Technology-Supported Teaching: Technological Progress or a Sham?

Abstract

This study examined the extent of faculty’s use of various technology-supported features in their teaching practice, involving syllabi, exercises, presentations, required reading materials, supplementary reading materials, examples of exams from previous years, electronic notice board, links to film clips, and other tools that enhance the convenience of technology-supported teaching.  The findings of this study indicate that faculty make limited use of technological tools. Differences in use were found by age, tenure, gender, and faculty: Age of faculty has a positive effect on the use of the digital system for required reading and video-taped lessons, while faculty tenure has a negative effect on the use of the digital system for required reading materials. Male faculty use the video-taped lesson system more frequently than their female counterparts. Female faculty use the system more frequently than male faculty for required reading and elective reading materials. Faculty in the Humanities use the system to upload required reading more frequently than faculty in the other two faculties, while lecturers in the Faculty of Engineering use to system to upload examples of exams more frequently than their counterparts in the other two faculties. Faculty noted that they found no technological tool that reflects pedagogical thinking that benefits the students. Faculty use these digital tools as technical rather than pedagogical aids. Based on the recognition that these new technological tools will create a paradigmatic change in teaching, efforts should be invested to developed, disseminate, and assimilate new pedagogies that are compatible with these new educational technologies.

Keywords

• Teaching-supported teaching,teaching,technology

References

1. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
2. Coben, S. (1986). La Monarchie nucléaire [The nuclear monarchy]. Paris, France: Hachette.
3. Davidovitch, N. (2014). Learning-focused teaching and backward course design - from transferring knowledge to imparting skills. In N. Notzer (Ed.), To excel in academic teaching: Lecturer Handbook of updated strategies and competencies (pp. 63–74). The College For Academic Studies, Or Yehuda. Israel. ISBN: 978-965-916628-2-0
4. Davidovitch, N., & Eckhaus, E. (2018a). Effect of faculty on research cooperation and publication: Employing natural language processing. Economics and Sociology, 11(4), 173-180. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-4/11
5. Davidovitch, N., & Eckhaus, E. (2018b). The influence of birth country on selection of conference destination-employing natural language processing. Higher Education Studies, 8(2), 92-96.
6. Eckhaus, E. (2011). Barter trade exchange to the rescue of the tourism and travel industry. Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, 1(2), 133-140.
7. Eckhaus, E. (2017). Towards tourism business change. Review of International Comparative Management, 18(3), 274-286.
8. Eckhaus, E., Klein, G., & Kantor, J. (2017). Experiential learning in management education. Business, Management and Education, 15(1), 42-56. doi:10.3846/bme.2017.345

9. Eckhaus, E., Kogan, K., & Pearlman, Y. (2013). Enhancing strategic supply decisions by estimating suppliers’ marginal costs. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(4), 96-107
10. Eckhaus, E., & Sheaffer, Z. (2018a). Factors affecting willingness to contribute goods and services on social media. The Social Science Journal. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2018.08.001
11. Eckhaus, E., & Sheaffer, Z. (2018b). Happiness enrichment and sustainable happiness. Applied Research in Quality of Life. doi:10.1007/s11482-018-9641-0
12. Eckhaus, E., & Sheaffer, Z. (2018c). Managerial hubris detection: the case of Enron. Risk Management, 20(4), 304-325. doi:10.1057/s41283-018-0037-0
13. Eckhaus, E., Taussig, R., & Ben-Hador, B. (2018). The effect of top management team's tacit persuasion on the stock market. e - Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 9(2), 9-22.
14. Hazan, H. (2008). Epistemological perceptions of boys and girls concerning computer use and the internet as a learning environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
15. Hinz, A., Sander, C., Glaesmer, H., Brähler, E., Zenger, M., Hilbert, A., & Kocalevent, R.-D. (2017). Optimism and pessimism in the general population: Psychometric properties of the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 17(2), 161-170. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.003
16. Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
17. Klein, G., & Eckhaus, E. (2017). Sensemaking and sensegiving as predicting organizational crisis. Risk Management, 19(3), 225-244. doi:10.1057/s41283-017-0019-7
18. Nachmias, R., Mioduster, D., & Shemla, A. (2000). Internet usage by students in an Israeli high school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 55-73.
19. Tzuman., O. (2009, June 3). Technology-supported teaching: Technological progress or a sham? Retrieved from http://www.ofirtzuman.com/page.asp?id=48