CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Educational Technology in LearningOnline and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of Digital Media in Higher Education across Country Contexts: A Comparison between Germany and Thailand

Open access
Grothaus, Christin, Dolch, Carina, Zawacki-Richter, Olaf·2021·International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
DOI 10.3991/ijet.v16i20.24263
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Digital media and educational technologies have the potential to support an increasing internationalization of education, connecting students across borders and in international classrooms. However, practitioners and scholars need to further discuss the adaptation of online learning pedagogies to cultural contexts students operate in. Focusing on two countries that differ noticeably in cultural value orientations, this study compares primary data of media use and attitudes of higher education students from Thailand with secondary data of students from Germany. Acceptance, frequency of use and perceived usefulness of various media, ownership of and activities performed via digital devices as well as social media use were assessed. Results disclosed a preference for and more frequent use of entertainment media and collaborative tools among Thai learners. German students showed higher acceptance of office tools and performed fewer study related tasks via social media. Both groups found various digital media more useful as compared to how often such were used. These and further findings are discussed considering the possible influence of educational-, cyber- and national culture as well of student demographics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3991/ijet.v16i20.24263

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Beine M., Docquier, F. & Rapoport H. (2001). Brain Drain and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 64: 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S03043878(00)00133-4 · DOI
  2. Kabilan, M., Ganapathy, M., Bray, E., Gustine, G. & Qasim, M. (2019). Facebooking" across Asia -Learning English along the way? Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Hu- manities, 27(1): 35-49.
  3. Carr, R., Olugbemiro J. J., Wong T., Yuen K. (1999). Asian Distance Learner. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.
  4. Murphy and Yuen (1999) IN Asian Distance Learner. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.
  5. Lévy, P. (2001). Cyberculture. University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Hanft, A., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Gierke, W. B. (Eds.). (2015). Herausforderung Heterogenität beim Übergang in die Hochschule. Waxmann.
  7. Micro-Blogging (W, C) 3.20 1.53 183 1577 1.25 0.88 -17.31 204 .00 - Video calls (W, C) 3.20 32 37 Podcasts/ Video Podcast (E) 3.18 2.17 173 1162 1.10 1.09 -10.38 1333 .00 33 32 Graphic Software (E) 3.15 2.47 171 1299 1.00 1.06 -6.71 1468 .00 34 28 Online exams/test (E) 3.10 2.64 117 736 0.94 0.89 -11.39 851 .00 35 15 Online library services (E) 3.09 3.52 171 1742 0.94 0.79 6.17 19 .00 -Virtual bulletin board/pin board (E, C) 3.08 Video software (E) 3.07 2.13 173 1148 0.99 0.97 -10.68 1319 .00

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grothaus, C., Dolch, C., & Zawacki-Richter, O.
Affiliations
  • Mahidol University (TH)
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
Publisher
International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)
Published
2021-10-25
Volume
16
Issue
20
Pages
64
ISSN
1863-0383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3991/ijet.v16i20.24263
OpenAlex
W3210558073
Cited by
19
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology in Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
digital media use, university students, internationalization of education, cross-cultural comparison, Germany, Thailand, social media use, perceived usefulness, media acceptance, entertainment media, groupware, digital device ownership, student attitudes, cultural values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review