Pre-Service Teachers’ Ease of Use and Intention to Use Selected E-learning Technologies in Designing Instruction

Adedoja Gloria¹ and Abimbade Oluwadara^1,

¹Teacher Education Department, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Cite this paper:
Adedoja Gloria and Abimbade Oluwadara. Pre-Service Teachers’ Ease of Use and Intention to Use Selected E-learning Technologies in Designing Instruction. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(10):1320-1323. doi: 10.12691/education-3-10-18

Abstract

The process of teacher preparation and training is core to producing good and quality teachers in the classroom. This process is complex and demanding because teachers are agents of change that help shape the skills of future generation. The world is changing so also is the education system and studies have established the importance of using new and digital technologies in the teacher training process. However, the training of teachers, especially pre-service teachers in Nigeria to utilize these tools remain scarce. This study, therefore, examined the ease of use and intention to use new and digital technologies such as Interactive Whiteboard, Camstasia, Mindmapping tools and Microsoft suites in an Instructional Technology course in the Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. The study adopted an expo facto research design and purposive sampling technique was used to select 273 teacher trainees in five departments (Adult Education, Teacher Education, Guidance and Counseling, Special and Kinetics and Health Education). Three research questions were raised and answered in the study. The findings revealed that ease of use is 83%, which means that the teacher trainees find these technologies easy to use for the teaching and learning process. The result also indicated that the intention to use is 81.7%, which means that the teacher trainees intend to use these technologies in their future classroom. The teacher trainees are motivated to use these technologies, they feel it can enrich their teaching if adequate and proper training is given to them. They find these technologies exciting and flexible to design instructional activities.

Keywords:
e-learning technologies pre-service teachers ease of use intention to use

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Stephens, B.R. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. “Notebooks in Psychology: Conducting Flexible In-class Research and Writing Laboratories”, Vol 101, pp 15-26. 2005.
[2]	Bhatia, R. Features and Effectiveness of E-learning Tools Global Journal of Business Management and Information Technology. 1(1), 1-7. 2011
[3]	Laurillard (2004),
[4]	Trimmel, M. and Bachmann, J. “Cognitive, Social, Motivational and Health Aspects of Students in Notebook Classrooms”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 151-158. 2004.
[5]	Barak, S. and Wolff-Michael R. Curriculum-Based Ecosystems: Supporting Knowing from an Ecological Perspective, Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 3-13. 2006.
[6]	Shadi A., Zahraa M., Ayman N., Faisal A., and Eslam A. “E-Learning tools, and Technologies in education: new trends and challenges”, The Fifth International Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium (LINC), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 2009.
[7]	Parikh, M. & Verma, S. Utilizing Internet Technologies to Support Learning: An Empirical Analysis, International Journal of Information Management, 22, 1, 27-46. 2002.
[8]	Paul L., and Aiden T. Digital Devices in Classroom – Hesitations of Teachers-to-be. Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 10 Issue 4. 2012.
[9]	Demb, A., Erickson, D. and Hawkins-Wilding, S. “The Notebook Alternative: Student’s Reactions and Strategic Implications”, Computers and Education, Vol 43, pp 383-401.2014.
[10]	Tanveer M. Integrating E-learning in Classroom-based Language Teaching: Perceptions, Challenges and Strategies. ICT for Language learning. 4th edition. 2011.
[11]	Lave, J., and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Periperal Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1990
[12]	Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 32-42. 1989.
[13]	Notari M. Scripting Strategies In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments, Mémoire présenté pour l'obtention du DES STAF, TECFA FAPSE, Université de Genève. 2013.
[14]	Herrington, J. and Oliver, R. Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia. in Pearce, J. Ellis A. (ed) ASCILITE95 Conference Proceedings (253-262). Melbourne: University of Melbourne. 1995.
[15]	Barab, S. A., and Duffy, T.. From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2000.
[16]	Galy E., Downey C., and Johnson J. The Effect of Using E-Learning Tools in Online and Campus-based Classrooms on Student Performance. Journal of Information Technology Education Volume 10, 2011.
[17]	Shroff, R. H. and Vogel, D. R. Assessing the factors deemed to support individual student intrinsic moti-vation in technology supported online and face-to-face discussions. Journal of Information Technology Ed-ucation, 8, 59-85. 2009.
[18]	MacPhee, L., Shelley, E., Karcz, G. How can a course management system (CMS) enhance my online (or faceto-face) course? Center for Technology Enhanced Learning. 2003.