08832323.2010.518648
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced
Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison
Mary Jo Jackson , Marilyn M. Helms , William T. Jackson & John R. Gum
To cite this article: Mary Jo Jackson , Marilyn M. Helms , William T. Jackson & John R. Gum
(2011) Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison,
Journal of Education for Business, 86:5, 294-301, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
Published online: 21 Jun 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 525
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:19
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 294–301, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced
Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison
Mary Jo Jackson
University of South Florida St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Marilyn M. Helms
Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA
William T. Jackson and John R. Gum
University of South Florida St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
The influx of technology into education has begun a transformation of the classroom. The
authors replicated a 1996 study of college students’ expectations of technology to be used
in the classroom. Students reported prior experience with computer technology, their ideal
classroom instruction techniques, and what technology-enhanced pedagogies they anticipated
in college classrooms. Although student desires have changed, the picture of an ideal classroom
still shows a strong desire for lecture-dominated classes with class discussion and exercises,
written handouts, and outlines. Implications and suggestions for future research are included.
Keywords: college pedagogy, technology, teaching
As recently as the late 1980s, articles on technology in the
classroom were scarce and required a definition and explanation of technology-enhanced options before presenting a new
theory. This has changed dramatically and was illustrated
by a Market Data Retrieval study that estimated colleges
spent $6.94 billion on information technology (IT) in 2006,
a 35% increase from the previous year. Additionally, Kiernan
(2006) reported the average college technology budget to be
$1.4 million.
Projections are that technology usage may transform
higher education learning and teaching in the future (Kiernan,
2006; Watson, Boudreau, York, Greiner, & Wynn, 2008);
however, research on the use of technology-enhanced pedagogies in higher education and of the link between these
and student learning is limited and conflicting. Studies in
the late 1990s appeared to suggest cautious optimism for a
positive relationship between the use of technology and student educational achievements (Schacter, 1999). Over time,
others have disagreed on the benefits of the various types of
Correspondence should be addressed to Marilyn M. Helms, Dalton
State College, School of Business, 650 College Drive, Dalton, GA 30720,
USA. E-mail: mhelms@daltonstate.edu
technology-enhanced pedagogy on learning whereas others
indicated faculty costs and time may outweigh any benefits to
student learning (Herrington & Kervin, 2007; Smith, 2001;
Watson et al.).
Krentler and Willis-Flurry (2005) suggested students perceive technology as an effective learning tool and many institutions and faculty assume students expect their courses to be
infused with technological supplements. Growing up in an intensive environment of television, movies, and video games,
younger students have developed learning styles where comprehension occurs largely through visual images. This form
of delivery may shape what students perceive and may affect their interest levels and retention of information. In this
vein a similarity can be drawn to the phenomenon that has
occurred in news coverage, where snippets or sound bites are
the forms of information most sought due to time constraints
and limited attention spans of viewers.
Similarly, it is expected that students raised in an environment in which senses are flooded with visual inputs may have
different expectations regarding what they consider optimal
pedagogies for learning and whether they consider technology enhancements to be a nicety or a necessity. Additionally,
as Schrum (2005) pointed out, most students are ahead of
their professors in computer literacy. It is also expected that
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
in their just-in-time environment, students seek immediate
feedback on assignments and demand anytime access for
grade posting. Anecdotal evidence suggests students prefer
Web-posted documents including class syllabi, lecture notes,
links to current articles and readings, or PowerPoint slides.
Most textbook publishers offer this form of support in ancillary materials specifically developed for the online environment. With the proliferation of the iPod it is not inconceivable
that some students would prefer lectures and video clips to
download as podcasts for MP3 players and other personal
listening devices.
Technology-enhanced pedagogies are becoming more
common in today’s classrooms. Demand is expected to continue its substantial growth over the next decade (Debevec,
Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; Hall & Elliott, 2003). Schrum (2005)
reported that technological advances have exceeded the most
optimistic expectations but agreed that educational institutions have not yet realized the full potential, and that although
some aspects of education delivery have indeed changed,
with the growth and proliferation of technology course content and objectives have remained the same. This myriad
of technologies are not only being used in a variety of
educational settings, but their use is also being studied by
educational researchers in a variety of settings, including
information systems classrooms (Bradley, Mbarika, Sankar,
Raju, & Kaba (2007), accounting classrooms (Sugahara &
Boland, 2006), and in business education courses (James,
Burke, & Hutchins, 2006).
Young (2004), in a survey of 4,374 freshman and seniors, found 48.5% of the students felt the biggest benefit of
classroom technology is convenience (e.g., checking grades
online), whereas only 12.7% of the students said improved
learning was the greatest benefit. Some 3.7% felt IT provided no benefit at all in their classrooms. Young also found
most students (41.2%) preferred a moderate use of IT and
agreed there is a mythology about today’s students. Although
they may live online in their personal environment, very few
students (2.2%) wanted entirely online courses and 2.9%
even preferred courses with no use of IT (Young). Because
students are exposed to technology and multimedia in elementary and secondary classrooms and in their personal
lives, have their expectations of technology in their college
learning environments changed and have their desires for
technologically enhanced pedagogies changed? Specifically,
the questions become the following:
Research Question 1: What are students’ expectations regarding technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques in the college classroom, and have these
expectations changed over the past decade (1996–
2006)?
Research Question 2: What type of technology-enhanced
pedagogical techniques do students want in their ideal
classroom, and have these desires changed over the past
decade (1996–2006)?
295
METHOD
From a review of the present literature of the use of multimedia in the classroom, Snyder and Vaughan (1996) developed
a student survey designed to measure student expectations
of this pedagogy. The survey was arranged into four areas:
anticipation of the format in which students would receive
instruction, extent of student exposure to computers during
the last academic year, perception of the ideal classroom, and
extent of student usage of various types of software within
the past year.
The survey instrument, as shown in Appendix A, consisted of content questions measured with a 5-point Likerttype scale with responses ranging from 1 (None at all) to
5 (Extensively [almost daily]) and seven demographic questions. Although the original survey responses were worded
to reflect the quarter based academic term, the 2006 survey changed the responses to a semester basis to reflect the
academic terms in use at that time. Of the content questions, 15 addressed student expectations regarding the use
of technology-enhanced pedagogies, whereas five questions
considered the extent technology was used in their classroom during their senior year of high school. Fifteen questions polled students on their ideal classroom environment as
it related to technology-enhanced pedagogy. The remainder
of the questions addressed the extent of students’ personal
computer usage. Although the terminology and available elements related to technology in the classroom evolved during
the 10-year study period, the survey instrument purposely
kept the same terminology and elements to allow for longitudinal comparisons.
In 1996 the survey was administered to 714 students at a
small southeastern private college. The student sample was
39% male and 61% female. Seventy-six percent of the sampled students were Caucasian, 15% were African American,
2% were Hispanic, 5% were Asian, and 2% were classified
as other. The age make-up of the sample included 5% that
were aged 17 years or younger, 6% that were between the
ages of 18 and 20 years, 73% that were between the ages of
21 and 23 years, 5% that were between the ages of 24 and
29 years, and 11% that were aged 30 years or older.
In 2006, the same survey was administered to 639 students
at three southeastern colleges in two southern states (Georgia
and Tennessee) and included two public institutions and one
private institution. This student sample was 45% male and
55% female. Of the sample, 80% were Caucasian, 7% were
African American, 7% were Hispanic, 3% were Asian, and
3% were classified as other. The sample included 1% of
the students that were aged 17 years or younger, 77% that
were between the ages of 18 and 20 years, 16% that were
between the ages of 21 and 23 years, 3% that were between
the ages of 24 and 29 years, and 3% that were aged 30 years or
older. Although the majors of the students were not measured
in the survey, both student samples could be classified as
convenience samples, with the majority of students having
296
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Sample Demographics, 1996 and 2006
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
1996
Total number
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Race–other
17 or younger
18–20
21–23
24–29
30 or older
2006
n
%
n
%
714
278
436
543
107
14
36
14
36
43
521
36
78
39
61
76
15
2
5
2
5
6
73
5
11
639
288
251
511
45
45
19
19
6
492
103
19
19
45
55
80
7
7
3
3
1
77
16
3
3
business related majors. Also, the college included in the
original study was one of the three institutions sampled in
2006.
The demographics of each sample are shown in Table 1.
The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) test was used to
determine if there were significant differences in the two
samples. Results indicated that there was a significant difference in the age of the two samples. The 1996 sample was
significantly older than the 2006 student sample (U = 84003,
p < .000), with the largest difference being reported in the
percentage of students aged 30 years or older (11% in 1996
and 3% in 2006). However, analysis of the 1996 data indicated that responses were not significantly different based on
the age of the respondents and, thus, the difference in the
ages of the sample respondents was not considered in further
analyzes.
RESULTS
The analysis was divided into three parts. The first part measured the students’ exposure to and use of technology and
compared the differences between the two student samples.
The second part considered the components of the students’
anticipated learning environment and compared the 1996 and
2006 results. In the third part we analyzed and compared the
perceptions of ideal learning environment in the two student
samples.
Part 1: Use of Technology
Students’ personal usage of technology was measured by
asking students to indicate “to what extent you used the following software during the past year.” Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging
from 1 (None at all) to 5 (Extensively [almost daily]). A focus
group comprising the business school faculty was conducted
to determine which of the response categories indicated actual usage. It was determined that if a tool was used 6–7 times
per quarter it would be perceived as being used in the course.
Thus, responses of 5 ([almost daily]), 4 (once/week), and 3
(6–7 times per quarter) were operational zed as an indicator
of usage.
In the 1996 sample, 23% of the students reported
having some form of presentation software, such as
PowerPoint, used at least occasionally in class presentations
(response items 3, 4, and 5), 86% used word-processing software, 86% used spreadsheets, 35% used e-mail, and 43%
regularly accessed the Internet. Ten years later, 72% of the
students reported at least occasional (6–7 times per quarter)
use of presentation software, 90% use of word-processing
software, 53% use of spreadsheets, 75% use of email, and
93% accessed the Internet.
Previous exposure to the use of computer technology in
the classroom was measured by the student’s responses to
questions regarding the extent their instructors had used computers at least occasionally (6–7 times per quarter) during
their last academic year. Responses were measured on a 5point Likert-type with responses ranging from 1 (None at
all) to 5 (Extensively [almost daily]). Again, based on focus
group input, responses of 3, 4, or 5 were included in the
analysis. In 1996, the usage of computers to present course
material was reported by 53% of the students and by 79%
in 2006. Another aspect of computer technology used in the
classroom included the use of email, which was reported by
11% of the 1996 student sample and 49% of the 2006 sample.
Part 2: Anticipated Learning Environments
The anticipated learning environment was measured by student responses to the statement, “I anticipate my professors
will use the following techniques to present course information.” The statement was followed by a list of pedagogical
techniques, which were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale
with responses ranging from 1 (None at all) to 5 (Extensively
[almost daily]). Responses of 3, 4, or 5 were included in the
analysis of the students’ anticipated environment as indicative of anticipated pedagogies. Table 1 shows the comparison
of the student responses.
In 1996, 20% of the students anticipated that technology
would be used in presenting class material extensively or periodically, with 30% anticipating technology would be used
occasionally. Forty-eight percent expected at least occasional
computer projects and 51% anticipated at least occasional
Internet access in the classroom. The use of computer simulations, at least occasionally, was anticipated by 39% of the
students, email by 45% of the students, and video/DVD use
by 46% of the students. More traditional classroom pedagogies such as lectures and class discussions were expected
extensively by 77% and 51% of the respondents, respectively. Written handouts or outlines were expected at least
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
297
TABLE 2
Comparison Expectation of College Learning Environment, 1996 and 2006
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
5: Extensively
(almost every class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally (6–7
times/semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/semester)
1: Never
Item
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software
(PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet (accessing from class)
61%
16%
40%
23%
25%
10%
7%
27%
6%
26%
77%
11%
51%
15%
39%
6%
1%
12%
2%
3%
28%
37%
36%
31%
30%
24%
15%
31%
13%
28%
17%
47%
35%
35%
24%
27%
13%
36%
12%
17%
9%
32%
18%
30%
20%
35%
31%
23%
33%
27%
5%
26%
11%
31%
22%
40%
34%
29%
32%
30%
1%
11%
5%
14%
19%
26%
33%
13%
29%
15%
1%
14%
2%
16%
13%
23%
45%
17%
47%
37%
1%
4%
1%
2%
6%
5%
14%
6%
19%
4%
0%
2%
1%
3%
2%
4%
7%
6%
7%
13%
9%
7%
6%
8%
11%
6%
3%
3%
4%
3%
30%
16%
14%
12%
18%
17%
15%
11%
12%
17%
32%
29%
25%
29%
25%
22%
30%
25%
29%
31%
15%
32%
33%
31%
26%
33%
40%
41%
36%
35%
14%
16%
22%
20%
20%
22%
12%
20%
19%
14%
Note. Prompt: “I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information.”
occasionally by 84% of the students; at least occasionally in
class exercises by 81%; and outside classroom assignments
by 85% (responses of 3, 4, and 5). Only 6% expected the extensive use of group activities in class, whereas 73 expected
these at least occasionally.
In comparison, in 2006, 81% of the students expected
technology-enhanced classroom presentations at least occasionally, 52% computer projects, and 54% Internet access
from class. In 2006, 45% anticipated computer simulations
to be used at least occasionally, 71% anticipated the use of
email contact at least occasionally, and 52% anticipated exposure to video/DVD. Table 2 shows this comparison. The
more traditional pedagogies such as lectures were still expected extensively by 61% of the students, with only 2%
expecting these to be used rarely or not at all. Expectations
of in-class exercises and written handouts or outlines still
remained high, with 85% expecting exercises at least occasionally and at least occasional handouts also being expected
by 85%. Group activities were not expected by 31% of the
students (responses of 2 and 1) and 25% did not expect outside class assignments (responses of 2 and 1).
Because the survey instrument used ordinal data or, more
specific, ordinal numeric data, a nonparametric statistical
test was used to determine if a significant difference existed
between the two student samples. The MWW test was the
test of choice because the data were not paired. The MWW
does not require interval data or for the two populations to be
normally distributed. The MWW does, however, determine
if the two populations are identical. Hence,
H 0 : The two populations are identical.
H A : The two populations are not identical.
If the alpha exceeds the significance value and the null
hypothesis is rejected, the mean rank is utilized to determine
which group had the higher or lower value.
Table 3 shows the results of the MWW test on the student
responses from 1996 and 2006. The 1996 students anticipated
significantly more lectures, class discussion, group activities
in class, and out-of-class assignments than did their 2006
counterparts. Significant differences were found regarding
the expectations of the two groups of technology enhancements, with the 2006 group anticipating greater use of DVDs,
email, presentation software, computer projects, simulations,
and Internet resources.
Part 3: Ideal Learning Environment
The ideal learning environment of the students was measured
by student responses to the statement, “In my ideal classroom, instructors would use the following” and responses of
3, 4, and 5, indicating at least occasional use, were analyzed.
The presentation of material through technology-enhanced
pedagogies was included in the profile of 62% of students’
ideal classroom environments in 1996 compared to 81% in
2006. Other technology-enhanced pedagogies in their ideal
learning environment included computer projects, cited by
49% of the respondents in 1996 and 59% in 2006 and computer simulations, and was desired by 50% of the students
in 1996 and by 54% in 2006. Use of email and the Internet
were a part of the ideal learning environment of 55% and
60% of the 1996 students, respectively, and 76% and 78% of
the 2006 students, respectively.
Interestingly, the 1996 and the 2006 students indicated a
strong desire for the more traditional pedagogy of lecture,
298
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
TABLE 3
Mann-Whitney Analysis Expectations of College
Classroom
Pedagogy
Lecture
Written handouts or
outlines
Class discussion
In-class exercises
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Outside classroom
assignments
Group activities in class
Student presentation
Videos/DVDs
Computer presentation
software
Electronic-mail
Computer projects
Computer simulations
Internet resources
U
p
M rank
167921
.000
639.97
582.53
636.94
198769
.761
160619
.000
185752
.079
162631
.000
170251
.000
185447
.282
156079
.000
128734
.000
131218
.000
165777
.000
181005
.012
138731
.000
N
1996
2006
1996
583
636
639
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
628
607
636
630
624
602
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
630
604
633
611
628
626
630
625
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
631
617
633
619
633
622
632
606
633
with 46% wanting lecture extensively in 1996 and 35% in
2006. Extensive use of class discussion was viewed as a part
of the ideal classroom by 61% of the students in 1996 and
42% in 2006. The extensive use of class exercises was indicated as ideal by 27% of the students in both 1996 and 2006,
with 95% of the 1996 sample and 91% of the 2006 sample
wanting at least occasional written handouts and outlines.
Table 4 shows this comparison.
Again, the MWW test was used for the nonpaired ordinal numeric data. Results are shown in Table 5. Significant
differences between the pedagogies in their ideal classroom
were found for most of the techniques tested. Significantly
fewer of the students in 2006 sample wanted lecture, class
discussion, outside class assignments, or group activities
in their ideal classroom. The reverse was found regarding
technology-enhanced pedagogies. Significantly more of the
2006 sample wanted to see DVDs, presentation software,
email, computer projects, simulations, and the use of the
Internet in their ideal classroom environment.
631.01
675.39
571.05
610.34
644.82
661.35
573.65
653.63
585.96
630.49
609.80
562.83
693.76
518.97
736.98
521.67
726.70
577.82
674.11
602.50
652.10
964.36
703.83
DISCUSSION
With regard to Research Question 1 (What are students’ expectations regarding technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques in the college classroom, and have these expectations
changed over the past decade [1996–2006]?), although expectations have significantly changed, the 1996 and the 2006
data show a picture of a lecture-dominated classroom, with
TABLE 4
Comparison: Ideal College Learning Environment, 1996 and 2006
5: Extensively
(almost every class)
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet (accessing from class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally (6–7
times/semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/semester)
1: Never
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
35%
39%
42%
27%
10%
21%
7%
23%
21%
27%
27%
13%
11%
15%
24%
46%
30%
61%
27%
12%
18%
4%
14%
8%
7%
7%
3%
4%
6%
8%
31%
34%
33%
32%
24%
22%
12%
25%
29%
30%
25%
16%
16%
20%
26%
37%
46%
25%
38%
36%
33%
13%
27%
23%
22%
22%
17%
18%
20%
23%
22%
18%
16%
27%
31%
29%
23%
26%
25%
24%
24%
30%
27%
28%
28%
12%
19%
10%
23%
30%
28%
33%
30%
35%
33%
26%
29%
28%
32%
29%
7%
7%
7%
11%
24%
18%
37%
17%
19%
14%
17%
31%
31%
25%
16%
4%
4%
3%
9%
15%
15%
38%
19%
27%
25%
25%
33%
31%
26%
24%
4%
2%
2%
3%
11%
10%
21%
9%
6%
5%
7%
10%
15%
12%
6%
1%
1%
1%
3%
7%
6%
12%
10%
7%
13%
20%
18%
19%
16%
16%
Note. Prompt: “In my ideal classroom, instructors would use the following.”
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 5
Mann-Whitney Analysis of Ideal Classroom
Pedagogy
Lecture
Written handouts or
outlines
Class discussion
In-class exercises
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Outside classroom
assignments
Group activities in class
Student presentation
Videos/DVDs
Computer presentation
software
E-mail
Computer projects
Computer simulations
Internet resources
N
1996
2006
1996
606
632
634
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
631
617
633
623
628
630
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
630
638
632
642
629
626
630
625
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
631
617
633
619
633
622
632
606
633
U
p
M rank
160895
.000
670.00
571.08
620.88
192341
.209
156458
.000
190475
.401
164897
.000
185283
.010
187380
.021
156079
.000
12873
.000
131218
.000
165777
.000
181005
.012
138732
.000
645.18
688.42
564.17
634.26
617.80
683.76
577.24
661.09
609.67
658.63
612.90
562.83
693.76
518.97
736.98
521.67
726.70
577.82
674.11
602.50
652.10
532.43
703.83
multiple handouts, ample time for class discussion, minimal
outside assignments or group projects, and limited student
presentations. Both samples also indicated expectations of
frequent email interaction with instructors and use of computers for information presentation.
In Research Question 2 we asked the question, “What type
of technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques do students
want in their ideal classroom, and have these desires changed
over the past decade (1996–2006)?” Significantly more of
the student respondents indicated a desire for technologyenhanced pedagogies such as presentation software, computer projects, simulations, and Internet usage. However,
although the students’ views of the ideal classroom have
significantly changed to include more technology-enhanced
pedagogies, the basic picture still includes a strong desire for
lecture, handouts, class discussion, group activities in class,
and video/DVD material.
Although we are not proposing that students dictate how
subject matter is presented in the classroom, knowledge of
these expectations is beneficial. If gaps between reality and
expectations exist, it may be necessary for high school teachers, guidance counselors, freshman-level college professors,
and others to change these perceptions to more closely mirror
reality. Part of a student’s first-year experience could include
299
a more realistic preview of the typical college classroom
environment and a discussion of in- and out-of-class expectations, just as realistic job previews have shown to increase satisfaction within some occupations and reduce turnover (see,
for example, Elliott, 2002/2003; Hom, Griffeth, Palich, &
Bracker, 1998; Mashburn, 2000/2001; Roszkowski & Ricci,
2004/2005). Providing students with a more realistic view
of the pedagogies common to today’s college environment
may also increase their satisfaction, retention, and ultimately
matriculation.
Regardless of the students’ ideal and anticipated classroom learning environments, the final judge of the appropriate pedagogies lies with the professor. Certain material
may lend itself to different delivery methods. For example,
students may need the reinforcement of outside class assignments, even though they would prefer otherwise. Also the
availability of Internet access during class may divert students’ attention from the message and may hinder learning.
Group projects and student presentations are not expected
or preferred; however, they may be necessary to achieve the
learning goals of the course.
This study provides just the beginning of exploring the
changes in expectations of students as they relate to pedagogical techniques. Additional analysis needs to be conducted on
the changes in expectations and ideal learning environments.
Although exploratory analysis of the 1996 and 2006 data did
not indicate differences based on demographic features, such
as gender, race, and age, future researchers should consider
an additional analysis with distinct demographic features.
Also, the study did not capture nonclassroom exposure of
students to multimedia technologies, such as those experienced by students with past or present employment.
A larger study of students is needed to confirm these findings. It may also be important to consider if the majors or interests of students influence their desire for and expectation of
technological enhancements in learning environments. Still
other studies should address whether educational institutions
are providing these technologies, and what usage requirements are suggested. Inclusion of students in the course design for the type and amount of technology used should also
be studied to see if such participation in the design impacts
student outcomes. Additional studies should investigate the
impact of technology enhancement on learning and student
achievement. Researchers should consider the various learning styles of students and which ones are most influenced by
technology usage and if new technologies offer new learning strategies for students who do not perform as effectively
using traditional methods.
Also, although gap analysis indicates a disconnect between reality and expectation, another avenue of study may
be to consider whether satisfaction with the amount and type
of technology influences overall student satisfaction which
could then influence learning, retention, motivation, attendance, and degree completion. As colleges and universities
work to increase student retention, this could be an impor-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
300
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
tant research stream. Studies could determine if students who
were previously passive or disengaged in classrooms relying
exclusively on the lecture-only delivery format are more engaged and attentive when technology is used.
Further research is needed to expand this exploratory
study by confirming and considering the reality of changing expectations within a first-year experience class. Future
researchers should seek to explain why students indicate such
a strong desire for summaries and handouts. Is this a function
of their learning style? Is it due to poor study skills or notetaking ability? Is it a preference for a shorter summary rather
than reading the entire textbook chapter? Could students’
attention span for reading be a function of their exposure
to media? It would also be interesting to consider whether
exposure to the actual college environment alters their ideal
expectation over time (i.e., do sophomores and juniors maintain the same ideal learning environment expectations or have
they been conditioned to expect different?)
REFERENCES
Bradley, R. V., Mbarika, V. W. A., Sankar, C. S., Raju, P. K., & Kaba,
B. (2007). Using multimedia instructional materials in MIS classrooms:
A tutorial. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
20(19), 260–281.
Debevec, K., Shih, M., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and
performance in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 38, 293–308.
Elliott, K. M. (2002/2003). Key determinants of student satisfaction. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4, 271–
279.
Hall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching
process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop
environment. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 301–307.
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44, 219–236.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1998). An
exploratory investigation into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic
job previews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 421–451.
James, K. E., Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty versus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business
education. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 374–396.
Kiernan, V. (2006, March 10). Spending on technology rebounds at colleges
and may set record this year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(27),
A30.
Krentler, K. A., & Willis-Flurry, L. A. (2005). Does technology enhance
actual student learning? The case of online discussion boards. Journal of
Education for Business, 80, 316–322.
Mashburn, A. J. (2000/2001). A psychological process of college student
dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice, 2, 173–190.
Roszkowski, M. J., & Ricci, R. (2004/2005). Measurement of importance in
a student satisfaction questionnaire: Comparison of the direct and indirect
methods for establishing attribute importance. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 6, 251–271.
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA:
Miliken Exchange on Education Technology, Miliken Family Foundation.
Schrum, L. (2005). A proactive approach to research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37,
217–221.
Smith, L. (2001). Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of electronic and traditional MBA Marketing planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 35–44.
Snyder, S. J., & Vaughan, M. J. (1996). Multimedia & learning: Where is
the connection? Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential
Exercises, 23, 179–180.
Sugahara, S., & Boland, G. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting Classroom. Accounting Education, 15, 391–403.
Young, J. R. (2004, August 13). Students say technology has little impact
on teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(49), A28.
APPENDIX A: ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Please circle the number that best describes your answer.
I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information:
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
5: Extensively
(almost every
class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally
(6–7 times/
semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/ semester)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1: Never
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(Continued on next page)
301
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
Please circle the number that best describes your answer.
I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information:
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet resources (accessing the Internet from class)
5: Extensively
(almost every
class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally
(6–7 times/
semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/ semester)
1: Never
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
To what extent did your instructor use computers during your last academic year? (If freshman, senior year of high school)
16. In-class assignments
5
4
3
17. Out-of-class assignments
5
4
3
18. Course material presentation
5
4
3
19. Communicate through e-mail with students
5
4
3
20. Course material computer simulations
5
4
3
Please indicate to what extend you used the following software during the past year:
21. Word-processing software
5
4
3
22. Internet
5
4
3
23. E-mail
5
4
3
24. Spread sheets (Excel, etc.)
5
4
3
25. Presentation software (PowerPoint, etc.)
5
4
3
26. Graphics software (Harvard Graphics, etc.)
5
4
3
27. Games
5
4
3
28. During the last calendar year, I used a computer an
average of: (check one)
(1) 3 hours or less per week
(2) 7–10 hours per week
(3) 4–6 hours per week
(4) more than 10 hours per week
In my ideal classroom my instructors would use the following:
29. Lecture
5
30. Written handouts or outlines
5
31. Class discussion
5
32. In-class exercises
5
33. Outside classroom assignments
5
34. Group activities in class
5
35. Students presentations
5
36. Overhead projector and transparencies
5
37.Videos/DVDs
5
38. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
5
39. E-mail
5
40. Computer projects
5
41. Computer simulations
5
42. Computer activities in class
5
43. Internet resources (accessing the Internet from class)
5
44. Do you have a computer available) for your personal use (1) Yes
(at home, in your room, etc.)?
45. Gender
(1) Male
46. Race
(1) White
(3) American Indian
(5) Asian
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
(2) No
(2) Female
(2) Hispanic
(4)African American
(6) Other
47. Age
(1) 17 years and younger
(3) 21–23 years
(5) 30–39 years
(2) 18–20 years
(4) 24–29 years
(6) 40 years and older
48. Classification
(1) Freshman
(3) Junior
(5) Other
(2) Sophomore
(4) Senior
Thank you for completing this survey.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced
Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison
Mary Jo Jackson , Marilyn M. Helms , William T. Jackson & John R. Gum
To cite this article: Mary Jo Jackson , Marilyn M. Helms , William T. Jackson & John R. Gum
(2011) Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison,
Journal of Education for Business, 86:5, 294-301, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
Published online: 21 Jun 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 525
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:19
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 294–301, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.518648
Student Expectations of Technology-Enhanced
Pedagogy: A Ten-Year Comparison
Mary Jo Jackson
University of South Florida St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Marilyn M. Helms
Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA
William T. Jackson and John R. Gum
University of South Florida St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
The influx of technology into education has begun a transformation of the classroom. The
authors replicated a 1996 study of college students’ expectations of technology to be used
in the classroom. Students reported prior experience with computer technology, their ideal
classroom instruction techniques, and what technology-enhanced pedagogies they anticipated
in college classrooms. Although student desires have changed, the picture of an ideal classroom
still shows a strong desire for lecture-dominated classes with class discussion and exercises,
written handouts, and outlines. Implications and suggestions for future research are included.
Keywords: college pedagogy, technology, teaching
As recently as the late 1980s, articles on technology in the
classroom were scarce and required a definition and explanation of technology-enhanced options before presenting a new
theory. This has changed dramatically and was illustrated
by a Market Data Retrieval study that estimated colleges
spent $6.94 billion on information technology (IT) in 2006,
a 35% increase from the previous year. Additionally, Kiernan
(2006) reported the average college technology budget to be
$1.4 million.
Projections are that technology usage may transform
higher education learning and teaching in the future (Kiernan,
2006; Watson, Boudreau, York, Greiner, & Wynn, 2008);
however, research on the use of technology-enhanced pedagogies in higher education and of the link between these
and student learning is limited and conflicting. Studies in
the late 1990s appeared to suggest cautious optimism for a
positive relationship between the use of technology and student educational achievements (Schacter, 1999). Over time,
others have disagreed on the benefits of the various types of
Correspondence should be addressed to Marilyn M. Helms, Dalton
State College, School of Business, 650 College Drive, Dalton, GA 30720,
USA. E-mail: mhelms@daltonstate.edu
technology-enhanced pedagogy on learning whereas others
indicated faculty costs and time may outweigh any benefits to
student learning (Herrington & Kervin, 2007; Smith, 2001;
Watson et al.).
Krentler and Willis-Flurry (2005) suggested students perceive technology as an effective learning tool and many institutions and faculty assume students expect their courses to be
infused with technological supplements. Growing up in an intensive environment of television, movies, and video games,
younger students have developed learning styles where comprehension occurs largely through visual images. This form
of delivery may shape what students perceive and may affect their interest levels and retention of information. In this
vein a similarity can be drawn to the phenomenon that has
occurred in news coverage, where snippets or sound bites are
the forms of information most sought due to time constraints
and limited attention spans of viewers.
Similarly, it is expected that students raised in an environment in which senses are flooded with visual inputs may have
different expectations regarding what they consider optimal
pedagogies for learning and whether they consider technology enhancements to be a nicety or a necessity. Additionally,
as Schrum (2005) pointed out, most students are ahead of
their professors in computer literacy. It is also expected that
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
in their just-in-time environment, students seek immediate
feedback on assignments and demand anytime access for
grade posting. Anecdotal evidence suggests students prefer
Web-posted documents including class syllabi, lecture notes,
links to current articles and readings, or PowerPoint slides.
Most textbook publishers offer this form of support in ancillary materials specifically developed for the online environment. With the proliferation of the iPod it is not inconceivable
that some students would prefer lectures and video clips to
download as podcasts for MP3 players and other personal
listening devices.
Technology-enhanced pedagogies are becoming more
common in today’s classrooms. Demand is expected to continue its substantial growth over the next decade (Debevec,
Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; Hall & Elliott, 2003). Schrum (2005)
reported that technological advances have exceeded the most
optimistic expectations but agreed that educational institutions have not yet realized the full potential, and that although
some aspects of education delivery have indeed changed,
with the growth and proliferation of technology course content and objectives have remained the same. This myriad
of technologies are not only being used in a variety of
educational settings, but their use is also being studied by
educational researchers in a variety of settings, including
information systems classrooms (Bradley, Mbarika, Sankar,
Raju, & Kaba (2007), accounting classrooms (Sugahara &
Boland, 2006), and in business education courses (James,
Burke, & Hutchins, 2006).
Young (2004), in a survey of 4,374 freshman and seniors, found 48.5% of the students felt the biggest benefit of
classroom technology is convenience (e.g., checking grades
online), whereas only 12.7% of the students said improved
learning was the greatest benefit. Some 3.7% felt IT provided no benefit at all in their classrooms. Young also found
most students (41.2%) preferred a moderate use of IT and
agreed there is a mythology about today’s students. Although
they may live online in their personal environment, very few
students (2.2%) wanted entirely online courses and 2.9%
even preferred courses with no use of IT (Young). Because
students are exposed to technology and multimedia in elementary and secondary classrooms and in their personal
lives, have their expectations of technology in their college
learning environments changed and have their desires for
technologically enhanced pedagogies changed? Specifically,
the questions become the following:
Research Question 1: What are students’ expectations regarding technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques in the college classroom, and have these
expectations changed over the past decade (1996–
2006)?
Research Question 2: What type of technology-enhanced
pedagogical techniques do students want in their ideal
classroom, and have these desires changed over the past
decade (1996–2006)?
295
METHOD
From a review of the present literature of the use of multimedia in the classroom, Snyder and Vaughan (1996) developed
a student survey designed to measure student expectations
of this pedagogy. The survey was arranged into four areas:
anticipation of the format in which students would receive
instruction, extent of student exposure to computers during
the last academic year, perception of the ideal classroom, and
extent of student usage of various types of software within
the past year.
The survey instrument, as shown in Appendix A, consisted of content questions measured with a 5-point Likerttype scale with responses ranging from 1 (None at all) to
5 (Extensively [almost daily]) and seven demographic questions. Although the original survey responses were worded
to reflect the quarter based academic term, the 2006 survey changed the responses to a semester basis to reflect the
academic terms in use at that time. Of the content questions, 15 addressed student expectations regarding the use
of technology-enhanced pedagogies, whereas five questions
considered the extent technology was used in their classroom during their senior year of high school. Fifteen questions polled students on their ideal classroom environment as
it related to technology-enhanced pedagogy. The remainder
of the questions addressed the extent of students’ personal
computer usage. Although the terminology and available elements related to technology in the classroom evolved during
the 10-year study period, the survey instrument purposely
kept the same terminology and elements to allow for longitudinal comparisons.
In 1996 the survey was administered to 714 students at a
small southeastern private college. The student sample was
39% male and 61% female. Seventy-six percent of the sampled students were Caucasian, 15% were African American,
2% were Hispanic, 5% were Asian, and 2% were classified
as other. The age make-up of the sample included 5% that
were aged 17 years or younger, 6% that were between the
ages of 18 and 20 years, 73% that were between the ages of
21 and 23 years, 5% that were between the ages of 24 and
29 years, and 11% that were aged 30 years or older.
In 2006, the same survey was administered to 639 students
at three southeastern colleges in two southern states (Georgia
and Tennessee) and included two public institutions and one
private institution. This student sample was 45% male and
55% female. Of the sample, 80% were Caucasian, 7% were
African American, 7% were Hispanic, 3% were Asian, and
3% were classified as other. The sample included 1% of
the students that were aged 17 years or younger, 77% that
were between the ages of 18 and 20 years, 16% that were
between the ages of 21 and 23 years, 3% that were between
the ages of 24 and 29 years, and 3% that were aged 30 years or
older. Although the majors of the students were not measured
in the survey, both student samples could be classified as
convenience samples, with the majority of students having
296
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Sample Demographics, 1996 and 2006
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
1996
Total number
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Race–other
17 or younger
18–20
21–23
24–29
30 or older
2006
n
%
n
%
714
278
436
543
107
14
36
14
36
43
521
36
78
39
61
76
15
2
5
2
5
6
73
5
11
639
288
251
511
45
45
19
19
6
492
103
19
19
45
55
80
7
7
3
3
1
77
16
3
3
business related majors. Also, the college included in the
original study was one of the three institutions sampled in
2006.
The demographics of each sample are shown in Table 1.
The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) test was used to
determine if there were significant differences in the two
samples. Results indicated that there was a significant difference in the age of the two samples. The 1996 sample was
significantly older than the 2006 student sample (U = 84003,
p < .000), with the largest difference being reported in the
percentage of students aged 30 years or older (11% in 1996
and 3% in 2006). However, analysis of the 1996 data indicated that responses were not significantly different based on
the age of the respondents and, thus, the difference in the
ages of the sample respondents was not considered in further
analyzes.
RESULTS
The analysis was divided into three parts. The first part measured the students’ exposure to and use of technology and
compared the differences between the two student samples.
The second part considered the components of the students’
anticipated learning environment and compared the 1996 and
2006 results. In the third part we analyzed and compared the
perceptions of ideal learning environment in the two student
samples.
Part 1: Use of Technology
Students’ personal usage of technology was measured by
asking students to indicate “to what extent you used the following software during the past year.” Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging
from 1 (None at all) to 5 (Extensively [almost daily]). A focus
group comprising the business school faculty was conducted
to determine which of the response categories indicated actual usage. It was determined that if a tool was used 6–7 times
per quarter it would be perceived as being used in the course.
Thus, responses of 5 ([almost daily]), 4 (once/week), and 3
(6–7 times per quarter) were operational zed as an indicator
of usage.
In the 1996 sample, 23% of the students reported
having some form of presentation software, such as
PowerPoint, used at least occasionally in class presentations
(response items 3, 4, and 5), 86% used word-processing software, 86% used spreadsheets, 35% used e-mail, and 43%
regularly accessed the Internet. Ten years later, 72% of the
students reported at least occasional (6–7 times per quarter)
use of presentation software, 90% use of word-processing
software, 53% use of spreadsheets, 75% use of email, and
93% accessed the Internet.
Previous exposure to the use of computer technology in
the classroom was measured by the student’s responses to
questions regarding the extent their instructors had used computers at least occasionally (6–7 times per quarter) during
their last academic year. Responses were measured on a 5point Likert-type with responses ranging from 1 (None at
all) to 5 (Extensively [almost daily]). Again, based on focus
group input, responses of 3, 4, or 5 were included in the
analysis. In 1996, the usage of computers to present course
material was reported by 53% of the students and by 79%
in 2006. Another aspect of computer technology used in the
classroom included the use of email, which was reported by
11% of the 1996 student sample and 49% of the 2006 sample.
Part 2: Anticipated Learning Environments
The anticipated learning environment was measured by student responses to the statement, “I anticipate my professors
will use the following techniques to present course information.” The statement was followed by a list of pedagogical
techniques, which were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale
with responses ranging from 1 (None at all) to 5 (Extensively
[almost daily]). Responses of 3, 4, or 5 were included in the
analysis of the students’ anticipated environment as indicative of anticipated pedagogies. Table 1 shows the comparison
of the student responses.
In 1996, 20% of the students anticipated that technology
would be used in presenting class material extensively or periodically, with 30% anticipating technology would be used
occasionally. Forty-eight percent expected at least occasional
computer projects and 51% anticipated at least occasional
Internet access in the classroom. The use of computer simulations, at least occasionally, was anticipated by 39% of the
students, email by 45% of the students, and video/DVD use
by 46% of the students. More traditional classroom pedagogies such as lectures and class discussions were expected
extensively by 77% and 51% of the respondents, respectively. Written handouts or outlines were expected at least
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
297
TABLE 2
Comparison Expectation of College Learning Environment, 1996 and 2006
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
5: Extensively
(almost every class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally (6–7
times/semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/semester)
1: Never
Item
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software
(PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet (accessing from class)
61%
16%
40%
23%
25%
10%
7%
27%
6%
26%
77%
11%
51%
15%
39%
6%
1%
12%
2%
3%
28%
37%
36%
31%
30%
24%
15%
31%
13%
28%
17%
47%
35%
35%
24%
27%
13%
36%
12%
17%
9%
32%
18%
30%
20%
35%
31%
23%
33%
27%
5%
26%
11%
31%
22%
40%
34%
29%
32%
30%
1%
11%
5%
14%
19%
26%
33%
13%
29%
15%
1%
14%
2%
16%
13%
23%
45%
17%
47%
37%
1%
4%
1%
2%
6%
5%
14%
6%
19%
4%
0%
2%
1%
3%
2%
4%
7%
6%
7%
13%
9%
7%
6%
8%
11%
6%
3%
3%
4%
3%
30%
16%
14%
12%
18%
17%
15%
11%
12%
17%
32%
29%
25%
29%
25%
22%
30%
25%
29%
31%
15%
32%
33%
31%
26%
33%
40%
41%
36%
35%
14%
16%
22%
20%
20%
22%
12%
20%
19%
14%
Note. Prompt: “I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information.”
occasionally by 84% of the students; at least occasionally in
class exercises by 81%; and outside classroom assignments
by 85% (responses of 3, 4, and 5). Only 6% expected the extensive use of group activities in class, whereas 73 expected
these at least occasionally.
In comparison, in 2006, 81% of the students expected
technology-enhanced classroom presentations at least occasionally, 52% computer projects, and 54% Internet access
from class. In 2006, 45% anticipated computer simulations
to be used at least occasionally, 71% anticipated the use of
email contact at least occasionally, and 52% anticipated exposure to video/DVD. Table 2 shows this comparison. The
more traditional pedagogies such as lectures were still expected extensively by 61% of the students, with only 2%
expecting these to be used rarely or not at all. Expectations
of in-class exercises and written handouts or outlines still
remained high, with 85% expecting exercises at least occasionally and at least occasional handouts also being expected
by 85%. Group activities were not expected by 31% of the
students (responses of 2 and 1) and 25% did not expect outside class assignments (responses of 2 and 1).
Because the survey instrument used ordinal data or, more
specific, ordinal numeric data, a nonparametric statistical
test was used to determine if a significant difference existed
between the two student samples. The MWW test was the
test of choice because the data were not paired. The MWW
does not require interval data or for the two populations to be
normally distributed. The MWW does, however, determine
if the two populations are identical. Hence,
H 0 : The two populations are identical.
H A : The two populations are not identical.
If the alpha exceeds the significance value and the null
hypothesis is rejected, the mean rank is utilized to determine
which group had the higher or lower value.
Table 3 shows the results of the MWW test on the student
responses from 1996 and 2006. The 1996 students anticipated
significantly more lectures, class discussion, group activities
in class, and out-of-class assignments than did their 2006
counterparts. Significant differences were found regarding
the expectations of the two groups of technology enhancements, with the 2006 group anticipating greater use of DVDs,
email, presentation software, computer projects, simulations,
and Internet resources.
Part 3: Ideal Learning Environment
The ideal learning environment of the students was measured
by student responses to the statement, “In my ideal classroom, instructors would use the following” and responses of
3, 4, and 5, indicating at least occasional use, were analyzed.
The presentation of material through technology-enhanced
pedagogies was included in the profile of 62% of students’
ideal classroom environments in 1996 compared to 81% in
2006. Other technology-enhanced pedagogies in their ideal
learning environment included computer projects, cited by
49% of the respondents in 1996 and 59% in 2006 and computer simulations, and was desired by 50% of the students
in 1996 and by 54% in 2006. Use of email and the Internet
were a part of the ideal learning environment of 55% and
60% of the 1996 students, respectively, and 76% and 78% of
the 2006 students, respectively.
Interestingly, the 1996 and the 2006 students indicated a
strong desire for the more traditional pedagogy of lecture,
298
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
TABLE 3
Mann-Whitney Analysis Expectations of College
Classroom
Pedagogy
Lecture
Written handouts or
outlines
Class discussion
In-class exercises
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Outside classroom
assignments
Group activities in class
Student presentation
Videos/DVDs
Computer presentation
software
Electronic-mail
Computer projects
Computer simulations
Internet resources
U
p
M rank
167921
.000
639.97
582.53
636.94
198769
.761
160619
.000
185752
.079
162631
.000
170251
.000
185447
.282
156079
.000
128734
.000
131218
.000
165777
.000
181005
.012
138731
.000
N
1996
2006
1996
583
636
639
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
628
607
636
630
624
602
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
630
604
633
611
628
626
630
625
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
631
617
633
619
633
622
632
606
633
with 46% wanting lecture extensively in 1996 and 35% in
2006. Extensive use of class discussion was viewed as a part
of the ideal classroom by 61% of the students in 1996 and
42% in 2006. The extensive use of class exercises was indicated as ideal by 27% of the students in both 1996 and 2006,
with 95% of the 1996 sample and 91% of the 2006 sample
wanting at least occasional written handouts and outlines.
Table 4 shows this comparison.
Again, the MWW test was used for the nonpaired ordinal numeric data. Results are shown in Table 5. Significant
differences between the pedagogies in their ideal classroom
were found for most of the techniques tested. Significantly
fewer of the students in 2006 sample wanted lecture, class
discussion, outside class assignments, or group activities
in their ideal classroom. The reverse was found regarding
technology-enhanced pedagogies. Significantly more of the
2006 sample wanted to see DVDs, presentation software,
email, computer projects, simulations, and the use of the
Internet in their ideal classroom environment.
631.01
675.39
571.05
610.34
644.82
661.35
573.65
653.63
585.96
630.49
609.80
562.83
693.76
518.97
736.98
521.67
726.70
577.82
674.11
602.50
652.10
964.36
703.83
DISCUSSION
With regard to Research Question 1 (What are students’ expectations regarding technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques in the college classroom, and have these expectations
changed over the past decade [1996–2006]?), although expectations have significantly changed, the 1996 and the 2006
data show a picture of a lecture-dominated classroom, with
TABLE 4
Comparison: Ideal College Learning Environment, 1996 and 2006
5: Extensively
(almost every class)
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet (accessing from class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally (6–7
times/semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/semester)
1: Never
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
35%
39%
42%
27%
10%
21%
7%
23%
21%
27%
27%
13%
11%
15%
24%
46%
30%
61%
27%
12%
18%
4%
14%
8%
7%
7%
3%
4%
6%
8%
31%
34%
33%
32%
24%
22%
12%
25%
29%
30%
25%
16%
16%
20%
26%
37%
46%
25%
38%
36%
33%
13%
27%
23%
22%
22%
17%
18%
20%
23%
22%
18%
16%
27%
31%
29%
23%
26%
25%
24%
24%
30%
27%
28%
28%
12%
19%
10%
23%
30%
28%
33%
30%
35%
33%
26%
29%
28%
32%
29%
7%
7%
7%
11%
24%
18%
37%
17%
19%
14%
17%
31%
31%
25%
16%
4%
4%
3%
9%
15%
15%
38%
19%
27%
25%
25%
33%
31%
26%
24%
4%
2%
2%
3%
11%
10%
21%
9%
6%
5%
7%
10%
15%
12%
6%
1%
1%
1%
3%
7%
6%
12%
10%
7%
13%
20%
18%
19%
16%
16%
Note. Prompt: “In my ideal classroom, instructors would use the following.”
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 5
Mann-Whitney Analysis of Ideal Classroom
Pedagogy
Lecture
Written handouts or
outlines
Class discussion
In-class exercises
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
Outside classroom
assignments
Group activities in class
Student presentation
Videos/DVDs
Computer presentation
software
Computer projects
Computer simulations
Internet resources
N
1996
2006
1996
606
632
634
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
631
617
633
623
628
630
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
630
638
632
642
629
626
630
625
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
1996
2006
631
617
633
619
633
622
632
606
633
U
p
M rank
160895
.000
670.00
571.08
620.88
192341
.209
156458
.000
190475
.401
164897
.000
185283
.010
187380
.021
156079
.000
12873
.000
131218
.000
165777
.000
181005
.012
138732
.000
645.18
688.42
564.17
634.26
617.80
683.76
577.24
661.09
609.67
658.63
612.90
562.83
693.76
518.97
736.98
521.67
726.70
577.82
674.11
602.50
652.10
532.43
703.83
multiple handouts, ample time for class discussion, minimal
outside assignments or group projects, and limited student
presentations. Both samples also indicated expectations of
frequent email interaction with instructors and use of computers for information presentation.
In Research Question 2 we asked the question, “What type
of technology-enhanced pedagogical techniques do students
want in their ideal classroom, and have these desires changed
over the past decade (1996–2006)?” Significantly more of
the student respondents indicated a desire for technologyenhanced pedagogies such as presentation software, computer projects, simulations, and Internet usage. However,
although the students’ views of the ideal classroom have
significantly changed to include more technology-enhanced
pedagogies, the basic picture still includes a strong desire for
lecture, handouts, class discussion, group activities in class,
and video/DVD material.
Although we are not proposing that students dictate how
subject matter is presented in the classroom, knowledge of
these expectations is beneficial. If gaps between reality and
expectations exist, it may be necessary for high school teachers, guidance counselors, freshman-level college professors,
and others to change these perceptions to more closely mirror
reality. Part of a student’s first-year experience could include
299
a more realistic preview of the typical college classroom
environment and a discussion of in- and out-of-class expectations, just as realistic job previews have shown to increase satisfaction within some occupations and reduce turnover (see,
for example, Elliott, 2002/2003; Hom, Griffeth, Palich, &
Bracker, 1998; Mashburn, 2000/2001; Roszkowski & Ricci,
2004/2005). Providing students with a more realistic view
of the pedagogies common to today’s college environment
may also increase their satisfaction, retention, and ultimately
matriculation.
Regardless of the students’ ideal and anticipated classroom learning environments, the final judge of the appropriate pedagogies lies with the professor. Certain material
may lend itself to different delivery methods. For example,
students may need the reinforcement of outside class assignments, even though they would prefer otherwise. Also the
availability of Internet access during class may divert students’ attention from the message and may hinder learning.
Group projects and student presentations are not expected
or preferred; however, they may be necessary to achieve the
learning goals of the course.
This study provides just the beginning of exploring the
changes in expectations of students as they relate to pedagogical techniques. Additional analysis needs to be conducted on
the changes in expectations and ideal learning environments.
Although exploratory analysis of the 1996 and 2006 data did
not indicate differences based on demographic features, such
as gender, race, and age, future researchers should consider
an additional analysis with distinct demographic features.
Also, the study did not capture nonclassroom exposure of
students to multimedia technologies, such as those experienced by students with past or present employment.
A larger study of students is needed to confirm these findings. It may also be important to consider if the majors or interests of students influence their desire for and expectation of
technological enhancements in learning environments. Still
other studies should address whether educational institutions
are providing these technologies, and what usage requirements are suggested. Inclusion of students in the course design for the type and amount of technology used should also
be studied to see if such participation in the design impacts
student outcomes. Additional studies should investigate the
impact of technology enhancement on learning and student
achievement. Researchers should consider the various learning styles of students and which ones are most influenced by
technology usage and if new technologies offer new learning strategies for students who do not perform as effectively
using traditional methods.
Also, although gap analysis indicates a disconnect between reality and expectation, another avenue of study may
be to consider whether satisfaction with the amount and type
of technology influences overall student satisfaction which
could then influence learning, retention, motivation, attendance, and degree completion. As colleges and universities
work to increase student retention, this could be an impor-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
300
M. J. JACKSON ET AL.
tant research stream. Studies could determine if students who
were previously passive or disengaged in classrooms relying
exclusively on the lecture-only delivery format are more engaged and attentive when technology is used.
Further research is needed to expand this exploratory
study by confirming and considering the reality of changing expectations within a first-year experience class. Future
researchers should seek to explain why students indicate such
a strong desire for summaries and handouts. Is this a function
of their learning style? Is it due to poor study skills or notetaking ability? Is it a preference for a shorter summary rather
than reading the entire textbook chapter? Could students’
attention span for reading be a function of their exposure
to media? It would also be interesting to consider whether
exposure to the actual college environment alters their ideal
expectation over time (i.e., do sophomores and juniors maintain the same ideal learning environment expectations or have
they been conditioned to expect different?)
REFERENCES
Bradley, R. V., Mbarika, V. W. A., Sankar, C. S., Raju, P. K., & Kaba,
B. (2007). Using multimedia instructional materials in MIS classrooms:
A tutorial. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
20(19), 260–281.
Debevec, K., Shih, M., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and
performance in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 38, 293–308.
Elliott, K. M. (2002/2003). Key determinants of student satisfaction. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4, 271–
279.
Hall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching
process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop
environment. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 301–307.
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44, 219–236.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1998). An
exploratory investigation into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic
job previews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 421–451.
James, K. E., Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty versus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business
education. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 374–396.
Kiernan, V. (2006, March 10). Spending on technology rebounds at colleges
and may set record this year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(27),
A30.
Krentler, K. A., & Willis-Flurry, L. A. (2005). Does technology enhance
actual student learning? The case of online discussion boards. Journal of
Education for Business, 80, 316–322.
Mashburn, A. J. (2000/2001). A psychological process of college student
dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice, 2, 173–190.
Roszkowski, M. J., & Ricci, R. (2004/2005). Measurement of importance in
a student satisfaction questionnaire: Comparison of the direct and indirect
methods for establishing attribute importance. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 6, 251–271.
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA:
Miliken Exchange on Education Technology, Miliken Family Foundation.
Schrum, L. (2005). A proactive approach to research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37,
217–221.
Smith, L. (2001). Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of electronic and traditional MBA Marketing planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 35–44.
Snyder, S. J., & Vaughan, M. J. (1996). Multimedia & learning: Where is
the connection? Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential
Exercises, 23, 179–180.
Sugahara, S., & Boland, G. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting Classroom. Accounting Education, 15, 391–403.
Young, J. R. (2004, August 13). Students say technology has little impact
on teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(49), A28.
APPENDIX A: ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT EXPECTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Please circle the number that best describes your answer.
I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information:
1. Lecture
2. Written handouts or outlines
3. Class discussion
4. In-class exercises
5. Outside classroom assignments
6. Group activities in class
7. Student presentation
8. Overhead projector and transparencies
9. Videos/DVDs
10. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
11. Electronic-mail
12. Computer projects
5: Extensively
(almost every
class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally
(6–7 times/
semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/ semester)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1: Never
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(Continued on next page)
301
EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
Please circle the number that best describes your answer.
I anticipate my professors will use the following techniques to present course information:
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:19 11 January 2016
13. Computer simulations
14. Computer activities in class
15. Internet resources (accessing the Internet from class)
5: Extensively
(almost every
class)
4: Periodically
(once/week)
3: Occasionally
(6–7 times/
semester)
2: Rarely (1–2
times/ semester)
1: Never
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
To what extent did your instructor use computers during your last academic year? (If freshman, senior year of high school)
16. In-class assignments
5
4
3
17. Out-of-class assignments
5
4
3
18. Course material presentation
5
4
3
19. Communicate through e-mail with students
5
4
3
20. Course material computer simulations
5
4
3
Please indicate to what extend you used the following software during the past year:
21. Word-processing software
5
4
3
22. Internet
5
4
3
23. E-mail
5
4
3
24. Spread sheets (Excel, etc.)
5
4
3
25. Presentation software (PowerPoint, etc.)
5
4
3
26. Graphics software (Harvard Graphics, etc.)
5
4
3
27. Games
5
4
3
28. During the last calendar year, I used a computer an
average of: (check one)
(1) 3 hours or less per week
(2) 7–10 hours per week
(3) 4–6 hours per week
(4) more than 10 hours per week
In my ideal classroom my instructors would use the following:
29. Lecture
5
30. Written handouts or outlines
5
31. Class discussion
5
32. In-class exercises
5
33. Outside classroom assignments
5
34. Group activities in class
5
35. Students presentations
5
36. Overhead projector and transparencies
5
37.Videos/DVDs
5
38. Computer presentation software (PowerPoint)
5
39. E-mail
5
40. Computer projects
5
41. Computer simulations
5
42. Computer activities in class
5
43. Internet resources (accessing the Internet from class)
5
44. Do you have a computer available) for your personal use (1) Yes
(at home, in your room, etc.)?
45. Gender
(1) Male
46. Race
(1) White
(3) American Indian
(5) Asian
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
(2) No
(2) Female
(2) Hispanic
(4)African American
(6) Other
47. Age
(1) 17 years and younger
(3) 21–23 years
(5) 30–39 years
(2) 18–20 years
(4) 24–29 years
(6) 40 years and older
48. Classification
(1) Freshman
(3) Junior
(5) Other
(2) Sophomore
(4) Senior
Thank you for completing this survey.