Information Technology in Higher Education Teaching - Much Ado About Nothing?

Gali Naveh


Unlike nearly every aspect of our lives that has changed enormously in the past decades, academic teaching has changed very little, and a professor walking into a classroom populated with dozens of students who are trying to grasp the material presented to them, is relevant today as it was a century ago. To discern this phenomenon, this paper discusses some of the most promising technologies which have emerged during the last quarter of a century (accessibility to the internet, smartphones and Massive Open Online Courses) while indicating their failure to facilitate a large-scale pedagogical change in academia, in contradiction to high expectations and predictions. A perspective is suggested on the perception and motivation of the three major stakeholders of academic teaching – instructors, students and institutes, signifying the lack of incentives on their part for large-scale change. Finally the gap between the volume of research in the field of information technology integration in higher education pedagogy and the little change in academic teaching reality is discussed, and a course of action that may change this state of affair is offered.


  1. Bennett, J and Bennett, L 2003, 'A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program', The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 6, pp. 53-63.
  2. Cohen, MD, March, JG and Olsen, JP 1972, 'A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-25.
  3. Corbeil, JR and Valdes-Corbeil, ME 2007, 'Are you ready for mobile learning?78, Educause Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 51-58.
  4. Cruz, Y, Boughzala, I and Assar, S 2014, 'Technology acceptance and actual use with mobile learning: First stage for studying the influence of learning styles on the behavioural intention', Paper presented at the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems, TelAviv, Israel.
  5. Davis, FD 1989, 'Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology', MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 319-340.
  6. Deloitte and GSMA 2012, Sub-Saharan Africa Mobile Observatory, Available from: < 2-1.pdf> [February 4, 2015]
  7. Doughty, PL, Spector, M and Yonai, BA 2003, 'Time, Efficacy and Cost Considerations of e-Collaboration in Online University Courses', Brazilian Review of Open and Distance Learning, Available from: < F_Doc/2003_Time_Efficacy_Cost_Considerations_Ph ilip_Doughty_Michael_Spector_Barbara_Yonai.pdf >. [February 4, 2015]
  8. Emanuel, EJ 2013, 'Online education: MOOCs taken by educated few', Nature 21 November. Available from: < ll/503342a.html> [February 4, 2015].
  9. Green, KC 2009, 'The 2009 National Survey of Information Technology in U.S. Higher Education', The Campus Computing Project, Encino, CA, USA.
  10. Hara, N and Kling, R 1999, 'Students' frustrations with a Web-based distance education course', First Monday, vol. 4, no. 12.
  11. Harasim, L 1999, 'A Framework for Online Learning: The Virtual- U', Computer, vol. 32, no. 9, pp 44-49.
  12. Harasim, L 2000, 'Shift happens: Online Education as a New Paradigm in Learning', The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41-61.
  13. Jordan, K 2014, 'Initial Trends in Enrolment and Completion of Massive Open Online Courses', The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 133-159.
  14. Liu, Y and Han, S 2010, 'Understanding the factors driving m-learning adoption: a literature review', Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 27, pp. 210- 226.
  15. Liu, Y, Li, H and Carlsson, C 2009, 'Exploring the factors driving M-learning adoption', AIS Symposium conducted at the meeting of the AMCIS 2009, San Francisco.
  16. Lynch, D 2002, 'Professors should embrace technology in courses', Chronicle of Higher Education, B15.
  17. Mackness, J, Mak, SFJ and Willims, R 2010, 'The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC', Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning. Aalborg, Denmark.
  18. Mayer, JW and Rowan B 1977, 'Institutional Organizations, Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony', American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, p. 340-363.
  19. Msson, R 2000, 'From Distance Education to Online Education', The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 63-74.
  20. Naismith, L, Peter, L, Giasemi, V and Shaples, M 2004, 'Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning', Futurelab, Bristol.
  21. Naveh, G, Tubin, D and Pliskin, N 2010, 'Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective', Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, no.3, pp. 127-133.
  22. Naveh, G, Tubin, D and Pliskin, N 2012, 'Student Satisfaction with Learning Management Systems: A lens of critical success factors', Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 21, pp. 337-350.
  23. Nielsen 2013, Ring the Bells: More Smartphones in Students' Hands Ahead Of Back-To-School Season, Available from: < g-the-bells-more-smartphones-in-students-handsahead-of-back.html> [February 4, 2015].
  24. Norton, L, Richardson, JTE, Hartley, J, Newstead, S and Mayers, J 2005, 'Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education', Higher Education, vol. 50. pp. 537-571.
  25. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Observer, 2005, 'E-learning in Tertiary Education, Policy Brief', from: < > [February 4, 2015].
  26. Paletta, L, Kluzer, S, Ros, A, Bobeth, J and KukulsaHulme, A 2012, 'MASELTOV - Mobile assistance for social inclusion and empowerment of immigrants with persuasive learning technologies and social network services', Proceedings of the Conference on Digital Crossroads: Media, Migration and Diaspora in a Transnational Perspective. Utrecht, Netherlands.
  27. Phipps, R and Merisotis, J 2000, 'Quality on the line: benchmarks for success in internet based distance education', Institute for Higher Education Policy, from: < TheLine.pdf > [February 4, 2015]
  28. Rogers, EM 2003, Diffusion of Innovation, 5th edn, Free Press, New York.
  29. Russell, TL 1999, No Significant Difference Phenomenon, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
  30. Savill-Smith, C 2002, 'The m-Learning Project and its investigation into young adults use of mobile phones', The Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England.
  31. Wagner, N, Hassanein, K and Head, M 2008, 'Who is responsible for E-Learning Success in Higher Education? A Stakeholders' Analysis', Educational Technology and Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 26-36.
  32. Wallace, RM 2003, 'Online Learning in Higher Education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students', Education, Communication and Information, vol. 3, pp. 241-280.
  33. Wegner, SB, Holloway, KC, and Garton, EM 1999, 'The effects of Internet-based instruction on student learning', Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, vo. 3, pp. 98 - 106.
  34. Woods, R, Baker, J and Hopper, D 2004, 'Hybrid Structures: Faculty Use and Perception of Web-Based Courseware as a Supplement to Face- To - Face Instruction', The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 7, pp. 281-297.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Naveh G. (2015). Information Technology in Higher Education Teaching - Much Ado About Nothing? . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-108-3, pages 450-454. DOI: 10.5220/0005486904500454

in Bibtex Style

author={Gali Naveh},
title={Information Technology in Higher Education Teaching - Much Ado About Nothing?},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Information Technology in Higher Education Teaching - Much Ado About Nothing?
SN - 978-989-758-108-3
AU - Naveh G.
PY - 2015
SP - 450
EP - 454
DO - 10.5220/0005486904500454