Internet Fatigue Scale for Teachers (IFST): Development and Validation

Keith Marionne  Ilay,; Joie  Mendoza,

Internet Fatigue Scale for Teachers (IFST): Development and Validation

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

From early childhood education through the tertiary, the rapid transition to online learning modality to keep students interested in continuing education has led to dramatically increased workloads for teachers to identify the content of the work. (Allen et. al., 2020). The main goal of developing Internet Fatigue Scale for Teachers (IFST) is to objectively measure the level of online fatigue they are experiencing as facilitators of learning. Data obtained from the scale was participated by a diverse population of Filipino online teachers with a total number of 119, handling students from nursery level to postgraduate studies. The final version of the scale with the item count of 20 (mean=72.40; SD=8.48) was found to be fairly reliable (a=.721; n=109). For the content validity IFST scored .99 in content validity index (CVI) which is the minimum acceptable value for five experts according to Lawshe (1975). Overall, the psychometric properties of IFST has shown to be acceptable following the norm of Filipino online teachers of any age, gender, teaching experience and level of students being taught.

References:

Allen, J., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time of COVID- 19. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 233–236.
Aggarwal, Anil & Aggarwal, A. & Bento, Regina. (2000). WebBased Education. 10.4018/978-1-878289-60-5.ch001.
Brunce, S. (2014). Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Psychological Review, 75(6), 522–536.
Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Dass, L. C. (2020). Online Learning Readiness Among University Students in. 19.
Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The Effect Of Blended Learning On Course Persistence And Performance Of Adult Learners: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 1–18.
Garari, K. (2021, January 29). Internet fatigue among online workforce. Deccan Chronicle.
Garrison, D.. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice, Second edition. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice, Second Edition. 1-166. 10.4324/9780203838761.
Holmes, B. and Gardner, J. (2006). E-Learning: Concepts and Practice, London: SAGE Publications
Howard, R. (2012). Technological influences on social ties across the lifespan. In Karen
Fingerman, Cynthia Berg, Toni Antonucci, & Jacqui Smith (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan psychology (pp. 647– 671). Springer Publishers.
Huang, Q. (2018). Examining Teachers’ Roles in Online Learning. The EuroCALL Review, 26(2), 3.
Hyseni Duraku, Zamira & Hoxha, Linda. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on education and on the well-being of teachers, parents, and students: Challenges related to remote (online) learning and opportunities for advancing the quality of education.
Hyseni Duraku, Zamira & Hoxha, Linda. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on higher education: A study of interaction among students' mental health, attitudes toward online learning, study skills, and changes in students' life.
Keis, O., Grab, C., Schneider, A., & Öchsner, W. (2017). Online Or Face-To-Face Instruction? A Qualitative Study On The Electrocardiogram Course At The University Of Ulm To Examine Why Students Choose A Particular Format. Medical Education Online, 17, 1–8.
Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Internet And Higher Education Interaction, Internet Self-Efficacy And Self-Regulated Learning As Predictors Of Student Satisfaction In Online Education Courses. The Internet And Higher Education, 20(1), 35–50.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28, 563–575
Mailizar, Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the Covid-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), em1860.
McEWEN, B. R. U. C. E. S., & SEEMAN, T. E. R. E. S. A. (1999). Protective and Damaging Effects of Mediators of Stress: Elaborating and Testing the Concepts of Allostasis and Allostatic Load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 30–47.
Rasouli, A., Rahbania, Z., & Attaran, M. (2016). Students ’ Readiness for E-learning Application in Higher Education. 4(3), 51– 64.
Rouquette, A., & Falissard, B. (2011). Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales. International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 20(4), 235-249.
Rouquette, A., & Falissard, B. (2011). Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales. International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 20(4), 235-249.
Shutti, B. (2014). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70.
Stewart, D. (2015). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Terry, J. (2016).Teachers multitasking with technologies in and out of the classroom. Education in a technological world. Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts. Spain: Formatex Research Centre, in press. The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Horm Behav. 2003 Jan;43(1):2-15.
McEwen BS, Wingfield JC. (Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology, The Rockefeller University The Stress of Online Learning (Distance Learning). (n.d.). WhatWhen-How
UNESCO (2020). Education in a post-COVID world : Nine ideas for public action International Commission on the Futures of Education.
Wingfield JC (2003) Anniversary Essay: Control of behavioural strategies for capricious environments. Animal Behaviour. 66:000- 000. (Department of Neuroendocrinology, University of Washington)