Dissertation
| Paths
|
β |
SE |
t-statistics |
p-values | |
|
f2 | |||||
|
CDT => MoT |
0.359 |
0.187 |
1.920 |
0.055* |
0.096 |
|
DET => MoT |
0.332 |
0.210 |
1.581 |
0.114 |
0.084 |
|
TUDI => MoT |
0.536 |
0.121 |
4.433 |
0.000** |
0.281 |
|
TUIP => MoT |
0.232 |
0.166 |
1.393 |
0.164 |
0.116 |
|
TUSD => MoT |
-0.099 |
0.244 |
0.404 |
0.686 |
0.006 |
|
WET => MoT |
-0.364 |
0.225 |
1.618 |
0.106 |
0.088 |
Note: *p<0.10; **p<0.05; ***p<0.001
Table 4.27 and Figure 4.2 present the effects of the current status of six factors on the mode of teaching (MoT).
Classroom disruptive technologies and the mode of teaching
The findings indicate that classroom disruptive technologies (CDT) have a positive effect on the mode of instruction (MoI), albeit with a marginal significance (β = 0.359; SE = 0.187; t = 1.920; p = 0.055; f2 = 0.010). In the context of mechanical engineering education in Ghanaian technical universities, this suggests that a rise in disruptive classroom technologies may be associated with a shift in the mode of instruction.
These findings are consistent with prior research highlighting the potential for disruptive technologies to transform teaching practices (e.g., (Christensen et al., 2018; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Using the framework of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) (Voogt et al., 2013), we can explain the positive relationship between CDT and MoT. The framework suggests that an in-depth comprehension of the relationships between technology, pedagogy, and content is necessary for the effective integration of technology in the classroom.
Based on these findings, it can be concluded that disruptive classroom technologies have a positive effect on the teaching method. Nonetheless, the marginal significance of this relationship necessitates further study. It is essential to acknowledge the research’s limitations. First, the sample size and scope are restricted to mechanical engineering students at Ghanaian technical institutions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other fields or countries. Second, the study relies on student self-reported data, which may be susceptible to social desirability bias. Future research could include objective measurements of disruptive classroom technologies and teaching methods as a means of mitigating this issue.
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the study offers useful understandings of the connection between disruptive classroom devices and teaching methods in
Ghanaian technical institutes. The findings imply that an increase in the adoption of disruptive technologies may result in a modification of teaching practices, which may improve the quality of engineering education. This information can assist policymakers and educators in bridging the digital skills divide and enhancing engineering education through the use of disruptive technologies. However, additional research is required to investigate the factors that contribute to the marginal significance of the relationship between CDT and MoT and to identify strategies for the more effective integration of disruptive technologies into teaching practices.
Download 2.1 Mb.
Share with your friends:
