You are here

Home » Content

TECHNOLOGICAL OR TRADITIONAL TOOLS FOR DOCUMENTS' CORRECTION? A CASE STUDY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Journal Name:

  • Journal of Technology and Science Education

Publication Year:

  • 2012
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.48

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Information and Communication Technology is playing an important role in assisting teachers in their activities. They became a) more efficient, b) more precise and c) more comprehensive. The “Audio” ad is a clear illustration for this trend. Students’ acceptance of the “Audio” tool has been analysed and compared with the “traditional” correction and the “track change”. 57 students have answered a structured questionnaire using a web 2.0 application for creating an online form. Results show a high relative importance for the “Audio” correction (42.02% of), followed by the “track change” and the “traditional printed document” with 33.02% and 24.95% respectively.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-technological-or-traditional-tools-documents-correction-case-study-higher-education.pdf
  • 2
86-93
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Atkins, D. (2005). University futures and new technologies possibilities and issues. Discussion Paper, OECD/CERI
Experts Meetings on University futures and new technologies.
Bonk, Curtis. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bat, San
Francisco.
Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00865.x
Den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., & Lloyd, D. (2012). Using web 2.0 technologies for collaborative learning in
distance education—Case studies from an Australian university. Future Internet 2012, 4(1), 216-237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi4010216
Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(1), 478–482.
Hosmer, D., & Lemershow, S. (1992). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley.
Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2009). Teaching and learning with technology. Lavoisier.
Mercer, N., Littleton, K. & Wegerif, R. (2009). Methods for studying the processes of interaction and
collaborative activity in computer-based educational activities. In: Kumpulainen, K., Hmelo-Silver, C.E. & César,
M. (Eds.). Investigating Classroom Interaction: Methodologies in Action. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 27–42.Moller, L., & Huett, J. (2012). The Next Generation of distance education. USA: Walden University.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9
Raschke, C. (2003). The digital revolution and the coming of the postmodern university. London, New York:
RoutledgeFalmer. x, 129.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Spector, M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational
Media, 3, 27-37.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com