Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 124–137
UDC: 
37.022

Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by university students: Evaluating the effectiveness for learning purposes

Vasilieva L. N. 1 (Cheboksary, Russian Federation), Volodina E. V. 1 (Cheboksary, Russian Federation), Ilina I. I. 1 (Cheboksary, Russian Federation), Andreev V. V. 1 (Cheboksary, Russian Federation)
1 Chuvash State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article studies the problem of effective ICT usage for learning purposes by university students. The aim of the research is to assess how effectively university students use ICT for learning purposes.
Materials and Methods. The authors designed a questionnaire containing 11 questions. The sample consisted of 150 undergraduate and postgraduate students. Adopting systemic and synergetic approaches, the authors analyzed and generalized the obtained data.
Results. The authors found that the effectiveness and productivity of ICT usage for learning purposes by university students is low. According to the students, the objectives of ICT usage are the following: to download files in order to transform them into essays or reviews and to find answers to questions during tests and examinations. It was revealed that students do not try to memorize the information because it can be easily found again. The findings did not indicate significant difference in effectiveness of ICT usage between junior and senior students, undergraduates and postgraduates. The authors emphasized the need for preparing university students for effective ICT usage.
Conclusions. The authors conclude that the majority of students had difficulties in the targeted use of modern ICT for learning purposes.

Keywords: 

Higher education transformation; Digital technologies; ICT in higher education; Undergraduate students; Postgraduate students; Technical fields of education and of training; ICT effectiveness for learning purposes.

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 68.890 Learning Management System | Information and Communication Technology | Digital Literacy

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=RSCI&search_mode=G...

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85085874104&origin=...

Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by university students: Evaluating the effectiveness for learning purposes

For citation:
Vasilieva L. N., Volodina E. V., Ilina I. I., Andreev V. V. Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by university students: Evaluating the effectiveness for learning purposes. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 124–137. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2002.08
References: 
  1. Picatoste J., Pérez-Ortiz L., Ruesga-Benito S. M. A new educational pattern in response to new technologies and sustainable development. Enlightening ICT skills for youth employability in the European Union. Telematics and Informatics, 2018, vol. 35 (4), pp. 1031–1038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.014
  2. Bakunovich M. F., Stankevich N. L. Self-control as a core component of professional competence of IT students. Integration of Education, 2018, vol. 22 (4), pp. 681–695. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.093.022.201804.681-695 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36546001
  3. Noskova T. N., Pavlova T. B., Yakovleva O. V. ICT tools of professional teacher activity: A comparative analysis of Russian and European experience. Integration of Education, 2018, vol.  22 (1), pp. 25–45. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.090.022.201801.025-045 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32612728
  4. Elphick M. The impact of embedded iPad use on student perceptions of their digital capabilities. Education Sciences, 2018, vol. 8 (3), pp. 102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030102
  5. Frydenberg M., Andone D. Enhancing and transforming global learning communities with augmented reality. Journal of Information Systems Education, 2018, vol. 29 (1), pp. 37–44. URL: http://jise.org/Volume29/n1/JISEv29n1p37.html
  6. Opriş I., Costinaş S., Ionescu C. S., Gogoaşe Nistoran D. E. Step-by-step augmented reality in power engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2018, vol. 26 (5), pp. 1590–1602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21969
  7. Alfalah S. F. M. Perceptions toward adopting virtual reality as a teaching aid in information technology. Education and Information Technologies, 2018, vol. 23 (6), pp. 2633–2653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9734-2
  8. Abu-Al-Aish A., Love S. Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2013, vol. 14 (5), pp. 82–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1631
  9. Apuke O. D., Iyendo T. O. University students’ usage of the internet resources for research and learning: forms of access and perceptions of utility. Heliyon, 2018, vol. 4 (12), e01052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e01052
  10. Shepherd C. E., Bolliger D. U., Dousay T. A., Persichitte K. Preparing teachers for online instruction with a graduate certificate program. TechTrends, 2016, vol. 60, pp. 41–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0015-2
  11. Nejkovic V., Tosic M. Exploring factors for effective use of online information in SPOC within the engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2018, vol. 26 (5), pp.  1457–1469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21991
  12. Ortega-Sánchez D., Gómez-Trigueros I. M. Massive open online courses in the initial training of social science teachers: Experiences, methodological conceptions, and technological use for sustainable development. Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11 (3), pp. 578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030578
  13. Roumell E. A. L., Bolliger D. U. Experiences of faculty with doctoral student supervision in programs delivered via distance. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 2017, vol. 65 (2), pp. 82–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1320179
  14. McCallin A., Nayar S. Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 2012, vol. 17 (1), pp. 63–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
  15. Gardener S. K. Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 2009, vol. 32 (3), pp. 383–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0075
  16. Andreev V. V., Gibadulin R. Ya., Prodanov G., Zhdanov R. I. Russian institute for advanced study as a new form of training of highly trained teaching staff. Integration of Education, 2017, vol.  21  (4), pp. 623–636. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.089.021.201704.623-636 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30682925
  17. Gorbunov V. I., Evdokimova O. K., Rimondi G., Andreev V. V. Acquiring transdisciplinary knowledge by engineering students of Russian universities. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (1), pp. 172–187. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1901.11 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38165991
  18. Chai C. S., Koh J. H. L. Changing teachers’ TPACK and design beliefs through the Scaffolded TPACK lesson design model (STLDM). Learning: Research and Practice, 2017, vol. 3 (2), pp.  114–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1360506
  19. Willermark S. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2018, vol. 56 (3), pp.  315–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114
  20. Harlen W. Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science Mathematics and ICT Education, 2013, vol. 7 (2), pp. 9–33. URL: http://grissh.gr/article/55213320d36a369b19000022
  21. Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 2003, vol. 27 (3), pp. 425–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  22. Hsu Y.-C. Exploring the learning motivation and effectiveness of applying virtual reality to high school mathematics. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2020, vol. 8 (2), pp. 438–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080214
  23. Cohen A., Soffer T. Academic instruction in a digital world: The virtual TAU case. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 177, pp. 9–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.322
  24. Waghid Z., Waghid F. Examining digital technology for (higher) education through action research and critical discourse analysis. South African Journal of Higher Education, 2016, vol.  30 (1), pp. 265–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20853/30-1-562
  25. Akbar M. Digital technology shaping teaching practices in higher education. Frontiers in ICT, 2016, vol. 3, article 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2016.00001
Date of the publication 30.04.2020