RESEARCH PAPER
Military higher education teaching and learning methodologies: An approach to the introduction of technologies in the classroom
| 1 | Military University Institute Research and Development Centre (CIDIUM)
Military University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal |
| 2 | Centre for Research in Organizations, Markets, and Industrial Management (COMEGI)
Lusíada University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal |
| 3 | Faculty of Sciences and Technology
NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal |
| 4 | Military University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal |
Online publication date: 2019-04-20
Publication date: 2019-06-28
Security and Defence Quarterly 2019;24(2):123–154
KEYWORDS
professional military educationteaching and learning methodologiesinformation and communication technologies
ABSTRACT
The study focuses on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
Military Higher Education, delimited to the present moment and to the current professors
and students of the Military University Institute. This study aims to analyse the relationship between ICT and teaching and learning methodologies in the context of professional military
education, with emphasis on the concept of innovation in the classroom, on teaching and
learning styles and on the role of ICTs in learning. The study is based on a mixed research
strategy combining deductive and inductive approaches, materialized in a case study, with
data collected through questionnaires, interviews and documentary analysis. This article
focuses on the conceptual framework and its interconnection with the methodological
strategy for the empirical study. The results presented refer to the pilot validation test of
the data collection instruments and indicate that, in general, students and teachers share
the same teaching-learning styles and both students and teachers show a good propensity
to use ICT in the classroom.
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
Bielewicz, M. and Pietrakowski, P., 2016. The Strategic Partnership Project ‘Creating international semester regarding military education needs for future officers in Europe’.
3.
Bower, M., Hedberg, J., and Kuswara, A., 2010. A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47 (3), 177–198.
5.
Creswell, J., 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
6.
Creswell, J., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Sage publications.
7.
Davis, F.D., 1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8.
Denning, P.J. and Higgins, S.L., 2015. Being in Uncertainty: Cultivating a New Sensibility in Military Education. In: R. Doughty, L.I. Wells, and T. Hailes, eds. Innovative Learning:A Key to National Security. 133–154.
9.
Downes, C., 2015. Rapidly Evolving, Digitally-Enabled Learning Environments: Implications for Institutional Leaders, Educators and Students. In: R. Doughty, L. Wells, and T. Hailes, eds. Innovative Learning: A Key to National Security. Army Press, 101–132.
10.
EEAS, 2018. Sectoral Qualifications Framework for the Military Offi cer Profession - European External Action Service [online]. News stories. Available from: https://eeas.europa.eu/headqua... Qualifications Framework for the Military Officer Profession [Accessed 2 Feb 2019].
12.
Felder, R. and Silverman, L., 1988. Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education.
14.
Felder, R. and Silverman, L., 2002. Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education.
15.
Felder, R. and Spurlin, J., 2005. Application, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21 (1), 103–112.
16.
Foon Hew, K. and Sum Cheung, W., 2013. Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice.
17.
Garrido, A., 2006. Errar é humano! A vivência de erros e seus efeitos na produção oral sob a perspectiva do aluno de Inglês como Língua Estrangeira.pdf. PUC - Rio.
18.
Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L., 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly.
19.
Gu, X., Zhu, Y., and Guo, X., 2013. Meeting the “Digital Natives”: Understanding the Acceptance of Technology in Classrooms. Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 392–402.
21.
Kim, C., Jahng, J., and Lee, J., 2007. An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: Integrating task-performance and social influence perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 22 (2), 152–160.
22.
Lee, M.C., 2010. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning:An extension of the expectation-confi rmation model. Computers and Education, 54 (2), 506–516.
23.
Lewin, C. and McNicol, S., 2014. Criar a Sala de Aula do Futuro: conclusões do projeto iTEC.
24.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V., 2003. Sources of infl uence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS quarterly, 657–678.
25.
Low, M.L., 2017. Technology That Will Shape Education In 2017 [online]. Education Technology Solutions. Available from: https://educationtechnologysol... [Accessed 2 Feb 2019].
26.
Ministério da Defesa Nacional, 2015. Estatuto dos Militares das Forças Armadas (Decreto-Lei n. o 90/2015). Diário da Répiblica.
27.
Moskos, C.C., Williams, J.A., and Segal, D.R., 2000. The postmodern military: Armed forces after the Cold War. Oxford University Press on Demand.
28.
Neal, D.J., 2015. Technology and its Impact on Defense/Security Thinking and Learning Intervention Issues. In: R. Doughty, L.I. Wells, and T. Hailes, eds. Innovative Learning:A Key to National Security. 155–170.
29.
Pinel, S., 2017. Bringing It All Together: Literacy, ICT and the 21st Century Skills [online].
31.
com/2017/06/bringing-it-all-together-literacy-ict-and-the-21st-century-skills/ [Accessed 2 Feb 2019].
32.
Quivy, R. and Campenhoudt, L., 2008. Manual de Investigação em Ciências Sociais. Edição. Trajetos. Lisboa: Gradiva.
33.
Santos, L. and Lima, J., 2016. Orientações metodológicas para a elaboração de trabalhos de investigação. Cadernos do IESM. Lisboa.
34.
Schatz, S., Fautua, D.T., Stodd, J., and Reitz, E., n.d. The Changing Face of Military Learning. The Army Press.
35.
Soloman, B.A. and Felder, R., 1996. Index of learning styles questionnaire, NC State University. North Carolina State University, (January 1999), 1–5.
36.
Soloman, B.A. and Felder, R., 1999. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire [online]. Available from: https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/... [Accessed 2 Feb 2019].
37.
Thompson, R., Compeau, D., Higgins, C., and Lupton, N., 2007. Intentions to use information technologies: an integrative model. End User Computing Challenges and Technologies: Emerging Tools and Applications: Emerging Tools and Applications, 18 (3), 79–101.
38.
Venkatesh, V., Smith, R.H., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., and Walton, S.M., 2003. USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW. User Acceptance of IT MIS Quarterly.
