Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary

European Journal of Education and Learning, Vol.4, 2008
ISSN(paper)2668-3318 ISSN(online)2668-361X
www.BellPress.org
7
Internet Usage by the Teachers Working In Higher Secondary
Schools and In Colleges
Syed Noor-Ul-Amin
Ph.D Research Scholor
Dr Mohammad Iqbal mattoo
Associate professor
Department Of Education, University Of Kashmir
ICT is changing processes of teaching and learning by adding elements of vitality to
learning environments including virtual environments for the purpose. ICT is that of
providing a new framework that can foster a revision and an improvement of teaching and
learning practices. Internet is a multi-dimensional medium, which facilitate its users for
different purposes. The basic objective of this research article is to find out the major uses
of internet, by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages. The
major objectives were to identify to find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar
presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular class lectures and for 4.chatting and other re-
creational purposes by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages
and. To find out the differences of any, among these teachers on the usage of internet. As
there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a structured tool
namely “Internet usage scale” which was distributed among the teachers of the different
schools and colleges of district Srinagar of Kashmir Valley. Data were collected from 200
teachers consisting of 50 Government Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher
secondary school teachers, 50 Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic
college teachers. The paper verified that the Government Higher Secondary School
teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in
respect to their utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing
regular class lectures and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not
found any difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and
Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing
regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ
significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. This study also reveals
there is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers
and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing
regular class lectures, for chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly
on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is also no significant
difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree
collage teachers on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for
preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and recreational purposes. Private Higher

www.BellPress.org
8
Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers do not differ significantly on
the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet for e-mail, and for Chatting and
recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ significantly on the utilization of
internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant difference between Government
Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for
e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But
they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation.
Key Words: Internet Usage, Higher Secondary schools, Collage, Working.
INTRODUCTION
The role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in human development has
received growing attention among development practitioners, policy makers, government and
civil society in recent years due to the growing proliferation of the Internet, convergence in IT
and telecommunications technologies and increasing globalisation. The field of education has
been affected by ICTs, which have undoubtedly affected teaching, learning, and research
(Yusuf, 2005). When looking at the current widespread diffusion and use of ICT in modern
societies, especially by the young the so-called digital generation then it should be clear that
ICT will affect the complete learning process today and in the future.
While the ICTs in general and the Internet and the World Wide Web in particular have
made life easier by facilitating easy communication and easy access to information located
anywhere in the world. In today’s world technology has been prevalently used in almost all
spheres of life and as a consequence the personal ownership ratio of computer and internet is
rapidly increasing each year. The Internet has brought tremendous changes to the society and
the world at large. The information retrieval in the Internet is relatively fast and accessible 24
hours a day, seven days a weeks. The global system, which can be accessed and used at an
extremely personal level, provides us with a unique platform for interaction- a platform that is
altering how we communicate. If it started out as a network of networks, the Internet has
become the medium of media, or Meta medium. It is a communication system that serves as a
platform for older media, including telephony, print and broadcasting. But more than that, it
now enables us to operate on both ends of traditional mass media. We can now both send and
receive live audio or video feeds, enabling us to both have a television or radio set and a
television or radio station on our desktop. Once you have the requisite software components
installed, you can quickly and easily switch between sending email, listening to streaming
audio, and broadcasting a video feed-all without moving from your computer (Adams &
Clark, 2001). Internet has become a global source of information resources accessible at
anytime by anyone from anywhere in the world. It has converted the whole world into a
global information society. It has tremendously improved communication and interaction
among scientific research community and enabled them to access a vast range of latest
information. It acts as a powerful supplement to the traditional way of information access. It
facilitates electronic and exchange of ideas and collaboration among the scholars all over the
world. The Internet is a massive, computer-linked network system used globally to access and
convey information, either by personal or business computer users; it is also used for
communication, research, entertainment, education and business transactions (Kraut, et al.,

www.BellPress.org
9
1998; Schneider, et al., 2006). Today, the Internet can link all online computers so that people
can use it to communicate throughout the world (Schneider, et al., 2006).
The word Internet emanates from the words “Internet Connection Network”
(Greenfield, 1999), connecting computers around the world by the use of a standard protocol.
It is believed that the distinctive features of the Internet, such as speed, accessibility, intensity
and stimulation of its content, contribute to Internet addiction (Greenfield, 1999). In addition,
(Chou, 2001) indicated that the most appreciated Internet features included interactivity,
simplicity, availability, and abundant and updated information. In fact, the Internet’s
attractiveness has increased as a result of its availability, accessibility, and affordability. The
development of friendlier interfaces provides users with easier and more comfortable access.
The internet is one of the greatest recent advancement in the world of information technology
and has become a useful instrument that has fostered the process of making the world a global
village. Internet use has become very popular in many areas as well as in education in recent
years. This is a universal fact that the use of internet has a great impact on the education. The
Internet is a relatively new channel for scholarly resources, and contains vast quantities of
information that vary a great deal regarding its contents, aim, target group, reliability etc.
Hence, it is important that the end-user is aware of the diverse information available on the
Internet, and educated in the criteria by which the information content should be assessed
(Chapman, 2002). The fabulous growth in telecommunication has brought online services,
specialized electronic networks, WebPages, E-mail, software and global information
resources to our homes as well as to education. The Internet provides an environment in
which millions of people participate and engage in the creation and exchange of information
(Rose & Fernlund, 1997). Many educators and policy makers believe that technology can be a
catalyst for educational reform (Collins, 1991; Means, Olson, & Singh, 1995; Mehlinger,
1996; Newman, 1992; Sheingold, 1991). They suggest that the use of technology in
classrooms will shift the roles of teachers and students. Teachers will act more as facilitators
by helping students’ access information, process it, and communicate their understanding.
However, not all teachers who use technology in their classrooms employ it as a tool. The
problem of pedagogical efficiency in the use of new information technologies (including the
Internet) in education is widely discussed in the research literature. Unlike the obvious and
quantitatively valuable achievements in enhancing of the availability of education, the
specific positive effect of the environment-intermediary on the quality of teaching is not so
evident. Moreover, according to some researchers, for example (Kozma, 1994), the last 50
years of studies of unconventional media used in education (from radio and TV broadcasting
to WWW) have not revealed, however, any considerable specific effect on the process of
teaching for the given type of environment. This idea is shared by (Clark, 1994) considering
that the new methods of designing for teaching by means of new information technologies
may stimulate improvement of the education quality, but not their use as the means of
delivery for the teaching material.
. The Internet provides several opportunities for the academia. It is a mechanism for
information dissemination and a medium for collaborative interaction between individuals
and their computers without regard for geographic limitation of space (Leiner et al., 2000;
Singh, 2002). The use of Information Technology helps increase the research productivity of
scholars. (Misra and Satyanarayan, 2001). Everybody wants to explore itself with this
information technology and happenings taking place of Internet for the purpose of education,
awareness, entertainment and especially interaction with strangers. Nowhere, except in
dreams have reality and fantasy contented for our attention more than on the net. (Nawaz,
2006).The Internet can be used for other things besides email. One can listen to international

www.BellPress.org
10
radio station on research and educations on the Internet, read national dailies of other
countries, and speak to friends around the global, read books and other materials on the
Internet. The list of things that can be done on the Internet is a very long one. The Internet
contains more information than the world’s largest libraries (Emeagwali, 2000). Internet
applications provide to apply and experience the facilities of constructivist view (Plomp, et
al., 1996). (Pettersson, 1989) points out that the technology should serve the contents and
methods of teaching. At the same time, the same technology can be used for different types of
educational activity. E-mail communication is characterized by low consumption of
resources, including low costs of teaching, required equipment and data channel. (Van Gorp
& Boysen, 1997) and (Johnson, Blake, Shaw 1996), e-mail is widely applied in the
educational process (especially in case of the territorially distributed teaching staff). Many
researchers stress that apart from the immediate teaching goals, the use of e-mail plays an
important role as a medium which regenerates the epistolary culture, thus contributing to the
development of communication and writing skills (Davies, 1997).(Ellsworth, 1994) thereby
writes: “learners begin to work on their language and grammar, as never before. When
children know they will receive a response from Stockholm, they begin to realize the
difference between slang and literary language”. (Groves, Lee, Stephens), “e-mail makes it
possible for students to stay in touch with their peers and with the teaching staff where a
loaded schedule may make this otherwise difficult. The figure of the lonely scholar, who can
become isolated through increasing specialization, or for more prosaic reasons of inadequate
social or language skills, is one to whom e-mail presents some interesting possibilities” Web
applications enable teachers to conduct teaching in such a manner and with such technologies,
which for the contemporary generation of students present an integral part of their life style
(Owston, 1997).. The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways
teachers employ technology in instruction (Becker, 1994; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993;
Moeller, & Honey (1990); Means & Olson, 1995; Wiske et al., 1988). Internet, have made
considerable and dramatic impact on contemporary educational practice (Chou, C., et al.2002;
Havick, J. 2000; Tsai, C.2001). Therefore, one of the major purposes of the present study is to
make investigation on the internet usage for the Seminar presentation, E-mail, Preparing
regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers. So the
investigator has, therefore, formulated a research problem for investigation which
reads as: Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary schools and in collages.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To find out the internet usage for the 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing
regular class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes by the teachers
working in higher secondary schools and in collages.
2. To find out the differences of any, among the government Higher secondary school
teachers, private higher secondary teacher, government Degree college teachers and
Polytechnic college teachers on the usage of internet.
HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
3. Government Higher secondary school-teachers private higher secondary school
teachers, Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers have
very high usage of internet for 1. Seminar presentation 2. E-mail 3. Preparing regular
class lectures and for chatting and other re-creational purposes.

www.BellPress.org
11
4. There is a significant difference between the following teachers on the internet usage
for 1. Seminar presentation 2.for E-mail 3.for Preparing regular class lectures and 4.
For chatting and other re-creational purposes.
5. Government higher secondary school teacher and private higher secondary school
teachers.
6. Government higher secondary school teacher and government degree college teachers.
7. Government Higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers.
8. Private higher secondary school teachers and Government Degree college teachers.
9. Private higher secondary school teachers and polytechnic college teachers.
10. Government degree college teachers and polytechnic college teachers.
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
SAMPLE
The present study was conducted on a 200 teachers consisting of 50 Government
Higher secondary school teachers, 50 private higher secondary school teachers, 50
Government Degree college teachers, and 50 Polytechnic college teachers.
TOOLS USED
As there was no readymade tool available the investigator constructed a tool namely
“Internet usage scale” to study the usage of Internet by the teachers working in Higher
secondary schools and by collage teachers in various uses and all the uses work categorized
under four headings internet as:-
a. For seminar presentation
b. For e-mail
c. For preparing regular classes lectures and
d. For chatting and other recreational purposes.
The final tool was prepared by getting opinions from experts and it comprises various
aspects of using internet and thus it has content validate. The tool used for the final study
includes 30 statements. Based on the analysis, 30 statements were selected for the final study.
The toll for the final study consist of general data sheet or personal dates sheet and 30
statements to measure the internet usage teachers working in Higher secondary schools and in
colleges.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following statistical techniques were used in the present study for the analysis of
data.
Table 1: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for seminar
presentation
S.
No.
Sub- variables N Mean Standard
deviation

www.BellPress.org
12
1 Government Higher secondary school
teachers
50 13.82 8.72
2 Private Higher secondary school teachers 50 15.80 8.25
3 Government Degree collage teachers 50 17.4 8.98
4 Polytechnic collage teachers 50 22.1 10.06
Table 2: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for E-mail
S.
No.
deviation
1 Government Higher secondary school 50 16.32 7.22
Table 3: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for preparing regular
class lectures
S.
No.
deviation
Table 4: Descriptive statistical analysis for the usage of internet for charting and
other re-creational purposes
S.
No.
deviation
2 Private Higher secondary school
teachers
50 13.1 7.44

www.BellPress.org
13
Table 5: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary school
teachers and private higher secondary school teachers on Seminar presentation
S.
No.
Sub - Variable N Mean Standard
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
Secondary School
Teachers
50 13.82 8.72
1.16 0.05
2 Private Higher
Secondary School
Teachers
50 15.80 8.25
teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on utilization of internet for
Seminar presentation
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
Secondary School
Teachers
50 13.82 8.72
2.59 0.05
2 Government Degree
College Teachers
50 17.4 8.98
.
Table 7: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary School
Teachers and Polytechnic College Teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar
presentation
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
Secondary School
Teachers
50 13.82 8.72
4.40 0.05

www.BellPress.org
14
2 Polytechnic College
Teachers
50 22.01 10.06
Table 8: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School
Teachers and Government Degree College teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar
presentation
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
Value
level of
Significance
1 Private Higher Secondary School
Teachers
50 15.80 8.25
0.93 0.05
2 Government Degree college
teachers
50 17.4 8.98
Table 9: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher Secondary School
Teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar
presentation
S.
No.
Sub-Variable N Mean Standard
Deviation
“t”
Value
Level of
Significance
1 Private Higher Secondary
School Teachers
50 15.80 8.25
3.43 0.05
2
Polytechnic college teachers
50 22.1 10.06
Table 10: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree College teachers
Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for Seminar presentation
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
Value
Level of
Significance
1 Government Degree
college teachers
50 17.4 8.98
2.46 0.05

www.BellPress.org
15
2 Polytechnic college
teachers
50 22.1 10.06
Table 11: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary
school teachers and Private Higher secondary School teachers on utilization of internet
for e-mail
Table 12: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school
teachers and GovernmentDegree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
secondary school teachers
50 16.32 7.22
1.96 0.05
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1
Government Higher
Secondary school teachers
50 16.32 7.22
0.84 0.05
2
Private Higher secondary
School teachers
50 15.06 7.81

www.BellPress.org
16
teachers
50 13.38 7.75
Table 13: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher Secondary school
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
Table 14: Significance of mean difference between Private Higher secondary school
teachers and Government Degree college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Private secondary school
teachers
50 15.06 7.81
0.63 0.05
2
50 14.08 7.81
Table 16: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers
and Polytechnic college teachers on utilization of internet for e-mail
S. No. Sub - Variable N Mean Standard
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher secondary
school teachers
50 16.32 7.22
1.49 0.05
2
50 14.08 7.81
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Private Higher secondary
school teachers
50 15.06 7.81 1.08 0.05
teachers
50 13.38 7.75

www.BellPress.org
17
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Degree
college teachers
50 13.38 7.75
0.45 0.05
teachers
50 14.08 7.81
teachers and Private Higher secondary school teachers on the utilization of internet for
preparing regular class lectures
S.
No
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
secondary school
teachers
50 13.01 7.44
2.07 0.05
2 Private Higher
secondary school
teachers
50 16.04 6.72
school Teachers and Government Degree College Teachers on the utilization of internet
for preparing regular class lectures
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
50 13.01 7.44
2.48 0.05
Teachers
50 16.74 7.23
school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for

www.BellPress.org
18
teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing
regular class lectures
Table 22: Significance of mean difference between Government Degree college teachers
and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class
lectures
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
values
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 13.1 7.44
3.1 0.05
2 Polytechnic college teachers 50 17.44 6.54
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Private Higher secondary school
teachers
50 16.04 6.72
0.50 0.05
teachers
50 16.74 7.23
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
Value
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 16.04 6.72
1.06 0.05
2
50 17.44 6.54
S.
No.
Deviation
Value level of
Significance

www.BellPress.org
19
teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for
Chatting and Recreational purposes
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 14.92 6.13
1.34 0.05
2 Private Higher Secondary
School teachers
50 13.1 7.44
Table 24: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary
school teachers and Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet
for Chatting and Recreational purposes
Table 25: Significance of mean difference between Government Higher secondary
school teachers and Polytechnic College teachers on the utilization of internet for
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 14.92 6.13
0.81 0.05
1 Government Degree
college teachers
50 16.74 7.23
0.51 0.05
teachers
50 17.44 6.54
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Higher
50 14.92 6.13
0.31 0.05
teachers
50 14.5 7.31

www.BellPress.org
20
2
50 16.04 7.57
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting
and Recreational purposes
S.
No.
Deviation
“t”
Value
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 13.1 7.44
0.64 0.05
teachers
50 14.5 7.31
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
school teachers
50 13.1 7.44
1.96 0.05
2 Polytechnic college teachers 50 16.54 7.57
S.
No.
Deviation
"t"
Value
level of
Significance
1 Government Arts Degree
college teachers
50 14.50 7.3
1.03 0.05

www.BellPress.org
21
Table 28: Significance of mean difference between Government Arts Degree college
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting
and Recreational purposes
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table-1, 2, 3 and 4 reveals distribution of sample on the basis of teachers working
in Government Higher secondary school, Private Higher secondary school, Government
Degree collage, Polytechnic collage. Table-1 shows the mean and standard deviation of
different types of teachers in respect to internet for seminar presentation.Table-2 shows
the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for e-
mail.Table-3 shows the mean and standard deviation of different types of teachers in
respect to internet for preparing regular class lectures.Table-4 shows the mean and
standard deviation of different types of teachers in respect to internet for preparing regular
class lectures.
The data in Table- 5 reveals that the "t' value calculated for seminar
presentation on the basis of Government Higher secondary School teachers and private
Higher Secondary school teachers is 1.16 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at
0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that
Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School
teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their utilization of internet for seminar
presentation.
Table-6 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of
Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers.
Since the calculated’t’ value is 2.59 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at the 0.05
level of significance. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government
Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers differ
significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation.
Table-7 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar presentation on the basis of
Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers. Since,
the calculated’t’ value is 4.40 which is greater than the table value 1.98 at 0.05 level of
significance. Hence the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that Government Higher
Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic College teachers differ significantly on the
utilization of internet for seminar presentation.
Table- 8 reveals that the’t’ variable calculated for internet utilization on the basis
of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college teachers is
0.93 which is less than the table value is 1.98 at 0.05 level of significant. Therefore the
hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Private Higher Secondary School teachers and
teachers
50 16.04 7.57

www.BellPress.org
22
Government Degree college teachers don not differ significantly in respect of their
Table- 9 reveals that the’t’ value calculated for internet utilization on the basis of
Private Higher secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teacher is 3.43 which is
greater than the’t’ value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore the hypothesis is
accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference between private higher
secondary school teachers and Polytechnic college teachers in respect of their utilization of
internet for seminar presentation.
Table-10 shows that the’t’ value calculated for seminar utilization on the basis of
Government degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. The calculated’t’
value is 2.46 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore the hypothesis is accepted and it is found that there is a significant difference
between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the
Table- 11 shows that the’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government
Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School teachers. The
calculated’t’ value is 0.84 which is lesser than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of
significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that Government Higher
secondary School teachers and Private Higher Secondary teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their utilization of internet for e-mail.
Table-12 shows that the 't' value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government
Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Arts-college teachers. Since, the
calculated’t’ value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of
significance. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that there is no significant
difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government
Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail.
Table-13 shows that the‘t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government
Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers college teachers.
Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.49 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at the level
of significance 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected and it is found that "There is no significant
difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic
college teachers college teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail
Table-14 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private
Higher Secondary School teachers and Government degree college teachers. Since, the
calculated ’t’ value is 1.08 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of
significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant
difference between private Higher secondary school teacher and Government degree
collage teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail.
Table-15 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Private
Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated

www.BellPress.org
23
'f value is 0.63 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and
hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant difference
between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on
the utilization of internet for e-mail.
Table-16 shows that the’t’ value calculated for e-mail on the basis of Government
Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the calculated T value is
0.45 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the
hypothesis is rejected and is found that "There is no significant difference between
Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of
internet for e-mail.
Table-17 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for regular class syllabus on the basis of
Government Higher Secondary School teachers and private Higher Secondary School
teachers. Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 2.07 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at
0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no
significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private
Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class
lectures.
Table-18 shows that the’tz’ value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis
of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college
teachers. Since, the calculated’t’ value is 2.48 which is greater than the table value of 1.98
at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is
no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and
Government Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular
class lectures.
Table-19 shows that the 'f value calculated for regular class lectures on the basis
of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers.
Since, the calculated’t’ value is 3.1 which is greater than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05
level of significance and hence the hypothesis is accepted and found that "There is no
significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and
Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class
lectures.
Table- 20 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on
the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college
teachers. Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 0.50 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at
0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no
significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government
Degree college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.
Table- 21 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for preparing regular class lectures on
the basis of private Higher Secondary School teachers and polytechnic college teachers.
Since, the calculated ’t’ value is 1.06 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05
level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that “ there is no

www.BellPress.org
24
significant difference between private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic
college teachers on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.
Table- 22 shows that the 'f value calculated for preparing regular class lectures by
Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers. Since, the
calculated ’t’ value is 0.51 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of
significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that "There is no significant
difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers
on the utilization of internet for preparing regular class lectures.
Table- 23 shows that the ’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational
purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Private
Higher Secondary School teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.34 which is less than
the table value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected
and found that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary
School teachers and Private Higher Secondary School teachers on the utilization of
internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.
Table- 24 shows that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational
purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government
Degree college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.31 which is less than the table
value of 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found
that "There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School
Chatting and recreational purposes.
Table- 25 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational
purposes on the basis of Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic
college teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 0.81 which is less than the table value of
1.98 at 0.05 level of significance and hence the hypothesis is rejected and found that
"There is no significant difference between Government Higher Secondary School
teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and
recreational purposes.
Table-26 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes
on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college
teachers. Since, the calculated 'f value is 0.64 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at
significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Government
Arts college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.
Table-27 shows that the’t’ value calculated for Chatting and Recreational purposes
on the basis of Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college
teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.96 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at
significant difference between Private Higher Secondary School teaches and Polytechnic
college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.

www.BellPress.org
25
Table- 28 shows" that the 't' value calculated for Chatting and Recreational
purposes on the basis of Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college
teachers. Since, the calculated 't' value is 1.03 which is less than the table value of 1.98 at
significant difference between Government Degree College teaches and Polytechnic
college teachers on the utilization of internet for Chatting and recreational purposes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research is to provide information about the usage of internet by higher
secondary school teachers and collage teachers for utilization of Seminar presentation, for E-
mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for, chatting and other re-creational purposes.
The result of this study shows that the Government Higher Secondary School teachers and
Private Higher Secondary School teachers do not differ significantly in respect to their
utilization of internet for seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures
and for Chatting and other recreational purposes. There is also not found any difference
between Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Government Degree college
teachers on the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for
Chatting and recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet
for seminar presentation. This study also reveals there is no significant difference between
Government Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on the
utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, for chatting and
recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar
presentation. There is also no significant difference between private Higher secondary
school teacher and Government degree collage teachers on the utilization of internet for
seminar presentation, for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures and for Chatting and
recreational purposes. Private Higher Secondary School teachers and Polytechnic college
teachers do not differ significantly on the utilization of internet on the utilization of internet
for e-mail, and for Chatting and recreational purposes. But on the other hand they differ
significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar presentation. There is no significant
difference between Government Degree college teachers and Polytechnic college teachers on
the utilization of internet for e-mail, for preparing regular class lectures, and for Chatting and
recreational purposes. But they differ significantly on the utilization of internet for seminar
presentation. This paper looks at levels use of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) among teachers in selected higher secondary schools and colleges. For the past few
years, an assortment of ICTs such as computers, lap tops, projectors, printers, e-blackboards
and mobile phones have been available to teachers for use in integration of teaching and
learning in schools and colleges. The paper attempts to establish how teachers have utilize
internet, their ICT literacy skills level and the level of ICT integration for seminars, for
e.mail, preparing regular class lectures and for other recreational activities. The findings show
that the use of ICT and its integration in the teaching and learning in secondary and in
collages is getting more widespread; and increasingly used among teachers as a means of
communication and for information searching. Utilization ratios for teachers have been
observed to be having made effective ICT investments in education, translating into better
utilization of ICT related technologies

www.BellPress.org
26
Recently great emphasis was given for setting up ICT infrastructure and providing
computer literacy. At present, specially designated policy is needed to support effective use of
ICT in education and to incorporate it into the policy on educational innovations and activities
like teaching and learning. It is crucial to integrate ICTs with the curriculum of each subject
so this could replace traditional teaching methods by new teaching tools and technology
(Uyanga et al., 2004). Impact of ICTs on teachers’ behavior, development of teaching skills to
use ICTs for their lifelong teaching activities and teacher student relationships are some
critical issues to be considered for developing curriculum. Internet and computers are not
widely used for teaching except teachers of optional subject (computers). On the other hand,
there is not much opportunity to initiate the trainings based on ICTs at the teacher training
collages, like in developed countries. This is directly related to the hardware supply and the
infrastructure problem. Considering above mentioned situation and current circumstances, it
is appropriate to improve teaching and to initiate ICT education on the basis of subject with
direct involvement from Government Higher Secondary School teachers and collage teachers.
REFRENCES
Adams, T., & Clark, N. (2001). The Internet; Effective online communication. U.S.A:
Harcourt College Publishers.
Chapman, L. (2002). Russian roulette or Pandora's Box: use of Internet as a research tool.
Paper presented at VALA 2002. 11th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, 6-8 Melbourne.
Victoria, Australia.
Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing Web based curricula: issues and challenges.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol.34: Pp; 623–636.
Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will newer influence learning. Education technology research and
development, Vol. 42, No. (2), Pp; 21-29
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 28-36.
Davies, J.E. (1997). The Internet in Education. Retrieved March 3, 1999 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.ualberta.ca/~jedavies/inteduc.
Ellsworth, J.H. (1994). Education on the Internet. Indianapolis, Ind. Sams.
Emeagwali P (2000). Vaulting Nigeria into the Information Age”. The Guardian on Sunday
September 24, 2000. ESCAP (2000) Are ICT Policies Addressing Gender Equality?
http//www.unescaporg/wid/04/wideresources/11wideactivities/01cctegm/backgoundpaper.Pdf.
Greenfield, (1999a) Psychological characteristics of compulsive Internet use: a preliminary
analysis. Cyber Psychology and behaviour, Vol. 2, No.5, Pp; 403-412.
Greenfield, David N. (1999b). The Nature of Internet Addiction: Psychological Factors in
Compulsive Internet Use. Paper Presentation at 1999 American Psychological Association
Convention.

www.BellPress.org
27
Groves, P., Lee, S,, Stephens, C. (1997). Existing tools & projects for On-line teaching.
Retrieved April 5, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://into.,ox.ac.uk/jtap,/reports/teaching/.
Havick, J. (2000). The impacts of internet on a television- based society. Technology in
Society, Vol.22: Pp; 273–287.
Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology integration: different
values, different understanding. CTE Technical Report. Education Development Center, Inc.
Center for Children and Technology. Accessed 10/10/2005 at
http://www.edc.org/CCT/cchome/reports/tr6.html
Johnson, W.L., Blake, T. Shaw, E. (1996). Automated Management and Delivery of Distance
Courseware. Paper presented at Web Net 96 – San Francisco, CA – October 15-19, 1996.
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Education
technology research and development, Vol. 42, No.(2), Pp; 7-19.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Landmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well being? American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. (9), Pp; 1017-1031.
Leiner BM, Cert VG, Clark DD, Kahn RE, Kleinrock L, Lynch DC, Postel J, Roberts LG,
Wolff S (2000). “A brief history of the Internet: available at
http://www.isoc.org/Internet/history/brief.shtml.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with
technology. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol .77, Pp; 69-72.
Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, Pp;
400-407.
Misra J & Satyanarayana N R (2001). Users of Internet in a University Library: A case study.
ILA BULL., Vol.37, No. (4), Pp; 132-134.
Nawaz, Muhammad. (2006). Mass Communication: An Introduction to Information
Revolution, Theories, skills and practices. Islamabad: higher education commission.
Newman, D. (1992). Technology as support for school structure and school restructuring. Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 74, Pp; 308-315.
Orson, R.D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and
Learning? Educational Researcher, Vol.26, Pp; 27-34.

www.BellPress.org
28
Pettersson, R. (1989). Visuals for information research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Educational Technology Publications, Pp; 1-58.
Plomp, Tjeerd, et al. (1996). “International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology”.
Cambridge University Press in United Kingdom.
Rose, S.A., & Ferlund, P.M. (1997). Using technology for powerful social studies learning.
Social Education, Vol.61, No. (3): Pp; 160-166.
Schneider, G. P., Evans, J., & Pinard, K. T. (2006). The Internet Fourth Edition- Illustrated
Introductory (4th ed.). United States of America: Thomson Course Technology.
Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy.
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 –27.
Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy.
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 73, Pp; 17 –27.
Singh AM. (2002). The Internet Strategy for Optimum Utilization in South Africa”. S. Afr. J.
Info. Manage. Vol. 4: Issue/ (March).
Tsai, C.-C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its
applications to internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Education
Development, Vol.21: Pp; 401–415.
Uyanga, S., Chimedlham, Ts., Tsogtbaatar, D., & Choijoovanchig, L. (2004),
Recommendations on the Informatics Curriculum Standards for Primary and Secondary
Schools. Ulaanbaatar.
Van Gorp, M.J., Boysen, P. (1997). Class Net: Managing the Virtual Classroom. International
Journal of Educational Telecommunications. Special Double Issue: The WWW in Use in
Higher Education, Vol.3 No. (2/3), Pp; 279-291.
Wiske, M. S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B.,
Watt, M. & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching. Cambridge, MA:
Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 706).
Yusuf, M.O. (2005). Information and Communication Technologies and Education:
Analyzing the Nigerian National Policy for Information Technology. International Education
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, Pp. 316 – 321.

Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary

Similar to Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary (20)

More from Alexander Decker

More from Alexander Decker (20)

Internet usage by the teachers working in higher secondary