Internet Usage by The Teachers Working in Higher Secondary

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.4, 2008 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.
org
Internet Usage by the Teachers Working In Higher Secondary Schools and In Colleges
Syed Noor-Ul-Amin Ph.D Research Scholor
Dr Mohammad Iqbal mattoo Associate professor Department Of Education, University Of Kashmir
ICT is changing processes of teaching and learning by adding elements of vitality to learning environments including virtual environments for the purpose. ICT is that of providing a new framework that can foster a revision and an improvement of teaching and learning practices. Internet is a multi-dimensional medium, which facilitate its users for different purposes. The basic objective of this research article is to find out the major uses of internet, by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages. The major objectives were to identify to find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular class lectures and for 4.chatting and other recreational purposes by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages and. To find out the differences of any, among these teachers on the usage of internet. As there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a structured tool namely Internet usage scale which was distributed among the teachers of the different schools and colleges of district Srinagar of Kashmir Valley. Data were collected from 200 teachers consisting of 50 Government Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher secondary school teachers, 50 Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic college teachers. The paper verified that the Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not found any difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. This study also reveals there is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, for chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is also no significant difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree collage teachers on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. Private Higher
European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.4, 2008 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.org
Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers do not differ significantly on the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet for e-mail, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation.
Key Words: Internet Usage, Higher Secondary schools, Collage, Working. INTRODUCTION The role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in human development has received growing attention among development practitioners, policy makers, government and civil society in recent years due to the growing proliferation of the Internet, convergence in IT and telecommunications technologies and increasing globalisation. The field of education has been affected by ICTs, which have undoubtedly affected teaching, learning, and research (Yusuf, 2005). When looking at the current widespread diffusion and use of ICT in modern societies, especially by the young the so-called digital generation then it should be clear that ICT will affect the complete learning process today and in the future. While the ICTs in general and the Internet and the World Wide Web in particular have made life easier by facilitating easy communication and easy access to information located anywhere in the world. In todays world technology has been prevalently used in almost all spheres of life and as a consequence the personal ownership ratio of computer and internet is rapidly increasing each year. The Internet has brought tremendous changes to the society and the world at large. The information retrieval in the Internet is relatively fast and accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a weeks. The global system, which can be accessed and used at an extremely personal level, provides us with a unique platform for interaction- a platform that is altering how we communicate. If it started out as a network of networks, the Internet has become the medium of media, or Meta medium. It is a communication system that serves as a platform for older media, including telephony, print and broadcasting. But more than that, it now enables us to operate on both ends of traditional mass media. We can now both send and receive live audio or video feeds, enabling us to both have a television or radio set and a television or radio station on our desktop. Once you have the requisite software components installed, you can quickly and easily switch between sending email, listening to streaming audio, and broadcasting a video feed-all without moving from your computer (Adams & Clark, 2001). Internet has become a global source of information resources accessible at anytime by anyone from anywhere in the world. It has converted the whole world into a global information society. It has tremendously improved communication and interaction among scientific research community and enabled them to access a vast range of latest information. It acts as a powerful supplement to the traditional way of information access. It facilitates electronic and exchange of ideas and collaboration among the scholars all over the world. The Internet is a massive, computer-linked network system used globally to access and convey information, either by personal or business computer users; it is also used for communication, research, entertainment, education and business transactions (Kraut, et al.,
1998; Schneider, et al., 2006). Today, the Internet can link all online computers so that people can use it to communicate throughout the world (Schneider, et al., 2006). The word Internet emanates from the words Internet Connection Network (Greenfield, 1999), connecting computers around the world by the use of a standard protocol. It is believed that the distinctive features of the Internet, such as speed, accessibility, intensity and stimulation of its content, contribute to Internet addiction (Greenfield, 1999). In addition, (Chou, 2001) indicated that the most appreciated Internet features included interactivity, simplicity, availability, and abundant and updated information. In fact, the Internets attractiveness has increased as a result of its availability, accessibility, and affordability. The development of friendlier interfaces provides users with easier and more comfortable access. The internet is one of the greatest recent advancement in the world of information technology and has become a useful instrument that has fostered the process of making the world a global village. Internet use has become very popular in many areas as well as in education in recent years. This is a universal fact that the use of internet has a great impact on the education. The Internet is a relatively new channel for scholarly resources, and contains vast quantities of information that vary a great deal regarding its contents, aim, target group, reliability etc. Hence, it is important that the end-user is aware of the diverse information available on the Internet, and educated in the criteria by which the information content should be assessed (Chapman, 2002). The fabulous growth in telecommunication has brought online services, specialized electronic networks, WebPages, E-mail, software and global information resources to our homes as well as to education. The Internet provides an environment in which millions of people participate and engage in the creation and exchange of information (Rose & Fernlund, 1997). Many educators and policy makers believe that technology can be a catalyst for educational reform (Collins, 1991; Means, Olson, & Singh, 1995; Mehlinger, 1996; Newman, 1992; Sheingold, 1991). They suggest that the use of technology in classrooms will shift the roles of teachers and students. Teachers will act more as facilitators by helping students access information, process it, and communicate their understanding. However, not all teachers who use technology in their classrooms employ it as a tool. The problem of pedagogical efficiency in the use of new information technologies (including the Internet) in education is widely discussed in the research literature. Unlike the obvious and quantitatively valuable achievements in enhancing of the availability of education, the specific positive effect of the environment-intermediary on the quality of teaching is not so evident. Moreover, according to some researchers, for example (Kozma, 1994), the last 50 years of studies of unconventional media used in education (from radio and TV broadcasting to WWW) have not revealed, however, any considerable specific effect on the process of teaching for the given type of environment. This idea is shared by (Clark, 1994) considering that the new methods of designing for teaching by means of new information technologies may stimulate improvement of the education quality, but not their use as the means of delivery for the teaching material. . The Internet provides several opportunities for the academia. It is a mechanism for information dissemination and a medium for collaborative interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic limitation of space (Leiner et al., 2000; Singh, 2002). The use of Information Technology helps increase the research productivity of scholars. (Misra and Satyanarayan, 2001). Everybody wants to explore itself with this information technology and happenings taking place of Internet for the purpose of education, awareness, entertainment and especially interaction with strangers. Nowhere, except in dreams have reality and fantasy contented for our attention more than on the net. (Nawaz, 2006).The Internet can be used for other things besides email. One can listen to international
radio station on research and educations on the Internet, read national dailies of other countries, and speak to friends around the global, read books and other materials on the Internet. The list of things that can be done on the Internet is a very long one. The Internet contains more information than the worlds largest libraries (Emeagwali, 2000). Internet applications provide to apply and experience the facilities of constructivist view (Plomp, et al., 1996). (Pettersson, 1989) points out that the technology should serve the contents and methods of teaching. At the same time, the same technology can be used for different types of educational activity. E-mail communication is characterized by low consumption of resources, including low costs of teaching, required equipment and data channel. (Van Gorp & Boysen, 1997) and (Johnson, Blake, Shaw 1996), e-mail is widely applied in the educational process (especially in case of the territorially distributed teaching staff). Many researchers stress that apart from the immediate teaching goals, the use of e-mail plays an important role as a medium which regenerates the epistolary culture, thus contributing to the development of communication and writing skills (Davies, 1997).(Ellsworth, 1994) thereby writes: learners begin to work on their language and grammar, as never before. When children know they will receive a response from Stockholm, they begin to realize the difference between slang and literary language. (Groves, Lee, Stephens), e-mail makes it possible for students to stay in touch with their peers and with the teaching staff where a loaded schedule may make this otherwise difficult. The figure of the lonely scholar, who can become isolated through increasing specialization, or for more prosaic reasons of inadequate social or language skills, is one to whom e-mail presents some interesting possibilities Web applications enable teachers to conduct teaching in such a manner and with such technologies, which for the contemporary generation of students present an integral part of their life style (Owston, 1997).. The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways teachers employ technology in instruction (Becker, 1994; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Moeller, & Honey (1990); Means & Olson, 1995; Wiske et al., 1988). Internet, have made considerable and dramatic impact on contemporary educational practice (Chou, C., et al.2002; Havick, J. 2000; Tsai, C.2001). Therefore, one of the major purposes of the present study is to make investigation on the internet usage for the Seminar presentation, E-mail, Preparing regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers. So the
investigator has, therefore, formulated a research problem for investigation which reads as: Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. To find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages. 2. To find out the differences of any, among the government Higher secondary school teachers, private higher secondary teacher, government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the usage of internet. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY 3. Government Higher secondary school-teachers private higher secondary school teachers, Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers have very high usage of internet for 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes.
10
4. There is a significant difference between the following teachers on the internet usage for 1. Seminar presentation 2.for E-mail 3.for Preparing regular class lectures and 4. For chatting and other re-creational purposes. 5. Government higher secondary school teacher and private higher secondary school teachers. 6. Government higher secondary school teacher and government degree college teachers. 7. Government Higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers. 8. Private higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers. 9. Private higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers. 10. Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE SAMPLE The present study was conducted on a 200 teachers consisting of 50 Government Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher secondary school teachers, 50 Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic college teachers. TOOLS USED As there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a tool namely Internet usage scale to study the usage of Internet by the teachers working in Higher secondary schools and by collage teachers in various uses and all the uses work categorized under four headings internet as:For seminar presentation For e-mail For preparing regular classes lectures and For chatting and other recreational purposes. The final tool was prepared by getting opinions from experts and it comprises various aspects of using internet and thus it has content validate. The tool used for the final study includes 30 statements. Based on the analysis, 30 statements were selected for the final study. The toll for the final study consist of general data sheet or personal dates sheet and 30 statements to measure the internet usage teachers working in Higher secondary schools and in colleges. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS a. b. c. d. The following statistical techniques were used in the present study for the analysis of data. Table 1: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for seminar presentation S. No. Sub- variables N Mean Standard deviation
11
1 2 3 4
Government Higher secondary school teachers Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree collage teachers Polytechnic collage teachers
50 50 50 50
13.82 15.80 17.4 22.1
8.72 8.25 8.98 10.06
Table 2: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for E-mail S. No. 1 2 3 4 Sub- variables N Mean Standard deviation 7.22 7.81 7.75 7.81
Government Higher secondary school Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree collage teachers Polytechnic collage teachers
50 50 50 50
16.32 15.06 13.38 14.08
Table 3: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for preparing regular class lectures S. No. 1 2 3 4 Sub- variables Government Higher secondary school Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree collage teachers Polytechnic collage teachers N 50 50 50 50 Mean 13.1 16.04 16.74 17.44 Standard deviation 7.44 6.72 7.23 6.54
Table 4: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for charting and other re-creational purposes S. No. 1 2 3 Sub- variables Government Higher secondary school Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree collage teachers N 50 50 50 Mean 14.92 13.1 14.5 Standard deviation 6.13 7.44 7.31
12
Polytechnic collage teachers
50
16.04
7.57
Table 5: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and private higher secondary school teachers on Seminar presentation S. No. 1 Sub - Variable N Mean Standard "t" level of Deviation Value Significance 8.72 1.16 50 15.80 8.25 0.05
Government Higher Secondary School Teachers Private Higher Secondary School Teachers
50
13.82
Table 6: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation S. No. 1 Government Higher Secondary School Teachers Government Degree College Teachers 50 13.82 Sub - Variable N Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value 8.72 2.59 50 17.4 8.98 0.05 level of Significance
. Table 7: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary School Teachers and Polytechnic College Teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation S. No. 1 Sub - Variable N Mean Standard t level of Deviation Value Significance
Government Higher Secondary School Teachers
50
13.82
8.72
4.40
0.05
13
Polytechnic College Teachers
50
22.01
10.06
Table 8: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School Teachers and Government Degree College teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation S. No. 1 Private Higher Secondary School 50 Teachers Government Degree college teachers 50 15.80 Sub - Variable N Mean Standard Deviation 8.25 0.93 17.4 8.98 0.05 t Value level of Significance
Table 9: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School Teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation S. No. 1 2 Private Higher Secondary School Teachers Polytechnic college teachers 50 50 Sub-Variable N Mean Standard Deviation t Value Level of Significance
15.80 22.1
8.25 3.43 10.06 0.05
Table 10: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree College teachers Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation S. No. 1 Government Degree college teachers 50 Sub - Variable N Mean Standard t Level of Deviation Value Significance 17.4 8.98 2.46 0.05
14
Polytechnic college teachers
50
22.1
10.06
Table 11: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary

school teachers and Private Higher secondary School teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean
Standard "t" level of Deviation Value Significance
Government Higher Secondary school teachers Private Higher secondary School teachers
50
16.32
7.22 0.84 0.05
50
15.06
7.81
Table 12: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard Deviation "t" Value level of Significance
Government Higher secondary school teachers
50
16.32
7.22 1.96 0.05
15
Government Degree college teachers
50
13.38
7.75
Table 13: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value level of Significance
1 2
Government Higher secondary school teachers Polytechnic college teachers
50 50
16.32 14.08
7.22 1.49 7.81 0.05
Table 14: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean
Standard "t" Deviation Value
level of Significance
1 2
Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college teachers
50 50
15.06 13.38
7.81 7.75
1.08
0.05
Table 15: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value level of Significance
Private secondary school teachers
50
15.06
7.81 0.63 0.05
50
14.08
7.81
Table 16: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
16
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value
1 Government Degree
college teachers
50 50
13.38 14.08
7.75 0.45 7.81 0.05
Table 17: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and Private Higher secondary school teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures S. No Sub - Variable N Mean Standard Deviation "t" Value level of Significance
Government Higher secondary school teachers Private Higher secondary school teachers
50
13.01
7.44 2.07 0.05
50
16.04
6.72
Table 18: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school Teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value level of Significance
Government Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college Teachers
50
13.01
7.44 2.48 0.05
50
16.74
7.23
Table 19: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures
17
S. No. S. No.
Sub - Variable Sub - Variable
Government Higher secondary school teachers 1 Private Higher secondary school teachers 2 Polytechnic college teachers
50
Mean Standard t level of Deviation values Significance N Mean Standard t level of Deviation Significance Value
13.1
7.44
50 50 50
16.04 17.44 17.44
6.72 6.54 6.54
3.1 1.06
0.05 0.05
2
Table 20: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard Deviation "t" Value level of Significance
Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college teachers
50
16.04
6.72 0.50 0.05
50
16.74
7.23
teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures
Table 21: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures
Table 22: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Value
18
Government Degree college teachers Sub - Variable Polytechnic college teachers Government Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college teachers
50
16.74
7.23 0.51 0.05
S.
50
17.44
Mean
6.54
No.
Standard Deviation
"t" level of Value Significance
50
14.92
6.13 0.31 0.05
50
14.5
7.31
Table 23: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
"t" level of Value Significance
Government Higher secondary school teachers Private Higher Secondary School teachers
50
14.92
6.13 1.34 0.05
50
13.1
7.44
Table 24: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes
Table 25: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic College teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard Deviation "t" Value level of Significance
Government Higher secondary school teachers
50
14.92
6.13 0.81 0.05
19
2
S. No.
Polytechnic college teachers Sub - Variable Private Higher secondary school Sub - Variable teachers N
50
16.04
7.57
Mean
Standard Deviation
"t" Value t
level of Significance level of 0.05 Significance
1
S. No.
50
N
13.1
Mean
7.44
Standard Deviation
1.96
Polytechnic college teachers 2 1 Private Higher secondary school teachers
50
16.54 50 13.1 50 14.5
7.57 7.44 7.31
Value
0.64
0.05
Government Degree college teachers
Table 26: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes
Table 27: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes
S. No.
Sub - Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
"t" Value
Government Arts Degree college teachers
50
14.50
7.3 1.03 0.05
20
50
16.04
7.57
Table 28: Significance of mean difference between Government Arts Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and Recreational purposes
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table-1, 2, 3 and 4 reveals distribution of sample on the basis of teachers working in Government Higher secondary school, Private Higher secondary school, Government
Degree collage, Polytechnic collage. Table-1 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for seminar presentation.Table-2 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for email.Table-3 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for preparing regular class lectures.Table-4 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for preparing regular class lectures. The data in Table- 5 reveals that the "t' value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of Government Higher secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary school teachers is 1.16 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table-6 shows that thet value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers. Since the calculatedt value is 2.59 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at the 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table-7 shows that thet value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers. Since, the calculatedt value is 4.40 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table- 8 reveals that thet variable calculated for internet utilization on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers is 0.93 which is less than the table value is 1.98 at 0.05 level of significant. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Private Higher Secondary School teachers and
21
Government Degree college teachers don not differ significantly in respect of their utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table- 9 reveals that thet value calculated for internet utilization on the basis of Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teacher is 3.43 which is greater than thet value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference between private higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers in respect of their utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table-10 shows that thet value calculated for seminar utilization on the basis of Government degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. The calculatedt value is 2.46 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. Table- 11 shows that thet value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School teachers. The calculatedt value is 0.84 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Government Higher secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their utilization of internet for e-mail. Table-12 shows that the 't' value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Arts-college teachers. Since, the calculatedt value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that there is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail. Table-13 shows that thet value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.49 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at the level of significance 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail Table-14 shows that the t value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government degree college teachers. Since, the calculated t value is 1.08 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree collage teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail. Table-15 shows that the t value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated
22
'f value is 0.63 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail. Table-16 shows that thet value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated T value is 0.45 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and is found that "There is no significant difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail. Table-17 shows that the t value calculated for regular class syllabus on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School teachers. Since, the calculated t value is 2.07 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table-18 shows that thetz value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers. Since, the calculatedt value is 2.48 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table-19 shows that the 'f value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculatedt value is 3.1 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table- 20 shows that the t value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers. Since, the calculated t value is 0.50 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table- 21 shows that the t value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on the basis of private Higher Secondary School teachers and polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated t value is 1.06 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that there is no
23
significant difference between private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table- 22 shows that the 'f value calculated for preparing regular class lectures by Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated t value is 0.51 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures. Table- 23 shows that the t value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.34 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes. Table- 24 shows that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.31 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes. Table- 25 shows that thet value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.81 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes. Table-26 shows that thet value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers. Since, the calculated 'f value is 0.64 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Arts college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes. Table-27 shows that thet value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teaches and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.
24
Table- 28 shows" that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes on the basis of Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.03 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Degree College teaches and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research is to provide information about the usage of internet by higher secondary school teachers and collage teachers for utilization of Seminar presentation, for Email, for preparing regular class lectures and for, chatting and other re-creational purposes. The result of this study shows that the Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not found any difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. This study also reveals there is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, for chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is also no significant difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree collage teachers on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers do not differ significantly on the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet for e-mail, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. This paper looks at levels use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) among teachers in selected higher secondary schools and colleges. For the past few years, an assortment of ICTs such as computers, lap tops, projectors, printers, e-blackboards and mobile phones have been available to teachers for use in integration of teaching and learning in schools and colleges. The paper attempts to establish how teachers have utilize internet, their ICT literacy skills level and the level of ICT integration for seminars, for e.mail, preparing regular class lectures and for other recreational activities. The findings show that the use of ICT and its integration in the teaching and learning in secondary and in collages is getting more widespread; and increasingly used among teachers as a means of communication and for information searching. Utilization ratios for teachers have been observed to be having made effective ICT investments in education, translating into better utilization of ICT related technologies
25
Recently great emphasis was given for setting up ICT infrastructure and providing computer literacy. At present, specially designated policy is needed to support effective use of ICT in education and to incorporate it into the policy on educational innovations and activities like teaching and learning. It is crucial to integrate ICTs with the curriculum of each subject so this could replace traditional teaching methods by new teaching tools and technology (Uyanga et al., 2004). Impact of ICTs on teachers behavior, development of teaching skills to use ICTs for their lifelong teaching activities and teacher student relationships are some critical issues to be considered for developing curriculum. Internet and computers are not widely used for teaching except teachers of optional subject (computers). On the other hand, there is not much opportunity to initiate the trainings based on ICTs at the teacher training collages, like in developed countries. This is directly related to the hardware supply and the infrastructure problem. Considering above mentioned situation and current circumstances, it is appropriate to improve teaching and to initiate ICT education on the basis of subject with direct involvement from Government Higher Secondary School teachers and collage teachers.
REFRENCES
Adams, T., & Clark, N. (2001). The Internet; Effective online communication. U.S.A: Harcourt College Publishers. Chapman, L. (2002). Russian roulette or Pandora's Box: use of Internet as a research tool. Paper presented at VALA 2002. 11th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 Melbourne. Victoria, Australia. Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing Web based curricula: issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol.34: Pp; 623636. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will newer influence learning. Education technology research and development, Vol. 42, No. (2), Pp; 21-29 Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 28-36. Davies, J.E. (1997). The Internet in Education. Retrieved March 3, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ualberta.ca/~jedavies/inteduc. Ellsworth, J.H. (1994). Education on the Internet. Indianapolis, Ind. Sams. Emeagwali P (2000). Vaulting Nigeria into the Information Age. The Guardian on Sunday September 24, 2000. ESCAP (2000) Are ICT Policies Addressing Gender Equality?
http//www.unescaporg/wid/04/wideresources/11wideactivities/01cctegm/backgoundpaper.Pdf.
Greenfield, (1999a) Psychological characteristics of compulsive Internet use: a preliminary analysis. Cyber Psychology and behaviour, Vol. 2, No.5, Pp; 403-412. Greenfield, David N. (1999b). The Nature of Internet Addiction: Psychological Factors in Compulsive Internet Use. Paper Presentation at 1999 American Psychological Association Convention.
26
Groves, P., Lee, S,, Stephens, C. (1997). Existing tools & projects for On-line teaching. Retrieved April 5, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://into.,ox.ac.uk/jtap,/reports/teaching/.
Havick, J. (2000). The impacts of internet on a television- based society. Technology in Society, Vol.22: Pp; 273287. Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990). Teachers beliefs and technology integration: different values, different understanding. CTE Technical Report. Education Development Center, Inc. Center for Children and Technology. Accessed 10/10/2005 at
http://www.edc.org/CCT/cchome/reports/tr6.html
Johnson, W.L., Blake, T. Shaw, E. (1996). Automated Management and Delivery of Distance Courseware. Paper presented at Web Net 96 San Francisco, CA October 15-19, 1996. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Education technology research and development, Vol. 42, No.(2), Pp; 7-19. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Landmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. (9), Pp; 1017-1031. Leiner BM, Cert VG, Clark DD, Kahn RE, Kleinrock L, Lynch DC, Postel J, Roberts LG, Wolff S (2000). A brief history of the Internet: available at
http://www.isoc.org/Internet/history/brief.shtml.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol .77, Pp; 69-72. Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, Pp; 400-407. Misra J & Satyanarayana N R (2001). Users of Internet in a University Library: A case study. ILA BULL., Vol.37, No. (4), Pp; 132-134. Nawaz, Muhammad. (2006). Mass Communication: An Introduction to Information Revolution, Theories, skills and practices. Islamabad: higher education commission. Newman, D. (1992). Technology as support for school structure and school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 74, Pp; 308-315. Orson, R.D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning? Educational Researcher, Vol.26, Pp; 27-34.
27
Pettersson, R. (1989). Visuals for information research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, Pp; 1-58. Plomp, Tjeerd, et al. (1996). International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Cambridge University Press in United Kingdom. Rose, S.A., & Ferlund, P.M. (1997). Using technology for powerful social studies learning. Social Education, Vol.61, No. (3): Pp; 160-166. Schneider, G. P., Evans, J., & Pinard, K. T. (2006). The Internet Fourth Edition- Illustrated Introductory (4th ed.). United States of America: Thomson Course Technology. Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 27. Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 27. Singh AM. (2002). The Internet Strategy for Optimum Utilization in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Info. Manage. Vol. 4: Issue/ (March). Tsai, C.-C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Education Development, Vol.21: Pp; 401415. Uyanga, S., Chimedlham, Ts., Tsogtbaatar, D., & Choijoovanchig, L. (2004), Recommendations on the Informatics Curriculum Standards for Primary and Secondary Schools. Ulaanbaatar. Van Gorp, M.J., Boysen, P. (1997). Class Net: Managing the Virtual Classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. Special Double Issue: The WWW in Use in Higher Education, Vol.3 No. (2/3), Pp; 279-291. Wiske, M. S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B., Watt, M. & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching. Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 706). Yusuf, M.O. (2005). Information and Communication Technologies and Education: Analyzing the Nigerian National Policy for Information Technology. International Education Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, Pp. 316 321.
28

Internet Usage by The Teachers Working in Higher Secondary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internet Usage by The Teachers Working in Higher Secondary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.4, 2008 ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X www.BellPress.

Dr Mohammad Iqbal mattoo Associate professor Department Of Education, University Of Kashmir

13.82 15.80 17.4 22.1

8.72 8.25 8.98 10.06

16.32 15.06 13.38 14.08

Polytechnic collage teachers

Government Higher Secondary School Teachers

Polytechnic College Teachers

8.25 3.43 10.06 0.05

Polytechnic college teachers

Table 11: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary

Standard "t" level of Deviation Value Significance

7.22 0.84 0.05

Government Higher secondary school teachers

7.22 1.96 0.05

Government Degree college teachers

Government Higher secondary school teachers Polytechnic college teachers

7.22 1.49 7.81 0.05

Standard "t" Deviation Value

Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college teachers

Private secondary school teachers

7.81 0.63 0.05

Polytechnic college teachers

Mean Standard "t" Deviation Value

7.75 0.45 7.81 0.05

Polytechnic college teachers

7.44 2.07 0.05

Government Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college Teachers

7.44 2.48 0.05

Sub - Variable Sub - Variable

16.04 17.44 17.44

6.72 6.54 6.54

Private Higher secondary school teachers Government Degree college teachers

6.72 0.50 0.05

7.23 0.51 0.05

"t" level of Value Significance

6.13 0.31 0.05

"t" level of Value Significance

6.13 1.34 0.05

Government Higher secondary school teachers

6.13 0.81 0.05

level of Significance level of 0.05 Significance

Polytechnic college teachers 2 1 Private Higher secondary school teachers

16.54 50 13.1 50 14.5

7.57 7.44 7.31

Government Degree college teachers

Government Arts Degree college teachers

7.3 1.03 0.05

Polytechnic college teachers

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

You might also like