WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO OMANI/ARAB LEARNERS?

• Authors: Lucas Kohnke
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This research explores what constitutes an educational tool for students in the Sultanate of Oman, using a quantitative questionnaire with face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Students and teachers at Nizwa College of Technology and Salalah College of Technology participated in the study. Educational tools are widely used as part of instruction today, but they are still a relatively new aspect of education in this region. Accordingly, the findings of the study are relevant to educators in the Omani educational system, as well to educators of Arab learners in general. This study examines four specific educational tools, namely email, Facebook, instant messaging, and cell phones. The findings indicate that students and teachers agree on what is considered an educational tool but also lack information and knowledge of how to integrate them into their learning and teaching. This paper provides insight into the mindset of Omani/Arab learners and those educators responsible for integrating educational technology in the region.

Keywords

EN

Web 2; 0 tools; Arab learners; educational technology

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 11
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 25-36

Contributors

author

Lucas Kohnke

• American University of Afghanistan

References

• Al-Ani, B., & Redmiles, D. (2004). Forces that influence trust in technology in the Middle East: culture, politics and history. Retrieved on March 28, 2010, from http://mikeb.inta.gatech.edu/HCI4CID/AlAni.pdf.
• Anderson, J., & Eickelman, D. (1999). Convergence of New Media Technologies in the Middle East. Middle East Insight. March-April: 59-62.
• Bebell, D., Russel, M., O’Ewyer (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (1), pp. 45-63.
• BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) (June, 2004). A Review of the Research Literature on Barriers to the Uptake of ICT by Teachers. Retrieved July 23, 2010, http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&rid=13642.
• Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (1998). Research in Education (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Bialo, E., & Soloman, G. (1997). Open your eyes: The evidence is there! Technology and Learning, 18, 70–71.
• Clark, A. (2008). E-Learning Skills. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to Teach English with Technology. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
• Fullan, M. (1993). Educational Leadership, (2), pp. 7-26. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_98-99/03_93.html.
• Galluccio, R. (February 2000). Introducing technology in the classroom: Patterns of resistance to change and innovations. Retrieved October 19, 2010, http://mailer.fsu.edu/~rgp6722/garnet-rgp6722/documents/Patterns_of_Resistance_to_Change-Perez_AECT_2000.pdf.
• Holliday, A. (1999) Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, pp. 237-6.
• Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Generation. New York: Vintage.
• Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. NY: Harper & Row.
• Jacobson, D.M. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA AND ED-TELECOM 98: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, June 20-25, pp. 668-675.
• Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), pp. 457-476.
• Kitao, S.K. (1998). Interaction and on-line synchronous communication in English language Learning. CALL-EJ, 3 (1). Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/3-1/kkitao.html.
• Kumpulainen, K. (Ed.). (2007). Educational Technology: Opportunities and Challenges. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu. Retrieved November 1, 2010, http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789514284069/isbn9789514284069.pdf.
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage Publications.
• Middle East Internet Usage Stats and Population Statistics. Retrieved July 2, 2010, http://www.internetworldstats.com/middle.htm.
• NetDay News. (2005, March 8). NetDay’s 2004 survey results show 58 percent of students have cell phones, 60 percent email or IM adults on a weekly basis. Retrieved January 18, 2010 from http://www.netday.org/news_2004_survey_results.htm
• Ong, W. (1992). Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge.
• Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999). BuildingLlearning Communities in Cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pajo, K., & Wallace, C. (2001). Barriers to the uptake of web-based technology by university teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 16 (1), pp. 70-84.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 113-118. Retrieved October, 2010, http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.
• Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
• Seels, B.B. and Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
• Sharma, P., & Barret, D. (2007). Blended Learning. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
• Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2 (1). Retrieved September 1, 2010. From http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol2no1/article2.htm.
• Smith, R. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology. In David Palfreyman & Richard Smith (Eds.), Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives (pp. 129-146). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Taylor, P. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: Lone ranging is not enough. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 269–278.
• Warschauer, M. (2008). Whither the digital divide? In D. L. Kleinman, K. A. Cloud-Hansen, C. Matta, and J. Handesman (Eds.) Controversies in Science & Technology: From Climate to Chromosomes. New Rochelle, NY: Liebert. Retrieved September 19, 2010, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/whither.pdf.
• Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), pp. 7-26. Retrieved on October 5, 2010 from https://www.calico.org/a-604-Comparing%20FaceToFace%20and%20Electronic%20Discussion%20in%20the%20Second%20Language%20Classroom.html.
• Wiburg, K. & Butler-Pascoe, M.E. (2002). Technology and Teaching English Language Learners. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
• Wu, Kun-Huei. (2010) The relationship between language learners’ anxiety and learning strategy in the CLT classrooms. International Education Studies, 3 (1), pp. 174-191.