Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Effects of Modern Instructional Technology (MIT) on Critical
Thinking Skills of Students in Agriculture Vocational Courses in
Nigeria
Hauwa Hassan
GB130108
A thesis submitted in Partial
fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the
Master of Technical and Vocational Education
Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
August, 2016
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my children; Abdullahi, Abdurrahman, Ibrahim Khalil,
Mohammad Habeeb and Imran for their unequal patient, encouragement and prayers,
despite the hard time they went through, which gave me the strength to withstand the
obstacles throughout my academic struggles. I dedicate this thesis to my lovely husband
Dr. Bala Ishiyaku for his understanding, encouragement and prayers to my success. I
dedicate it to my brothers and sisters that contributed immensely to the success of this
study. I love you all.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praises goes to Almighty Allah who under his mercy gave me all sort of backing to
undergo the whole years of this study for His mercy and grace for every aspect of my
schooling, Whom despite all obstacle and my shortcomings as human made me a vector
in all my undertakings.
I wish to express my immense and profound gratitude my greatest indebtedness
and deep appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Nor Lisa binti Sulaiman for her vital
suggestions and criticism at various stages of this work, up to its logical conclusion. It
was her guidance and direction that made this thesis a reality. I thank her most sincerely
for the patience and understanding in taking time out of her tight schedules to make
necessary corrections and suggestions. My special appreciation goes to my lovely
husband Dr. Bala Ishiyaku for his productive critical arguments that pave the ways to the
ideas used in this study.
My heart-felt thanks goes to Dr. Marlina binti Mohamad, Dr. Doria Islamiah
binti Rosli and Dr. Fazlinda binti Ab. Halim for their constructive critism during my
defence, which significantly improved the arguments in this thesis. I equally wish to
acknowledge the unequal contribution of the Staff of Agric department in ATBU,
Bauchi and FCET, Gombe, Nigeria for assisting in the questionnaire administration. My
special thanks go to the research assistants especially my sister Dr. Talatu Dahiru Waziri
for the positive support given to me during the course of this study. This piece would
have suffered a great deal of dent without the contributions of Dr. Alias Bin Masek and
Professor Dr. Kahirol Bin Mohd Salleh that validated the questionnaire used in this
study. Thank you.
v
I am greatly indebted to my lovely mother Hajiya Fatimah Hassan Bababa, my
step mother Malama Fatima Hassan Bababa (Inna), my sister in marriage Anty Sakina
Yunusa, my children Abdullahi, Abdurrahman, Ibrahim Khalil, Mohammad Habeeb and
Imran, my brothers and Sisters for their moral, financial and spiritual encouragement
unequal patience with my absence during the course of this study, may Allah bless your
sacrifices. I want to acknowledge the support of Dr. Adamu Isa Harir, Mr. Remi and the
host of others too numerous to mention for reason of space, thank you all for everything
you shared with me.
Finally, I thank Almighty Allah, the Lord of heaven, the Creator and Inheritor of
the Universe and beyond, for His abundant grace and special favour He granted me to
write this all-important piece. Ultimately, whatever good is derived from this piece, all
praise is due to Him but any error contained therein is my own and are highly regretted.
vi
ABSTRACT
The recent development in modern instruction technology (MIT) methods and
equipment warranted for studies to examine their effects on students, teachers, and
the education system in general. This study examines the effects of MIT on
students’ critical thinking skills in Agriculture vocational courses in Nigeria. The
methods and equipment used were identified, and the effect of teachers’ usage
behaviour was assessed. A survey approach was adopted, using questionnaires for
data collection. The descriptive, correlations and multiple regressions were carried
out using SPSS. The result of this study indicates that the most commonly used
equipment is electronic whiteboard, while the least are electronic tablets and
laptops. Cooperative learning is the most commonly used methods while games
and online instruction are the least. There is a moderate positive correlation
between MIT methods and the students’ critical thinking skill, but a very weak
positive correlation between MIT equipment and students’ critical thinking skill.
There is statistically significant contribution of methods to student’s critical
thinking, but insignificant method usage behaviour. Therefore, it is concluded that
government should incorporate the provision and effective utilisation of MIT
equipment and methods in the national education policy. School managements
should emphasise the use of MIT methods and review curriculum to improve
teachers’ skills in MIT usage. Teachers should utilise the available MIT equipment
and method along with their skills for an effective delivery of lessons. Similarly,
the students should be encouraged to appreciate the available methods and the
equipment, and use them effectively.
vii
ABSTRAK
Perkembangan terkini dalam kaedah dan peralatan teknologi pengajaran moden
(MIT) diguna pakai dalam kajian ini untuk mengkaji kesannya terhadap pelajar,
guru dan sistem pendidikan. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji kesan MIT
terhadap kemahiran pemikiran kritikal pelajar dalam kursus vokasional pertanian
di Nigeria. Kajian ini telah mengenal pasti kaedah MIT dan peralatan yang
digunakan dan seterusnya menilai kesan tingkah laku guru. Borang soal selidik
telah digunakan dalam proses pangumpulan data. Ujian deskriptif, korelasi dan
multiple regression telah dijalankan. Kajian ini mendapati bahawa peralatan yang
sering digunakan adalah papan putih elektronik manakala penggunaan tablet
elektronik dan komputer riba adalah pada tahap yang rendah. Pembelajaran
koperatif adalah kaedah yang paling biasa digunakan, manakala permainan dan
pengajaran dalam talian tidak digunakan secara meluas. Terdapat hubungan positif
pada tahap yang sederhana antara kaedah MIT dan kaedah kemahiran pemikiran
kritikal, tetapi hubungan positif pada tahap yang rendah antara peralatan MIT dan
kemahiran pemikiran kritikal. Sumbangan kaedah ini adalah signifikan terhadap
pemikiran kritikal pelajar, tetapi tingkah laku penggunaan kaedah adalah tidak
signifikan. Oleh itu, pihak kerajaan disyorkan untuk memasukkan peruntukan dan
menggunakan peralatan dan kaedah MIT dengan berkesan dalam dasar pendidikan
negara. Pengurusan sekolah perlu menekankan penggunaan kaedah MIT dan
kajian semula kurikulum perlu dijalankan untuk meningkatkan kemahiran guru
dalam penggunaan MIT. Guru perlu menggunakan peralatan dan kaedah MIT
sedia ada bersama dengan kemahiran mereka bagi meningkatkan keberkesanan
penyampaian pelajaran. Dalam pada masa yang sama, pelajar perlu digalakkan
untuk menghargai dan menggunakan kaedah dan peralatan MIT dengan berkesan.
viii
CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT vi
CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background of the study 2
1.3 Statement of problem 6
1.4 Aim and objective of the study 8
1.5 Research question 9
1.6 Scope of the study 9
1.7 Significance of the study 10
1.8 Structural concept of the study 11
1.9 Definition of terms 13
1.10 Conclusion 14
CHAPTER 2 LITERETURE REVIEW 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Meaning of instruction 16
ix
2.3 Instruction technology 17
2.4 Modern technology 18
2.4.1 History of modern technology 19
2.4.2 Benefits of modern technology 21
2.5 Modern instruction technology 23
2.5.1 Methods of modern of instruction
technology (MIT methods) 26
2.5.2 Equipment for modern instruction
technology (MIT equipment) 28
2.5.3 Relationship between MIT and ICT 31
2.5.4 Teachers MIT usage behaviour 32
2.6 MIT and Vocational education 35
2.7 MIT and agricultural education 36
2.7.1 MIT and improvement of agric education
teaching 38
2.8 Higher education and the MIT challenges 42
2.9 Summary of relevance previous studies on MIT
equipment and methods 45
2.10 The critical thinking skills 46
2.10.1 MIT and critical thinking 49
2.11 Conclusion 50
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 51
3.1 Introduction 51
3.2 Purpose of the Research 51
3.3 Research design 52
3.4 Population and sample 55
3.5 The study instrumentation 57
3.6 Approval procedure 58
3.7 The pilot study 58
3.7.1 Pilot survey result 59
x
3.8 Validity and Reliability in the Study 61
3.9 Data collection 63
3.10 Method of data presentation and analysis 63
3.11 Data analysis plan 67
3.12 Conclusion 67
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 69
4.1 Introductions 69
4.2 Questionnaire validation 69
4.3 Pilot Survey Result 70
4.4 Coding, Posting and Editing 71
4.5 Normality test 71
4.6 Demography 72
4.6.1 Gender 72
4.6.2 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) 72
4.6.3 MIT workshop attendance 73
4.7 Reliability of the measurement 74
4.7.1 Results for research question1 75
4.7.2 Results for research question 2 77
4.7.3 Results for research question 3 79
4.7.4 Results for research question 4 82
4.7.5 Open ended question 85
4.8 Summary of findings 87
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 91
5.1 Introduction 91
5.2 Summary 91
5.2.1 Discussion RQ 1 92
5.2.2 Discussion RQ 2 95
5.2.3 Discussion RQ 3 98
5.2.4 Discussion RQ 4 101
5.2.5 Discussion open-ended questions 104
xi
5.3 Limitation 104
5.4 Conclusion 105
5.5 Recommendation 105
5.6 Study reflection 107
REFERENCES 108
APPENDIXES
Appendix A 124
Appendix B 133
Appendix C 134
Appendix D 135
Appendix E 136
Appendix F 137
Appendix G 138
Appendix H 139
Appendix I 140
Appendix J 141
Appendix K 143
Appendix L 148
Appendix M 150
VITA 151
xii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Experiences of Using Educational Social Software 21
2.2 Factors that affect MIT use and individual’s attitudes
towards computers 24
2.3 How Digital Students Learn and How Non Digital
Teachers Teach 37
3.1 Pilot Reliability results 60
3.2 Data analysis plan 67
4.1 Questionnaire administration 70
4.2 Respondents’ Gender (n=299) 72
4.3 Respondents’ CGPA (n=299) 73
4.4 Respondents’ workshop attendance (n=299) 74
4.5 Reliability results 74
4.6 MIT equipment (n=299) 75
4.7 MIT equipment in ATBU Bauchi (n=127) 76
4.8 MIT equipment in FCET Gombe (n=172) 77
4.9 MIT methods (n=299) 78
4.10 MIT methods in ATBU Bauchi (n=127) 78
4.11 MIT methods in FCET Gombe (n=172) 79
4.12 Correlation results between AVE and ECR (n=299) 80
4.13 Correlation results between MCR and AVM (n=299) 80
4.14 Correlation results between MCR and AVM in ATBU
Bauchi 81
xiii
4.15 Correlation results between AVE and ECR in ATBU
Bauchi 81
4.16 Correlation results between MCR and AVM in FCET
Gombe 82
4.17 Correlation results between AVE and ECR in FCET
Gombe 82
4.18 Model Summary for MCR, MUSB and AVM relationship
(n=299) 83
4.19 The contribution of each MUSB and AVM to MCR
(n=299) 83
4.20 Model Summary for MCR, MUSB and AVM relationship
in ATBU Bauchi 84
4.21 The contribution of each MUSB and AVM to MCR in
ATBU Bauchi 84
4.22 Model Summary for MCR, MUSB and AVM relationship
in FCET Gombe 85
4.23 The contribution of each MUSB and AVM to MCR in
FCET Gombe 85
4:24 Other MIT equipments and methods used in teaching Agric
Education 87
4.25 Summarisation for quantitative findings 90
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Conceptual framework for modern instruction technology
(MIT) and the teaching of Agric vocational course in Nigeria 12
2.1 Modern Instruction Design Model 42
3.1 Research design framework for assessment of MIT and
the teaching of Agric vocational course in Nigeria higher
institution 54
3.2 Sampling in the study 56
3.3 Exploratory data Analysis 66
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACTE Association for Career and Technical Education
AECT Association for Educational Communications and Technology
ATBU Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University
AVE Available Equipment
AVM Available Methods
BCED British Columbia Education Department
CGPA Cumulative Grade Point Average
CK Content knowledge
ECR Equipment Critical Thinking
ESA Entertainment Software Association
ETD Educational Technology Division
EUSB Equipment Usage Behaviour
FCET Federal College of Education Technical Gombe
ICT Information and Communication Technology
ICTI Information and Communications Technology Integration
MCR Methods Critical Thinking
MIT Modern Instruction Technology
MOE Ministry of Education
MUSB Methods Usage Behaviour
NBS National Bureau of Statistic
NMC New Media Consortium
PCs Personal Computer
PK Pedagogical knowledge
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
TK Technology knowledge
xvi
TPACK Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
TPB Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
USB Usage Behaviour
VTE Vocational and Technical Education
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Modern instruction technology (MIT) refers to the theory and practice of applying
educational rules and techniques and recent information and technology, through
sketches, outline, improvement, usage, assessment and administration of the teaching
methods and teaching materials, to accomplish the ideal transfer of knowledge (Long et
al., 2008). MIT methods are advanced teaching methods concerned with improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of learning (Cranford, 2011; Shapiro & Varian, 2013). This
terminology is used widely in different fields of education, specifically in emerging
technologies that are used in instruction and learning processes (Earle, 2002). It is
sometimes referred to both the medium of communicating knowledge and other media
used, such as audiovisual equipment and computers, or a systematic process (method)
such as instructional design and assessment (Seels & Richey, 1994; Hodell, 2015).
Modern instructional technology (MIT) is very important in teaching process as
it helps in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction and motivates
student’s interest in learning. MIT also allows students to learn by themselves (student
centred), helps them to produce their innate ability by boosting their critical thinking
ability, resulting in the creation of new learning experience and high quality learning
outcomes.
2
Despite the roles of MIT in improving the teaching and learning process, it was
observed that much emphasis is given to information and communication technology
(ICT) instead of MIT in education studies (Nwezeh, 2010; Onyia & Onyia, 2011;
Oviawe & Oshio, 2011; Turruam & Abur, 2013; Brown & Green, 2015). ICT referred to
combination of informatics innovation and relevant innovations, especially
communication technology (Hennessy, 2010; Hodell, 2015). ICT consists of the
communication mediums such as wireless networks, Internet, cell phones and so on. In
contrast, MIT comprises new teaching methods such as simulation, games, problem
based instruction, case studies, cooperative learning, competition, brainstorming,
individualized instruction, on-line instruction, programmed and automated instruction
and the respective communication equipment needed such as computers, handset,
iPhone, iPad and projector to impact knowledge (College of Southern Nevada, 2011).
Despite the fact that MIT and ICT have the same mediums of communication, their
primary aims differ significantly. Communicating an idea (ICT), and understanding and
applying the idea into action (MIT) are two different aspect of learning. Therefore, it is
expected that after using MIT there must be a result, which should be manifested,
exhibited or demonstrated, in a form of reflex, cognitive and psychomotor which are the
expected outputs.
This means that the results are observed in the students’ action, critical thinking
ability and new learning experience. Therefore the use of MIT cannot be over
emphasized as it plays a vital role in improving student’s performance, developing
critical thinking skill and allowing students to make decision by themselves and
experience the outcome of their decision. This can even lead to innovation as it supports
factual knowledge acquisition.
1.2 Background of the study
Integrating MIT into learning and classroom instruction has been a relevant issue in all
fields of studies. Despite the important role of MIT on instruction and learning, high cost
3
of MIT equipment, lack of technical expertise by instructors and lack of awareness
towards the use of MIT limit its utilization in the classroom (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006).
Despite the increasing progress in introduction and application of MIT for teaching,
generally (Hunt, 2005) there are issues with integration of MIT in higher education
institutions in developing countries, due to inadequate financing (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006).
This causes the failure of both students and teachers to work at improving the level of
use toward MIT (Aburime, 2010).
It is evidenced now that the importance of MIT is vividly clear and has become a
globally discussed issue as efforts are geared toward making policies for its effective
incorporation and utilisation in teaching and learning activities (Nwezeh, 2010). MIT
encompasses planning, development, utilisation, administration and assessment of
procedures and resources for instruction (McDonald, Yanchar & Osguthorpe, 2005). It
expects to advance the utilization of approved, practical systems in the design and
conveyance of lecture.
MIT requires that today’s teacher should be able to utilize modern technology in
instruction to achieve educational objectives on a modern, faster, reliable and repeatable
basis (Adegbija, 2013). This means that teachers should know and utilise MIT in order
to achieve educational objectives in the 21st century digital instructional tools and
methods for timely delivery of lesson and use it on a daily basis when delivering a
lesson. This include the use of audio/video production, digital imaging, and standards of
visual configuration; working with cloud based, community oriented
applications; planning and developing instructional media for learning; designing and
producing internet learning; coordinating present day innovation into every branch of
knowledge; developing an individualised learning network and making their own digital
footprint and making a digital portfolio that exhibits their development, capacities and
comprehension (Adegbija, 2013).
MIT methods encourage students to solve problems by gathering data,
organizing data, and attempting an explanation (College of Southern Nevada, 2011). For
example, MIT can help create competition among students under the surveillance of the
instructor, and encourage students to display their critical thinking ability. Students can
discuss contents of a given task with their instructor via telephone conferencing, video
4
conferencing and other communication technology. Students interact with colleagues
and share ideas, which provide room for creativity and critical thinking disposition.
Through this, each member will be encouraged to contribute and bring out their innate
ability, and display critical thinking skill to perceive successful completion of a given
task.
Kung, Chang and Feng (2010) also pointed that as the MIT equipment such as
computers are user friendly, as long as teachers in high institutions can comprehensively
integrate the instructional methods with MIT equipment, then students can use MIT
equipment as tools for self-learning, and acquire more learning opportunities. There is a
consensus in literature narratives, that MIT knowledge is very important in developing
students’ critical thinking skills (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998; Halpern, 1999; Hopson,
Simms & Knezek, 2001). Authors like Carr & Kemmis (2003) stated that understanding
the knowledge and implication of MIT methods and equipment by the instructors are
vital to the students’ achievements of critical thinking skills and innovation. This is
important in making the graduates marketable. Summers and Vlosky (2001) indicated
that both Agriculture students and lecturers accepted that courses relevant to MIT
application are significant to students’ forthcoming struggle for employment. As the
study involved Agriculture vocational course that need acquisition of skills, the skills
can best be achieved by using modern instruction technology. In the 21st century digital
world, most skills require the use of modern technology to achieve a certain level.
Students that acquire critical thinking skills can manipulate ideas to achieve sound
decision, which is highly required in today’s competitive labour market environment.
Some of the skills required include identifying direction of technology in
agricultural practices such as irrigation, pesticide use, cultivation, harvest and storage
technology and ability to uterlise it. Time management and organizational skill is also
important for agricultural practices such as supply of raw material and management of
laborers. It is equally important that students should have skills in ability to adapt to a
changing environment. This is because what is learn from school may be different from
the practical, such as difference in soil topography which can influence success in
agriculture. An innovation skill is also important, which is to be able to use modern
technology in local environment.
5
It is therefore expected that Agriculture student that acquire critical thinking
skills can be engaged in self-active learning, hence can have more learning and
employment opportunities. It can give such students the ability to make sound criticism
and judgment, and the ability to work independently. However, to what extent are
students and teachers in Agriculture education utilise the advantages of such MIT
methods is the bone of contention (Birkenholz & Stewart, 1989). The study by
Klimoviene et al. (2006) pointed that the need for critical thinking skills is not only the
concern of employers; as their staff did not exhibit the necessary skills to work
independently and efficiently. Similarly, parents and the general public show concern
that students are not skilful, in terms of independent reasoning and the ability to utilise
the enormous opportunities of the present developments. The study and modelling
critical thinking is essential to give students an insight on how their teachers perceive
critical thinking (Brookfield, 2012).
Higher education institutions provide opportunities for students in their learning
and skill acquisition process to improve their abilities in the competitive environment
(King, 2000). The higher education institutions design skills acquisition for students
consists of an effective understanding of technical and vocational skills, and the ways to
use those skills in their respective areas of study. In this manner, MIT has additionally
turned into an essential part of the higher learning institutions’ vocational education
content delivery technique (Kung, Chang & Feng, 2010). Technical and vocational
education are career courses which are available in secondary schools, colleges,
polytechnics and universities all over the world to provide skills training that solve the
need of high-development industries (ACTE, 2010). Technical and vocational education
makes a very great impact to students, as it emphasizes practicality rather than just the
acquisition of knowledge. It also makes a student more interested in the specialized field
of study and, serves as encouragement to develop the sentential skills and critical
thinking (Horne, 2010).
Among the major problems of higher education institutions is the issue of poor
condition of equipment and facilities. Equipment acquisition in higher education
institution is partly carried out by the school management at central level and by
respective departments concern. In Nigeria for instance beside the central procurement
6
of equipment by high education institution the departments have direct teaching and
learning committee (DTLC). This committee have an allocation every year for direct
purchase of consumable equipment. Despite all this, the problem of vocational and
technical education still includes inadequate equipment (Umunadi, 2011). The ability of
an Agriculture education department or institution to adapt MIT will be influenced by
factors such as a) availability of high quality facilities, equipment, technical support, and
training in MIT used in teaching Agriculture vocational courses, b) knowledge, skills,
attitude and abilities of its staff to apply MIT methods in teaching Agriculture vocational
courses, and c) strategic framework for improving teaching of Agriculture vocational
courses using MIT (Adedbija, 2013). Therefore, continuous research to identify and
improve MIT in Agriculture education is important to accommodate students’ dynamic
learning needs and styles through a variety of MIT methods.
Regardless of the advantages and importance of MIT equipment and methods on
students’ critical thinking skills explained, the above discussion indicated its limited
application in Agriculture departments in Nigeria. This created the need for investigation
into the MIT equipment and methods used and their effects on students’ critical thinking
skills in Agriculture departments in Nigerian high education institutions; Abubakar
Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi (ATBU Bauchi) and Federal College of Education
Technical Gombe (FCET Gombe).
1.3 Statement of problem
Despite the continuous improvement in development and application of MIT equipment
for teaching and learning (Hunt, 2005), inability of teachers and students to operate at
improving levels toward MIT methods was observed in Nigeria (Aburime &
Uhomoibhi, 2010). There is a problem of integration of MIT methods and provision of
appropriate MIT equipment and facilities in higher education institutions in developing
countries due to inadequate financing (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006). Hence, Agriculture
teacher in higher institution thinks that it is hard to understand their actual potentials as
7
far as knowledge engineering, advancing and widening cooperation in the utilization of
MIT (Aburime & Uhomoibhi, 2010).
Eventhough authors agreed on the need to apply the MIT method and equipment
knowledge in instruction delivery, little attention is given to the implementation and
outcomes of such interventions. Selwyn (2007) observed that in spite of large struggle to
put MIT as a major target of higher education, most students and faculties do not make
reasonable use of it for formal academic work. In the same view, it has been observed
that teachers in vocational and technical schools use MIT most frequently for managerial
purposes and least in teaching and learning processes (Kuskaya-Mumcu & Koçak-
Usluel, 2013).
In addition, there is also inadequate knowledge on to what extend does the
insufficient usage affect students’ critical thinking skills. Hence, little is known on
relationship between the provision of MIT equipment, the application of MIT methods,
and the influence of teachers’ usage behaviour of MIT methods on students’ critical
thinking. Implication of this is graduation of students without sound critical thinking
skills which may assist them in the present competitive labour market. A study by
Snyder and Snyder (2008) observed that nowadays, the labour market is very
competitive and requires people with the ability to work independently and efficiently.
A study by Aburime and Uhomoibhi (2010) who investigated in Nigeria on level of MIT
knowledge revealed that there are many effort involved in improving students
proficiency in technology to develop students critical thinking. The above research also
indicated that majority of the students are in the habit of memorising the content rather
than optimising their critical thinking skill in their learning process. They experience
issues in choosing between critical options despite the fact that they do attempt to relate
the lectures to real life situations. Many students attend classes without opportunity of
comprehending the lessons and have problems remembering facts and treating
information comprehensively. The students’ memorisation of lecture notes does not help
students in development of critical thinking; it even discourages it (Facione, 2015). Such
issues adversely affect the progress and later advancement of students’ critical thinking.
This is against the objective of critical thinking which encourages in-depth learning for
improved comprehension of the lesson (Marzano & Brown, 2009). In Nigeria, little
8
attention is given to the use of MIT in terms of provision, adequate utilisation and how
the use of MIT can improve Agriculture education students’ critical thinking (Adegbija,
2013). It is important to revisit instruction methods applied in Nigerian course delivery.
The objective of the study was to identify the modern instruction technology (MIT)
equipment, methods, and identify the teachers’ usage behaviour in relation to students’
critical thinking skills. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of
modern instruction technology on students’ critical thinking in Agriculture vocational
course in Nigeria.
1.4 Aim and objectives of study
The aim of this study is to assess the effect of MIT in the teaching of Agriculture
vocational courses in Nigerian higher institution, with a view to identify the influence of
MIT methods and equipment on students’ critical thinking and recommend possible
areas of improvement.
To achieve the above mentioned aim, the following objectives are formulated:
i. To identify types of MIT equipment used for teaching Agriculture vocational
courses in Nigerian high education institutions.
ii. To identify the MIT methods used in teaching Agriculture vocational courses in
the study areas.
iii. To explore the effect of MIT methods and equipment on students’ critical
thinking skill in Agriculture courses in the study areas.
iv. To assess the effect of teachers’ usage behaviour of MIT methods on the
relationship between MIT methods and students’ critical thinking skill in
Agriculture courses in the study areas.
9
1.5 Research questions
i. What is the MIT equipment used for teaching Agriculture vocational courses in
Nigerian high education institutions?
ii. What are the MIT methods used in teaching Agriculture vocational courses in
Nigerian high education institutions?
iii. What is the relationship between MIT method and equipment on student critical
thinking in the study area?
iv. How well does the combination of MIT method and usage behaviour of MIT
methods predict student critical thinking skill in the study area?
1.6 Scope of study
There are different types of instruction methods and equipment in teaching Agriculture
vocational courses in schools. The method of instruction can be traditional method such
as face-to-face method of teaching (teacher and student) and modern method, which
involved the utilisation of technology equipment in learning (student centred).
Therefore, this study was limited to the second group, which includes Case Studies,
Problem Based instruction, Cooperative Learning, Competition, Simulation,
Brainstorming, Games, Individualized Instruction, On-Line Instruction, Programmed
and Automated Instruction. The MIT equipment used for instructional purpose is the
audio visuals machines such as computers, M-devices, projectors, iPad, Notepad,
Bluetooth, etc. This study examines the effects of the MIT equipment and methods on
the students’ critical thinking skill in Agriculture education courses in the study area.
Meanwhile, two Nigerian high education institutions; Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
University, Bauchi (ATBU Bauchi) and Federal College of Education Technical Gombe
(FCET Gombe) were used to be the areas of studies because they are technical and
10
vocational schools offering Agriculture vocational courses unlike other institutions,
which are technology institutions, that do now offer Agriculture vocational courses or
non-technology schools but offer Agriculture vocational courses. The expected
respondent to the instruments of data collection for the study are Agriculture education
students in the study areas. The study was limited to students that are studying
Agriculture education and not students that take Agriculture courses from other fields of
study.
1.7 Significance of the study
The study provides ideas on how to motivate both teachers and students to improve their
performance in Agriculture vocational courses. As Agricultural education is career
course, this study highlights the need to provide skill training that can motivate both
teachers and students to addresses the need of industrial growth. This study stressed that
using MIT in practical situation provides motivation for skill acquisition and allow
learner to demonstrate their true potential or innate ability as MIT encourages
independent practice. This makes student much more interested in the professional field
and serve as motivation to foster competence in the core skills. It shows how the use of
MIT influences teaching and learning in the study area. The study indicates how to
encourage young individuals to embark on vocational skills. It demonstrates that use of
MIT leads to critical thinking that leads to innovations. The teachers can also understand
their students’ opinion on the use of MIT methods in Agriculture education courses. The
students can equally benefit from the study in learning why their teachers use MIT
methods in their own way. In general, the study provides measures for improving the use
of MIT methods and equipment in Agriculture education in the study areas.
11
1.8 Structural concept of the study
Research structure is an overview of how the study was planned; the literature review,
data collection techniques, statistical tools for analysis and reporting of data. The
structure covers the contents discussed in various chapters of the research reports. The
study stems from the literature reviewed which pointed to the insufficient studies on use
of MIT methods in Agriculture education courses. The MIT equipment (such as
projectors, electronic whiteboards, audio visual equipment, computers, etc.) which may
influence teaching and learning ability of students in Agricultural vocational courses
depending on subject area, intention to use and usage behaviour of both the teachers and
students in the class.
The conceptual framework model of this study is based on RED Model of
Critical Thinking by Watson (1980) and TPACK framework in Heick (2013). The RED
model is based on 3-factors: Recognise Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments and Draw
Conclusions. Recognising assumptions is the ability to differentiate between fact and
opinion. Recognising an organised and not well organised assumptions, and choosing
whether an argument in light of a particular piece of information is truly taking into
account the necessary elements of the information is an indication of critical thinking
skills (Şendağ & Odabaşı, 2009). Hence, this was substituted by the students’ ability to
identify the MIT equipment and methods. The evaluation of arguments here refers to
student’s identifying the usage behaviour of teachers in respect to the MIT equipment
and methods, to identify the strong and weak aspects of teachers’ usage behaviour of
MIT. Drawing an appropriate conclusion, which is the students’ critical thinking skill,
depends on the available evidence of MIT equipment, methods and teachers’ usage
behaviour.
The TPACK framework in Heick (2013) viewed that to design an instruction that
can develop students’ critical thinking skills; there is need for the knowledge of MIT
methods, MIT equipment and subject content knowledge. These were termed
pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge and content knowledge in the
12
framework. Content knowledge (CK) refers to subject knowledge which teacher acquire
from his study area. The Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is teachers’ knowledge of MIT
methods which he can use to deliver instruction. The Technology knowledge (TK) is
teachers’ knowledge about equipment applicable in instruction, based on his area of
expertise. The students’ critical thinking abilities to use modern technology activities
depend on the method of teaching employed and the instruction equipment available
(Gardner et al, 1993; Watson, 1993). Teachers’ usage behaviour was incorporated in the
conceptual model of the study based on Hunter (1982) that stressed the relevance of the
teachers’ usage behaviour in the process of teaching. The model was therefore drawn to
indicate the relevance of MIT equipment and methods on students’ critical thinking
skills, while taking into consideration the teachers’ usage behaviour.
As demonstrated in Figure 1.1, this study argued that if MIT methods are
effectively utilized using available MIT equipment at appropriate subject area and with
good intention to use, critical thinking skill can be achieved. This showed the usefulness
of MIT in teaching, hence enhancing students’ problem solving skills in study area and
critical thinking skill in general. In this way, making utilisation of MIT in instructional
practices helps teachers to teach students with significant modern thinking skills (Şendağ
& Odabaşı, 2009).
Figure 1.1: Conceptual framework for effects of modern instructional technology on
students’ critical thinking skills in Agriculture vocational courses in Nigeria (adapted
and modified from Watson, 1980 and Heick, 2013).
To develop Critical
Thinking Skill
among agric
education students in
Nigeria
There is need for
good teachers
Usage Behaviour
The use of MIT in
teaching process
Modern
Instruction
Technology
Equipment
Modern
Instruction
Technology
Methods
Agric
Vocational
Education in
Nigeria
13
The framework suggested that the MIT method might influence students ‘critical
thinking skill in the teaching of Agriculture vocational course if there is available
equipment, with teachers’ good behaviours towards the use of the equipment. This
influence can be in the forms of easy understanding, ability to comprehend faster and
ability to recall the subject matter. Therefore, if there is available MIT equipment with
good teachers’ usage behaviour, the appropriate MIT methods can be used and students’
critical thinking skill will be achieved. However, if there is no MIT equipment and
appropriate MIT methods, students’ critical thinking skill cannot be achieved.
Meanwhile, the framework intends to postulate that usage behaviour can influence the
causal relation between MIT equipment and method with critical thinking skill in the
teaching of Agriculture vocational courses. Hence, even if there is available MIT
equipment with appropriate MIT methods used in teaching Agriculture vocational
courses, the teachers’ usage behaviour can enhance student critical thinking skills in the
Agriculture vocational course.
1.9 Definition of Terms
Modern Instruction Technology (MIT): It is defined by Long et al. (2008) as the
theory and practice of utilizing instruction theory, and advanced information technology,
through design, improvement, use, assessment and administration of the teaching
process and instruction resources, to accomplish the ideal educating effect. Earle (2002)
defined it as emerging technologies used in instruction and learning processes. In this
study, MIT is the use of modern technology equipment and methods in teaching
Agriculture education students.
MIT Method: These are advanced teaching methods concerned with improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of learning (Cranford, 2011). In this study, MIT methods
are modern interactive teaching methods, which encourage teachers to use MIT.
14
MIT Equipment: These refer to the technology careers such as laptops, PCs, iPad,
iPhone, projector, Smartphone that can be used as the instructional materials in
Agriculture education class.
Critical Thinking: Sternberg (1997) defined thinking style as a inclination in the
utilisation of the capacity that a person has rather than favoured sort of something or
capacity. For this study, critical thinking refers to the ability of student in Problem
solving, Sound decision making, Sound Judgment, Self-development, Independent
reasoning, creativity.
Usage behaviour: It is defined by Abedalaziz, Jamaluddin and Leng (2013) as an
individual's general assessment or feeling towards innovation and particular computer
and Internet relevant exercises. Teo (2008) refers to usage behaviour as behavioural
intentions and actions with respect to computers. In this study, usage behaviour refers to
the teachers’ application of modern technology in instructions.
Higher Education Institution: Higher education institutions are learning places
designed to provide opportunities for learning and skill development for students to
improve their ability to compete in a real workplace (King, 2000). It refers to the formal
learning environments where Agriculture education certificates are awarded.
Technical and Vocational Education: Technical and vocational education are career
courses carried out in secondary schools, universities, colleges and other schools all over
the world which provide skills training that addresses the need of commercial enterprises
(ACTE, 2010). For this study, Technical and Vocational Education are professional
education courses that develop students’ critical thinking skills.
1.10 Summary
Chapter 1 discusses the preliminary overview of the major background ideas that leads
to the purpose of carrying out the research. Therefore, this chapter portrayed the need for
15
direct involvement of teachers and student in facilitating the acceptance and utilisation
of MIT methods for teaching and learning process particularly in Agriculture vocational
courses to ensure effective results. As this chapter revealed that information regarding
the use of the MIT equipment and other technology are limited, it justified the need for
the study. Therefore, this chapter discussed the objectives expected to be achieved by the
research and the questions to be answered. This chapter also explained the expected
scope to be covered by the research and enlightened the area that may not be covered by
the research. This chapter also explained the potential beneficiaries of the research as
well as the area of the benefits. The research structure was explained as a guide for
better understanding of the study. Therefore, this chapter serves as the foundation of the
research.
16
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The chapter discusses the relevant literature on the research concepts. It begins by
explaining the meaning of Instruction and modern instruction. MIT is discussed together
with methods and equipment’s for modern instruction. The difference between MIT and
ICT are highlighted, and the relationship between MIT and critical thinking are
elaborated and its implication to vocational education. The challenges of MIT to
Agriculture education in particular and institutions of higher learning in general are
explained. The chapter concludes with a conclusion on the relevance of the literature
reviewed on the subject of the study.
`
2.2 Meaning of Instruction
Instruction was defined in Schofield (2013) as the act of building into the mind,
knowledge of facts, relations or principle of one kind or another. In a broader
perspective, instruction is much more than teaching or training because it is systematic,
specific and objective. Bruner (1996) defines instruction as the process of leading the
learner through sequence of statement of a problem or body of knowledge that can
17
increase the learners’ ability to understand, transformed and transfer of what he is
learning.
Arteaga, Cortijo and Javed (2014) advocated the necessity to move from a
traditional instructor centred way to learning, where instructor teaches students, to a
learner-centred approach, where the student, instead of absorbing material transmitted
by the instructor, learns how to learn. Educational Technology is defined by Association
for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) as investigation and moral
exercise of creating, and encouraging study to improve performance through execution,
utilizing, and application of suitable technological procedures and materials.
The MIT usage in class can be carried out based on ADDIE model. The model
suggested sequential use of Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate to
achieve success (Molenda, 2003). In this study, they refer to analysing the students
characteristics, critical thinking skills intended o achieve and constraints exist. It also
involves identifying the appropriate instructional method to use, such as game, online
instruction or cooperative method. Designing the instruction method involve the
incorporation of the identified elements above in the particular method to use. However,
developing the instructional content based on the instructional method involve the step
by step fixing of the course content to the designed instruction plan. Implementing the
instruction as planned is delivery of the instruction method in accordance with the plan.
Evaluation of the students to know if they have acquired the targeted critical thing skills
is the last item, to ensure that the aim of the instruction was achieved.
2.3 Instruction technology
Instructing is the essential foundation of students learning, because it prepares students
to be qualified on whatever career is important to give them a training that bestows,
enhances and build up the imperative abilities required for such position. The
transitional stages of technological development in respect to instructional application in
schools can be divided into three (3) as in Mishra & Koehler (2006), which are
18
traditional, semi traditional and modern technology. The traditional instruction
equipment consists of materials such as books, chalks and blackboards (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; Cox, 2013). At this stage, the traditional instruction methods are face-to-
face method of teaching such as lecturer method. The methods are teacher centred,
where the teacher imparts knowledge to students (Arteaga, Cortijo & Javed, 2014). The
next stage is the semi traditional stage, whereby equipment such as video camera, photo
camera, telephone lines, radio tape recorder are used for instruction (Mishra & Koehler,
2006; Cox, 2013). The semi traditional methods used are cooperative learning, games,
competition, brainstorming, case studies, and individualised instruction. Modern
technology stage witnessed the introduction of instruction equipment such as mini
computers, learning software, smart-touch equipment, projectors, ipad, wireless
networks, cloud computing and others (Johnson, Adams-Becker, Estrada & Freeman,
2014; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Johnson, et al., 2013). The modern technology methods
were developed to suit the modern instruction equipment available. The student centred
approach, where the student, instead of absorbing material transmitted by the instructor,
learns how to learn. The methods include on-line instruction, programmed and
automated instruction, cooperative learning, games and online competition.
2.4 Modern Technology
Modern technology refers to the innovations in equipment and methods that provide
enabling environment for the efficient acquisition and creation of knowledge and skills
(Nogalski, & Wojcik-Augustyniak, 2012). For instance, with the development in
communication, it can now be possible to communicate through mail, telephone, fax and
numerous others and enhance transport via air, train and cars. The best of all is the
utilization of computers. Another definition is derived as anything invented or created in
the most recent years. For instance, Windows 8, Microsoft's new operating system, is
modern technology. As there is no particular person that invented modern technology, it
19
evolved piece-by-piece, improvement-by-improvement from all other technology that
preceded it.
The developments in innovation, particularly computer technology, encourage
improvements and simplified many things in all aspects of human life. Some parts of
the innovation are exceptionally important and are general issues in contemporary
education policy (Nwezeh, 2010). Messina and Tabone (2012) viewed that Technology
Knowledge refers to knowledge about innovation, extending from traditional (book,
writing board, and so forth.) and semi-traditional ones (camcorder, photographic camera,
and so on.) to new digital technologies (computers, softwares, and so on).
2.4.1 History of modern technology
Cox (2013) discussed the historical development of modern technologies that are
relevant to education from 1970 to 2011. This is traced to the creation of the internet-
ARPANET in 1968. Between 1970-1977 there were continuous intelligent workstations,
operator design real-time stations which are accessible. web connection to a few schools
by means of telephone routes and modern, distance accessibility to computers at
distinctive areas. There was also global network of computers via Janet Joints Academic
Network and precursors desktop systems such as Hewlett Packard. Subsequently,
between 1977-1980 other developments manifested such as reduction computer size and
development of mini desktop computers (Cox, 2013).
However, between the period of 1980 and 1984 the initial Apple-Macintosh was
introduced at £1500, Fibre optics encouraging quick with substantial communication,
extending the scope in gadgets for instruction. These include devices such as robot
turtle, graphics tablets, concept keyboard, Quinkey keyboard and touch screens voice
inputs and outputs were introduced. Some noticeable developments also reached
between 1985-1987 with Microsoft windows launching, highly effective, less expensive
individual’s minicomputers, IBM computers with 256K storage capacity and 32
processor memory, Mac II computers with 256k capable storage and the effort by Tim
20
Bemers-Lee in development of World Wide Web. Meanwhile, external storage gadgets
such as memory cards and CD-ROM were introduced between 1987-1990. The period
also witnesses the development in laptop computers, significant improvement in storage
abilities of memory gadgets and reduces production costs. There was also increase in
wireless computer innovations; remote computer systems and video-teleconferencing
were introduced (Cox, 2013). The period between 1996 and 1999 witnessed the
development of the collaborative whiteboard and all-inclusive development of the
application of websites. The extension of mobile handset innovations such as mp3
players, Mobile Phones and further improvement in computing innovation, improvement
of storage in computers and increased processing capacity were observed between 2000-
2004 (Cox, 2013).
The most noticeable developments in MIT equipment was between 2005-2007,
comprising the introduction of thin customer technologies in schools and universities,
improvements of smart-touch gadgets for instruction, improvement of miniature
computing innovation. Increased improvement to processors and saving capacities, and
miniaturisation, general availability of wireless services, interactive whiteboards and
Web 2 innovation, social software areas, such as Wikipedia and Second Life were all
introduced. The graphic portable gadgets, such as iPad, iPhone, Mp3 Players-Books,
Satnav and social softwares, such as Blogs, Facebook, One World TV, Twitter with the
incorporation of mobile innovations in social software were developed between 2007
and 2011(Cox, 2013). Meanwhile, the period from 2011 indicated new era in terms of
MIT equipment development. The New Media Consortium (NMC) with a board of over
750 professionals from different high institutions of learning outlined ten (10) most
emerging MIT in instruction, learning, and critical analysis inquiry in international level
within this period and to next five (5) years. It consists of mobile learning, cloud
computing, open content, learning analytics, wearable technology, 3D printing, games
and gamification, virtual and remote laboratories and tablet computing (Johnson,
Adams-Becker, Estrada & Freeman, 2014; Johnson, et al., 2013).
21
2.4.2 Benefits of modern technology
The development of laptops computers, personal digital devices, and other miniature
gadgets in 1990s empowered students to study at homes, against the usual classroom
learning, and study on their own. Improvement to handheld gadgets recently, such as
Smart phones and MP4 devices had given numerous chances to learners to have the
capacity to move around with their gadgets, and utilise them to search for data and
interact with others, associates, and instructors (Cox, 2013). Minocha (2009) in Table
2.1, citing each level of change and resultant development, illustrated the technological
change in this area.
Table 2.1 Experiences of Using Educational Social Software (Minocha, 2009)
Media Basic Intermediate Advanced
Text One-way
Interactive
One-way
Web Pages
Interactive
Computer Conferencing
One-way
Blogs
Interactive
Wikis, Blogs
Audio One-way
Audio Clips
Interactive
Telephone Support
One-way
Podcasts
Interactive
Telephone Conferencing
One-way
IPod Downloads
Interactive
Audio graphics
Images One-way
Photographs
Interactive
Image Banks, e.g. Creative
Commons
One-way
CD/DVD
Interactive
Share and Edit, e.g. Flick
One-way
Animations
Interactive
Simulations/Games
Video One-way
Video Clips
Interactive
Webcasts/TV
One-way
Animations
Interactive
Skype
One-way
Vods
Interactive
Video conferencing
The main reason to South Korea extra-ordinary economic progress is that they
placed their primary focus on educational sector and particularly on modern technology
education (Hicks & Graber, 2010). The importance of the modern technology media for
education has been demonstrated by several studies. Ventura and Quero (2013) cited
number of studies that demonstrate the important of social media (Halic, Lee, Paulus &
22
Spence, 2010; Churchill, 2009; Yang, 2009; Ellison & Wu, 2008; Hemmi, Bayne &
Land, 2009; Wheeler, 2009, Xie & Sharma, 2008), Facebook (Arteaga, Cortijo & Javed,
2014), wikis (Hemmi, Bayne & Land, 2009; Wheeler, 2009; Cress & Kimmerle, 2008)
social networks (Arnold & Paulus, 2010) and Web 2.0 (Lwoga, 2012).
Hackbarth (1996) viewed that this revolution brought forth satellite signal of
learning TV and radio in rural schools. Video tapings of live sessions, joining of video
streams and computer innovations that empowers students to possess a whole library
readily available, and to "walk" or "fly" in simulated virtual library situations,
combining computer systems worldwide by means of web, and the attention on
electronic wizardry connected by data super high approaches allow users to get
information within reach. Chelliah and Clarke (2011) pointed that these technologies
are tools. Therefore, teachers generate innovation in education by integrating technology
into curriculum.
Lee, Waxman, Wu, Michko and Lin (2013) discussed the relevance of
technology and outline of computer utilisation. They observed that technology performs
many important functions in instructional development. Modern technology equipment
better importance in encouraging student self studies, provide scaffolding to students
that have deficiencies, encourage individualised studies, and stresses the ability of
instructional innovations to provide new learning practice for students. Arteaga, Cortijo
and Javed (2014) cited that modern technology had advanced a system of data sharing
which contributes in the improvement of agriculture education. While the Web 1.0
vastly expanded access to information, the Web 2.0 provides new kind of online
resources (social network sites, blogs, wikis, folksonomies, virtual communities) that
allow students with common interests to meet, share ideas, and collaborate (Brown &
Adler, 2008; Maloney, 2007). Therefore, Minocha (2009) summarised that the benefits
of utilisation of social networks and tools in education to students and educators cannot
be over emphasized. The use of Web 1.0 permitted information to be dispersed live and
received broadly. Collaborative feature of online networking permits scholars to take
part in group assignments, whereby to achieve quality learning results, members in the
group take advantage from both group efforts and individual ability, both excellent
arrangement for more modern collective collaboration. The social software techniques
23
and tools connect effectively with learners both independently and in groups whilst still
giving chances to separation since the individual commitments may be identified and
followed.
2.5 Modern Instruction Technology (MIT)
MIT is the instruction method and equipment used in teaching and learning process in
most recent times (Long et al., 2008). The MIT equipment includes computers and
mobile devices like handset, iPad, iPhone, and projectors. While Long et al., (2008)
described the MIT methods as problem based and inquiry learning, cooperative learning,
simulation games and competition, brainstorming, individualized instruction, mixed-
mode instruction, collaborative learning, case studies, colloquia, controversial issues,
on-line instruction and learning and programmed or automated instruction. Coordinating
technology into classroom teaching and learning has been a critical issue in the recent
decades. A few meta-analyses were conducted to analyse particular methods of teaching
or instructional practices that enhanced students’ learning and teaching with technology.
Lou, Abrami, and d’Apollonia (2001), for instance, analysed the impact between small
groups versus individual instruction with innovation, and found that small group
learning had more beneficial outcomes than individual learning. Other studies analysed
the adequacy of collaborative distant training (Cavanaugh, 2001), the impact of
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in science education by Blok, Oostdam, Otter &
Overmaat, (2002) and Bayraktar, (2001). Similarly, Moran, Ferdig, Pearson, Wardrop,
and Blomeyer (2008) and Lee, Waxman, Wu, Michko & Lin, (2013) studied the impact
of technology on reading performance in grades 6-8. Lwoga (2012) pointed that MIT
can assist higher institutions to cope with the increasing demands for higher education,
and minimise the impact of continuous decrease in the size of qualified teachers.
Technology has significantly influence educational program, the philosophy of
instructing, and learning procedures (Rhema & Miliszewska, 2010).
24
Zhou, Hu and Gao (2010) observed that an individual belief in performing a task
can influence the successful completion of the task. Therefore, for successful
incorporation of MIT in education, user acceptance is very vital. Hence, Zhou, Hu and
Gao (2010) cited some factors influencing individual’s attitudes towards MIT use and
computers. Other studies on factors that determine the effectiveness of MIT in
influencing student’s critical thinking are presented in Table 2.2. The factors include,
the attitude toward the use of MIT, level of knowledge about MIT, self confidence in
using MIT, gender, age, and years of experience, feeling nervousness in using MIT, the
level of acceptance of MIT, level of individual’s experience on the use of MIT, the
method used in imparting MIT knowledge and accessibility of MIT. Meanwhile, only
relevant factors were presented in the table. Other factors such as anxiety, culture and
belief were not presented.
Table 2.2 Factors that affect MIT use and individual’s attitudes towards MIT
(Zhou, Hu & Gao 2010)
S/N Factors Related Research
1 MIT attitudes, knowledge and
use
Teo, Chai, Hug and Lee, 2008a; Chen,2008; Psillosb et.al.,
2003; Shapka and Ferrari, 2003
2 Demographic characteristics;
gender, age, years of experience
Durndell, and Thomson, 1997; Hartley and Bendixen, 2001
3 Experience in MIT use and
training
Paraskeva et. al., 2008; Rosen and Weil, 1995; Galanouli al.
et., 2004
4 Learning and teaching approach Niederhauser and Storddart, 2007; Teo, Chai, Hug and Lee,
2008
5 Access to technology and
attitudes
Muelle et. al., 2008; Drent and Meelissen, 2008
A research by Vrana (2010) shows that MIT usage creates major changes in roles
of teachers and students. Sharifi and Imani (2013) cited that according to previous
researches, knowing and applying MIT to students affects their educational
achievements, which will enhance student’s skills in problem solving, critical thinking
and sound decision. Apart from complexity of technology, lack of proficiency,
knowledge and positive view toward MIT, makes it impossible to be applied (Baylor &
Ritchie, 2002). The multimedia instruction methods additionally recognise the
importance of learners viewing cases in an interconnected way (Pridmore, Bradley &
108
REFERENCES
Abedalaziz, N., Jamaluddin, S., & Leng, C. H. (2013). Measuring Attitudes toward
Computer and Internet Usage among Postgraduate Students in Malaysia. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(2), 200-216.
Aburime, M. O., & Uhomoibhi, J. O. (2010). Impact of technology and culture on home
economics and nutrition science education in developing countries. Multicultural
Education & Technology Journal, 4(1), 4–16. doi:10.1108/17504971011034692
Adegbija, M. V. (2013). Technologies for instruction as innovative strategies in higher
education: A Nigerian perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research, 63(4),
557-562.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(3), 519–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017
Alwehaibi, H. U. (2012). Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher
education students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science,
8(11), 193.
Anderson, T. D., and Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles
and responsibilities, Madison, WI, Atwood Publishers.
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning:
Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and
Higher Education, 13(4), 188-196.
Aromolaran, E.A. (1985, July, 22). Teaching principle of accounts. Daily Times. P. 18.
Arteaga Sánchez, R., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook
for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.012.
109
Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE). (2010). What is career and
technical education? Retrieved from http://www.acteonline.org/
uploadedFiles/About_CTE/files.
Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the
classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean
sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224-234.
Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., and Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report: a review of
studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European School net:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc254_en.pdf
Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural
education: Attitudes of Indiana agricultural science and business teachers. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 43(2), 1-10.
Bandalos, D. & Benson, J. (1990). Testing the factor structure invariance of a computer
attitude scale over two grouping conditions. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 50(1), 49-60.
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Determining appropriate sample
size in survey research, Organizational Research, 19(1), 43–50.
Barzdžiukienė, R., Urbonienė, J., & Klimovienė, G. (2006). Developing critical thinking
through cooperative learning. Kalbų Studijos, (9), 77-84.
Bayazit, I. (2013). An Investigation of Problem Solving Approaches, Strategies, and
Models Used by the 7th and 8th Grade Students When Solving Real-World
Problems. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1920-1927.
Baylor, L. & Ritchie. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and
perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers &
Education, 39, 395–414.
Bayraktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted
instruction in science education. Journal of research on technology in education,
34(2), 173-188.
BCED (2002). Getting started with integrating ICT: A guide for teachers. British
Columbia: Ministry of Education Standard Department.
Bers, T. H., McGowan, M., & Rubin, A. (1996). The disposition to think critically
among community college students: The California Critical Thinking Dispositions
Inventory. Journal of General Education, 45, 197–223.
110
Bidaki, M. Z., Sanati, A. R., & Semnani, M. N. (2013). Students’ attitude towards two
different virtual methods of course delivery. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 83, 862–866. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.162.
Birkenholz, R. J., & Stewart, B. R. (1991). The use of instructional technologies in
agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 40-48.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted
instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of
educational research, 72(1), 101-130.
Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking. John Wiley & Sons, San
Francisco, USA.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2015). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting
fundamental principles with process and practice. Routledge.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–32.
Broyles, T. W. (2004). Curriculum and facilities for agricultural education: an
agriscience approach. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: PhD.
Thesis.
Bruce, B., & Levin, J. (2001). Roles for new technologies in language arts: inquiry,
communication, construction, and expression, in Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B.
(2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the
factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers &
Education, 50(1), 224-234.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). Toward a theory of instruction. Massachusetts, Harvard University
press.
Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S., & Fritz, S. M. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an
introductory leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: A confirmatory
study. College Student Journal, 38(3), 482.
Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S., Quinn, C. E., & Searle, T. P. (2012). The Impact of
Preparing Agriculture Faculty to Influence Student Critical Thinking Disposition.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(2), 1-14.
Burris, S. (2005). Effect of problem-based learning on critical thinking ability and
content knowledge of secondary agriculture students. University of Missouri-
Columbia: PhD. Thesis.
Byrne, D. (2002). Interpreting quantitative data. London: Sage.
111
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action
research. London: Routledge.
Cavanaugh, C. 2001. The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in
K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 7 (1), 73–78.
Chacón, T.C. (2009). A survey of school psychology faculty members’ knowledge,
skills, and attitudes regarding distance education and distance education
technologies. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Chang, J.-C., Yeh, Y.-M., Chen, S.-C., & Hsiao, H.-C. (2011). Taiwanese technical
education teachers’ professional development: an examination of some critical
factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 165–173.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.013
Chelliah, J., & Clarke, E. (2011). Collaborative teaching and learning : overcoming the
digital divide?, 19(4), 276–285. doi:10.1108/10748121111179402
Clark-Carter, D. (2004). Quantitative Psychological Research: A Student’s Handbook.
USA: Psychology Press.
Coakes, S. J. (2006), “SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 14.0 for Windows”,
Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons, in Shammout, A. B., (2007) Evaluating an
extended relationship marketing model for Arab guests of five-star hotels. Victoria
University, Melbourne, Australia. PhD. Thesis.
College of Southern Nevada (2011). Modern instructional methods. College of Southern
Nevada Online Campus - 63 5 W. Charleston Blvd.- W2C, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Retrieve from www.csn.edu/pages/2359.asp .
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking
education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1),
18-27.
Conole, G. & Culver, J. (2010). The design of cloudworks: applying social networking
practice to foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs,
Computers & Education, 54 (3), 679-92.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. Oxfort: Sage.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and
applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.
Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues
for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 85–105.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00483.x
112
Cranford, S. L. (2011). Advanced methods of teaching history / social studies (EDCI
667) – Secondary, George Mason University, Graduate School of Education, 1–10
(Unpublished).
Cress, U. & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative
knowledge building with wikis. International. Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 3 (2). 105-122.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Pearson Education.
Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (1999). The act of teaching (2nd
eds.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technologies, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. (2002). Learning selection: an evolutionary
model for understanding, implementing and evaluating participatory technology
development, Agricultural Systems, 72, 109-31.
Driscoll, D. L. (2011). Introduction to primary research: Observations, surveys, and
interviews. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, 2, 153-174.
Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education:
Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5–13.
Edgar, D. W., Amaral, K., & Edgar, L. D. (2009). Networks of communication and
knowledge transfer among students in a college of agriculture introductory course.
In Proceedings of the American Association of Agricultural Education Research
conference, Reno, NV.
Edgar, L., Johnson, D., & Cox, C. (2012). A 10-year assessment of information and
communication technology tasks required in undergraduate agriculture courses.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 741–749. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.008
Edwards, R. (1997). Changing places? Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning
society. London, Routledge publishing.
Elton, L. (2003). Dissemination of innovations in higher education: a change theory
approach, Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 199-214.
113
Emir, S. (2013). Contributions of teachers’ thinking styles to critical thinking
dispositions (Istanbul-Fatih Sample). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
13(1), 325-347.
Englert, C., Tarrant, K. & Rozendal, M. (1993). Educational innovations: achieving
curricular change through collaboration, Education & Treatment of Children, 16
(4), 441-73.
Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: some
practices and possibilities for academic developers, Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 41 (1), 39-47.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
ETD (2002). Overview of the Masterplan II for ICT in Education. Singapore:
Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education.
<http://www.moe.gov.sg/edumall/mp2/mp2.htm>.
Facione, N., & Facione, P. (1996). Assessment design issues for evaluating critical
thinking in nursing. Holistic Nursing Practice, 10, 41–53.
Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition
toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44 (1), 1–25.
Feldt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha or kuder-richardson
coefficent twenty is the same for two tests. Psychometrika, 34(3), 363-373.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved 9
June, 2011 from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html.
Fisher, A. (2002). Critical thinking; an introduction, Malaysia: Cambridge university
press.
Flowers, J., & Osborne, E. W. (1988). The problem solving and subject matter
approaches to teaching vocational agriculture: Effects on student achievement and
retention. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in
Agriculture, 29(1), 20-26.
Gaytan, J. A., & Slate, J. R. (2003). Multimedia and the college of business: a literature
review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 186–205.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and
reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.
114
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking, Journal of
Technology Education, 7 (1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
ejournals/JTE/v7n1/pdf/gokhale.pdf.
Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in
primary schools in Turkey: a comparative study of 2005–2011. Computers &
Education, 68, 211–222. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.002
Graham, D. L. (2001). Employer perceptions of the preparation of agricultural and
extension education graduates. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education
Research, 51(1), 88–101.
Hackbart, S. (1996). The Educational Technology Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide,
Educational Technology. NJ, Englewood Cliffs.
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop
the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New directions for teaching and
learning, 80, 69-74.
Hamidi, F., Rostami, M. K., & Rahimi, M. (2011). Comparing barriers to using learning
resources among Iranian university students and instructors. Procedia Computer
Science, 3, 122–127. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.021.
Hanna, A. (2007) Questionnaire in education research, Faculty of education, university
of Plymouth, http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/RESINED/QUESTS/index.htm#
Heick, T. (2012). 9 Characteristics of 21st Century Learning, TeachThought. Retrieved
on 12/11/2013 from http://www.teachthought.com/learning/9-characteristics-of-
21st-century-learning/.
Heick, T. (2013). Merging Basic Lesson Design with Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge, TeachThought. Retrieved on 12/11/2013 from
http://www.teachthought.com/learning/merging-basic-lesson-design-with-
technological-pedagogical-knowledge.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1),
19-30.
Henderson, C. & Dancy, M. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers:
divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations, American Journal
of Physics, 76 (1), 79-91.
Hennessy, S., Onguko, B., Harrison, D., Ang’ondi, E. K., Namalefe, S., Naseem, A., &
Wamakote, L. (2010). Developing the use of information and communication
technology to enhance teaching and learning in East African schools: Review of the
115
literature. Centre for Commonwealth Education & Aga Khan University Institute
for Educational Development–Eastern Africa Research Report, (1).
Heo, M. (2009). Design considerations for today's online learners: A study of
personalized, relationship-based social awareness information. International
journal on E-Learning, 8(3), 293.
Hicks, A., & Graber, A. (2010). Shifting paradigms: teaching, learning and Web 2.0.
Reference Services Review, 38(4), 621–633. doi:10.1108/00907321011090764
Hodell, C. (2015). ISD from the ground up: A no-nonsense approach to instructional
design. American Society for Training and Development.
Holden, H., Ozok, A. A., & Rada, R. (2008). Technology use and perceptions in the
classroom: Results from an exploratory study among secondary education teachers.
Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(2), 113-134.
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched
environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on
Technology in education, 34(2), 109-119.
Horne, M. (2010). A New Role for CTE. Techniques: Connecting Education and
Careers (J1), 85(4), 10-11.
Hunt, D. M. (2005). Web-based distance learning: substitute or alternative to the
traditional classroom: making the delivery method decision. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 8(3).
Hunter, M. C. (1982). Mastery teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
İşman, A. (2012). Technology and technique: An educational perspective. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 207–213.
Ivankova, N. V. (2002). A sample mixed methods dissertation proposal. Education,
48(1), 93-135.
Ivankova, N., & Stick, S. (200 ). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program
in educational leadership in higher education: a mixed methods study. Research in
Higher Education, 48(1), 93-135. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4
Jennings, N. R. & Wooldridge, M. J. (1996). Software Agents. Journal of IEE Review,
42(1) 17-20.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon
Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
116
Johnson, L., Adams-Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H.
(2013). NMC Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition. Report. The New Media
Consortium.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mind tools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Kaminski, K., Switzer, J., & Gloeckner, G. (2009). Workforce readiness: a study of
university students’ fluency with information technology. Computers and
Education, 53, 228–233.
Kang, Z., & Ting, K. Y. (2013). Student attitudes towards teaching methods used in
universities the UK. Review of European Studies, 5(4), 71.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and
student learning: barriers and promise, Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17, 560-5.
King, N. G. (2000). Preparing high school students for the new millennium and beyond.
Education, 121(1), 4–7.
Kinuthia, W. & Dagada, R. (2006). E-learning delivery: exploratory study of ICT in
higher education in South Africa, International Journal on E-Learning, 7 (4), 623-
39.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK, in AACTE committee on
innovation & technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kostoglou, V., Vassilakopoulos, M., & Koilias, C. (2013). Higher technological
education specialties and graduates' vocational status and prospects. Education+
Training, 55(6), 520-537.
Krejcie & Morgan (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol
Meas., 38, 607–610.
Kuhlemeier, H., & Hemker, B. (2007). The impact of computer use at home on students'
Internet skills. Computers & Education, 49(2), 460–480.
Kung, Y., Chang, S., & Feng, D. (2010). Exploration of modern instructional technology
and reformation from the perspectives of e-learning. Ntnu.edu.tw. Retrieved from
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r98/b980004-1.pdf
Kunsela, W., & Noakes, H. L. (1957). Planning building facilities for vocational
agriculture. New York State Education Department. Division of School Buildings
and Grounds. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 036 984).
117
Kuskaya-mumcu, F., & Koçak-usluel, Y. (2013). Teachers ’ perceptions related to levels
of ICT implementation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 729–733.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.137
Kutluca, T. (2010). Investigation of teachers’ computer usage profiles and attitudes
toward computers. International Online Journal of Science, 2(1), 81-97.
Kwok, C. N. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online
technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(1).
Laal, M. (2013). Lifelong learning and technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 83, 980–984. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.182
Lai, C., & Kritsonis, W. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer
technology in second language acquisition. Online Submission, 3(1). Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED492159
Lee, Y. H., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of
teaching and learning with technology. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 16(1), 133-146.
Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J., & Mizell, A. (2003). Teaching and learning with
technology. Boston: Pearson Education.
Li, B. (2009). The use of e-learning in pre-service teacher education. Campus-Wide
Information Systems, 26(2), 132–136. doi:10.1108/10650740910946855.
Lim, K. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). The effect of multimedia on perceived equivocality
and perceived usefulness of information systems. MIS Quarterly,24(3), 449–471.
Long, L., Zhaohui, L., Gengsheng, W. and Xiaoqin, Y. (2008). Modern education
technology with creativity of continuing education, IACEE 11th World Conference
on Continuing Engineering Education. Georgia Institute of Technology: 1-3.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C. & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning
with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 71 (3), 449-521.
Lundy, L.K., Irani, T.A., Ricketts, J.C., Eubanks, E.E., Rudd, R.D., Gallo-Meagher, M.
& Fulford, S.G. (2002, December). A mixed-methods study of undergraduate
dispositions toward thinking critically about biotechnology. Paper presented at the
National Agricultural Education Research Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning
institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90–107.
doi:10.1108/10650741211212359.
118
Lynn, P., Erens, B., & Sturgis, P. (2012). A strategy for survey methods research in the
UK, (May). Retrieved from http://surveynet.ac.uk/srn/Vision for Survey
Methods.pdf.
Ma, X., Wang, R. and Liang, J. (2008). The e-learning system model based on affective
computing, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web-based
Learning, ICWL 2008, Jinhua, August, 54-6.
Majumdar, S. (2011). Teacher education in TVET: Developing a new paradigm.
International Journal of Training Research, 9(1-2), 49-59.
Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(18), B26.
Marzano, R. J., & Brown, J. L. (2009). A Handbook for the Art and Science of Teaching.
USA: ASCD.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior. Information systems research, 2(3),
173-191.
McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning from
programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional
technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.
doi:10.1007/BF02504867.
McEachron, D. L., Bach, C., & Sualp, M. (2012). Digital Socrates: a system for
disseminating and evaluating best practices in education. Campus-Wide
Information Systems, 29(4), 226-237.
Messina, L., & Tabone, S. (2012). Integrating technology into instructional practices
focusing on teacher knowledge, 46(2011), 1015–1027.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.241
Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: a literature review.
Education + Training, 51(5/6), 353–369. doi:10.1108/00400910910987174
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
MOE (2000). Guidelines for information and communications technology training in
elementary and secondary schools. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human
Resources Development (MOE).
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance improvement,
42(5), 34-37.
119
Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008).
Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis
with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1),
6-58.
Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage.
Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). The influence of student learning style on critical
thinking skill. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 43.
Nandy, K. (2012). Understanding and quantifying effect sizes. California: University of
California Los Angeles (UCLA). Retrieved from
http://nursing.ucla.edu/workfiles/research/Effect%20Size%204-9-2012.pdf.
National Bereau of Statistics (NBS). (2011). Total access to ICT by device in Nigeria,
2011 Annual Socio-Economic Report: Access to ICT.
Nogalski, B., & Wojcik-Augustyniak, M. (2012). The use of modern technologies in
higher schools as one of the elements of value innovation. in knowledge and
learning: global empowerment; proceedings of the management, knowledge and
learning international conference. International School for Social and Business
Studies, Celje, Slovenia. pp. 424-434.
Norris, S. & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking, Pacific Grove, CA: Critical
thinking press & software.
Nwana, O.C. (1983). Curriculum designing for the junior senior secondary school. The
Nigeria Principal Journal of ANCOPPS 1(4), 25-33.
Nwezeh, C. M. T. (2010). The impact of internet use on teaching, learning and research
activities in Nigerian universities: A case study of Obafemi Awolowo University.
The Electronic Library, 28(5), 688–701. doi:10.1108/02640471011081960
Ojedokun, A.A. & Owolabi, E.O. (2003). Internet access competence and use of the
internet for teaching and research activities by University of Botswana academic
staff, African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 11 (1), 43-53.
Onyia, C. R., & Onyia, M. (2011). Faculty perception for technology integration in
nigeria university system: Implication for faculty quality curriculum design.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 81-92.
Osborne, E., & Hamzah, R. (1989). Use of problem solving teaching among secondary
agriculture teachers in Illinois. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(3), 29-36.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. a., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S.,
… Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice: how do teacher education
programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support
120
teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.014
Oviawe, J., & Oshio, L. (2011). Impact of information and communication technology
on teaching and learning ability of education students in universities in Edo state,
Nigeria. International Review of Social Sciences and …, 2(1), 126–133. Retrieved
from http://irssh.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/12_IRSSH-99-
V2N1.51195546.pdf
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS for program. (4th ed.). Australia, Allen & Unwin.
Paul, W. R. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing
world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Penberty, D. & Millar, S. (2002). The “hand-off” as a flawed approach to disseminating
innovation: lessons from chemistry, Innovative Higher Education, 26(4), 251-70.
Pridmore, J. L., Bradley, R. V., & Mehta, N. (2010). Methods of instruction and learning
outcomes: a theoretical analysis of two approaches in an introductory information
technology course*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 289–
311. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2010.00258.x
Profetto-McGrath, J. (2003). The relationship of critical thinking and critical thinking
dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, (43)
569–577.
Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rhema, A. and Miliszewska, I. (2010). Towards e-learning in higher education in Libya,
Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, (7), 423-7.
Rhoades, E. B., Irani, T., Telg, R., & Myers, B. E. (2008). Internet as an information
source: attitudes and usage of students enrolled in a college of agriculture course.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 108–117. doi:10.5032/jae.2008.02108
Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students' level of critical thinking
across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher
Education, 13(1), 52-59.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced
innovation in higher education, Educational Research, 51 (4), 411-24.
121
Schofield H. (2013). The philosophy of education (RLE Edu K): an introduction. UK:
Routledge.
Schroeder, A. Minocha, S. & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education
teaching and learning. Journal of Computed Assisted Learning, 26 (3). 159-174.
Schwartz, J. (1995), “The right size byte: reflections of an educational software
designer”, in Perkins, D., Schwartz, J., West, M. and Wake, M. (Eds), Software
Goes to School: Teaching for Understanding with New Technologies, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 172-86.
Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and
domains of the field. Washington, DC: AECT. 42 (1), 5-13, January-February,
2002, ET Magazine Website: http://BooksToRead.com/etp
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning:
a critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94
Semela, T., Bohl, T., & Kleinknecht, M. (2013). Civic education in Ethiopian schools:
Adopted paradigms, instructional technology, and democratic citizenship in a
multicultural context. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2),
156-164.
Şendağ, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course
on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers &
Education, 53(1), 132-141.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (2013). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network
economy. Harvard Business Press.
Sharifi, A., & Imani, M. N. (2013). Identifications of skills required by high school
teachers & students to apply ICT. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
83(2001), 841–845. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.158.
Sharifi, A., Imani, M. N., & Eslamieh, F. (2013). Investigation the role of information &
communication technologies on student’s collaborative learning. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 932–936. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.174
Shrestha, K. M. (2009). Students’ perspectives on the undergraduate education in the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. PhD Thesis.
Sipilä, K. (2011). No pain, no gain? Teachers implementing ICT in instruction.
Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(1), 39–51.
doi:10.1108/17415651111125504
122
Smart, J., & Paulsen, M. (Eds.) (2011). Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research. USA: Springer.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000).
Teachers' tools for the 21st century: a report on teachers' use of technology.
Statistical analysis report. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics
(ED).
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving
skills. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90-99.
Spector, J.M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J. & Bishop, M.J. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (4th
Ed.). New York:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Stattrek (2014). http://stattrek.com/statistics/random-number-generator.aspx.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, W., Jr. (2014). Teacher technology acceptance and usage for the middle school
classroom. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UNI No. 3611213).
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough.
Journal of graduate medical education, 4(3), 279-282.
Summers, T. A., & Vlosky, R. P. (2001). Technology in the classroom: the LSU College
of Agriculture faculty perspective. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 18(2), 79–
84.
Syafii, W. & Yasin, R. M. (2013). Problem Solving Skills and Learning Achievements
through Problem-Based Module in teaching and learning Biology in High School.
Asian Social Science, 9 (12), 220.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. (6th ed). New
Jersey. Pearson Education, Inc.
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore
survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4).
Tezci. E. (2009). Teachers’ effect on ICT use in education: The Turkey sample.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1285-1294.
Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology integration
instruction: implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.
123
Uddin, S., & Jacobson, M. J. (2013). Dynamics of email communications among
university students throughout a semester. Computers & Education, 64, 95–103.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.014.
Umar, A H. (2012). Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education
students: empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science, 8(11), 193–205.
doi:10.5539/ass.v8n11p193.
Umunadi, E. K. (2011). Provision of equipment and facilities in vocational and technical
education for improving carrying capacity of Nigeria’s tertiary institutions. In 1st
International Technology, Education and Environment Conference (p. 331).
Vasquez, O. (2006). A pedagogy of the future, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1
(1), 43-8.
Ventura, R., & Quero, M. J. (2013). Using Facebook in university teaching: a practical
case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83(2008), 1032–1038.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.192.
Verhoeven, J. C., Heerwegh, D., & De Wit, K. (2010). Information and communication
technologies in the life of university freshmen: an analysis of change. Computers &
Education, 55, 53–66.
Vrana, R. (2010). ICT-supported communication of scientists and teaching staff at the
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb. New Library World,
111(9/10), 413–425. doi:10.1108/03074801011089332
Watson, G. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Webster, N., Ganpat, W., & Chester, C. (2013). Toward a model of promoting youth
development in the Caribbean through agriculture investment. Vulnerable Children
and Youth Studies, 8(4), 366-374.
Wheeler, S. (2009). Learning space mashups: Combining web 2.0 tools to create
collaborative and reflective learning spaces. Future Internet, 1(1), 3-13.
Wodzicki, K., Scwämmlein, E. & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). Actually, I want to learn: Study-
relate Knowledge exchange on social networking sites. Internet and Higher
Education, 15 (1). 9-14.
Wu, M. (1994). Instruction Design. Peking, Higher Education Press.
Zhou, Q., Hu, J. & Gao, S. (2010). Chemistry teachers’ attitude towards ICT in Xi’an.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4629–4637.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.741.
