• Nu S-Au Găsit Rezultate

View of EFL University Instructors’ Perception Regarding E- Learning

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "View of EFL University Instructors’ Perception Regarding E- Learning"

Copied!
20
0
0

Text complet

(1)

EFL University Instructors’ Perception Regarding E- Learning

*Noha Khaleefa Sharad, **Shaimaa Abdulbaqi Al-Bakri

*MA Candidate, English language Department, College of Education-Ibn Rushed – for Human Sciences, University of Baghdad /Baghdad, Iraq

[email protected]

** Professor, English Language Department, College of-Ibn Rushed- for Human Sciences, University of Baghdad /Baghdad, Iraq

[email protected]

Abstract

In the era of COVID- 19 pandemic, technology has played a fundamental role because all the educational systems have been changed. Educational Institutions around the world start to present and deliver lectures and lessons through electronic mediums either synchronously or asynchronously, and sometimes blended so as to promote learning and implement the recommendations of World Health Organization of social distancing.

This study aims at finding how Iraqi EFL university instructors perceive e- learning and if there are any significant differences between them due to their gender and years of experience. The participants are (65) instructors from the departments of English in the college of Education / Ibn Rushd for Human sciences and the College of Education for Women at the University of Baghdad. An online closed questionnaire has been submitted to the participants using Google forms. The results reveal that Iraqi EFL university instructors have positively perceived e- learning, and that there are no significant differences between them according to their gender and their years of experience.

Kay words: COVID- 19, E-learning, Synchronous, asynchronous, and blended learning Introduction

Certainly, the entrance of computer and the internet into the educational system brings a new type of learning known as “E- Learning”, which refers to a learning system in which students and instructors are engaged in aninformation exchange electronically, and do not meet face to face (Alkhalaf et.al., 2012, p.98)

Chitra & Raj (2018, p.11) state that e- learning refers to the use of different network information and technologies of communication in the processes of teaching and learning, a lot of terms can be used to refer to e- learning, these include: virtual learning, online learning, distributed learning, web-based and network learning. E- learning has become a necessity in the information and globalization era, and a lot of educational institutions around the world offer this

(2)

type of learning in order to breakdown social and geographical boundaries (Babu & Sridevi, 2018, p: 84).

Towards the end of 2019, it has become very essential to shift from traditional classes to virtual classes because of COVID- 19 Pandemic. Online learning is the best solution to continue learning and to achieve social distancing between instructors and students during the pandemic.

Accordingly, Iraqi universities start to use e- learning as other universities in the world did. All lectures have been transferred into online lectures. It is a new method that starts to be used in the Iraqi universities for the first time. Therefore, it has become necessary to know EFL university instructors’ perception regarding e- learning, since they are one of the recipients of this kind of learning.

This study aims at finding Iraqi EFL university instructors’ perception regarding e- learning, and is going to answer the following questions:

1.Does Iraqi EFL university instructors’ perception regarding e- learning differ according to their gender?

2.Does Iraqi EFL university instructors’ perception regarding e- learning differ according to their teaching experience?

E-Learning Forms

There is no doubt that e-learning plays a fundamental role in the development of the educational sector at any country. Internet and other information and communication technologies release education from the four walls of the classroom (Behera,2013, p.65). Accordingly, instructors can use different forms of e-learning to present and deliver lectures, these include:

1.Synchronous E-Learning: this form of e-learning occurs simultaneously through electronic modes. Instructors and students have the opportunity to interact via chatrooms, and video conferencing can make face-to-face communication much easier. In synchronous e-learning, instructors and students can interact and collaborate in real time via virtual classroom using webcams. It is like the traditional classroom except that interaction is done remotely between instructors and students via the web. In addition, instructors can record the lecture and add it to the e-library so that students can replay the lecture several times in order to master the material (Preveen, 2016, p. 22-23). The ability of instructors to provide immediate feedback to their students is considered one of the characteristics of this form of e-learning. It also encourages students to exchange information and enhances them to interact with each other, and strengthens

(3)

their social presence (Park & Bonk, 2007, p. 308). Different e- devices are available in synchronous e- learning that are used to enrich instructors and students experience in this form, these include: Audio and Video Conferencing, Chats, Instant Massaging, Web- conferencing, White Boarding, and Application Share (Mamattah, 2016, p. 6-7)

2.Asynchronous E-Learning: it is the most common form of e-learning because of its flexibility that gives students the opportunity to study at their pace (Hrastinski, 2008, p. 52). Students can study at any time and any place using variety of electronic mediums such as e-mails and blogs (Shahabadi & Uplane 2015, p. 132). This form of e-learning provides students with readily made materials, articles, and power point presentation (Preveen, 2016, p. 22). On the other hand, Mamattah (2016, p.8-9) mentions different mediums that can be used in this form including: Data Bases, E-Books, Document Libraries, Forums, E-mails, Streaming audio and video, Blogs and Links.

3.Blended Learning: the integration of online learning and face to face learning is known as blended learning, this form is used to enhance and extend the classroom experience by using information and communication technologies (Watson, 2008, p. 5). Blended learning is also defined as the combination of two methods online learning with face to face learning to produce effective, efficient and flexible learning (Stein & Graham, 2014, p. 12). In blended learning, students can learn at least one part via online classes with their control on time and place, while the second part is located at school or university (Staker & Horn, 2012, p. 35). However, Alnajdi (2014, p. 215) states that students have the opportunity to meet their instructors and their classmates face to face so as to share questions and get instruction. According to Bala (2016, p.

56) different learning strategies can be involved within blended learning, these are: online and offline blended learning, structured and unstructured blended learning, live and self-paced blended learning, and collaborative blended learning.

Methodology

1)Population and sampling

The population of the present study covers Iraqi EFL instructors at the English Departments in the College of Education Ibn-Rushd for Human Sciences and College of Education for Women at the University of Baghdad. A sample of (65) instructors (18 males and 47 females) which represents the whole staff of instructors in departments of English at the two colleges has been used in the current study. See Table (1)

(4)

Table 1:The Distribution of Instructors’ Sample

Participants Gender Total

females males College of Education/ Ibn- Rushd for Human

Sciences

13 18 31

College of Education for Women 34 / 34 65 2) The Instrument of the Study

In order to achieve the aim of the current study, a close- ended questionnaire has been used.

The questionnaire has been developed relying on related literature, consulting specialist in the field of ELT and linguistics, and reviewing the ready- made questionnaires that deal with different aspects of e- learning and online classes. The current questionnaire has been developed from, Al khalaf et. al, 2012,Mollaei & Riasati, 2013, Ameen et. al, 2017, andMulyadi, 2018.

The initial form of the questionnaire comprises 80 items distributed into 7 components. These are: Assumptions = 26 items. Design of instruction, content, and resources = 8 items. Interaction, participation, and collaboration = 6 items. Feedback, assessment, and evaluation= 10 items. Use of e- learning tools= 7 items. Advantages of e- learning = 10 items, and Challenges of implementing e- learning = 13 items.

After face validity by experts in ELT and Linguistics, some items are either modified or omitted. The final number of items has become 55 distributed into 7 components. Assumptions:

14 items. Design of instruction, content and resources: 6 items. Interaction, participation and collaboration: 6 items.Feedback, assessment and evaluation: 7 items.Use of e- learning tools: 7 items.Advantages of e- learning: 6 items.Challenges of implementing e- learning: 9 items. See Appendix (A).

Each item in the questionnaire is answered on a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5 scores) to strongly disagree which receives (1 score), except the scoring for items (32, 52, 53& 54) has been reversed because they are negative.

Pearson correlation coefficient has been used to find the face validity of the questionnaire. A pilot administration has been administrated to a sample of (10) instructors who are selected randomly from the universities of Dyala, Al – Anbaar, and Tikrit to check the clarity of the questionnaire items, and estimate the time required to answer the questionnaire. T- test method

(5)

has been used to estimate the reliability of the questionnaire. The final form of the questionnaire has been administrated on the sample electronically using Google forms. The link of the questionnaire is either sent to the direct official email of participants or by using Viber, WhatsApp, and Telegram.

Results

In this section, results have been illustrated and presented according to the aim of the study and its questions. Mean scores and standard deviations have been used as statistical tools to identify the perceived and unperceived items.The theoretical mean (3) is considered the main criteria that distinguish the perceived and the unperceived items. The items that yield the mean score of (3) and above are considered to be perceived items, whereas the items that get a mean score below (3) are considered unperceived items. Furthermore, t- test has been used to find if there are statistically significant differences between instructors according to gender and teaching experience variables.

Results that are related to the aim of the study are going to be presented according to the items of each component and according to the general components of the questionnaire. The questionnaire items have been arranged according to their ranks in each component, and they are sorted in descending order from the highest mean score to the lowest mean score, and as follows:

1.Assumptions

This component involves (14) items, the analysis of results reveals that, (13) items have been perceived by the instructors with mean scores ranging between (4.153) to (3.553), and standard deviations ranging from (0.955) to (1.031). Only one item hasn’t been perceived by instructors, with a mean score (2.615) and a standard deviation (1.070). See Table 2

Table 2: Means, Standard Deviation, and Ranks of Assumptions

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Mean Std.

Deviations 1 3 Using computer system requires a lot of mental

effort and time.

4.153 0.955 2 7 E-learning is successful only if there is

adequate instructors’ training in the uses of technology for learning.

4.138 0.826

3 1 E-learning is economical for educational institutions to adopt.

3.861 0.916 4 14 A face-to-face method is more learner-centered

than E-learning method.

3.784 1.067

(6)

5 5 Using E-Learning results in neglecting the traditional learning resources on the part of students (e.g., library books).

3.783 1.104

6 10 E-learning helps in integrating different language activities.

3.753 1.015 7 12 Technology assists in making language learning

interesting and enjoyable.

3.738 1.093 8 2 I believe using e-learning improves the quality

of teachers’ work.

3.723 1.111 9 11 E-learning assists in abandoning the traditional

approaches and developing more interactive ways in teaching and learning language.

3.723 1.111

10 6 E-learning promotes the development of communication skills (e.g., writing and speaking)

3.692 1.088

11 4 Using E-learning develops teachers’ academic performance

3.676 1.105 12 9 Delivering a lecture through electronic

technologies is more difficult than face to face lecture.

3.661 1.215

13 8 E-learning gives instructors the opportunity to be facilitators instead of information providers.

3.553 1.031 14 13 Virtual class is more convenient than face to

face class.

2.615 1.070

2.Design of Instruction, Content, and Resources

This component involves (6) items, the analysis of results reveals that all the items of this component have been perceived by the instructors, with mean scores ranging between (4.230) to (3.215) and standard deviations from (0.786) to (1.152). See Table 3.

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviation, and Ranks of the Design of Instruction, Content, and Resources

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 17 The activities used in E-learning have to

be useful and proper for students’ level.

4.230 0.786

2 19 Using websites saves time in finding learning resources.

4.169 0.761

3 20 Instructors use various social media and electronic programs to facilitate online course content.

3.038 0.933

(7)

4 18 E-learning content is regularly updated according to the curriculum.

3.846 0.905

5 15 E-learning limits instructors’ choices of instructional material.

3.492 1.160

6 16 The content of E-learning is the same content of face to face lessons.

3.215 1.152

3.Interaction, Participation, and Interaction

This component involves (6) items, the analysis of results reveal that all the items of this component have been perceived by the instructors, with mean scores ranging between (4.353) to (3.246), and standard deviations ranging between (0.694) to (1.173). See Table 4.

Table 4:Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of Interaction Participation, and Interaction

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 21 Instructors have to create an online

environment conductive and enjoyable for learning.

4.353 0.694

2 26 E-learning is more successful in small groups than in large groups.

3.861 1.102 3 25 Students can interact with their

instructors and with each other during E –learning.

3.692 1.102

4 22 E-learning encourages learners to take an active part in the learning process.

3.569 1.089 5 23 E-learning promotes students’

collaboration.

3.569 1.158 6 24 Online discussion provides effective

environment for learning.

3.246 1.173 4.Feedback, Assessment, and Evaluation

This component involves (7) items, the analysis of results reveal that (6) items have been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (3.846) to (3.107), and standard deviations ranging between (0.775) to (1.263). Only one item hasn’t been perceived by instructors, with a mean score of (2.630), and a standard deviation of (1.193). See Table 5.

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviation, and Ranks of Feedback, Assessment, and Evaluation

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 31 Exams and assignment results are

announced on time in online course.

3.846 0.775

(8)

2 29 Instructors use E-tests to assess students’ performance.

3.461 1.016 3 30 Continuous exams used in E-learning

motivate students to work harder.

3.446 1.046 4 27 Instructors give more feedback to

students during E-learning.

3.338 1.034 5 33 E-learning activities enable the

instructor to observe the development of students as well as the outcomes.

3.230 1.100

6 28 E-learning makes it easy to evaluate students.

3.107 1.263 7 32 Monitoring the progress of large

students’ numbers is easier with E- learning assessments.

2.630 1.193

5.Use of E-Learning Tools

This component involves (7) items, the analysis of results reveal that all the items have been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (4) to (3.430), and standard deviations ranging between (0.847) to (1.117). See Table 6.

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the Use of E – Learning Tools

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 35 E –learning tools increase students

technology literacy.

4.000 0.847 2 34 E-learning tools (e.g. Telegram,

WhatsApp, Google classroom, …etc.) increase the effectiveness of classroom instruction

3.846 0.955

3 38 Instructors prefer synchronous teaching, using (Zoom, Google meet, Free conference call,…etc.) to present the lectures.

3.738 1.004

4 36 E-learning tools have a positive impact on students.

3.676 0.920 5 39 Instructors prefer asynchronous

teaching, using (recorded videos, YouTube, reports, …. etc.) to present the lectures.

3.661 1.019

6 40 Instructors prefer using Google Forms and Edmodo platform to assist students.

3.584 1.088 7 37 Instructors prefer using email to

communicate and share documents with students.

3.430 1.117

6.Advantages of E-Learning

(9)

This component involves (6) items, the analysis of results reveal that (5) of the items have been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (3,800) to (3.184), and standard deviations ranging between (1.175) to (1.171). Only one item hasn’t been perceived with mean score (2.815) and standard deviation (1.261). See Table 7

Table 7:Mean, Standard Deviation, and Ranks of the Advantages of E- Learning

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 41 E-learning is flexible in time and place. 3.800 1.175 2 42 E-learning makes a qualitative leap in

the teaching and learning process.

3.600 1.012 3 46 The use of e-Learning allows self-pacing

in learning.

3.461 1.061 4 43 E-learning makes the process of

teaching easy.

3.292 1.208 5 44 E-learning makes it easy to evaluate

students.

3.184 1.171 6 45 Teaching in virtual classes is more

interesting than real classes.

2.815 1.261 7.Challenges of Implementing E-Learning

This component involves (9) items, the analysis of results reveals that (7) items have been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (4.476) to (3.046), and standard deviations ranging between (0.076) to (1.230). Only two items haven’t been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (2.630) to (2.123), and standard deviations ranging between (1.125) to (0.943). See Table 8.

Table 8: Means, Standard Deviation, and Ranks of Challenges of Implementing E- Learning

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Items Means Std.

Deviations 1 47 Bad Internet connection and slow

speed can reduce the chances of implementing E-learning.

4.476 1.076

2 49 Lack of electricity reduces the chances of implementing E-learning.

4.461 0.969 3 50 There is lack of culture that promotes

the use of technology for learning.

4.123 0.910 4 48 If there is no facilities provided by

the university, e-learning can’t be implemented or succeeded.

4.107 1.032

5 51 some instructors have weak knowledge on how to use computer system.

4.061 1.028

(10)

6 55 There is lack of awareness regarding ways to integrate the software into teaching.

3.969 0.883

7 53 There isn’t enough time to have online exams/assignments.

3.046 1.230 8 52 There is no interaction between

students and teaching staff.

2.630 1.125 9 54 Many instructors and students can’t

afford the high cost of the Internet.

2.123 0.943

This component involves (9) items, the analysis of results reveals that (7) items have been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (4.476) to (3.046), and standard deviations ranging between (0.076) to (1.230). Only two items haven’t been perceived by instructors, with mean scores ranging between (2.630) to (2.123), and standard deviations ranging between (1.125) to (0.943).

The total mean score of the whole questionnaire is 3.608, with standard deviation 1.039, and a percentage 72%. The mean scores of the 7 components of the questionnaire are ranging between 3.815 to 3.294 and standard deviations ranging between 0.949 to 1.061. The analysis of the results reveals that all the components have been perceived by instructors. See Table 9.

Table 9:Mean, Standard Deviations and Ranks of Instructors’ Perceptions of the Questionnaire components

Rank No. in the questionnaire

Component Means Std.

deviation

Percentage

1 2 Design of Instruction, Content and Resources.

3.815 0.949 76%

2 3 Interaction, Participation and Collaboration.

3.715 1.053 74%

3 5 Use of E- Learning Tools. 3.705 0.993 74%

4 1 Assumptions. 3.704 1.051 74%

5 7 Challenges of

Implementing E- Learning.

3.666 1.022 73%

6 6 Advantages of E- Learning. 3.358 1.148 67%

7 4 Feedback, Assessment and Evaluation

3.294 1.061 66%

The whole questionnaire 3.608 1.039 72%

In order to answer the first question, t- test for two independent samples at (0.05) level of

(11)

significance and (63) degree of freedom has been used. The results reveal that the mean score of males is (198.944), with a standard deviation (25.045), while the mean score of females is (199.255), with a standard deviation (25.161). See Table 10.

Table 10:Mean, Standard Deviation, and T-Values for Two Independent Samples to Find Differences According to Gender

Gender No. Means Std.

Deviation

T- Value DF Sig. level (0.05)

Computed Critical

Males 18 198.944 25.045 0.045 2.00 63 Not significant Females 47 199.255 25.161

It is clear from the above table that there are no statistically significant differences between males and females Iraqi EFL instructors’ perception regarding e- learning because the computed t- value (0.045) is less than the critical value (2.00) on significant level (0.05), and degree of freedom (63).

Thus, the first hypothesis is accepted. See figure (1)

Figure 1: Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and T-values amongInstructorsAccordingtoTheirGender

In order to answer the second question, t- test for two independent samples at (0.05) level of significance and (63) degree of freedom has been used. The results reveal that the mean score for those whose teaching experiences are less than (15) years is (193.889), with a standard deviation

(12)

(28.187), whilethe mean score for those whose teaching experiences are more than (15) years is (205.724), with a standard deviation (18.637). See Table 11.

Table 11: Mean, Standard Deviation, and T- Values for Two Independent Samples to Find Difference in Perception According to Teaching Experience

Yrs. of expr.

No. Means Std.

Deviations

T- Value DF Sig. level (0.05) Computed Critical

Less than 15 yrs.

36 193.889 28.187

1.943 2.00 63

Not significant More

than 15 yrs.

29 205.724 18.637

The computed t- value (1.943) is found to be less than the critical t- value (2.00) at (0.05) level of significance and under (63) degree of freedom. Such result indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in Iraqi EFL university instructors’ perception regarding e- learning according to teaching experience variable. Thus, the second null hypothesis is accepted. See Figure (2)

Figure 2: Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and T-Values among Instructors According to Their Teaching Experience

Conclusions

In the light of the questionnaire results, the following conclusions have been drawn:

(13)

1.Iraqi EFL university instructors are highly perceiving e-learning, they consider e-learning as a useful type of learning due to is flexibility in time and place, this feature gives e- learning an advantage over face-to-face learning. Instructors believe that teaching or studying in an online class gives them and their students the opportunity to experience similar means, as done in face- to-face classroom, such as in a live online lecture via synchronous e- learning when they are able to give immediate feedback for their students just like what is done in face-to-face classroom setting.

2. It is found that e-learning tools are easy to be used by the instructors. According to the questionnaire results, 74% of the instructors are able to use different technological tools to present and deliver lectures.

3.Many challenges face the implementation of e-learning in the Iraqi educational institutions, bad internet connection with slow speed and lack of electricity are the most important challenges.

Other problems are related to technical issues such as screen freezes and voice interrupts, and to a lesser extent; the weak technological background for some instructors is also another problem.

4.It is also detected that online materials need to be updated regularly in terms of the design of instruction, resources, and content as some instructors deliver an online lecture just like face to face lecture. At the same time, feedback, assessment and evaluation procedures need to be improved and developed to keep pace with the environment of online classes.

5.Instructors consider e-learning as an interesting way of teaching and that e- learning is a good alternative to methods of teaching specially when it is necessary to leave the four walls of the traditional classroom as with COVID-19 pandemic circumstances.

6.Gender analysis has shown that both female and male instructors would like to use online teaching when it is necessary.

7.The process of learning can be enhanced by e-learning in spite of all the problems and challenges. However, the shift from face to face learning to e-learning is not an impossible mission, but it needs to be gradually done, and good preparation for both instructors and students, in addition to, preparing technical support by the educational students. Yet, this doesn’t mean leaving ordinary classroom for ever because the process of learning is based on face to face interaction between instructors and students. Educational institutions can use the two ways of learning in what is called “Blended Learning”

References

(14)

Alkhalaf, S., Drew, S., & Alhussain, T. (2012). Assessing the impact of e-learning systems on learners: A survey study in the KSA. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 98-104.‏

AlNajdi, S. (2014, March). Hybrid learning in higher education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 214-220). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).‏

Ameen, N., & Willis, R. (2017). The use of e-learning of students in Iraqi universities: potential and challenges.8 th International Visible Conference on Educational Studies & Applied ‏‏

Linguistics 2017. (369-381)

Babu, G. S., & Sridevi, K. (2018). Importance of E-learning in Higher Education: A study.

International Journal of Research Culture Society, 2(5), 1-8.‏

Bala, E. (2016). A study of attitudes of students towards blended learning, Iraqi Case.

International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(4), 54.‏

Behera, S. K. (2013). E-and M-Learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 65-78.‏

Chitra, A. P., & Raj, M. A. (2018). E-learning. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(S1), 11-13.‏

Horn, M. B. & Staker, H. (2015). Blended (Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools).

USA: Jossey- Bass.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause quarterly, 31(4), 51- 55.‏

Mamattah, R. S. (2016). Students’ perceptions of E- Learning. Unpublished M.A thesis.

Mollaei, F., & Riasati, M. J. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of using technology in teaching EFL.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 13-22.

Mulyadi, D. (2018, July). EFL Student Teachers’ Perception and Challenges toward Online Platforms in Language Pedagogy. In English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 321-323).‏

Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Is online life a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323.‏

(15)

Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21-39.‏

Shahabadi, M. M., & Uplane, M. (2015). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning styles and academic performance of e-learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 129-138.

Stein, J. & Graham, C. R. (2014). Essentials for Blended Learning A Standard Based Guide.

USA: Routledge.

Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education.

Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for Online Learning.‏

Appendix A

The Final Form of Instructors’ Questionnaire Dear Respondent,

The researcher is investigating

“EFLUniversityInstructorsandStudents’PerceptionsRegardingE-Learning”. I request you to answer the items of the enclosed questionnaire by ticking (√). There is no need to write down your name. The answers will be used for research purposes.

Thanks for your cooperation.

SectionOne: Personal Information.

1.College: ---.

2.Gender: --- Female. --- Male.

3.Age: ---.

4.Years of experience: ---.

5.Branch: ---.

6.Academic Rank: ---.

7.How many years have you been using computer and Internet? --- years.

(16)

SectionTwo: Instructors’ Perception Regarding E-Learning.

Items Strongly

agree

Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Assumptions

1.E-learning is economical for educational institutions to adopt.

2.I believe using e-learning improves the quality of teachers’ work.

3.Using computer system requires a lot of mental effort and time.

4.Using E-learning develops teachers’

academic performance .

5.Using E-Learning results in neglecting the traditional learning resources on the part of students (e.g., library books).

6.E-learning promotes the development of communication skills (e.g., writing and speaking)

7.E-learning is successful only if there is adequate instructors’ training in the uses of technology for learning.

8.E-learning gives instructors the opportunity to be facilitators instead of information providers.

9.Delivering a lecture through electronic technologies is more difficult than face to face lecture.

10.E-learning helps in integrating different language activities.

(17)

11.E-learning assists in abandoning the traditional approaches and developing more interactive ways in teaching and learning language.

12.Technology assists in making language learning interesting and enjoyable.

13.Virtual class is more convenient than face to face class.

14. A face-to-face method is more learner- centered than E-learning method.

Design of instruction, Content and Resources.

15.E-learning limits instructors’ choices of instructional material.

16.The content of E-learning is the same content of face to face lessons.

17.The activities used in E-learning have

to be useful and proper for students’ level.

18.E-learning content is regularly updated according to the curriculum.

19.Using websites save time in finding learning resources.

20.Instructors use various social media and electronic programs to facilitate online course content.

Interaction, Participation and Collaboration.

21.Instructors have to create an online environment conductive and enjoyable for learning.

(18)

22.E-learning encourages learners to take an active part in the learning process.

23.E-learning promotes students’

collaboration.

24.Online discussion provides effective environment for learning.

25.Students can interact with their instructors and with each other during E – learning.

26.E-learning is more successful in small groups than in large groups.

Feedback, Assessment and Evaluation 27.Instructors give more feedback to students during E-learning.

28.E-learning makes it easy to evaluate students.

29.Instructors use E-tests to assess students’ performance.

30.Continuous exams used in E-learning motivate students to work harder.

31.Exams and assignment results are announced on time in online course.

32.Monitoring the progress of large student numbers is easier with E-learning assessments.

33.E-learning activities enable the instructor to observe the development of students as well as the outcomes.

Use of E-Learning Tools

34.E-learning tools (e.g. Telegram, WhatsApp, Google classroom, …etc.) increase the effectiveness of classroom instruction

(19)

35.E –learning tools increase students technology literacy.

36.E-learning tools have a positive impact on students.

37.Instructors prefer using email to communicate and share documents with students.

38.Instructors prefer synchronous teaching, using (Zoom, Google meet, Free conference call,…etc.) to present the lectures.

39.Instructors prefer asynchronous teaching, using (recorded videos, YouTube, reports, …. etc.) to present the lectures.

40.Instructors prefer using Google Forms and Edmodo platform to assist students.

Advantages of E-Learning

41.E-learning is flexible in time and place.

42.E-learning makes a qualitative leap in the teaching and learning process.

43.E-learning makes the process of teaching easy.

44.E-learning makes it easy to evaluate students.

45.Teaching in virtual classes is more interesting than real classes.

46.The use of e-Learning allows self- pacing in learning.

Challenges of implementing E- Learning.

(20)

47.Bad Internet connection and slow speed can reduce the chances of implementing E-learning.

48.If there are no facilities provided by the university, e-learning can’t be implemented or succeeded.

49.Lack of electricity reduces the chances of implementing E-learning.

50.There is lack of culture that promotes the use of technology for learning.

51.some instructors have weak knowledge on how to use computer system.

52There is no interaction between students and teaching staff.

53.There isn’t enough time to have online exams/assignments.

54.Many instructors and students can’t afford the high cost of the Internet.

55.There is lack of awareness regarding ways to integrate the software into teaching.

Referințe

DOCUMENTE SIMILARE

Machine learning (ML) is an artificial intelligence (AI) technique that allows computers to learn without being explicitly programmed.Machine learning is concerned with the

To ensure a sustainable development of the country, it is important that the state, organizations and other education institution should promote knowledge transfer,

The move towards agent- based environments is supported on the one hand by rapid progress in communication languages (like KQML and Telescript) and standardisation of

Ultrasound (US) sagittal plane images centered on the pelvis and performed strict- ly at the same level and in the same plane used for the API measurement, allow a global

The value of education is precisely the one of life itself, because training means - in the first line - “learning to live”. If we analyze the Romanian social context, we

The number of vacancies for the doctoral field of Medicine, Dental Medicine and Pharmacy for the academic year 2022/2023, financed from the state budget, are distributed to

Specifically, the methods designed for category retrieval task mainly aim at suppressing such within-class attribute varia- tions, while our dual purpose hash learning method aims

The university as a training and development environment offers to students, regardless of the profession for which they decided to prepare, a lot of learning