10.30495/

Educational Technology in Language Learning: Analyzing Advanced EFL Learners’ Perception on the Use of Technology at Language Institute: Educational Technology in Language Learning: Analyzing ....

PDF
  • Soraya Omara*1,
  1. Department of English Language, Zahedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran

Received: 2022-08-08

Accepted: 2022-01-09

Published in Issue 2022-04-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Omara, S. (2022). Educational Technology in Language Learning: Analyzing Advanced EFL Learners’ Perception on the Use of Technology at Language Institute: Educational Technology in Language Learning: Analyzing ... Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 1(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.30495/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 186

Abstract

The present study made an attempt to investigate advanced EFL learners' perception in a private language institute on the use of
technology. It also analyzed the possible difference between the EFL learners' perception in terms of their genders. To do this,
quantitative study based on survey data and structured interview was conducted. A group of 88 learners, 44 males and 44 females,
made up the subjects. These learners had already studied in the institute using some technological devices; thus, they were
familiar with the use of these devices in the language class. The questionnaire was distributed among the participants during their
class time and soon after it, they were collected and submitted for analysis using SPSS. Afterwards, the participants were
interviewed for cross validation purpose. The results of the study proved that the learners, both males and females, had positive
perception towards the use of technology in their language class. In addition, all of the question items without much differences
between them supported the positive effect of using different aspects of technology in the language class. In other words, both
genders expressed the same type of attitudes towards the given ideas and not much difference could be observed between them.
Findings of the present work can suggest the usefulness and practicality of educational technology in the area of language
teaching and learning.

PDF

References

  1. Albirini, A. (2006) Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of
  2. Syrian EFL teachers. Computers and Education, 47(4), 373-398.
  3. Arshad Khan, M., Kamal, T., Illiyan., A., & Asif, M. (2021). School Students’ Perception and Challenges
  4. towards Online Classes during COVID-19 Pandemic in India: An Econometric Analysis.
  5. Sustainability, 13 (2), 47-86.
  6. Atmojo, A. & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL Classes Must Go Online! Teaching Activities and Challenges
  7. during COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13, 49-76. 10.18326/rgt. v13i1.49-
  8. Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research. Toronto: Thomson & Wada Worth Press.
  9. Bame, A. E., Dugger, W. E. Jr., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology–
  10. PATT-USA. The Journal of Technology Studies, 19 (1), 40–48.
  11. Barber, D., Cooper, L., & Meeson, G. (2007). Learning and teaching with interactive whiteboards:
  12. Primary and early years. Exeter, England: Learning Matters.
  13. Blake, R.J. (2008) Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning.
  14. Georgetown University Press: Washington, D.C.
  15. Carlson, S. A., & Silvman, R. (2006). Microcomputers and computer-assisted instruction in special
  16. classr: Do we need the teacher? Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(2), 105-110.
  17. Derbyshire, H. (2003). Gender issues in the use of computers in education in Africa. Retrieved 25 January
  18. from http://imfundo.digitalbrain.com/imfundo/web/learn/documents/
  19. Dornyei, Z. (2005). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  20. Associates Publishers.
  21. Duran, A., & Cruz, M. (2011). The interactive whiteboard and foreign language learning: A case study.
  22. Porta Linguarum, 15(5), 211-231.
  23. Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational
  24. Research, 37(3), 219–227.
  25. Ekmekçi, E. (2016). Integrating Edmodo into foreign language classes as an assessment
  26. tool. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 1(1), 1-11.
  27. Fullen, M. (1989). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
  28. He, R.G. & Yan, Y.J. (2001) Applying Information Technology in Health and Physical Education,
  29. Teachers' World Bimonthly, 11(2), 71-85.
  30. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. and Brindley, S. (2005) Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject
  31. teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2),
  32. -192.
  33. Jones, H. and Paolucci, R. (2004), Research framework and dimensions for evaluating the effectiveness
  34. of educational systems on learning outcomes, Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
  35. (1), 17-27.
  36. Johnsona, E. M., Ramanaira, J., & Brineb, J. (2010). ‘It’s not necessary to have this board to learn
  37. English, but it’s helpful’: Student and teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboard use.
  38. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 199-212.
  39. Kaid, M., & Bin-Hady, W. (2019). A Study of EFL Students’ Attitudes, Motivation and Anxiety towards
  40. WhatsApp as a Language Learning Tool Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on
  41. CALL Number 5. July 2019.
  42. Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2003). Student teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards using
  43. interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Presentedat the IFIP
  44. Working Groups 3.5 Conference: Young Children and Learning Technologies. UWS Parramatta.
  45. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide. Taylor & Francis.
  46. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2011) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd
  47. Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  48. Lee, D. (2003). Factors influencing the success of computer skills learning among in-service teachers.
  49. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 139-141.
  50. Mathews-Aydinli, J., &Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of
  51. interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-
  52. McManis, Lilla Dale; Gunnewig, Susan B. (2012). YC: Finding the Education in Educational
  53. Technology with Early Learner, Young Children, 67(3), 14-22.
  54. Mohalikand, R., & Sahoo, S. (2020). E-Readiness and Perception of Student Teachers towards Online
  55. Learning in the Midst of COVID-19. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3666914.
  56. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance
  57. learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (2), 129-135
  58. Sefyrin, J. (2005). Understandings of gender and competence in IC.Paperpresented at 6th International
  59. Women into Computing Conference. University of Greenwich.
  60. Schmid, E, C. (2010). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English
  61. language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers &education,
  62. (1), 1553-1568.
  63. Schmid, E. C., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training
  64. for language teachers. In M. Thomas and E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for
  65. education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 197-214). New York, NY: IGI Global.
  66. Pratama, E. Y. (2015). The Implementation of Blended Learning Method Using Edmodo (A Social
  67. Networking Site) in Teaching Reading Comprehension. In The 3rd International Conference on
  68. language, literature, Culture and Education (ICLLCE).
  69. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. From On the Horizon. MCB University Press,
  70. (5), 1-6.
  71. Scholfield, P. J. (2003). Evaluation of CALL Software (Publication. Retrieved September 2008, from
  72. University of Essex: http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~scholp/calleval.htm#bas
  73. Tailor, G. R. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research. Lanham: University
  74. Press of America.
  75. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in
  76. social and behavioural sciences. In: Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds). Mixed methods in social
  77. and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 3-5.
  78. JNTELL, Issue 1, Volume 1, Spring 2022
  79. Vai, M., & Sosulski, K. (2015). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide. New York,
  80. NY: Routledge.
  81. Wang, Y. (2002). The Meaning and Connotation of Applying Information Technology in Teaching,
  82. Information and Education Bimonthly 80(3), 23-31.
  83. Wang, Y. (2003). A Study of Dynamic School Database Website Design, Journal of High School
  84. Education, 9(2), 467-508.
  85. Yáñez, L., & Coyle, Y. (2011). Children’s perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT
  86. Journal, 65(4), 446-457.
  87. Yildiz, E. P., Cengel, M., & Alkan, A. (2020). Current trends in education technologies research
  88. worldwide: Meta-analysis of studies between 2015-2020. World Journal on Educational, 2, (5),
  89. -38.
  90. Yot-Domínguez, C., & Marcelo, C. (2018). University students’ self-regulated learning using digital
  91. technologies, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 5(4), 1-18.
  92. Zhang, Y. (2022). The Effect of Educational Technology on EFL Learners’ Self-Efficacy. Frontiers in
  93. Psychology, 13(3), 1-8.