Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2017.21.5.567

An content analysis of facilitating and conflicting factors on the Korea's educational uses of emerging technologies and trends  

Cha, Hyunjin (Global Education Cooperation Research Center, Hanyang University)
Park, Taejung (Education Advancement Center, Hanyang University)
Kye, Bokyung (KERIS)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education / v.21, no.5, 2017 , pp. 567-581 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the facilitating and conflicting factors on the emerging technologies and trends predicted to impact future education in Korea. To do this, open online questionnaires on 20 emerging technologies and trends derived from a comprehensive literature review were completed by 24 experts in research, policy, schools, and corporate fields, and a content analysis of the collected qualitative data was conducted. As a result of the study, the effectiveness of the content and the maturity of technology were found to be the most important facilitating factors and obstacles. In addition, the potential for innovative teaching and learning methods and motivation, and the maturity and popularity of technology were found to be the main facilitating factors. On the other hand, health problems and negative effects on students in ethical aspects, the lack of research and development, and poor networks and infrastructures in terms of education environment were found to be the main impeding factors of emerging technologies and trends.
Keywords
Emerging technology & trends; Educational use; Facilitating factors; Conflicting factors; Nvivo;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Choi, J. (2012). Educational application of appropriate technology in the practical arts education at the elementary school. Journal of the Elementary Education Society, 16, 139-156.
2 Chung, J. & Kweon, S. (2001). Effective practice on network-based learning systems : A delphi study. Journal of corporate Education and Talent Research, 3, 73-105.
3 Elo S., and H. Kyngas, H. (2008). "The qualitative content analysis process", Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.   DOI
4 Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American psychologist, 49(8), 725-747.   DOI
5 Gartner Group (2015). Hype Cycle for Education 2015. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3090218/hype-cycle-education-.
6 Gartner Group (2016). Hype Cycle for Education 2016. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3364119/hype-cycle-education-.
7 Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 269-274.   DOI
8 KERIS (2011). Cloud computing environment implementation for SMART education, KERIS Issue Report KR2011-22.
9 KERIS (2011). Future School 2030 model study for the introduction of the future school system. KERIS Research Report KR2011-12.
10 KERIS (2016). Redesigning education and emerging school models in the age of technology, KERIS Research Material KR2016-3.
11 KERIS (2017) Policy seminar to innovate future education (responding to the 4th industrial revolution), KERIS, PM 2017-1.
12 KERIS (2017). The educational use of IT-Convergent technology in 4th industrial revolution era. KERIS Research Report RR2016-7.
13 Kim, C. (2014). A study on the educational use of tiny PC in an elementary school. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 18(1), 101-110.   DOI
14 Kim, S., Kam, S., Kim, Y., & Lee, S. (2014). Promoting and inhibiting factors in class of graduate school using social media. Proceedings of the Korean Society for Educational Technology, 2014(1), 456-460.
15 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications: London.
16 Kwon, Y. (2013). Data analytics in education: Current and future directions. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 19(2), 87-99.   DOI
17 New Media Consortium (2015). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
18 Lim, K., Kang, M., & Shin, S. (2012). The Study on Experts' Perceptions on Usage Elements of SNSs and the Investigation on the Priority of the Elements for SNSs' Educational Use through Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 925-952.   DOI
19 New Media Consortium (2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
20 New Media Consortium (2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
21 New Media Consortium (2015). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
22 New Media Consortium (2016). The NMC Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
23 New Media Consortium (2016). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
24 New Media Consortium (2017). The NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
25 New Media Consortium (2017). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
26 Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evlauation Method, Sage Publications: London.
27 Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). "Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts", International J. of artificial intelligence in education (IJAIED), 12, 8-22.
28 Sharples, M., de Roock , R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi,C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
29 Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution, World Economic Forum, Geneva: Switzerland.