Lecturers’ Reasoning in Using Digital Technology: A Cognitive Approach in Learning Process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58905/athena.v1i2.27Keywords:
Lecturers’ Reasoning, Digital Technology, Lecturers’ Cognitive, Learning ProcessAbstract
This research aims to investigate the reasoning of lecturers in using digital technology and its impact on cognitive approaches. Moreover, we find out the lecturer's use of digital technology in the learning process and determine the reasoning relationship between the use of digital technology and cognition. Problems occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, where many lecturers needed to be stronger in digital mastering technology and low in its use. Some lecturers think that WhatsApp is online learning, where online learning requires interaction and not just sending news or subjects. Furthermore, many students feel pressured to be taught by lecturers like this, so several classes are closed because there are no students. This study used a mixed-method approach with 109 respondents. Data collection uses a questionnaire distributed through Google Forms, and the qualitative data uses interviews with eight respondents. The results show that 50.5% of respondents can use digital technology, and 49.5% must learn, practice, and receive digital technology training. Furthermore, this research implies that lecturers with critical thinking can quickly master digital technology and simultaneously teach fellow lecturers to use digital technology
References
R. Soden and E. Maclellan, “What aspects of reasoning do further education college lecturers use in writing rationales?,” J. Vocat. Educ. Train., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 97–116, 2004, doi: 10.1080/13636820400200248.
M. A. Makumane and S. B. Khoza, “Educators’ reasoning(s) and their effects on successful attainment of curriculum goals,” South African J. High. Educ., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 95–111, 2020, doi: 10.20853/34-2-3428.
C. C. Williams, M. Kappen, C. D. Hassall, B. Wright, and O. E. Krigolson, “Thinking theta and alpha: Mechanisms of intuitive and analytical reasoning,” Neuroimage, vol. 189, no. January, pp. 574–580, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.048.
Schulman, “Knowledge_and_teaching_Foundations_of_th,” 1987.
S. Pella, “Pedagogical Reasoning and Action: Affordances of Practice-Based Teacher Professional Development,” Teach. Educ. Q., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 81–101, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/teaceducquar.42.3.81%0A
P. Dillenbourg, “The Evolution of Research on Digital Education,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 544–560, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s40593-016-0106-z.
Soegiono, A. N, “Nadiem: Driving education reform through technology,” Jakarta Post, Surabaya, Oct. 28, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2019/10/28/nadiem-driving-education-reform-through-technology.html
H. Mardiana, Lecturers’ Adaptability To Technological Change And Its Impact On The Teaching Process, vol. 9, no. 2. 2020. doi: 10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v9i2.24595.
KEMENDIKBUD, “Pembelajaran secara Daring dan Bekerja dari Rumah untuk Mencegah Penyebaran Covid-1,” Jakarta, 2020. [Online]. Available: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Biro Komunikasi dan Layanan Masyarakat.
Candraningrum, “Selamat Datang di Dunia Profesional untuk Generasi Z Artikel ini telah tayang di Kompas.com dengan judul ‘Selamat Datang di Dunia Profesional untuk Generasi Z.,’” Kompas.com, Jakarta, Indonesia, Dec. 14, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://lifestyle.kompas.com/read/2020/12/14/163342620/selamat-datang-di-dunia-profesional-untuk-generasi-z?page=all
Iswara, “Discourse: Indonesia must go back to basics for COVID-19 recovery: UN official,” The Jakarta Post, Jakarta, Indonesia, Aug. 07, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/08/07/discourse-indonesia-must-go-back-to-basics-for-covid-19-recovery-un-official.html
M. Prensky and B. D. Berry, “Prensky - 2001 - Immigrants Part 2 Do They Really Think Differently,” 2001.
M. Schneider and E. Stern, “Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2010). The cognitive perspective on learning: Ten cornerstone findings. In Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (Ed.),” Development, 2010.
K. Gökçearslan, S., Solmaz, E., Coşkun., B., “Critical Thinking and Digital Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications,” in Handbook of Research on Individualism and Identity in the Globalized Digital Age, Hershey PA, USA 17033: IGI Global Information Science Reference, 2017, pp. 141–167. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330748532_Critical_Thinking_and_Digital_Technologies_Concepts_Methodologies_Tools_and_Applications
W. Gibson, I., “At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: Considering styles of learning and teaching,” Technol. Pedagog. Educ., vol. 10, no. 1–2, pp. 37–61, 2001, doi: 10.1080/14759390100200102.
S. Sumin, K. M. Salleh, and N. Nurdin, “The effect of external factors moderated by digital literacy on the actual use of e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic in Islamic universities in Indonesia,” Res. Eval. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 132–144, 2021, doi: 10.21831/reid.v7i2.44794.
J. G. Klahr, D. & Wallace, Cognitive Development, 1st ed. London, UK: Routledge, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003201403/cognitive-development-david-klahr-wallace
R. Scherer, S. K. Howard, J. Tondeur, and F. Siddiq, “Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready?,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 118, no. October 2020, p. 106675, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675.
Y. Li, E. H. R. Rho, and A. Kobsa, “Cultural differences in the effects of contextual factors and privacy concerns on users’ privacy decision on social networking sites,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 655–677, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1831608.
F. Ceresia, “Interactive Learning Environments (ILEs) as Effective Tools for Teaching Social Sciences,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 217, pp. 512–521, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.031.
A. D. Olofsson, G. Fransson, and J. O. Lindberg, “A study of the use of digital technology and its conditions with a view to understanding what ‘adequate digital competence’ may mean in a national policy initiative,” Educ. Stud., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 727–743, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03055698.2019.1651694.
S. Jamshed, “Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation,” J. Basic Clin. Pharm., vol. 5, no. 4, p. 87, 2014, doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.141942.
J. Fleming and K. E. Zegwaard, “Methodologies, methods and ethical considerations for conducting research in work-integrated learning,” Int. J. Work. Learn., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 205–213, 2018.
M. J. Drolet, E. Rose-Derouin, J. C. Leblanc, M. Ruest, and B. Williams-Jones, “Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts,” J. Acad. Ethics, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3.
WEF, “The Global Risks Report 2016,” Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR/WEF_GRR16.pdf
A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, and M. Thomas, “Teaching with digital technology,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1223–1242, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01196-0.
US Dept. Edu, “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update,” Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://tech.ed.gov
J. P. Kassirer, “Teaching clinical reasoning: Case-based and coached,” Acad. Med., vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 1118–1124, 2010, doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d5dd0d.
O. Avidov-Ungar and N. Magen-Nagar, “Teachers in a changing world: attitudes toward organizational change,” J. Comput. Educ., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 227–249, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s40692-014-0014-x.
P. et al Peterson, International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier Ltd., 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/international-encyclopedia-of-education
U. Panisoara, Lazar, Panisoara, Chirca, “Motivation and Continuance Intention towards Online Instruction among Teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Effect of Burnout and Technostress,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 8002, pp. 1–28, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218002.
N. Bergdahl, J. Nouri, and U. Fors, “Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 957–983, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-09998-w.
B. Wong and Y. L. T. Chiu, “Let me entertain you: the ambivalent role of university lecturers as educators and performers,” Educ. Rev., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 218–233, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1363718.
Mardiana, “Lecturers’ Attitudes towards Online Teaching in the Learning Process,” Regist. J., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 77–98, 2020, doi: 10.18326/rgt.v13i1.77-98.
G. Falloon, “From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 68, pp. 2449–2472, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4.
N. Frederiksen, “Implications of Cognitive Theory for Instruction in Problem Solving,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 363–407, 1984, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1170453.
R. Z. Zheng, “Personalization With Digital Technology: A Deep Cognitive Processing Perspective,” in Digital Technologies and Instructional Design for Personalized Learning, Salt Lake City, 2018, pp. 1–27. doi: DOI10.4018/978-1-5225-3940-7.ch001.
R. Hammer, E. Peer, and E. Babad, “Faculty attitudes about student evaluations and their relations to self-image as teacher,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 517–537, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11218-018-9426-1.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Harisa Mardiana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
