The Comparision of English Language Teaching Methods Through Educational Technologies in State University with Azad University in Shiraz

Subject Areas : Education

فاطمه Shahamat ¹ (استادیارگروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد مرودشت. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. مرودشت. ایران)
نادر Shahamat ² (استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، واحد مرودشت. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. مرودشت. ایران)

Received: 2015-10-04 Accepted : 2016-10-06 Published : 2017-03-09

Keywords: Multiple Intelligences Method – Educational Technology,

Abstract :

"> This study was an attempt to compare English language teaching
methods through educational technologies in state university with Azad
University in Shiraz. This study is functional and semi experimental.
The participants in the study included 385 EFL male and female students
(294 females and 91 males) who were native speakers of Persian (165
state university and 220 Azad university). Of the latter, 193 were
focusing on English language teaching, 127 English language translation,
and 65 English literature. Thirty-seven (37) held master degree, 348
graduates. 385 English language students were selected through random
stratified sampling in Azad and state university. To collect the required
data questionnaire was made by researcher on a five-point Likert scale.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicated .97 the reliability of the
questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed through Paired T-test,
Independent T-test, Pearson Chi-square test. The findings of this study
revealed that the most used English language teaching method was
multiple intelligence and the least used method was audio-lingual method
in both state and Azad universities. The results also showed there is a
significance difference between English language teaching methods use
in both universities. Educational technologies like CD, internet, scanner,
language lab, printer, and scanner were used more in Azad University
than state university. Results showed that Azad University employed
technology more than did those at the State University.

References:

- Aliver, A. (2001). Faculty pedagogical approach, skill, and motivation in today's distance education milieu . ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED398244, Retrieved from: http://www.aect.org/publication/qrde.htm

- Almekhafi, A. (2006). The effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates EFL school students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2),121-142.

- Amagada. (2006). E- education in the UK. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4), 107-115.

- Beker, H. (1994). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership , 61(5), 50-54.

- Cavia A. (2004). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

- Celbr, H. (2000). Using a cognitive motivation control view to assess the adoption intention for web based learning. Computer Education, 50 (4): 329-30.

- Chuan Kung, S. & Chuo, T. W. (2011). Student Perception of English learning through ESL/EFL websites. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. TESL_eJ., 6(1).

- Constantopolos, D.T. (2011). Digital Classroom.  Harvard Education Press

- David , P. J. (2000). The E-Learning Readiness Survey. 20 Key Strategic Questions You and Your Organization Must Answer About the Sustainability of Your E-Learning Efforts. Available in: http://books.Mcgrawhill

- Dela Cal-Fasoni, L. (2001). A technology to enhance teaching and learning. Front row Phonics: Acal field test, Mal. C aliforni State University.

- Dotcan, V. (2013). “Technology in Education: Meeting Future Challenges”;  Unesco –aceid International Conference on Eucation Bangkok, Thailand

- Gorden , L. (2003). Shaping The Colledge Curriculum ; Simon & Schuster.

- Keli & Mecaniz (2002). “Managing Technological Change in Academies”; Available at: www.educause.edu/ir/library/text

- Kendra Sue, H. (2001). A descriptive analysis of a computer assisted instruction development English program. DAL-A 62/10, P.3283.

- McAnear, A. (2003). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

- Proenza F.J.(2005) Open Source Software, I4d .

- Smerdon, S. & Venjilenski, A. (2000). Factors Affecting E-Learning. Journal of teaching strategies. 6(2): 89-93. (in Persian)

- Star, L. & Latoco. (1997 .(Does Quality Matter? Measuring Wether Online Course Quality Standards Are Predictive Of Student Satisfaction In Higher Educatio. A Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the Requirements  for the Degree Doctor of  Philosophy, Capella University.