Routing towards Education 5.0 via sustainable technology empowerment : Potential challenges to academicians in Universities

Verma, Palak; Arora, Nitin; Ahmed, Ezaz; Agarwal, Vernika

doi:10.47974/JSMS-1144

Open Access Research Article

Routing towards Education 5.0 via sustainable technology empowerment : Potential challenges to academicians in Universities

^*Palak VermaCorresponding authorpalakverma1594@gmail.com palak.verma2@s.amity.eduAmity College of Commerce and FinanceAmity UniversityNoida, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaView full profile → , Nitin Aroranarora4@amity.eduAmity International Business SchoolAmity UniversityNoida, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaView full profile → , Ezaz Ahmedeahmed@columbiasc.eduDivision of BusinessLeadership and CommunicationColumbia CollegeSouth Carolina, U.S.A.View full profile → , Vernika Agarwalvernika.agarwal@learn.apeejay.eduSchool of ManagementApeejay, Dwarka, New Delhi, IndiaView full profile →

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 1759–1775Vol. 26Issue 7October 2023DOI: 10.47974/JSMS-1144XML

Published Online:: 27 Nov 2023
Article type:: Research Article
Language:: EN
Article no.:: JSMS-1144
Pages:: 1759–1775

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the technological empowerment of professionals in education as an instrument to facilitate the sustainable implementation of Education 5.0. This research investigates the prevalent challenges that hinder the advancement of technology Empowerment among academic professionals. Design, Methodology, and Approach: This paper directed an inclusive evaluation of the existing literature pertaining to the obstacles that impede the ability of educators to harness the full potential of technology. A collection of 58 challenges have been suggested for examination through the FDM. The present investigation evaluated the viewpoints of professionals concerning the degree of significance of obstacles that impede the production of accurate and dependable outcomes. Findings: The study’s results reveal that out of the 58 barriers examined, 11 were deemed significant. The most crucial technology empowerment barriers for educators were identified as inequitable involvement, constraints in the acceptance of technological advances, insufficient accountability, Excessive Workload, and Lack of teacher self-efficacy. The presence of these obstacles poses a significant challenge to the achievement of the education-oriented Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Implications: The suggested results have significant implications for professionals in the field of education, policymakers, developers of educational systems, and researchers. The aforementioned statement facilitates stakeholder accessibility to the primary obstacles hindering the technological empowerment necessary for the sustainable integration of Education 5.0. Originality: Academicians, the key stakeholders in adopting Education 5.0, play a significant role in its successful implementation. Very few earlier studies report on a specific application for the implementation of Education 5.0 focusing on contributing towards the SDGs.

Keywords

Technology empowerment Education 5.0 Sustainable development goals MCDM Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM)

Subject Classifications

90B5003B52

References

[1] Adarkwah, M. A., “I’m not against online teaching, but what about us?”: ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1665–1685 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10331-z.
[2] Ali, S., Uppal, M. A., & Gulliver, S. R., A conceptual framework highlighting e-learning implementation barriers. Information Technology and People, 31(1), 156–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0246.
[3] Ăţ, D., În, I., Academic, I., Ilor, Ă. A. S. Ţ., Mitrea, E. C., Lup, O., & Mitrea, E. C., Înv Ăţă Mântul Online În Contextul Pandemiei: O Analiz Ă A Online Learning During The Pandemic: Assessing Disparities In Student. July (2021).
[4] Avella, J. T., Kebritchi, M., Nunn, S. G., & Kanai, T., Learning Analytics in Distance Education : A Systematic Literature Review. Online Learning, 20(2), 13–29 (2016).
[5] Chirwa, M., Access and use of internet in teaching and learning at two selected teachers’ colleges in Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 14(2), 4–16 (2018).
[6] Ciptono, A., Setiyono, S., Nurhidayati, F., & Vikaliana, R., Fuzzy Delphi method in education: A mapping. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1360(1) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1360/1/012029.
[7] Crisolo, N. A., Sharpening Education through the Use of Information and Communications Technology. Online Submission, July (2018).
[8] Duveskog, M., Sutinen, E., & Cronje, J., Design milieux for learning environments in African contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 581–594 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12068.
[9] El Turk, S., & Cherney, I., Administrators’ and Faculty’s Perceived Online Education Barriers and The Role of Transformational Leadership at a U.S. University in Lebanon. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2(1), 15 (2016). https://doi.org/10.17062/cjil.v2i1.30.
[10] Fearnley, M. R., & Amora, J., Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model Volume 8 – Issue 2 IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education Volume 8 – Issue 2 IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education Volume. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education, 8(2), 89–106 (2020).
[11] Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., & Mieno, H., The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55(3), 241–253 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90251-C.
[12] Joshi, A., Vinay, M., & Bhaskar, P., Impact of coronavirus pandemic on the Indian education sector: perspectives of teachers on online teaching and assessments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(2), 205–226 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2020-0087.
[13] Khalid, J., Ram, B. R., Soliman, M., Ali, A. J., Khaleel, M., & Islam, M. S., Promising digital university: A pivotal need for higher education transformation. International Journal of Management in Education, 12(3), 264–275 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2018.092868.
[14] Khan, N. A., Brohi, S. N., & Zaman, N., Ten Deadly Cyber Security Threats Amid COVID-19 Pandemic. TechRxiv Powered by IEEE, May, 1–6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.12278792.v1.
[15] Khan, S., Al-Dmour, A., Bali, V., Rabbani, M. R., & Thirunavukkarasu, K., Cloud computing based futuristic educational model for virtual learning. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 24(2), 357–385 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2021.1879468.
[16] Lantada, A. D., Engineering education 5.0: Continuously evolving engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 1814–1832 (2020).
[17] Mercader, C., & Gairín, J., University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: the importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x
[18] Noorderhaben, N., Strategic Decision Making. Addison-Wesley, UK (1995).
[19] Rahim, M. N., Post-Pandemic of Covid-19 and the Need for Transforming Education 5.0 in Afghanistan Higher Education. Utamax: Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 3(1), 29–39 ((2021)). https://doi.org/10.31849/utamax.v3i1.6166.
[20] Renz, A., & Hilbig, R., Prerequisites for artificial intelligence in further education: identification of drivers, barriers, and business models of educational technology companies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00193-3.
[21] Sahoo, K. K., Muduli, K. K., Luhach, A. K., & Poonia, R. C., Pandemic COVID-19: An empirical analysis of impact on Indian higher education system. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 24(2), 341–355 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2021.1875571.
[22] Singhavi, C., Basargekar, P., & Somaiya, K. J., Barriers Perceived by Teachers for use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Classroom in Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 15(2), 62–78 (2019). http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Publications/ASER Reports/ASER 2017/aser2017nationalp.
[23] Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K., The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625–646 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9094-7.
[24] Tsai, Y. S., & Gasevic, D., Learning analytics in higher education --- challenges and policies. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & amp; Knowledge Conference on- LAK ’17, 233–242 (2017).
[25] Tsai, Y. S., Rates, D., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Delgado Kloos, C., & Gašević, D., Learning analytics in European higher education—Trends and barriers. Computers and Education, 155(February), 103933 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103933.
[26] Weibl, J., & Hess, T., Success or failure of big data: Insights of managerial challenges from a technology assimilation perspective. MKWI 2018- Multi-Conference Business Informatics 2018, 2018-March(March) (2018), 47–58.
[27] Zilvinskis, J., & Wills, III, J., Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A Reflection. In InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, Vol. 14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.46504/14201903zi.

Views: 224Downloads: 28Citations: 0