THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MOULDING THE FUTURE WORKFORCE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADAPTATION TO THE SERVICE SECTOR'S GROWTH

Manisha Manchanda; Jyotsna

doi:10.55955/230002

Authors

Dr. Manisha Manchanda Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology
Ms. Jyotsna Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55955/230002

Keywords:

Higher Education, Perceived Ease of Use, University, Disruptive Technology

Abstract

"Let's face it: in the age of Google and Wikipedia, the university and, most likely, secondary school business models will have to alter. We cannot make a life selling truth anymore. They are instantly accessible with the click of a mouse" (Firenstein, 2013).

Despite information technology's long history as a major field of study, the last decade has seen a dramatic shift in the field's focus due to the rise of the Internet. To account for the dramatic developments across both technologies and their settings, many researchers have investigated and presented models and theories of technology adoption to anticipate and explicate user behaviour with technology. Most of these theories and models were created in the United States, and each one proposes a unique collection of determinants and moderators. Thus, it is questioned if the models and theories of technology acceptance developed, adapted, and extended in the United States are applicable in other nations, particularly India. Additionally, it is speculated that other potential determinants and moderators may also play significant roles in this setting.

This paper (1) reviewed literature in regards to prominent theories and models; (2) reviewed previous literature about IT acceptance and usage within four contexts of study; and (3) concluded that using the Internet helps in improving academics' professional practices.

In the research model, there are five main factors that influence usage and up to nine others that moderate important associations.

Perceived utility, perceived ease of use, and self-efficacy were found to be the most important factors in determining usage behaviour in the classroom. Usefulness and self-efficacy were two primary characteristics that strongly predicted usage behaviour across different activities. In conclusion, usage patterns were a major factor in shaping future behaviour. Key drivers of using behaviour were also moderated by three factors: age, e-university plan, and reading and writing proficiency. There were just two moderators that affected the impact of usage behaviour on behaviour intention, and those were age and intended university research. Gender, degree of education, academic rank, years of experience, and fluency in India had no effect on the impact of the major determinants on usage behaviour, and usage behaviour had no effect on the impact of the intention to change. Practitioners may benefit from a deeper familiarity with the model in order to better understand the factors contributing to users' reluctance to adopt the technology and to develop more effective strategies for boosting its widespread adoption and use.

Author Biographies

Dr. Manisha Manchanda, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology
Ms. Jyotsna, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology

References

Backes-Gellner, U. and Tuor, S.N. (2010), “Avoiding labor shortages by employer signaling: on the importance of good work climate and labor relations”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 271-286, doi: 10.1177/001979391006300205.

B_ahn_areanu, C. (2019), “World economic forum 2019: globalization 4.0–A better version”, Strategic Impact, Nos 1-2, pp. 79-82.

Ball, R. and Halwachi, J. (1987), “Performance indicators in higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 393-405.

Barbosa, A. (Ed.) (2014), ICT Homes and Businesses 2011: Research on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil, Internet Management Committee in Brazil.

Bashir, S. (2007), Trends in International Trade in Higher Education: Implications and Options for Developing Countries. Education Working Paper Series, World Bank Working Papers, number 6. The World Bank, March, Washington, DC.

Blackler, F. and Orbone, D. (2003), Information Technology and People: Designing for the Future, (MIT Press) Paperback – March 17.

Boaventura, J.M.G., Cardoso, F.R., da Silva, E.S. and da Silva, R.S. (2009), “Stakeholder theory and firm theory: a study on the hierarchization of objective functions in Brazilian firms”, Revista Brasileira de Gest~ao de Neg_ocios-RBGN, Vol. 11 No. 32, pp. 289-307.

Bollini, L. (2016), “The challenge of a hybrid education between computer science and design competences in Italian university. Courses and degrees”, Proceedings of EDULEARN16 Conference, 4th-6th July.

BRASSCOM (2019), Industrial Report: Trends of 2019. Brazilian Association of Technology, Information and Communication Industry, available at: https://brasscom.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/P-2020-04-09-Coletiva-de-Imprensa-Relat%C3%B3rio-Setorial-2019-v15.pdf (accessed 12, 2019).

Brazil Tech (2019), “Report of Brazilian technology market”, available at: https://brazilian.report/tech/ (accessed 12 December 2019).

Cackler, G.J., Gu, E. and Rodgers, M. (2008), “Technology in developing economies”, CS 201: Computers, Ethics, and Social Responsibility.

Carnoy, M. and Samoff, J. (2014), Education and Social Transition in the Third World, Princeton University Press, Vol. 1044.

Caplan, B. (2018), The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money, 3rd ed., Hardcover, p. 416.

Castelli, L., Ragazzi, S. and Crescentini, A. (2012), “Equity in education: a general overview”, Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 69, pp. 2243-2250.

CENSUP - Censo da Educaç~ao Superior (2016), Dispon_ıvel Em, available at: http://portal.inep.gov.br/ web/guest/microdados (accessed 28 February 2018).

Cezarino, L.O., Liboni, L.B., Stefanelli, N.O., Oliveira, B.G. and Stocco, L.C. (2019), “Diving into emerging economies bottleneck: Industry 4.0 and implications for circular economy”, Management Decision.

Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006), Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and Its Use, for Practitioners, Teachers and Students, John Wiley and Sons.

Checkland, P.B. (2000), “Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective”, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Vol. 17 No. S1, pp. S11-S58.

Choudaha, R. (2014), “Redefining value in international higher education”, The Global Window on Higher Education, No. 302.

Dias Sobrinho, J. (2005), “Higher education, globalization and democratization: which university?”, Brazilian Journal of Education, No. 28, pp. 164-173.

Donaires, O.S. (2012), “Uso combinado de metodologias sist^emicas: uma abordagem para lidar com situaç~oes-problema em cen_arios complexos de gerenciamento de organizaç~oes”, Revista Gest~ao and Conhecimento, pp. 1808-6594.

Ehrenberg, R.G. (2012), “American higher education in transition”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 193-216, pg 208.

Fleming, D. and Søborg, H. (2014), “Are emerging south-east asian economies caught in a middleincome trap? case: Malaysia. paradoxes in provision of higher skilled labour”, Forum for Development Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 115-133, doi: 10.1080/08039410.2014.889035.

Fosu, A.K. (2017), “Growth, inequality, and poverty reduction in developing countries: recent global evidence”, Research in Economics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 306-336.

Furnell, S. (2021), “The cybersecurity workforce and skills”, Computers and Security, Vol. 100, doi: 10. 1016/j.cose.2020.102080.

Goulart, A.R. (2019), The Failure of the Current Model of Higher Education in Information Technology (IT), Doctoral dissertation, University of Sao Paulo.

Hanushek, E.A. and W€oßmann, L. (2007), The Role of Education Quality for Economic Growth, Policy Research Working Paper; No. 4122, World Bank.

INEP, National Institute of Educational Studies and Research An_ısio Teixeira (2018), “Education Reports Brazil”, available at: http://portal.inep.gov.br/ (accessed 1 October 2020).

J_auregui, I. (2018), “Characterization and evaluation of the working life project and authentic leadership”, available at: http://dspace.uces.edu.ar:8180/jspui/bitstream/123456789/4411/1/RI_15_16_P%C3%A9rez-J%C3%A1uregui.pdf (accessed 2 February 2020).

Jedwab, R., Christiaensen, L. and Gindelsky, M. (2017), “Demography, urbanization and development: rural push, urban pull and urban push?”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 98, pp. 6-16.

Kittur, A., Nickerson, J.V., Bernstein, M.S., Gerber, E.M., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., and Horton, J.J. (2013), “The future of crowd work”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, pp. 1301-1317, doi: 10.1145/2441776.2441923, available at: www.scopus.com.

K€uller, A.L.M. (2010), Inovaç~ao na Educaç~ao Superior: Reflex~oes sobre a transformaç~ao de uma proposta curricular. 2010, (Dissertaç~ao - Mestrado em Educaç~ao), Faculdade de Educaç~ao, Universidade de S~ao Paulo, S~ao Paulo, p. 172.

Liboni, L.B. and Cezarino, L.O. (2012), “A Vis~ao Sist^emica e a Estrat_egia para a Sustentabilidade: um estudo de caso no setor sucroenerg_etico brasileiro”, 8 Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas, Poços de Caldas. Anais do 8 Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas.

Liboni, L.B., Cezarino, L.O., Jabbour, C.J.C., Oliveira, B.G. and Stefanelli, N.O. (2019), “Smart industry and the pathways to HRM 4.0: implications for SCM”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

L_opez, J.E., de la Guardia, J.J.R., Olmos-G_omez, M.C., Chac_on-Cuberos, R. and Olmedo-Moreno, E.M. (2019), “Enhancing skills for employment in the workplace of the future 2020 using the theory of connectivity: shared and adaptive personal learning environments in a Spanish context”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 15, doi: 10.3390/su11154219.

Luthra, S. and Mangla, S.K. (2018), “Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 117, pp. 168-179.

Marris, P. (2018), The Experience of Higher Education, Routledge.

Mello, S.L.D.M., Ludolf, N.V.E., Quelhas, O.L.G. and Meiri~no, M.J. (2020), “Inovaç~ao na era digital: novo mercado de trabalho e mudanças educacionais”, Ensaio: Avaliaç~ao e Pol_ıticas P_ublicas em Educaç~ao, Vol. 28 No. 106, pp. 66-87.

Molderez, I. and Ceulemans, K. (2018), “The power of art to foster systems thinking, one of the key competencies of education for sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 186, pp. 758-770.

Panayotou, T. (2016), “Economic growth and the environment”, The Environment in Anthropology, pp. 140-148.

Phan, L.K. (2021), Solutions to Improve the Quality of Higher Education in Vietnam in the Context of Plecher, H. (2020), Brazil: Unemployment Rate From 1999 to 2020, Statistical Digital Trend Report, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263711/unemployment-rate-in-brazil/ (accessed 05 2020).

Porto, C. and R_egnier, K. (2003), O Ensino Superior no Mundo e no Brasil – Condicionantes, Tend^encias e Cen_arios para o Horizonte 2003-2025 - Uma Abordagem Explorat_oria, Macroplan, dezembro, 177p, Cap_ıtulo 1, pp. 11-18.

Ramsden, P. (1991), “A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the Course Experience Questionnaire”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 129-150.

Saviani, D. (2007), “O Plano de Desenvolvimento da Educaç~ao: an_alise do projeto do MEC”, Educaç~ao and Sociedade, Vol. 28 No. 100, pp. 1231-1255.

Sevilla, M. and Far_ıas, M. (2020), “Labour market mismatch in emerging countries: the case of Chile”, Compare, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 276-293, doi: 10.1080/03057925.2019.1675495.

Simonova, M., Lyachenkov, Y. and Kostikova, E. (2021), Regional Labor Market: Supply and Demand in the Context of Digitalization. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47458-4_93, available at: www. scopus.com.

Teichler, U. (2008), Diversification? Trends and Explanations of the Shape and Size of Higher Education, Published online: 18 April 2008, Springer Science Business Media B.V, Vol. 56, pp. 349-379, 2008. High Educ, doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9122-8 pp. 349-379.

Vaganova, O.I., Odarich, I.N., Popkova, A.A., Smirnova, Z.V. and Lebedeva, A.A. (2019), “Independent work of students in professional educational institutions”, Amazonia Investiga, Vol. 8 No. 22, pp. 295-304.

World Bank (2019), “Higher education for development: an evaluation of the world bank group’s support”, available at: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/729101493052924041/pdf/, Higher-education-for-development-an-evaluation-of-the-World-Bank-Group-s-support.pdf, (accessed 26 March 2019).

Zexian, Y. and Xuhui, Y. (2010), “A revolution in the field of systems thinking—a review of Checkland’s system thinking”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 140-155.

Ziankova, I., Lisichonak, A. and Yemialyanau, A. (2019), Development of an Inclusive Society with the Instruments of “Green” Economy and Education, Paper Presented at the Vide. Tehnologija, Resursi - Environment, Technology, Resources, Vol. 1, pp. 353-358, doi: 10.17770/etr2019vol1