Internet Usage by the Teachers Working In Higher Secondary

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.4, 2008

ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X

www.BellPress.org

7

Internet Usage by the Teachers Working In Higher Secondary

Schools and In Colleges

Syed Noor-Ul-Amin

Ph.D Research Scholor

Dr Mohammad Iqbal mattoo

Associate professor

Department Of Education, University Of Kashmir

ICT is changing processes of teaching and learning by adding elements of vitality to

learning environments including virtual environments for the purpose. ICT is that of

providing a new framework that can foster a revision and an improvement of teaching and

learning practices. Internet is a multi-dimensional medium, which facilitate its users for

different purposes. The basic objective of this research article is to find out the major uses

of internet, by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages. The

major objectives were to identify to find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar

presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular class lectures and for 4.chatting and other re-

creational purposes by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages

and. To find out the differences of any, among these teachers on the usage of internet. As

there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a structured tool

namely “Internet usage scale” which was distributed among the teachers of the different

schools and colleges of district Srinagar of Kashmir Valley. Data were collected from 200

teachers consisting of 50 Government Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher

secondary school teachers, 50 Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic

college teachers. The paper verified that the Government Higher Secondary School

teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in

respect to their utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing

regular class lectures and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not

found any difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and

Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing

regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ

significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. This study also reveals

there is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers

and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing

regular class lectures, for chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly

on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is also no significant

difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree

collage teachers on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for

preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. Private Higher



www.BellPress.org

8

Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers do not differ significantly on

the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet for e-mail, and for Chatting and

recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ significantly on the utilization of

internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant difference between Government

Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for

e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But

they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation.

Key Words: Internet Usage, Higher Secondary schools, Collage, Working.

INTRODUCTION

The role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in human development has

received growing attention among development practitioners, policy makers, government and

civil society in recent years due to the growing proliferation of the Internet, convergence in IT

and telecommunications technologies and increasing globalisation. The field of education has

been affected by ICTs, which have undoubtedly affected teaching, learning, and research

(Yusuf, 2005). When looking at the current widespread diffusion and use of ICT in modern

societies, especially by the young the so-called digital generation then it should be clear that

ICT will affect the complete learning process today and in the future.

While the ICTs in general and the Internet and the World Wide Web in particular have

made life easier by facilitating easy communication and easy access to information located

anywhere in the world. In today’s world technology has been prevalently used in almost all

spheres of life and as a consequence the personal ownership ratio of computer and internet is

rapidly increasing each year. The Internet has brought tremendous changes to the society and

the world at large. The information retrieval in the Internet is relatively fast and accessible 24

hours a day, seven days a weeks. The global system, which can be accessed and used at an

extremely personal level, provides us with a unique platform for interaction- a platform that is

altering how we communicate. If it started out as a network of networks, the Internet has

become the medium of media, or Meta medium. It is a communication system that serves as a

platform for older media, including telephony, print and broadcasting. But more than that, it

now enables us to operate on both ends of traditional mass media. We can now both send and

receive live audio or video feeds, enabling us to both have a television or radio set and a

television or radio station on our desktop. Once you have the requisite software components

installed, you can quickly and easily switch between sending email, listening to streaming

audio, and broadcasting a video feed-all without moving from your computer (Adams &

Clark, 2001). Internet has become a global source of information resources accessible at

anytime by anyone from anywhere in the world. It has converted the whole world into a

global information society. It has tremendously improved communication and interaction

among scientific research community and enabled them to access a vast range of latest

information. It acts as a powerful supplement to the traditional way of information access. It

facilitates electronic and exchange of ideas and collaboration among the scholars all over the

world. The Internet is a massive, computer-linked network system used globally to access and

convey information, either by personal or business computer users; it is also used for

communication, research, entertainment, education and business transactions (Kraut, et al.,



www.BellPress.org

9

1998; Schneider, et al., 2006). Today, the Internet can link all online computers so that people

can use it to communicate throughout the world (Schneider, et al., 2006).

The word Internet emanates from the words “Internet Connection Network”

(Greenfield, 1999), connecting computers around the world by the use of a standard protocol.

It is believed that the distinctive features of the Internet, such as speed, accessibility, intensity

and stimulation of its content, contribute to Internet addiction (Greenfield, 1999). In addition,

(Chou, 2001) indicated that the most appreciated Internet features included interactivity,

simplicity, availability, and abundant and updated information. In fact, the Internet’s

attractiveness has increased as a result of its availability, accessibility, and affordability. The

development of friendlier interfaces provides users with easier and more comfortable access.

The internet is one of the greatest recent advancement in the world of information technology

and has become a useful instrument that has fostered the process of making the world a global

village. Internet use has become very popular in many areas as well as in education in recent

years. This is a universal fact that the use of internet has a great impact on the education. The

Internet is a relatively new channel for scholarly resources, and contains vast quantities of

information that vary a great deal regarding its contents, aim, target group, reliability etc.

Hence, it is important that the end-user is aware of the diverse information available on the

Internet, and educated in the criteria by which the information content should be assessed

(Chapman, 2002). The fabulous growth in telecommunication has brought online services,

specialized electronic networks, WebPages, E-mail, software and global information

resources to our homes as well as to education. The Internet provides an environment in

which millions of people participate and engage in the creation and exchange of information

(Rose & Fernlund, 1997). Many educators and policy makers believe that technology can be a

catalyst for educational reform (Collins, 1991; Means, Olson, & Singh, 1995; Mehlinger,

1996; Newman, 1992; Sheingold, 1991). They suggest that the use of technology in

classrooms will shift the roles of teachers and students. Teachers will act more as facilitators

by helping students’ access information, process it, and communicate their understanding.

However, not all teachers who use technology in their classrooms employ it as a tool. The

problem of pedagogical efficiency in the use of new information technologies (including the

Internet) in education is widely discussed in the research literature. Unlike the obvious and

quantitatively valuable achievements in enhancing of the availability of education, the

specific positive effect of the environment-intermediary on the quality of teaching is not so

evident. Moreover, according to some researchers, for example (Kozma, 1994), the last 50

years of studies of unconventional media used in education (from radio and TV broadcasting

to WWW) have not revealed, however, any considerable specific effect on the process of

teaching for the given type of environment. This idea is shared by (Clark, 1994) considering

that the new methods of designing for teaching by means of new information technologies

may stimulate improvement of the education quality, but not their use as the means of

delivery for the teaching material.

. The Internet provides several opportunities for the academia. It is a mechanism for

information dissemination and a medium for collaborative interaction between individuals

and their computers without regard for geographic limitation of space (Leiner et al., 2000;

Singh, 2002). The use of Information Technology helps increase the research productivity of

scholars. (Misra and Satyanarayan, 2001). Everybody wants to explore itself with this

information technology and happenings taking place of Internet for the purpose of education,

awareness, entertainment and especially interaction with strangers. Nowhere, except in

dreams have reality and fantasy contented for our attention more than on the net. (Nawaz,

2006).The Internet can be used for other things besides email. One can listen to international



www.BellPress.org

10

radio station on research and educations on the Internet, read national dailies of other

countries, and speak to friends around the global, read books and other materials on the

Internet. The list of things that can be done on the Internet is a very long one. The Internet

contains more information than the world’s largest libraries (Emeagwali, 2000). Internet

applications provide to apply and experience the facilities of constructivist view (Plomp, et

al., 1996). (Pettersson, 1989) points out that the technology should serve the contents and

methods of teaching. At the same time, the same technology can be used for different types of

educational activity. E-mail communication is characterized by low consumption of

resources, including low costs of teaching, required equipment and data channel. (Van Gorp

& Boysen, 1997) and (Johnson, Blake, Shaw 1996), e-mail is widely applied in the

educational process (especially in case of the territorially distributed teaching staff). Many

researchers stress that apart from the immediate teaching goals, the use of e-mail plays an

important role as a medium which regenerates the epistolary culture, thus contributing to the

development of communication and writing skills (Davies, 1997).(Ellsworth, 1994) thereby

writes: “learners begin to work on their language and grammar, as never before. When

children know they will receive a response from Stockholm, they begin to realize the

difference between slang and literary language”. (Groves, Lee, Stephens), “e-mail makes it

possible for students to stay in touch with their peers and with the teaching staff where a

loaded schedule may make this otherwise difficult. The figure of the lonely scholar, who can

become isolated through increasing specialization, or for more prosaic reasons of inadequate

social or language skills, is one to whom e-mail presents some interesting possibilities” Web

applications enable teachers to conduct teaching in such a manner and with such technologies,

which for the contemporary generation of students present an integral part of their life style

(Owston, 1997).. The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways

teachers employ technology in instruction (Becker, 1994; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993;

Moeller, & Honey (1990); Means & Olson, 1995; Wiske et al., 1988). Internet, have made

considerable and dramatic impact on contemporary educational practice (Chou, C., et al.2002;

Havick, J. 2000; Tsai, C.2001). Therefore, one of the major purposes of the present study is to

make investigation on the internet usage for the Seminar presentation, E-mail, Preparing

regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers. So the

investigator has, therefore, formulated a research problem for investigation which

reads as: Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing

regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers

working in higher secondary schools and in collages.

2. To find out the differences of any, among the government Higher secondary school

teachers, private higher secondary teacher, government Degree college teachers and

Polytechnic college teachers on the usage of internet.

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

3. Government Higher secondary school-teachers private higher secondary school

teachers, Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers have

very high usage of internet for 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular

class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes.



www.BellPress.org

11

4. There is a significant difference between the following teachers on the internet usage

for 1. Seminar presentation 2.for E-mail 3.for Preparing regular class lectures and 4.

For chatting and other re-creational purposes.

5. Government higher secondary school teacher and private higher secondary school

teachers.

6. Government higher secondary school teacher and government degree college teachers.

7. Government Higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers.

8. Private higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers.

9. Private higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers.

10. Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers.

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

SAMPLE

The present study was conducted on a 200 teachers consisting of 50 Government

Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher secondary school teachers, 50

Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic college teachers.

TOOLS USED

As there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a tool namely

“Internet usage scale” to study the usage of Internet by the teachers working in Higher

secondary schools and by collage teachers in various uses and all the uses work categorized

under four headings internet as:-

a. For seminar presentation

b. For e-mail

c. For preparing regular classes lectures and

d. For chatting and other recreational purposes.

The final tool was prepared by getting opinions from experts and it comprises various

aspects of using internet and thus it has content validate. The tool used for the final study

includes 30 statements. Based on the analysis, 30 statements were selected for the final study.

The toll for the final study consist of general data sheet or personal dates sheet and 30

statements to measure the internet usage teachers working in Higher secondary schools and in

colleges.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The following statistical techniques were used in the present study for the analysis of

data.

Table 1: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for seminar

presentation

S.

No.

Sub- variables N Mean Standard

deviation



www.BellPress.org

12

1 Government Higher secondary school

teachers

50 13.82 8.72

2 Private Higher secondary school teachers 50 15.80 8.25

3 Government Degree collage teachers 50 17.4 8.98

4 Polytechnic collage teachers 50 22.1 10.06

Table 2: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for E-mail

S.

No.


deviation

1 Government Higher secondary school 50 16.32 7.22




Table 3: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for preparing regular

class lectures

S.

No.


deviation





Table 4: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for charting and

other re-creational purposes

S.

No.


deviation


2 Private Higher secondary school

teachers

50 13.1 7.44




www.BellPress.org

13


Table 5: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school

teachers and private higher secondary school teachers on Seminar presentation

S.

No.

Sub - Variable N Mean Standard

Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher

Secondary School

Teachers

50 13.82 8.72

1.16

0.05

2 Private Higher

Secondary School

Teachers

50 15.80 8.25


teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on utilization of internet for

Seminar presentation

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher

Secondary School

Teachers

50 13.82 8.72

2.59

0.05

2 Government Degree

College Teachers

50

17.4 8.98

.

Table 7: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary School

Teachers and Polytechnic College Teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar

presentation

S.

No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard

Deviation

“t”

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher

Secondary School

Teachers

50 13.82 8.72

4.40

0.05



www.BellPress.org

14

2 Polytechnic College

Teachers 50 22.01 10.06

Table 8: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School

Teachers and Government Degree College teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar

presentation

S.

No.


Deviation

“t”

Value

level of

Significance

1 Private Higher Secondary School

Teachers

50 15.80 8.25

0.93

0.05

2 Government Degree college

teachers

50 17.4 8.98

Table 9: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School

Teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar

presentation

S.

No.

Sub-Variable

N Mean Standard

Deviation

“t”

Value

Level of

Significance

1 Private Higher Secondary

School Teachers

50 15.80 8.25

3.43

0.05

2 Polytechnic college teachers

50 22.1 10.06

Table 10: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree College teachers

Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation

S.

No.


Deviation

“t”

Value

Level of

Significance

1 Government Degree

college teachers

50 17.4 8.98

2.46

0.05



www.BellPress.org

15

2 Polytechnic college

teachers

50 22.1 10.06

Table 11: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary

school teachers and Private Higher secondary School teachers on utilization of internet

for e-mail

Table 12: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school

teachers and Government Degree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher

secondary school teachers 50 16.32 7.22

1.96

0.05

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1

Government Higher

Secondary school teachers

50

16.32

7.22

0.84

0.05

2

Private Higher secondary

School teachers

50

15.06

7.81



www.BellPress.org

16


teachers

50 13.38 7.75

Table 13: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school

teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail

Table 14: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school

teachers and Government Degree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail


teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Private secondary school

teachers 50 15.06 7.81

0.63

0.05


50 14.08 7.81

Table 16: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers

and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail

S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard

Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher secondary

school teachers 50 16.32 7.22

1.49

0.05


50 14.08 7.81


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Private Higher secondary

school teachers

50

15.06

7.81

1.08

0.05


teachers

50 13.38 7.75



www.BellPress.org

17

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Degree

college teachers 50 13.38 7.75

0.45

0.05


teachers 50 14.08 7.81


teachers and Private Higher secondary school teachers on the utilization of internet for

preparing regular class lectures

S.

No


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher

secondary school

teachers

50 13.01 7.44

2.07

0.05

2 Private Higher

secondary school

teachers

50 16.04 6.72


school Teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on the utilization of internet

for preparing regular class lectures

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher


2.48

0.05


Teachers 50 16.74 7.23


school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for




www.BellPress.org

18


teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for



teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing

regular class lectures

Table 22: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers

and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class

lectures

S.

No.


Deviation

“t”

values

level of

Significance


school teachers

50 13.1 7.44

3.1

0.05

2 Polytechnic college teachers 50 17.44 6.54

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Private Higher secondary school

teachers

50 16.04 6.72

0.50

0.05


teachers

50 16.74 7.23

S.

No.


Deviation

“t”

Value

level of

Significance



1.06

0.05


50 17.44 6.54

S.

No.


Deviation

Value level of

Significance



www.BellPress.org

19


teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for

Chatting and Recreational purposes

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance



1.34

0.05

2 Private Higher Secondary

School teachers

50 13.1 7.44

Table 24: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary

school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet

for Chatting and Recreational purposes

Table 25: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary

school teachers and Polytechnic College teachers on the utilization of internet for


S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance



0.81

0.05

1 Government Degree


0.51

0.05


teachers

50 17.44 6.54

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Higher


0.31

0.05


teachers

50 14.5 7.31



www.BellPress.org

20


50 16.04 7.57





teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting

and Recreational purposes

S.

No.


Deviation

“t”

Value

level of

Significance



0.64

0.05


teachers

50 14.5 7.31


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance



1.96

0.05

2 Polytechnic college teachers 50 16.54 7.57

S.

No.


Deviation

"t"

Value

level of

Significance

1 Government Arts Degree


1.03

0.05



www.BellPress.org

21

Table 28: Significance of mean difference between Government Arts Degree college

teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting

and Recreational purposes

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table-1, 2, 3 and 4 reveals distribution of sample on the basis of teachers working

in Government Higher secondary school, Private Higher secondary school, Government

Degree collage, Polytechnic collage. Table-1 shows the mean and standard deviation of

different types of teachers in respect to internet for seminar presentation.Table-2 shows

the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for e-

mail.Table-3 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in

respect to internet for preparing regular class lectures.Table-4 shows the mean and

standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for preparing regular

class lectures.

The data in Table- 5 reveals that the "t' value calculated for seminar

presentation on the basis of Government Higher secondary School teachers and private

Higher Secondary school teachers is 1.16 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at

0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that

Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School

teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their utilization of internet for seminar

presentation.

Table-6 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of

Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers.

Since the calculated’t’ value is 2.59 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at the 0.05

level of significance. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government

Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers differ

significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation.

Table-7 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of

Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers. Since,

the calculated’t’ value is 4.40 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at 0.05 level of

significance. Hence the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government Higher

Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers differ significantly on the

utilization of internet for seminar presentation.

Table- 8 reveals that the’t’ variable calculated for internet utilization on the basis

of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers is

0.93 which is less than the table value is 1.98 at 0.05 level of significant. Therefore the

hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Private Higher Secondary School teachers and


teachers

50 16.04 7.57



www.BellPress.org

22

Government Degree college teachers don not differ significantly in respect of their


Table- 9 reveals that the’t’ value calculated for internet utilization on the basis of

Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teacher is 3.43 which is

greater than the’t’ value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is

accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference between private higher

secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers in respect of their utilization of

internet for seminar presentation.

Table-10 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar utilization on the basis of

Government degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. The calculated’t’

value is 2.46 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance.

Therefore the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference

between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the


Table- 11 shows that the’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government

Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School teachers. The

calculated’t’ value is 0.84 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of

significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Government Higher

secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary teachers do not differ

significantly in respect of their utilization of internet for e-mail.

Table-12 shows that the 't' value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government

Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Arts-college teachers. Since, the

calculated’t’ value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of

significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that there is no significant

difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government

Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail.

Table-13 shows that the‘t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government

Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers college teachers.

Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.49 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at the level

of significance 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that "There is no significant

difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic

college teachers college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail

Table-14 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private

Higher Secondary School teachers and Government degree college teachers. Since, the

calculated ’t’ value is 1.08 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of

significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant

difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree

collage teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail.

Table-15 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private

Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated



www.BellPress.org

23

'f value is 0.63 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and

hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference

between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on

the utilization of internet for e-mail.

Table-16 shows that the’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government

Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated T value is

0.45 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the

hypothesis is rejected and is found that "There is no significant difference between

Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of

internet for e-mail.

Table-17 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for regular class syllabus on the basis of

Government Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School

teachers. Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 2.07 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at

0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no

significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private

Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class

lectures.

Table-18 shows that the’tz’ value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis

of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college

teachers. Since, the calculated’t’ value is 2.48 which is greater than the table value of 1.98

at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is

no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and

Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular

class lectures.

Table-19 shows that the 'f value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis

of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers.

Since, the calculated’t’ value is 3.1 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05

level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no

significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and

Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class

lectures.

Table- 20 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on

the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college

teachers. Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 0.50 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at

0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no

significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government

Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.

Table- 21 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on

the basis of private Higher Secondary School teachers and polytechnic college teachers.

Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 1.06 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05

level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that “ there is no



www.BellPress.org

24

significant difference between private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic

college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.

Table- 22 shows that the 'f value calculated for preparing regular class lectures by

Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the

calculated ’t’ value is 0.51 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of

significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant

difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers

on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.

Table- 23 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational

purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private

Higher Secondary School teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.34 which is less than

the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected

and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary

School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of

internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.

Table- 24 shows that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational

purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government

Degree college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.31 which is less than the table

value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found

that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School


Chatting and recreational purposes.

Table- 25 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational

purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic

college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.81 which is less than the table value of

1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that

"There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School

teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and

recreational purposes.

Table-26 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes

on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college

teachers. Since, the calculated 'f value is 0.64 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at


significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government

Arts college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.

Table-27 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes

on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college

teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at


significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teaches and Polytechnic

college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.



www.BellPress.org

25

Table- 28 shows" that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational

purposes on the basis of Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college

teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.03 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at


significant difference between Government Degree College teaches and Polytechnic

college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this research is to provide information about the usage of internet by higher

secondary school teachers and collage teachers for utilization of Seminar presentation, for E-

mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for, chatting and other re-creational purposes.

The result of this study shows that the Government Higher Secondary School teachers and

Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their

utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures

and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not found any difference

between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college

teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for

Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet

for seminar presentation. This study also reveals there is no significant difference between

Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the

utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, for chatting and

recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar

presentation. There is also no significant difference between private Higher secondary

school teacher and Government degree collage teachers on the utilization of internet for

seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and

recreational purposes. Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college

teachers do not differ significantly on the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet

for e-mail, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ

significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant

difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on

the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and

recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar

presentation. This paper looks at levels use of Information and Communication Technologies

(ICTs) among teachers in selected higher secondary schools and colleges. For the past few

years, an assortment of ICTs such as computers, lap tops, projectors, printers, e-blackboards

and mobile phones have been available to teachers for use in integration of teaching and

learning in schools and colleges. The paper attempts to establish how teachers have utilize

internet, their ICT literacy skills level and the level of ICT integration for seminars, for

e.mail, preparing regular class lectures and for other recreational activities. The findings show

that the use of ICT and its integration in the teaching and learning in secondary and in

collages is getting more widespread; and increasingly used among teachers as a means of

communication and for information searching. Utilization ratios for teachers have been

observed to be having made effective ICT investments in education, translating into better

utilization of ICT related technologies



www.BellPress.org

26

Recently great emphasis was given for setting up ICT infrastructure and providing

computer literacy. At present, specially designated policy is needed to support effective use of

ICT in education and to incorporate it into the policy on educational innovations and activities

like teaching and learning. It is crucial to integrate ICTs with the curriculum of each subject

so this could replace traditional teaching methods by new teaching tools and technology

(Uyanga et al., 2004). Impact of ICTs on teachers’ behavior, development of teaching skills to

use ICTs for their lifelong teaching activities and teacher student relationships are some

critical issues to be considered for developing curriculum. Internet and computers are not

widely used for teaching except teachers of optional subject (computers). On the other hand,

there is not much opportunity to initiate the trainings based on ICTs at the teacher training

collages, like in developed countries. This is directly related to the hardware supply and the

infrastructure problem. Considering above mentioned situation and current circumstances, it

is appropriate to improve teaching and to initiate ICT education on the basis of subject with

direct involvement from Government Higher Secondary School teachers and collage teachers.

REFRENCES Adams, T., & Clark, N. (2001). The Internet; Effective online communication. U.S.A:

Harcourt College Publishers.

Chapman, L. (2002). Russian roulette or Pandora's Box: use of Internet as a research tool.

Paper presented at VALA 2002. 11th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 Melbourne.

Victoria, Australia.

Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing Web based curricula: issues and challenges.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol.34: Pp; 623–636.

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will newer influence learning. Education technology research and

development, Vol. 42, No. (2), Pp; 21-29

Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta

Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 28-36.

Davies, J.E. (1997). The Internet in Education. Retrieved March 3, 1999 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.ualberta.ca/~jedavies/inteduc.

Ellsworth, J.H. (1994). Education on the Internet. Indianapolis, Ind. Sams.

Emeagwali P (2000). Vaulting Nigeria into the Information Age”. The Guardian on Sunday

September 24, 2000. ESCAP (2000) Are ICT Policies Addressing Gender Equality?

http//www.unescaporg/wid/04/wideresources/11wideactivities/01cctegm/backgoundpaper.Pdf.

Greenfield, (1999a) Psychological characteristics of compulsive Internet use: a preliminary

analysis. Cyber Psychology and behaviour, Vol. 2, No.5, Pp; 403-412.

Greenfield, David N. (1999b). The Nature of Internet Addiction: Psychological Factors in

Compulsive Internet Use. Paper Presentation at 1999 American Psychological Association

Convention.



www.BellPress.org

27

Groves, P., Lee, S,, Stephens, C. (1997). Existing tools & projects for On-line teaching.

Retrieved April 5, 1999 from the World Wide Web:

http://into.,ox.ac.uk/jtap,/reports/teaching/.

Havick, J. (2000). The impacts of internet on a television- based society. Technology in

Society, Vol.22: Pp; 273–287.

Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology integration: different

values, different understanding. CTE Technical Report. Education Development Center, Inc.

Center for Children and Technology. Accessed 10/10/2005 at

http://www.edc.org/CCT/cchome/reports/tr6.html

Johnson, W.L., Blake, T. Shaw, E. (1996). Automated Management and Delivery of Distance

Courseware. Paper presented at Web Net 96 – San Francisco, CA – October 15-19, 1996.

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Education

technology research and development, Vol. 42, No.(2), Pp; 7-19.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Landmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.

(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and

psychological well being? American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. (9), Pp; 1017-1031.

Leiner BM, Cert VG, Clark DD, Kahn RE, Kleinrock L, Lynch DC, Postel J, Roberts LG,

Wolff S (2000). “A brief history of the Internet: available at

http://www.isoc.org/Internet/history/brief.shtml.

Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with

technology. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol .77, Pp; 69-72.

Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, Pp;

400-407.

Misra J & Satyanarayana N R (2001). Users of Internet in a University Library: A case study.

ILA BULL., Vol.37, No. (4), Pp; 132-134.

Nawaz, Muhammad. (2006). Mass Communication: An Introduction to Information

Revolution, Theories, skills and practices. Islamabad: higher education commission.

Newman, D. (1992). Technology as support for school structure and school restructuring. Phi

Delta Kappan, Vol. 74, Pp; 308-315.

Orson, R.D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and

Learning? Educational Researcher, Vol.26, Pp; 27-34.



www.BellPress.org

28

Pettersson, R. (1989). Visuals for information research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Educational Technology Publications, Pp; 1-58.

Plomp, Tjeerd, et al. (1996). “International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology”.

Cambridge University Press in United Kingdom.

Rose, S.A., & Ferlund, P.M. (1997). Using technology for powerful social studies learning.

Social Education, Vol.61, No. (3): Pp; 160-166.

Schneider, G. P., Evans, J., & Pinard, K. T. (2006). The Internet Fourth Edition- Illustrated

Introductory (4th ed.). United States of America: Thomson Course Technology.

Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy.

Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 –27.

Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy.

Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 –27.

Singh AM. (2002). The Internet Strategy for Optimum Utilization in South Africa”. S. Afr. J.

Info. Manage. Vol. 4: Issue/ (March).

Tsai, C.-C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its

applications to internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Education

Development, Vol.21: Pp; 401–415.

Uyanga, S., Chimedlham, Ts., Tsogtbaatar, D., & Choijoovanchig, L. (2004),

Recommendations on the Informatics Curriculum Standards for Primary and Secondary

Schools. Ulaanbaatar.

Van Gorp, M.J., Boysen, P. (1997). Class Net: Managing the Virtual Classroom. International

Journal of Educational Telecommunications. Special Double Issue: The WWW in Use in

Higher Education, Vol.3 No. (2/3), Pp; 279-291.

Wiske, M. S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B.,

Watt, M. & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching. Cambridge, MA:

Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 706).

Yusuf, M.O. (2005). Information and Communication Technologies and Education:

Analyzing the Nigerian National Policy for Information Technology. International Education

Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, Pp. 316 – 321.

Documents

Internet Usage by the Teachers Working In Higher Secondary