Cognitive and Technological skills for Faculty of Education Students, Al-Azhar University in Light of the Global Changes

Hasan, Ahmed Mohammed Shabib; Alabiad, Adel Abd-Elmoaty

doi:10.21608/jsrep.2022.301727

Cognitive and Technological skills for Faculty of Education Students, Al-Azhar University in Light of the Global Changes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education in Cairo, Al-Azhar University

10.21608/jsrep.2022.301727

Abstract

The issues of international knowledge exchange and keeping pace with global knowledge changes are considered inseparable parts of the main concerns of higher education institutions. Also, adaptation to the new world is one of the most important conditions for the learners’ cognitive and technological development, and gives them the opportunity to continue their learning independently according to their capabilities and needs to acquire additional knowledge in related fields to their education to enhance their language skills and intercultural communication through modern technologies for facing global cognitive changes. Therefore, universities around the world are trying to adapt to the rapid societal changes and progress in the technical and cognitive development. Thus, learners become more able to explore, analyze, possess cognitive and metacognitive skills, to communicate well, and help them form different thinking patterns. In addition, universities seek to focus on the open curriculum that emphasizes on learning independently to make learners able to respond flexibly to new requirements and adapt to them. Also, they focus on the abilities to work rapidly and prepare for new requirements and facilitate the learners to cognitively communicate with others outside the local domain through online technologies in light of the changing cognitive community context. The sample consisted of (347) students who were chosen from (scientific, literary, and generic) specializations, and were divided as follows: (136 scientific), (110 literary), and (101 generic). To achieve the goal of the research, two scales were designed and utilized; the first to assess the cognitive skills and the second to measure the technological skills. Their validity and reliability were verified. Results revealed that the responses of the sample members on the items of the cognitive skills scale and its dimensions, and the technological skills scale in light of global cognitive variables were higher than the average. This indicates the importance of these sub-skills for the university student to face the cognitive variables from the perspective of the sample. In addition, there were statistically significant differences in the cognitive and technological skills a according to study specializations :( scientific- literary- generic) in favor of the generic specialization students. Finally, there were statistically significant differences in the cognitive and technological skills according to academic achievement (high – low) in favor of the high achievers.

Keywords

References

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Billings, L. & Pihlgren, A. S. (2009). Socio-cognitive Analysis of Socratic Dialogue: a blend of theories. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Thinking. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Putra Malysia, pp. 294–310.

Bowman, N. A. (2010). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and development? American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 466–496.

Brescia, W., & Miller, M. T. (2006). What’s it worth? The perceived benefits of instructional blogging. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5(1), 44–52.

Cain, D. L., & Pitre, P. E. (2008). The effect of computer mediated conferencing and computer assisted instruction on student learning outcomes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 31–52.

Chitanana, L. (2009). An assessment of the utilisation of computers as teaching and learning resources: A case of Gweru Urban Schools. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 21(3), 323-339.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637–667.

Isman, A., & Celikli, G. E. (2009). How does student ability and self-efficacy affect the usage of computer technology? The Turkish Online . Journal of Educational Technology, 8 (1), 33-38.

Ivanov, V. G., Shaidullina, A. R., Drovnikov, A. S., Yakovlev, S. A., & Masalimova, A. R. (2015). Regional Experience of Students’ Innovative and Entrepreneurial Competence Forming. Asian Social Science, 11(1), 35-40.

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, selected learning and personal development outcomes, and other college experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 42(3), 217-232.

Kuhlenschmidt, S. (2010). Issues in technology and faculty development. In K. J. Gillespie, D. L. Robertson, & Associates (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Koc, M., & Bakir, N. (2010). A needs assessment survey to investigate pre-service teachers knowledge, experiences and perceptions about preparation to using educational technologies. The Turkish online Journal of educational Technology, 9 (1), 13-22.

Khairullina, E. R. (2015). Organizational and Pedagogical Conditions of Academic Mobility Development of Students at School of Higher Professional Education. Review of European Studies, 7(1), 46-51.

Liu , M ( 2003 ) Enhancing Learners' Cognitive Skills Through Multimedia Design.I`nteractive Llearning Environment .vol.11 .Issue . 1 .

Pihlgren, S ( 2013) Planning for Thinking and Cognitive Development of Students. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of Cognitive Planning for Thinking and Cognitive Development of Students. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of Cognitive Science ICCS 2013 in Tehran, Iran.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A cautionary tale. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 488–492.

Reber, A. (2001). The Big Explanatory Psychological Dictionary (Vol 1, p. 327) (Trans. from English). Moscow. Rivza, B., & Teichler, U. (2007). The Changing Role of Student Mobility. Higher Education Policy, 20(4),

Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Sakhieva, R. G., Khairullina, E. R., Khisamiyeva, L. G., Valeyeva, N. S., Masalimova, A. R., & Zakirova, V. G. (2015). Designing a Structure of the Modular Competence-Based Curriculum and Technologies for Its Implementation into Higher Vocational Institutions. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 246-251.

Shaidullina, A. R., Krylov, D. A., Sadovaya, V. V., Yunusova, G. R., Glebov, S. O., Masalimova, A. R., & Korshunova, I. V. (2015). Model of Vocational School, High School and Manufacture Integration in the Regional System of Professional Education. Review of European Studies, 7(1), 63-67.

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.

Williams, P. (2001). Barn lär av varandra, Samlärande i förskola och skola. [Children Learn from Each Other. Cooperative learning in pre-school and school] Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 163.

Zhu, E., & Kaplan, M (2014). Teaching with technology. In M. D. Svinicki & M. J. McKeachie (Eds), McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (pp. 232–264). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.