The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between computer technology's role and students' perceptions about course effectiveness. Students from two universities (one Canadian, n = 1465; one American, n = 831) completed a 71–item questionnaire addressing different aspects of their learning experience in a given course. Factor analysis revealed a 3–factor solution: “course-structure,” “active-learning and time-on-task,” and “computer-use.” Regression analysis indicated that the 3 variables are predictive of perceived course effectiveness at both sites, with the presence of an interaction between location and “computer-use” and “course-structure” on students' perceptions about course effectiveness. Findings reveal that student perceptions directly reflect the 14 APA learner-centered principles on which the instrument was based.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association [APA]. (1997). Learner-centered psychology principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Retrieved 25 March, 2005, from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html
2.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.
3.
ClarkR. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis evidence.Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers Inc.
4.
CohenP. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281–309.
5.
CubanL. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
DeBellM., & ChapmanC. (2006). Computer and internet use by students in 2003.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
GrabeM., & SiglerE. (2002). Studying online: Evaluation of an online study environment. Computers and Education, 38, 375–383.
9.
HillJ. R., & HannafinM. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.
JacobsonM. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Retrieved 15 March 2005, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/∼dmjacobs/phd/phd-results.html
12.
JonassenD.CampbellJ., & DavidsonM. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
13.
JonassenD., & ReevesT. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology: New York: Macmillan.
KirschnerP. A., & ErkensG. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research35(2), 199–209.
16.
KulikJ. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In BakerE. L. & O'NeilH. F.Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
LambertN. M., & McCombsB. L. (Eds.). (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered instruction.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
LaurillardD. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
19.
LeeC. (2000). A paradigm shift in the technology era in higher education. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Chesapeake, VA.
20.
LowerisonG., & SchmidR. F. (2008, March). Computer technology and pedagogical support in the learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
21.
LowerisonG.SclaterJ.SchmidR. F., & AbramiP. C. (2005). Are we using technology for learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(4), 401–425.
McCombsB. L., & VakiliD. (2005). A learner-centered framework for E-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600.
24.
PisapiaJ. R.KnutsonK., & CoukosE. D. (1999). The impact of computers on student performance and teacher behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Florida Educational Research Association, Deerfield Beach, Florida.
25.
RingstaffC., & KellyL. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research.: WestEd Regional Technology in Education Consortium in the Southwest.
26.
SheerV. C., & FungT. K. (2007). Can email communication enhance professor-student relationship and student evaluation of professors? Some empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 289–306.
27.
ShuellT. J., & FarberS. L. (2001). Student perceptions of technology use in college courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 119–138.
28.
SwanK.Van't HooftM.KaratcoskiA., & SchenkerJ. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations, and uses of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481–515.
29.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
30.
TimmermanC. E., & KruepkeK. A. (2006). Computer-assisted instruction, media richness, and college student performance. Communication Education, 55(1), 73–104.
31.
Van DusenG. C. (1998). Technology: Higher education's magic bullet. Thought and Action, 14, 59–67.
32.
WinnW. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.
