Disadvantages of Internet In Learning of Engineering Students

INTRODUCTION
Across the modern world, internet is practically used by lots of people because it’s really accessible and fast to use especially for college students, to apply its main purpose of convenience to do a specific task. The problem is how it really affects the academic learning of each student that perhaps instead of gaining advantages it causes bad effects for its user. As it with all new development, the Internet has its own downside. Likewise with the unpredictable developing of the World Wide Web openly mindfulness and expanding in measure of data it takes in, the Internet is not thoroughly secure and burglary is one of the various threat it postures, specialists individual data is at danger of being access by rebel persons (Inoue, 2006).Formally, that is in the school, our youth utilize the Internet for occasion, when hunting down data and when finishing tests. Casually, that is in their extra time, they talk with companions, play online PC diversions and are included in fan fiction, i.e. utilizing distributed material to make pictures and movies and so on. (Olin-Scheller & Wikström 2010).

The Internet is the conclusive innovation of the Information Age, presently motor was the vector of mechanical change of the Industrial Age. This worldwide system computers, to a great extent construct these days with respect to stages of remote correspondence, gives universal limit of multimodal, intuitive correspondence in picked time, rising above space (Castells 2014).Today we live in a world in light of integration and communication, in which a thriving system of electronic frameworks and gadgets helps us explore our days (Sharma 2014).The Internet can be an excellent study resource, and is progressively being utilized by advanced education understudies in the wellbeing and social consideration areas, however the major disadvantage of utilizing Internet based assets is the issue of finding great quality data from inside of the boundless measure of data accessible (Bond, Fevyer& Pitt 2002).

Access is one of the most standout issues regarding the usage of the internet. Students must have PC and Internet access. Hence, they will meet with troubles when innovation is not generally at this very moment it ought to be and Internet access is not generally accessible (Vu 2005). Wireless technology is rapidly picking up a toehold on numerous grounds as intends to accomplish portability and “anyplace, at whatever time” access (Boerner2002). For a millennium, universities have been viewed as the principle societal centre point for learning and learning. And for a thousand years, the fundamental structures of how colleges produce and disperse information and evaluate students have survived in place through the clearing societal changes made by innovation the movable-sort printing press, the Industrial transformation, the broadcast, phone, radio, televisions, and computers (Anderson 2012).

Statement of the problem
The study aims to know the disadvantages of Internet in learning of engineering students. Questions:
1) What are the disadvantages of Internet in learning of engineering students? 2) What are the impacts of internet through the learning of the students? Assumptions:
1) The researchers assume that there are disadvantages of Internet in relation to learning of the engineering students. 2) The researchers assume that even though Internet is very useful, there are still disadvantages of it. 3) The researchers assume that the questions will be answered after the conducted survey.

Significance of the study
Students and Children
It is essential for a student to know certain disadvantages caused by internet for us to be aware of the “Do’s and Don’ts in exploring the wide world of internet. It can also help a student to be productive rather than to be a non-constructive member of the society. The results of this study may engage students to use the internet intellectually instead of being a product of an improper operation of the internet.

Teachers
Teachers generally guide and mentor the students academically and it is their duty to lead their students to the right path. This study can engage teachers to educate students in using the internet wisely and warn them the possible effects if not use for rightful purposes. Parents

Parents are the first one that must guide their children to the proper use of the internet. This study can engage them to inform their children to use this marvelous invention in a useful and a productive manner. School Administrators

This study is important for school administrators for them to implement in the school premises the useful ways on how to use the internet. Online Gamers
This study is significant especially to them because they are prone on leading themselves to the negative path in using the internet. This study can let them know the results of not using the invention properly. This study may let them realize the other serviceable uses of the internet.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CONNECTIVISM
Connectivism is a hypothesis of learning which emphasizes the role of social and cultural context. Connectivism is often associated with and proposes a perspective similar to Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD), an idea later transposed into Engeström’s (2001) Activity theory.[1] The relationship between work experience, learning, and knowledge, as expressed in the concept of ‘connectivity is central to Connectivism, motivating the theory’s name.[2] It is somewhat similar to Bandura’s Theory that proposes that people learn through contact. What sets Connectivism apart from theories such as constructivism is the view that “learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing”.[3] The phrase “a learning theory for the digital age”[4] indicates the emphasis that Connectivism gives to technology’s effect on how people live, communicate and learn. Principles [edit]

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Learning is more critical than knowing. Maintaining and nurturing connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. Perceiving connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill. Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of learning activities. Decision-making is it a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. What is Connectivism?

Connectivism is a learning theory developed by George Siemens. It discusses the inadequacies of current theories of learning such as Behaviourism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism and how they relate to technology. Siemens’ theory is concerned with the impact technology has on society and it focuses on how learning and educational pedagogy is shifting. Its key point is that learning is no longer individualistic, but relies more on learning through participation within communities of practice. Connectivism is about making connections between people and with technology.

ACTIVITY THEORY
Human-computer interaction
The rise of the personal computer challenged the focus in traditional systems developments on mainframe systems for automation of existing work routines. It furthermore brought forth a need to focus on how to work on materials and objects through the computer. In the search of theoretical and methodical perspectives suited to deal with issues of flexibility and more advanced mediation between the human being, material and outcomes through the interface, it seemed promising to turn to the still rather young HCI research tradition that had emerged primarily in the US (for further discussion see Bannon&Bødker, 1991). Specifically the cognitive science-based theories lacked means of addressing a number of issues that came out of the empirical projects (see Bannon&Bødker, 1991):

1. Many of the early advanced user interfaces assumed that the users were the designers themselves, and accordingly built on an assumption of a generic user, without concern for qualifications, work environment, division of work, etc. 2.In particular the role of the artifact as it stands between the user and her materials, objects and outcomes was ill understood. 3. In validating findings and designs there was a heavy focus on novice users whereas everyday use by experienced users and concerns for the development of expertise were hardly addressed. 4. Detailed task analysis and the idealized models created through task analysis failed to capture the complexity and contingency of real-life action. 5. From the point of view of complex work settings, it was striking how most HCI focused on one user – one computer in contrast to the ever-ongoing cooperation and coordination of real work situations (this problem later lead to the development of CSCW). 6. Users were mainly seen as objects of study.

Because of these shortcomings, it was necessary to move outside cognitive science-based HCI to find or develop the necessary theoretical platform. European psychology had taken different paths than had American with much inspiration from dialectical materialism (Hydén 1981, Engeström, 1987). Philosophers such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein came to play an important role, primarily through discussions of the limitations of AI (Winograd& Flores 1986, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986). Suchman (1987) with a similar focus introduced ethnomethodology into the discussions, and Ehn (1988) based his treatise of design of computer artifacts on Marx, Heidegger and Wittgenstein.

The development of the activity theoretical angle was primarily carried out by Bødker (1991, 1996) and by Kuutti (Bannon&Kuutti, 1993, Kuutti, 1991, 1996), both with strong inspiration from Scandinavian activity theory groups in psychology. Bannon (1990, 1991) and Grudin (1990a and b) made significant contributions to the furthering of the approach by making it available to the HCI audience. The work of Kaptelinin (1996) has been important to connect to the earlier development of activity theory in Russia. Nardi produced the, hitherto, most applicable collection of activity theoretical HCI literature (Nardi, 1996). Systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT)

At the end of the 1990s, a group of Russian and American activity theorists working in the systems-cybernetic tradition of Bernshtein and Anokhin began to publish English-language articles and books dealing with topics in human factors and ergonomics[20] and, latterly, human-computer interaction.[21] Under the rubric of systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT), this work represents a modern synthesis within activity theory which brings together the cultural-historical and systems-structural strands of the tradition (as well as other work within Soviet psychology such as the Psychology of Set) with findings and methods from Western human factors/ergonomics and cognitive psychology. The development of SSAT has been specifically oriented toward the analysis and design of the basic elements of human work activity: tasks, tools, methods, objects and results, and the skills, experience and abilities of involved subjects. SSAT has developed techniques for both the qualitative and quantitative description of work activity.[22] Its design-oriented analyses specifically focus on the interrelationship between the structure and self-regulation of work activity and the configuration of its material components.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J (2012) The future impact of the Internet on higher education: Experts expect more-efficient collaborative environments and new grading schemes; they worry about massive online courses, the shift away from
on-campus life. Retrieve from: http://www.pewinternet.org /files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_Higher_Ed.pdf Boerner, G. (2002). The brave new world of wireless technologies: A primer for educators. Syllabus, 16(3), 19-30. Retrieve from: http://www.rcet.org/research/att-oln/yong-ma-turner-final.pdf Bond, C Fevyer, D and Pitt, C (2002). Student reactions to online tools for learning to use the Internet as a study tool: Outside the comfort zone? Institute for Health and Community Studies Bournemouth University. Retrieve from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences /perth04/procs/pdf /bond.pdf Castells, M (2014). The Impact of the Internet on Society: A Global Perspective. Retrieve from: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/article/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/?fullscreen=true Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive

Inoue, Y & Bell, S (2006) Teaching with Educational Technology in 21st Century (London,UK: Information Science Publishing 96-98. Retrieve from: http://www.ukessays.co.uk /essays/theology/advantages-and-disadvantages-internet-research-purposes.php#ixzz3entxPT6F Olin-Scheller, Christina & Wikström, Patrik.(2010) “Literary Prosumers: Young People’s Reading and Writing in a New Media Landscape”. Education Inquiry 1 (2010): 41-56. 3.

Sharma, S (2014).ENGINEERING THE “INTERNET OF THINGS” Retrieve from:http://www.ansys. com/staticassets/ANSYS/staticassets/resourcelibrary/article/Engineering-the-Internet-of-Things-Article-AA-V8-I3.pdf Vu T (2005).Advantages and disadvantages of using computer network technology in language teaching. Chy Faculty, SE. Retrieve from: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/saad/ Documents/advant%20and%20 disadvant%20of%20CALL.pdf