186) was the most helpful because it enabled file sharing, facilitated discussions, and provided a function for making notes on web pages. No significant difference was observed between the undergraduate and graduate students on the three mobility ICT tools. Concerning publishing and content creating ICT tools, the most helpful tool for the graduate students was TimeLine JS (M = 3.884, SD = 1.356), whereas that for undergraduate students was SlideShare (M = 3.592, SD = 1.115). Among the collaboration ICT tools, the students reported that Google products were the most helpful (M = 4.201, SD = 1.090). Google products are used by millions of companies globally; they provide companies with an innovative platform that enables communication from different locations and time zones, thereby saving companies’ resources and reducing IT costs. Table 5 indicates the students’ expectations of their teachers to use ICT tools in their classes. The overall mean was 3.645 (SD = 1.041); the female students attained a relatively higher average than their male counterparts. Student preferences for teachers to integrate ICT tools into their teaching is a critical factor that influences teachers’ course design and use of appropriate and effective technological tools (Jared, Watsatree, and Assion 2012). In the present study, the graduate students (M = 3.913; SD = 1.081) attained a higher mean than the undergraduate students (M = 3.504; SD = 0.995) in their preference for teachers to use ICT tools. Compared with the male students, higher means were attained by the female students pursuing undergraduate courses (M = 3.560, SD = 1.022 vs. M = 3.404, SD = 0.948) and graduate courses (M = 4.036, SD = 0.922 vs. M = 3.829, SD = 1.181). 4.2. Teacher Regarding how useful the teachers deemed the ICT tools (Table 6), the collaboration (M = 4.182, SD = 0.561), feedback (M = 4.114, SD = 0.784), and social media (M = 4.000, SD = 1.012) ICT tools were highly rated, as indicated by their high means (>4.000). The three most useful ICT tools were in the order of Google products (M = 4.488, SD = 0.592), IRS (M = 4.372, SD = 0.725), and Kaizena (M = 4.227, SD = 0.985). Google products and IRS assisted the teachers in creating and organising learning tasks quickly and were effective in providing feedback. Therefore, many teachers use Google products when collaborating with other educators in international research (Given and Willson 2015). In addition, teachers embedded audio messages in files through Kaizena,

250

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

Table 4. Usefulness in future employment. Domains

Tools

Feedback


Mobility Content

Collaboration Social Media N

Graduate 3.536 3.652 3.464 3.551 3.754 3.739 3.746 3.652 3.710 3.884 3.749 4.333 3.942 4.138 3.942 69

Undergraduate 1.267 1.186 1.220 1.074 1.218 1.184 1.100 1.315 1.202 1.356 1.130 1.221 1.162 1.060 1.305

which enabled them to provide descriptions and explanations directly in the files. Compared with the other ICT tools, the mobility ICT tools were considered the least useful because the two tools examined in this study required the purchase of additional equipment. Table 7 presents the extent to which the teachers were afraid of using ICT tools to assist in their teaching (M = 1.587, SD = 0.858). Approximately 86.96% of the teachers were not afraid of using ICT tools in teaching, whereas 2.17% of the teachers were. Hsu (2011) revealed that whether teachers use ICT tools in teaching is strongly correlated with their practical ICT experience. Concerning the use of innovative ICT tools in education, educators are expected to be more willing if they can perceive and experience the advantages of using such tools (Drent and Meelissen 2008).

5. Conclusions and discussion Currently, tertiary education is changing and integrating technology into teaching is receiving particular attention (Kirkwood and Price 2005). However, additional efforts are required to enhance educational experience by using ICT tools. In traditional business management education, students are often asked to deliver presentations, perform case discussions, and collaborate with each other, whereas teachers are expected to be more innovative with their teaching methods. However, no appropriate learning or Table 5. Expectation in teaching. Group

Gender

Mean

SD

N

Graduate

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

3.829 4.036 3.913 3.404 3.560 3.504 3.602 3.679 3.645

1.181 0.922 1.081 0.948 1.022 0.995 1.078 1.015 1.041

41 28 69 47 84 131 88 112 200

Undergraduate Pooled

3.320 3.384 3.376 3.360 3.408 3.464 3.436 3.416 3.592 3.480 3.496 4.128 3.616 3.872 3.688 125

Pooled 1.060 1.022 1.068 0.846 1.093 1.074 0.963 1.094 1.115 1.154 0.955 1.008 1.083 0.882 1.221

3.397 3.479 3.407 3.428 3.531 3.562 3.546 3.500 3.634 3.624 3.586 4.201 3.732 3.966 3.778 194

1.139 1.088 1.122 0.935 1.148 1.119 1.022 1.179 1.145 1.242 1.025 1.090 1.120 0.955 1.254

teaching tools have been provided to students and teachers. Therefore, this study investigated student and teacher attitudes towards using ICT tools in the context of assisting with teaching. This study also provides useful descriptors of the different types of ICT tools to the students and instructors and how they relate to the introduction of new ICT tools in their learning and teaching processes. The results can be summarised as follows: first, from the student perspective, collaboration and social media ICT tools were most helpful in school learning and future employment. Second, teachers believed that feedback, collaboration, and social media ICT tools were useful in teaching. Third, students and teachers would use ICT tools in class. Finally, female students were more eager to have teachers use ICT tools in teaching than the male students. This study has several managerial implications. Students believe that collaboration and social media ICT tools assist in their learning and future employment; teachers also deem these two ICT tools useful in teaching. Therefore, teachers must consider the importance of these ICT tools when designing their courses and integrate these types of ICT tools into their teaching. Moreover, encouraging students to use collaboration and social media ICT tools and involving them in regular group work may be a favourable solution to achieve collaborative and productive work through knowledge and develop students’ social connections within the society (Hakkarainen et al. 2000; Comas-Quinn, Mardomingo, and Valentine 2009). However, educators must note that if students use Facebook and texting more frequently while studying, their academic performance is negatively affected (Junco and Cotten 2012). Therefore, educators must emphasise the difference between social and academic activities in the curriculum design. Teachers strongly emphasise the opinion feedback function of ICT tools. Constant feedback from students and teachers during the learning process encourages


251

Table 6. Usefulness in teaching. Domains

Tools

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

Feedback


43 44 44 44 44 43 44 44 44 44 44 43 44 44 44

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

4.372 3.818 4.227 4.114 3.409 3.628 3.511 3.818 3.727 3.545 3.697 4.488 3.886 4.182 4.000

0.725 0.922 0.985 0.784 0.787 0.926 0.686 0.756 0.997 0.926 0.685 0.592 0.784 0.561 1.012

Mobility Content

Collaboration Social Media

them to become more engaged, thereby creating momentum (Thomas and Thomas 2012); the assignment feedback provided by teachers enhances student learning. However, many business school teachers are trapped in a cyclical quality feedback environment, which is dominated by negative student feedback (Rynes and Trank 1999). Conversely, the use of instant feedback systems enables teachers to promptly understand how much students have learned in a class and to identify how such systems help students with their learning and future employment. Traditional satisfaction surveys have evolved from being satisfaction-oriented to being achievement-oriented (Emery, Kramer, and Tian 2003), and teachers also provide feedback to students through ICT tools. For example, Kaizena enables teachers to provide feedback in the form of inserting audio recordings directly in students’ assignments. ICT tools that facilitate student–teacher interactions strengthen student–teacher relationships (Yuen, Law, and Wong 2003). Both students and teachers desire to use ICT tools in class. Because millennials are familiar with ICT tools, they require no instructions on how to use them. Teachers must regularly invest time and effort in integrating ICTs into their teaching (Baron and Harrari 2005). Kalogiannakis (2010) indicated that teachers expect to receive additional workplace training programmes on developing courses that feature using ICTs in class. Because teacher confidence and ability to use ICTs influence their subsequent use of such technology in class, enhancing their confidence and beliefs in using ICTs is considerably crucial (Prestridge 2012). Table 7. Degree of fear for using ICT. Degree of fear 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Counts

Percentage

Mean

SD

27 13 5 0 1 46

58.70 28.26 10.87 0.00 2.17 100

1.587

0.858

In general, female students have a more negative attitude towards ICT compared with their male counterparts (Broos 2005). However, in this study, compared with the male students, female students felt more strongly about integrating ICT tools into learning activities. This finding accords with that of Usluel (2007), who argued that female students demonstrate stronger self-efficacy when acquiring information and developing research strategies for using ICT. Hakkarainen et al. (2000) also indicated that younger females have a significantly positive attitude towards using ICT as a learning tool. This suggests that female and male students can be organised in a group when using ICT tools to enhance study interest. Furthermore, following advancements in technology and ICTs, students no longer ‘collaborate to learn’, rather they ‘learn to collaborate’ (McCormick 2004). Students are encouraged to share their experiences and observations (Wang et al. 2014). Because of the increased flexibility in designing tasks for students, related negotiations and student–teacher consensus has become a focal point in research on education (Rappa, Yip, and Baey 2009). Students accomplish tasks through persuasion, listening to their peers, and cooperation. In addition, students can create Google documents, spreadsheets, and presentations by working on and editing files together in an online environment and by engaging in discussions through the instant messaging function of the files. Students require teacher interventions and guidance to effectively use ICTs to achieve their learning objectives (Cigognini, Pettenati, and Edirisingha 2011). Students, however, have linked social media with their academic experiences both formally and informally (Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2012). Bonzo and Parchoma (2010) indicated that educational institutions that understand the core principles of social media usage have a high probability of students cooperating in learning, which promotes student engagement. Social media and user content also improve students’ learning proactivity and interactions (Hrastinski and Aghaee 2012).

252

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

Furthermore, in recent years, students have identified social media to be useful tools of career development (Josefsson et al. 2015; Schmidt 2016). Classroom mobility is the most critical characteristic and involves related services, devices, and users (Parsons, Ryu, and Cranshaw 2007). The mobility ICT tools were considered the least useful tools for teachers. However, the educators assigned a higher mean for this category than did the students. Educators are becoming aware of the importance of classroom mobility in teaching (Tibúrcio and Finch 2005). In business schools, conventional teaching methods and facilities limit student and teacher mobility. Teachers are recommended to focus on course context and technology and develop a mobile learning environment that is conducive to learning. In the present study, classroom mobility refers to teachers’ designing courses by using electronic devices. Chen and Huang (2002) explained that teachers are accustomed to face-to-face teaching. However, software and mobile electronic devices, including tablet computers and graphics boards, enable teachers to teach students located anywhere through virtual classrooms. Such a highly interactive classroom elevates student attention and promotes learning interests. Moreover, Internet technologies and wireless communication and mobile learning equipment improve teaching and learning outcomes (Kuznekoff, Munz, and Titsworth 2015). Because teachers who use ICT tools still evaluate student performance through traditional means (e.g. tests, assignments, and oral presentations), future research must integrate existing ICT systems to evaluate teacher and student performance and determine whether ICTbased courses and teaching materials correspond with students’ learning needs. The findings may facilitate improving students’ ability to apply ICT tools in other domains.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding This work is supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 104-2511-S-003 -031 -MY3].

ORCiD Yen-Chun Jim Wu

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5479-2873

References Alavi, M., and R. B. Gallupe. 2003. “Using Information Technology in Learning: Case Studies in Business and

Management Education Programs.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 2 (2): 139–153. Albirini, A. 2006a. “Cultural Perceptions: The Missing Element in the Implementation of ICT in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT [Online] 2 (1): 49–65. Albirini, A. 2006b. “Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Information and Communication Technologies: The Case of Syrian EFL Teachers.” Computers & Education 47 (4): 373–398. Barak, M. 2006. “Instructional Principles for Fostering Learning with ICT: Teachers’ Perspectives as Learners and Instructors.” Education and Information Technologies 11: 121–135. Baron, G.-L., and M. Harrari. 2005. “ICT in French Primary Education, Twenty Years Later: Infusion or Transformation?” Education and Information Technologies 10 (3): 147–156. Bartsch, R. A., and W. Murphy. 2011. “Examining the Effects of an Electronic Classroom Response System on Student Engagement and Performance.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 44 (1): 25–33. Bloxham, S., and P. Boyd. 2007. Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Bodzin, A. M., P. L. Waller, S. Lana Edwards, and D. Kale. 2007. “Investigating the Use of Inquiry & Web-Based Activities with Inclusive Biology Learners.” The American Biology Teacher 69 (5): 273–279. Bonzo, J., and G. Parchoma. 2010. “The Paradox of Social Media and Higher Education Institutions.” The 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, 912–918. Broos, A. 2005. “Gender and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Anxiety: Male Selfassurance and Female Hesitation.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 8 (1): 21–31. Chen, N.-S., and S.-Y. Huang. 2002. “Applying Evolutionary Prototyping Model in Developing Stream-Based Lecturing Systems.” Interactive Educational Multimedia 4: 62–75. Cigognini, M. E., M. C. Pettenati, and P. Edirisingha. 2011. “Personal Knowledge Management Skills in Web 2.0Based Learning.” In Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching, edited by M. J. W. Lee and C. Mcloughlin, 109–127. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Comas-Quinn, A., R. Mardomingo, and C. Valentine. 2009. “Mobile Blogs in Language Learning: Making the Most of Informal and Situated Learning Opportunities.” ReCALL 21 (01): 96–112. Dabbagh, N., and A. Kitsantas. 2012. “Personal Learning Environments, Social Media, and Self-regulated Learning: A Natural Formula for Connecting Formal and Informal Learning.” The Internet and Higher Education 15 (1): 3–8. Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics. 2014. 2014 Annual Central Government General Budget Proposal. Taipei: Executive Yuan, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Drent, M., and M. Meelissen. 2008. “Which Factors Obstruct or Stimulate Teacher Educators to Use ICT Innovatively?” Computers & Education 51 (1): 187–199. Edmunds, R., M. Thorpe, and G. Conole. 2012. “Student Attitudes Towards and Use of ICT in Course Study, Work and Social Activity: A Technology Acceptance Model


Approach.” British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (1): 71–84. Emery, C. R., T. R. Kramer, and R. G. Tian. 2003. “Return to Academic Standards: A Critique of Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness.” Quality Assurance in Education 11 (1): 37–46. Eyrich, N., M. L. Padman, and K. D. Sweetser. 2008. “PR Practitioners’ Use of Social Media Tools and Communication Technology.” Public Relations Review 34 (4): 412–414. Gómez-Sánchez, E., M. L. Bote-Lorenzo, I. M. Jorrín-Abellán, G. Vega-Gorgojo, J. I. Asensio-Pérez, and Y. Dimitriadis. 2009. “Conceptual Framework for Design, Technological Support and Evaluation of Collaborative Learning.” International Journal of Engineering Education 25 (3): 557–568. Given, L. M., and R. Willson. 2015. “Collaboration, Information Seeking, and Technology Use: A Critical Examination of Humanities Scholars’ Research Practices.” In Collaborative Information Seeking, edited by P. Hansen, C. Shah, and C.P. Klas, 139–164. New York: Springer International. Hakkarainen, K., L. Ilomäki, L. Lipponen, H. Muukkonen, M. Rahikainen, T. Tuominen, M. Lakkala, and E. Lehtinen. 2000. “Students’ Skills and Practices of Using ICT: Results of a National Assessment in Finland.” Computers & Education 34 (2): 103–117. Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112. Hrastinski, S., and N. M. Aghaee. 2012. “How Are Campus Students Using Social Media to Support Their Studies? An Explorative Interview Study.” Education and Information Technologies 17 (4): 451–464. Hsu, S. 2011. “Who Assigns the Most ICT Activities? Examining the Relationship between Teacher and Student Usage.” Computers & Education 56 (3): 847–855. Hwang, G.-J., and P.-H. Wu. 2012. “Advancements and Trends in Digital Game-Based Learning Research: A Review of Publications in Selected Journals from 2001 to 2010.” British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (1): E6–E10. Jared, K., D. Watsatree, and L.-B. Assion. 2012. “Student and Instructor Satisfaction with E-Learning Tools in Online Learning Environments.” International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE) 8 (1): 76–86. Josefsson, P., S. Hrastinski, D. Pargman, and T. Pargman. 2015. “The Student, the Private and the Professional Role: Students’ Social Media Use.” Education and Information Technologies 1–12. Junco, R., and S. R. Cotten. 2012. “No A 4 U: The Relationship Between Multitasking and Academic Performance.” Computers & Education 59 (2): 505–514. Kabilan, M. K., N. Ahmad, and M. J. Z. Abidin. 2010. “Facebook: An Online Environment for Learning of English in Institutions of Higher Education?” The Internet and Higher Education 13 (4): 179–187. Kalogiannakis, M. 2010. “Training with ICT for ICT from the Trainee’s Perspective. A Local ICT Teacher Training Experience.” Education and Information Technologies 15 (1): 3–17. Kay, R. H., and A. Lesage. 2009. “Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Using Audience Response Systems: A Review of the Literature.” Computers & Education 53 (3): 819–827.

253

Khvilon, E., and M. Patru. 2002. Information and Communication Technology: A Curriculum for Schools and Programme of Teacher Development. Paris: UNESCO. Kim, S., H. Kim, and S. Han. 2013. “A Development of Learning Widget on M-Learning and E-Learning Environments.” Behaviour & Information Technology 32 (2): 190–202. Kirkwood, A., and L. Price. 2005. “Learners and Learning in the Twenty-First Century: What Do We Know about Students’ Attitudes Towards and Experiences of Information and Communication Technologies That Will Help Us Design Courses?” Studies in Higher Education 30 (3): 257–274. Kuznekoff, J. H., S. Munz, and S. Titsworth. 2015. “Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student Learning.” Communication Education 64 (3): 344–365. Liang, T.-H. 2014. Personal/Household Digital Opportunity Survey Report. Taipei. Lim, C. P. 2007. “Effective Integration of ICT in Singapore Schools: Pedagogical and Policy Implications.” Educational Technology, Research and Development 55 (1): 83–116. Lim, N., A. Grönlund, and A. Andersson. 2015. “Cloud Computing: The Beliefs and Perceptions of Swedish School Principals.” Computers & Education 84: 90–100. Livingstone, S. 2012. “Critical Reflections on the Benefits of ICT in Education.” Oxford Review of Education 38 (1): 9–24. Marriott, N., P. Marriott, and N. Selwyn. 2004. “Accounting Undergraduates’ Changing Use of ICT and Their Views on Using the Internet in Higher Education – A Research Note.” Accounting Education 13: 117–130. McCormick, R. 2004. “Collaboration: The Challenge of ICT.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14: 159–176. Mishra, P., and M. J. Koehler. 2006. “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.” Teachers College Record 108 (6): 1017–1054. Nutt, J. 2010. Professional Educators and the Evolving Role of ICT in Schools: Perspective Report. Berkshire. OECD. 2015. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. Paris. Parise, S. 2015. “Using Voice Thread to Socialize Online Presentations.” In Evolving Entrepreneurial Education: Innovation in the Babson Classroom, edited by V. L Crittenden, K. Esper, N. Karst, and R. Slegers, 1st ed., 349–363. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Parsons, D., H. Ryu, and M. Cranshaw. 2007. “A Design Requirements Framework for Mobile Learning Environments.” Journal of Computers 2 (4): 1–8. Prestridge, S. 2012. “The Beliefs Behind the Teacher That Influences Their ICT Practices.” Computers & Education 58 (1): 449–458. Rappa, N. A., D. K. H. Yip, and S. C. Baey. 2009. “The Role of Teacher, Student and ICT in Enhancing Student Engagement in Multiuser Virtual Environments.” British Journal of Educational Technology 40 (1): 61–69. Rienties, B., N. Brouwer, and S. Lygo-Baker. 2013. “The Effects of Online Professional Development on Higher Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Intentions Towards Learning Facilitation and Technology.” Teaching and Teacher Education 29: 122–131.

254

Y.-C. J. WU ET AL.

Rienties, B., and D. Townsend. 2012. “Integrating ICT in Business Education: Using Tpack to Reflect on Two Course Redesigns.” In Learning at the Crossroads of Theory and Practice, edited by P. Van Den Bossche, W. H. Gijselaers, and R. G. Milter, 141–156. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Rynes, S. L., and C. Q. Trank. 1999. “Behavioral Science in the Business School Curriculum: Teaching in a Changing Institutional Environment.” Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 808–824. Sánchez-Franco, M. J., F. J. Martínez-López, and F. A. MartínVelicia. 2009. “Exploring the Impact of Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Web-Based Electronic Learning: An Empirical Analysis in European Higher Education.” Computers & Education 52 (3): 588–598. Schmidt, G. B. 2016. “Using Pinterest in the Management Classroom.” Management Teaching Review 1 (2): 79–84. Silverberg, L. J., J. Tierney, and M. J. Bodek. 2014. “Use of Doceri Software for Ipad in Online Delivery of Chemistry Content.” Journal of Chemical Education 91 (11): 1999–2001. Technavio. 2012. Global ICT Spending in the Education Sector 2011-2015. Infiniti Research. Accessed January 10, 2016. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2121372/glob al_ict_spending_in_the_education_sector. Thomas, M., and H. Thomas. 2012. “Using New Social Media and Web 2.0 Technologies in Business School Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Management Development 31 (4): 358–367. Tibúrcio, T., and E. F. Finch. 2005. “The Impact of an Intelligent Classroom on Pupils’ Interactive Behaviour.” Facilities 23 (5/6): 262–278. Tondeur, J., J. Van Braak, G. Sang, J. Voogt, P. Fisser, and A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich. 2012. “Preparing Pre-service Teachers to Integrate Technology in Education: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence.” Computers & Education 59 (1): 134–144. Tsai, C.-C. 2001. “The Interpretation Construction Design Model for Teaching Science and Its Applications to Internet-Based Instruction in Taiwan.” International Journal of Educational Development 21 (5): 401–415.

Usluel, Y. K. 2007. “Can ICT Usage Make a Difference on Student Teachers’ Information Literacy Self-efficacy.” Library & Information Science Research 29 (1): 92–102. Wang, Q. 2008. “A Generic Model for Guiding the Integration of ICT into Teaching and Learning.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45 (4): 411–419. Wang, S.-K., H.-Y. Hsu, T. C. Reeves, and D. C. Coster. 2014. “Professional Development to Enhance Teachers’ Practices in Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as Cognitive Tools: Lessons Learned from a Design-Based Research Study.” Computers & Education 79: 101–115. World Economic Forum. 2015. Network Readiness Index. Accessed October 10, 2015. World Economic Forum. http://reports.weforum.org/global-information-technologyreport-2015/network-readiness-index/. Wu, Y.-C. J., W.-H. Chang, and C.-H. Yuan. 2015. “Do Facebook Profile Pictures Reflect User’s Personality?” Computers in Human Behavior 51: 880–889. Wu, Y.-C. J., S. Huang, L. Kuo, and W.-H. Wu. 2010. “Management Education for Sustainability: A Web-Based Content Analysis.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 9 (3): 520–531. Yuen, A. H. K., N. Law, and K. C. Wong. 2003. “ICT Implementation and School Leadership: Case Studies of ICT Integration in Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Educational Administration 41 (2): 158–170. Zheng, W., C.-H. Yuan, W.-H. Chang, and Y.-C. J. Wu. 2016. “Profile Pictures on Social Media: Gender and Regional Differences.” Computers in Human Behavior 63: 891–898. Zurita, G., and M. Nussbaum. 2004. “Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Using Wirelessly Interconnected Handheld Computers.” Computers & Education 42 (3): 289–314. Zweekhorst, M. B. M., and J. Maas. 2015. “ICT in Higher Education: Students Perceive Increased Engagement.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 7 (1): 2–18.