BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Relationship between the Teachers' Levels of Use and Their Demographic Characteristics in the Adoption of the Student-Active Learning Approach in EFL Classrooms in Oman: A Quantitative and Exploratory Relational Study

Yıl 2015, , 132 - 141, 31.08.2015

Bati Al Shekaili

https://doi.org/10.18768/ijaedu.90321

Öz

Shifting from the traditional teacher-centered to the innovative student-centered educational philosophy in English as a Foreign language (EFL) classrooms represented in the adoption of the student-active learning (SAL) approach has been quite extensively implemented as a valuable approach towards effective students' language learning. An exploratory study was carried out to investigate the teachers' actual Levels of Use (LoU) in the adoption of the SAL approach in their classrooms and its relationship with their demographic variables including gender, age, teaching experience, educational qualifications, and nationalities. The research design was quantitative and exploratory relational. A number of 505 English language teachers participated in this study. Data was collected through a questionnaire including two parts: demographic data and the Levels of Use Self-Assessment (LoU-SA) questionnaire. This was to obtain a holistic picture of the teachers’ LoU pertaining to the SAL approach adoption and their demography. The descriptive statistical analyses as well as the symmetric measure of association of Cramer’s V were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that the majority of the teachers were at the Refinement Level (IVB), and equally at the Preparation Level (II), the Mechanical Use Level (III), and the Routine Level (IVA). It was also found that there were positive relationships between the teachers' LoU and their demographic characteristics. Based on these research findings, it was recommended, among others, that different interventions including training, support, and sufficient teaching materials should be offered. More collaborative opportunities between teachers from different demographic groups should be encouraged, too.

Keywords: Relationship, Levels of Use (LoU), Demographic Characteristics, Adoption, Student-Active Learning (SAL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Innovation

Anahtar Kelimeler

Relationship Levels of Use (LoU) Demographic Characteristics Adoption Student-Active

Kaynakça

  • Al Aghbari, S. Y. (2007). Teachers’ concerns and levels of use in the adoption of student-centered teaching approach: A study of social studies teachers in Oman. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • Anderson, S. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns-based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367.
  • Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367–389.
  • Basinger, D. S. (2000). Utilization and integration of technology by teachers: A case study. Louisiana Tech University.
  • Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A.S., & Hartley, H.V., III. (2008). The role of active learning in college persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 71-83.
  • De Vaus, D. A. (2013). Survey in Social Research (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Dudderar, D. (1997). Measuring teachers’ level of use of Mathematics: Their Way K-2. Wilmington College, New Castle, DE.
  • Hall, G.E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253.
  • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
  • Hall, G. E. and Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Education Research Journal, 14 (3), 263-76.
  • Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D. Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
  • Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2008). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of Use. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
  • Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successful e- government adoption: A conceptual framework. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 63-76.
  • Lau, P., Yuen, M., & Chan, R. (2005). Do demographic characteristics make difference to burnout among Hong Kong secondary school teachers? Social Indicator Research, 71, 491-516.
  • Maphalala, M.Ch. (2006). Educators’ experiences in implementing the revised national curriculum statement in the get band. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Zululand.
  • Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26 (2), 220-237.
  • Marsh, C. J. (1988). Curriculum implementation: An analysis of the use of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) in Australia, 1981–87. Curriculum Perspectives, 8(2), 30–42.
  • McKinney, K. (2011). Active learning. The Illinois State University, Center for Teaching, Learning, & Technology. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/additional/tips/newActive.php
  • Meelissen, M. R. M., & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969-985.
  • Mrazek, R. and Orr, D. (2009). Assessing the professional growth of post-secondary students studying the education applications of emergent technologies. Revista de Informatica Applicada. Brazil- Journal of Applied Computing, 5(1), 5-13.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2008) Teachers’ Levels of Use in the Adoption of Task-Based Language Teaching in the Classrooms. Unpublished Ed.D Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2010). Teachers’ levels of use in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(3), 127-137.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2012). Teachers’ encountered challenges in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. The International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5(3), 269-279.
  • Nestler-Rusack, D. (2011). School personnel’s reports of inclusive educational practice within their School, and their concerns about and use of inclusive educational practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Hartford.
  • Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3).
  • Pedersen, D. (2010). Active and collaborative learning in an undergraduate sociological theory course. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 197-206.
  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223-231.
  • Pundak, D., Herscovitz, O., Shacham, M., Weizer-Biton, R. (2009). Instructors’ attitudes toward active learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 215-232.
  • Richmond-Cullen, C. A. (1999). An evaluation of how teachers implement training received in an intensive arts staff development program. Temple University.
  • Rinaldo, V. (2004). Subject matter is the vehicle and not the focus of learning. Music Educators Journal, 45(3), 31-34.
  • Rinaldo, V., & Denig, S. (2009). A Constructivist approach to learning music: What role, if any, does active engagement play in the learning process?
  • Rutherford, W. L. (1981). Team teaching: How do teachers use it? Revised. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the University of Texas.
  • Rutherford, W. L., & Loucks, S. F. (1979). Examination of the implementation of a junior high school’s new approach to discipline by longitudinal analysis of change in teachers’ Stages of Concern and Levels of Use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Salvano-Pardieu, V., Fontaine, R., Bouazzaoui, B., & Florer, F. (2009). Teachers’ sanction in the classroom: Effect of age, experience, gender, and academic context. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25, 1-11.
  • Shao, X. (2004). Teacher training and curriculum reform in Chinese agricultural schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Sindberg, L., & Lipscomb, S.D. (2005). Professional isolation and the public school music teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 166, 43-56.
  • Tempelaar, D. T. (2006). The role of metacognition in business education. Industry and Higher Education, 20(5), 291-297.
  • Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: an application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161-183.
  • Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407-422.
  • Van De Bogart, W. G. (2009). Active learning pedagogy: A new teaching methodology for a new generation of teachers. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from Nakhon Swan Rajabhat University. Available at http://www.southeastasianreview.com/Active%20learning%20Pedagogy.pdf
  • Watkins, C., Carnell, E., & Lodge, C., (2007). Effective learning in classrooms. California: Sage Publications.
  • Zea, G. (2004). The concerns and levels of use of Sixth Form Geography teachers in implementing the new Sixth Form Geography curriculum. Jurnal Penyelidikan MPBL, Jilid 5.

Yıl 2015, , 132 - 141, 31.08.2015

Bati Al Shekaili

https://doi.org/10.18768/ijaedu.90321

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Al Aghbari, S. Y. (2007). Teachers’ concerns and levels of use in the adoption of student-centered teaching approach: A study of social studies teachers in Oman. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • Anderson, S. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns-based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367.
  • Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367–389.
  • Basinger, D. S. (2000). Utilization and integration of technology by teachers: A case study. Louisiana Tech University.
  • Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A.S., & Hartley, H.V., III. (2008). The role of active learning in college persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 71-83.
  • De Vaus, D. A. (2013). Survey in Social Research (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Dudderar, D. (1997). Measuring teachers’ level of use of Mathematics: Their Way K-2. Wilmington College, New Castle, DE.
  • Hall, G.E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253.
  • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
  • Hall, G. E. and Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Education Research Journal, 14 (3), 263-76.
  • Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D. Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
  • Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2008). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of Use. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
  • Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successful e- government adoption: A conceptual framework. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 63-76.
  • Lau, P., Yuen, M., & Chan, R. (2005). Do demographic characteristics make difference to burnout among Hong Kong secondary school teachers? Social Indicator Research, 71, 491-516.
  • Maphalala, M.Ch. (2006). Educators’ experiences in implementing the revised national curriculum statement in the get band. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Zululand.
  • Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26 (2), 220-237.
  • Marsh, C. J. (1988). Curriculum implementation: An analysis of the use of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) in Australia, 1981–87. Curriculum Perspectives, 8(2), 30–42.
  • McKinney, K. (2011). Active learning. The Illinois State University, Center for Teaching, Learning, & Technology. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/additional/tips/newActive.php
  • Meelissen, M. R. M., & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969-985.
  • Mrazek, R. and Orr, D. (2009). Assessing the professional growth of post-secondary students studying the education applications of emergent technologies. Revista de Informatica Applicada. Brazil- Journal of Applied Computing, 5(1), 5-13.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2008) Teachers’ Levels of Use in the Adoption of Task-Based Language Teaching in the Classrooms. Unpublished Ed.D Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2010). Teachers’ levels of use in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(3), 127-137.
  • Mustafa, Z. (2012). Teachers’ encountered challenges in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. The International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5(3), 269-279.
  • Nestler-Rusack, D. (2011). School personnel’s reports of inclusive educational practice within their School, and their concerns about and use of inclusive educational practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Hartford.
  • Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3).
  • Pedersen, D. (2010). Active and collaborative learning in an undergraduate sociological theory course. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 197-206.
  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223-231.
  • Pundak, D., Herscovitz, O., Shacham, M., Weizer-Biton, R. (2009). Instructors’ attitudes toward active learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 215-232.
  • Richmond-Cullen, C. A. (1999). An evaluation of how teachers implement training received in an intensive arts staff development program. Temple University.
  • Rinaldo, V. (2004). Subject matter is the vehicle and not the focus of learning. Music Educators Journal, 45(3), 31-34.
  • Rinaldo, V., & Denig, S. (2009). A Constructivist approach to learning music: What role, if any, does active engagement play in the learning process?
  • Rutherford, W. L. (1981). Team teaching: How do teachers use it? Revised. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the University of Texas.
  • Rutherford, W. L., & Loucks, S. F. (1979). Examination of the implementation of a junior high school’s new approach to discipline by longitudinal analysis of change in teachers’ Stages of Concern and Levels of Use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Salvano-Pardieu, V., Fontaine, R., Bouazzaoui, B., & Florer, F. (2009). Teachers’ sanction in the classroom: Effect of age, experience, gender, and academic context. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25, 1-11.
  • Shao, X. (2004). Teacher training and curriculum reform in Chinese agricultural schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Sindberg, L., & Lipscomb, S.D. (2005). Professional isolation and the public school music teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 166, 43-56.
  • Tempelaar, D. T. (2006). The role of metacognition in business education. Industry and Higher Education, 20(5), 291-297.
  • Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: an application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161-183.
  • Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407-422.
  • Van De Bogart, W. G. (2009). Active learning pedagogy: A new teaching methodology for a new generation of teachers. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from Nakhon Swan Rajabhat University. Available at http://www.southeastasianreview.com/Active%20learning%20Pedagogy.pdf
  • Watkins, C., Carnell, E., & Lodge, C., (2007). Effective learning in classrooms. California: Sage Publications.
  • Zea, G. (2004). The concerns and levels of use of Sixth Form Geography teachers in implementing the new Sixth Form Geography curriculum. Jurnal Penyelidikan MPBL, Jilid 5.
Toplam 42 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Bati Al Shekaili

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ağustos 2015
Gönderilme Tarihi 28 Ağustos 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015

Kaynak Göster

EndNote Shekaili BA (01 Ağustos 2015) The Relationship between the Teachers’ Levels of Use and Their Demographic Characteristics in the Adoption of the Student-Active Learning Approach in EFL Classrooms in Oman: A Quantitative and Exploratory Relational Study. IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education 1 2 132–141.

 Published and Sponsored by OCERINT International © 2015 - 2023

Contact: ijaedujournal@hotmail.com

Creative Commons License

International E-Journal of Advances in Education by IJAEDU is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://ijaedu.ocerintjournals.org