Tue, Dec 3, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 4, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2023)
johepal 2023, 4(3): 118-130 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Schenck A. (2023). Investigating the Influence of Classroom Leadership Preferences on the Use of Technology: A Survey of Korean University Learners. johepal. 4(3), 118-130. doi:10.61186/johepal.4.3.118
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-445-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-445-en.html
Abstract: (1241 Views)
Although there are several studies which explore learner variation, little research has been conducted to investigate how different preferences for classroom leadership are linked to the use of technology. Fifty-seven Korean university students were given two surveys to examine preferences for both classroom leadership and the use of technology. After collecting responses, data was then compared using the non-parametric Spearman Rho formula for Likert-scale data. Results revealed distinctly different perspectives on technology, which appeared to be influenced by learner preferences for either autocratic or transformational leadership. Whereas learners with autocratic leadership preferences favored using technology to make knowledge transmission easier, learners with democratic or transformational leadership preferences favored the individualistic use of technology for knowledge creation and discovery. In addition to this distinction, leadership preferences also appeared to impact expectations for communication. Whereas learners who preferred autocratic leadership styles desired using technology to connect with other students, learners who preferred democratic-transformational and transformational leadership also desired close connections with teachers via technology, reflecting expectations for more egalitarian social relationships.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership, Autocratic Leadership, Democratic Leadership, Classroom Leadership, Technology
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2023/06/10 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/30
Received: 2023/06/10 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/30
References
1. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Boatsman, K., Bonous-Hammarth, M., Chambers, T., Goldberg, S., Johnson, C. S., Komives, S. R., Langdon, E. A., Leland, C., Lucas, N., Pope, R. L., Roberts, D., & Shellog, K. M. (1996). A Social Change Model of Leadership Development: Guidebook (version III). University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
2. Bippert, K. (2019). Perceptions of technology, curriculum, and reading strategies in one middle school intervention program. RMLE Online, 42(3), 1-22. [DOI]
3. Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 296-306.
4. Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Griffin, D. J. (2011). Teacher leadership and intellectual stimulation: Improving students' approaches to studying through intrinsic motivation. Communication Research Reports, 28(4), 337-346. [DOI]
5. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278. [DOI]
6. Chung, C., & Ackerman, D. (2015). Student reactions to classroom management technology: Learning styles and attitudes toward Moodle. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 217-223. [DOI]
7. Collins, R. A. (2009). The role of learning styles and technology. International Journal of Web-based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(4), 50-65. [DOI]
8. Das, A. K., & Mishra, S. (2016). Questionnaire on learner use of technology. In A. Kirkwood & L. Price (Eds.), Technology-enabled learning implementation handbook (pp. 59-67). Commonwealth of Learning.
9. Di Giacomo, D., Cofini, V., Di Mascio, T., Cecilia, M. R., Fiorenzi, D., Gennari, R., & Vittorini, P. (2016). The silent reading supported by adaptive learning technology: Influence in the children outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part B), 1125-1130. [DOI]
10. Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(4), 295-338. [DOI]
11. Gambo, Y., & Shakir, M. Z. (2021). An artificial neural network (ANN)-based learning agent for classifying learning styles in self-regulated smart learning environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(18), 185-199. [DOI]
12. Huang, Y. N., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). The effects of a flipped English classroom intervention on students’ information and communication technology and English reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 175-193. [DOI]
13. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The Student Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI): Facilitator’s Guide (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
14. Martins, M., Farias, J. S., Albuquerque, P. H. M., & Pereira, D. S. (2018). Adoption of technology for reading purposes: A study of e-books acceptance. Brazilian Business Review, 15(6), 568-588. [DOI]
15. McDermott, P., & Gormley, K. A. (2016). Teachers’ use of technology in elementary reading lessons. Reading Psychology, 37(1), 121-146. [DOI]
16. McDowell, J., Huang, Y. K., & Caza, A. (2018). Does identity matter? An investigation of the effects of authentic leadership on student-athletes’ psychological capital and engagement. Journal of Sport Management, 32(3), 227-242. [DOI]
17. Milton, S., & Meade, Q. H. (2018). More than just a student voice: Facilitating student leadership development through the library student liaison program. Journal of Library Administration, 58(4), 346-363. [DOI]
18. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
19. Pearson, P. D., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, Jr. R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Learning Point Associates. [Article]
20. Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., Kwayumba, D., & Strigel, C. (2016). Does technology improve reading outcomes? Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICT interventions for early grade reading in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 204-214. [DOI]
21. Popescu, E. (2010). A unified learning style model for technology-enhanced learning: What, why and how?. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 8(3), 65-81. [DOI]
22. Pounder, J. (2014). Quality teaching through transformational classroom leadership. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(3), 273-285. [DOI]
23. Pounder, J. S. (2008). Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 2-6. [DOI]
24. Vann, B. A., Coleman, A. N., & Simpson, J. A. (2014). Development of the Vannsimpco Leadership Survey: A delineation of hybrid leadership styles. SBS Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 3, 28-39. [Article]
25. Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & Education, 128, 227-242. [DOI]
26. Yang, X., Kuo, L. J., Ji, X., & McTigue, E. (2018). A critical examination of the relationship among research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction. Computers & Education, 125, 62-73. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
