Introduction It appears clear that computers or technology have the potential to fundamentally alter the face of teaching and learning in American postsecondary education (Green, 1996; Kozma & Johnston, 1991; Kuh & Vesper, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Upcraft, Terenzini, & Kruger, 1999; West, 1996). The promise is, indeed, great. As suggested by Kuh and Vesper: Used appropriately and in concert with powerful pedagogical approaches, technology is supposed to enhance student learning productivity. It does this by enriching synchronous classroom activities and providing students with engaging self-paced and asynchronous learning opportunities that enable students to learn more than they would otherwise at costs ultimately equal to or below that of traditional classroom based instruction. (1999, p. 1) Based on recent dramatic increases in instructional computer use in American colleges and universities, it would appear that the promise of technology has considerable amount of logical appeal. For example, recent report issued by The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1999) indicated the extent to which computer use in postsecondary instruction has increased in just the last few years. Based on data from the 1998 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education, the Report indicated that in 1994 about 8% of postsecondary classes used e-mail. This increased to 44% by 1998. Similarly, the percentage of classes reporting that they used internet resources increased from 15% in 1996 to 30% in 1998. By 1998 it was estimated that 46% of all institutions had mandatory student technology (computer use) fee. Paralleling documented increases in the classroom use of computers is evidence suggesting substantial increases over time in student familiarity with computers. In analyses of several, large, multi-institutional cohorts of undergraduates, Kuh, Connolly, and Vesper (1998) report that in the mid-1980s about 32% of college seniors reported making substantial progress in becoming familiar with computers during college. By the late 1990s this jumped to nearly 60%. Of course, access to and use of computers and technology is not uniform across institutional types or among different kinds of students. Both access and use appear to be positively linked with wealth and prestige at the institutional level, and with socioeconomic status and with being Caucasian or Asian American at the individual student level (Gladieux & Swail, 1999). Despite institutional or socioeconomic inequities in computer access or use, it is clear that technology is likely to have massive impact on how colleges and universities conduct their future business, both in and outside the classroom. Both Gladieux and Swail (1999) and Green (1997) have argued that high-school graduates bound for postsecondary institutions are increasingly part of an information age in which success in competitive world economy is seen as inextricably dependent on computers and technology. Indeed Green (1997, p. 9), as cited by Gladieux and Swail (1999) has suggested that colleges and universities engage in a kind of educational malpractice if they fail to incorporate technological training in the instructional process. Others, such as Ehrmann (1995), have suggested that college or university can no longer ignore the potential instructional use of technology and still maintain institutional viability. Although there is little doubt that computers and technology are, and will become, increasingly powerful influences on how instruction and teaching are delivered in American colleges and universities, there is still some question as to their unique impact on students' overall cognitive or intellectual growth during college (Ehrmann, 1995; Kuh & Vesper, 1999). As argued by Green, We need to be honest about the gap between aspirations and performance; . …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Jun 15, 2020
Nursel Yilmaz + 1
Open Access