Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology

‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﲪﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬

Sultanate of Oman
Ministry of Higher Education

Educational Technology
At Omani Higher Education Institutions

Presented by:

Dr Ali Sharaf Al Musawi
Dr Hamoud Nasser Al Hashmi

Curriculum and Teaching Methods Dept., College of Education
Center for Educational Technology
Sultan Qaboos University

2004

Abstract

Educational Technology at Omani Higher Education Institutions

Dr. Ali Sharaf Al Musawi
Dr Hamoud Nasser Al Hashmi

The purpose of this research was to address the current and prospective views on
educational technology (ET) in order to discover the difficulties and develop its
utilization in Omani higher education. The main instruments used to carry out this
research were two questionnaires: the faculty members' questionnaire, and the
technical/administrative staff questionnaire. They were developed by the researchers
by generating a list of potential issues of ET derived from the literature and national
level standardized surveys. The face validity and reliability of both instruments were
calculated. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted to verify some areas of the
effectiveness of instructional software/equipment use brought up by faculty members
in the questionnaire. Data were collected and several statistical treatments were used
in data analysis. The participants were (159) ET specialists, administrators, and ET
and learning resources centers’ (LRCs) staff representing all educational technologists
who have been with the public and private Omani higher education institutions.

The findings show no significant differences between the participants' views in
relation to three variables (job, qualification, and type of institution) in terms of their
abilities to use instructional equipment/facilities. The findings also show no
significant differences between the participants' views in regard to: the impediments
of use, and evaluation of instructional technology in relation to two variables
(qualification, and type of institution). There are no significant differences in regard
to: the frequency of use in relation to two variables (job and type of institution). There
are no significant differences between the participants' views in regard to: the
frequency of use, and ability to use instructional software in relation to two variables
(job and type of institution). However, some other findings show significant
differences in favor of faculty members in terms of instructional software
design/production experience, and in favor of PhD holders in terms of the ability to
use instructional software.

The views, quoted in the interviews, confirm that the perceived values of the
technology are tangible, and that this is an important reason for lecturers’ adoption of
the technology. Unless the faculty members feel the effectiveness and the usefulness
of the technology they will not use it. Their attitudes to the use of ET were influenced
by these professional considerations in their teaching.

Literature Survey

2

Educational media and technology (ET) play a significant role within the teaching and
learning process in higher educational institutions and become an important part of
educational systems and processes. ET helps in improving educational methods and
delivery and the quality of teaching and learning.

However, ET should be planned in a strategic way in order to employ its capabilities
to reach cost-effectiveness standards. Experience shows that Oman needs a vision by
which its higher education can adapt ET. The purpose of this research is to review and
analyze some indicators and trends presenting the future needs for development in ET.

Educational Technology and Learning

Research seems to indicate that educational technologies such as instructional radio
and films were as effective as traditional classroom instruction (Hannafin and
Savenye, 1993). Computer based education, when used in quot;tutorialquot; or quot;drill and skillquot;
mode, leads to equivalent student's achievement using other kinds of classroom
methods such as personal tutoring (Viadero, 1997). Likewise, one of the first Omani
experimental research conducted on on-line instruction (OLI) at Sultan Qaboos
University concluded that OLI is equally effective in students' achievement as
traditional teaching methods (Al Musawi & Abdelraheem, 2004b). However, studies
have revealed a modest but positive relationship between technology and achievement
at all levels of education and subject. Research also indicates that students in a
technology-rich environment write more, finish units of study more quickly, show
more self-motivation, work cooperatively, express positive attitudes about the future,
and are better able to understand and represent information in a variety of forms
(Viadero, 1997). It could be, therefore, argued that ET may not directly affect
students' achievement but it improves their learning styles and processes.

Educational Technology Issues

ET at the Omani higher education has received an improved positive
administrative/faculty support and is actively developing in terms of staffing,
equipment, and finance due to two main factors: “improvements and new acquisition
of modern technology and software” and “improved administration support for media
use in teaching”. However, it faces serious challenges which are “insufficient or
limited materials/supplies/resources/space”, “inexperienced personnel”,
“limited/inadequate training of staff”, and “need to employ new skilled staff” (Al
Musawi, 2002). These results are corroborated by previous studies which concluded
that ET at Omani higher education is characterized by the: underutilization of
advanced technology; and unsatisfactory staff skills to fulfill the required level (Al-
Hajri, 2000:94; Al Khawaldi, 2000:121). This can be partially attributed to the
administrative leadership because as technology moves into institutions at an ever
faster pace, administrators are feeling overwhelmed (Trotter, 1997).

Studies show that teachers are, in many instances, short of the required preparation
time to apply the new educational innovations. In addition, many teachers don't use,
and sometimes resist, the use of technology. Possible explanations for such resistance
are: poorly designed software, technophobia, doubt that technology improves learning
outcomes, fear of redundancy where lecturer’s replacement by technology, resentment

3

of the technology as a competitor for student's attention, and complacency with old
practice by senior faculty (Hannafin and Savenye, 1993; Akinyemi and Al Musawi,
2002).

In response to the-above mentioned issues, Boyd (1997) recommends that institutions
employ a technology trainer. A clear trend towards technical/faculty staff increase
along with a need to employ staff with specific specializations and qualifications are
reported in the Omani context (Al Musawi, 2002). These findings are supported by
the need to initiate college/university media specialist certification/accreditation
programs (Abu Jaber & Osman, 1996; Al Khawaldi, 2000:121).

Research also explains that new technologies require new skills; and that Omani
higher education institutions are falling behind in professional development. There is,
therefore, a strong need for updating and retraining staff and teachers (Abu Jaber &
Osman, 1996). This implies that in-service teachers will need updates in acquiring
new skills in order to manage educational innovations. However, a constant refrain in
the literature concerning the use of technology is the need for more and better teacher
training (Boyd, 1997; Bialo & Soloman, 1997; Zehr, 1997).

To deal with issues raised above, more higher education institutions are requiring
administrators, faculty, and technicians to take technology courses (Trotter, 1997).
Teacher preparation programs are important because the future teacher will depend on
the technological skills for both personal productivity and for instructional activities;
and these should be part of the required courses for prospective teachers (Kook,
1997:58-59).

Educational Technology: New Applications

Omani efforts of utilizing educational and information technology in higher education
proceed rapidly regardless of some issues resulted from the technical, logistical, and
human factors (Al Musawi and Abdelraheem, 2004a). Nowadays, students navigate
easily through the Internet searching for information and knowledge resources and get
linked with their counterparts in any part of the world through the Internet (Al
Rawahy, 2001). Sultan Qaboos University adopted e-learning by providing its faculty
members with WebCT tools combined with f2f instruction. An increase in the number
of on-line running courses and their users is noticeable. Internet instructional uses by
SQU faculty members are however, mostly limited to obtaining information and rich
resources available at all times. This suggests that they should be trained and
encouraged to broaden their use beyond the present status (Abdelraheem and Al
Musawi, 2003; and Al Musawi and Abdelraheem, 2004b). Major results show that e-
learning is needed and its standards must be set before it can be developed,
disseminated and diffused. This might yield to overcome problems of enrolment and
access to Omani higher education (Al Musawi and Akinyemi, 2002).

In this research, several questions have been raised. They are centered upon how
higher education institutions' key persons such as specialists, technicians, and
administrators perceive current and future issues in regard to ET. This should
ultimately lead to set future indicators and goals by which Omani higher education
improves its investment and utilization of ET in order to reach effectiveness
levels/standards.

4

Research Objective
This research was designed to assess the current status of ET in order to discover the
difficulties and develop its utilization in Omani higher education. It also aimed at
determining indicators which help to formulate a future strategic plan for Omani
higher education ET.

Significance of the Research
The need for such research is vital for the following reasons:
• To explore the extent to which ET services are utilized by Omani
higher education institutions.
• To discover the range to which these services are likely to be
developed in the next decade.
• To raise the awareness of Omani higher education administrators about
the importance of coordinated strategic planning in this field.
• To pave the way for researchers and decision makers to measure the
cost-effectiveness of ET services for planning purposes.

Research Questions
Several questions have been raised as follows:
1. What are the current quantitative levels of technical and technological
equipment/facilities?
2. To what extent is the effectiveness of the current design, production
and use of instructional software/equipment?
3. What are the future equipment/facilities/software requirements in
relation to the increase in students’ intake?
4. To what extent are the human, financial, and training resources
available at present?
5. What are the needs for future human, financial, and training resources
and university programs in ET field?
6. To what extent are ET research funds and mechanisms available?

Research Methods
The main instruments were two questionnaires: the faculty members' questionnaire,
and the technical/administrative staff questionnaire. They were developed by
producing a list of potential issues of ET derived from the literature and national level
standardized surveys. The face validity of the list was calculated by presenting it to a
group of referees in the area of ET.

The experts made some modifications on the original sections and items; and added
some others. The total sections became four for the faculty members' questionnaire
incorporating: (1) demographics; (2) career development; (3) ability to use
technology; and (4) training needs. The total sections of the technical/administrative
staff questionnaire were the same in addition to one more section on quantities,
budget, and staff issues. While all other sections of both questionnaires were designed
using rating scale, the first and the second sections, along with some parts of the
questionnaires, were generally formed of open-ended questions. Then, the reliability
coefficient was measured by alpha-Cronbach and it was found between 0.85-0.89.

5

In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted to verify some areas brought up on
the issue of the effectiveness of instructional software/equipment use in the faculty
members questionnaire. The format of these interviews was semi-structured.

Research Design and Statistical analysis
In this research the dependent variable is current and future prospective uses of ET
measured by the sample's responses to the questionnaire items, whereas the
independent variables are:
• Institution: (two levels: University and college).
• Type of Institution: (two levels: Public and private).
• Age: (five levels: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-65).
• Nationality: (two levels: Omani and expatriate).
• Gender (two levels: Male and female).
• Job Area: (five levels: Educational only, Educational/Academic,
Technical only, Administrative only, and Technical/Administrative).
• Qualification: (four levels: PhD, MA, BA, and Ed. Diploma).
• Job (two levels: faculty and Technical/Administrative).

Analytic descriptive approach was used for the questionnaires. The following
statistical treatments were used in data analysis: percentages, means, standard
deviations, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Scheffe test, and Chi2
test.

The interviews were also analyzed qualitatively using the data encoding and
transcription; followed by content analysis to find patterns and trends.

Participants
The population of this study included ET specialists, administrators, and ET/learning
resources center’s staff representing all educational technologists who have been with
the public and private Omani higher education institutions. The public HE institutions
include: Sultan Qaboos University, Colleges of Education at the Ministry of Higher
Education, Higher Technology Colleges at the Ministry of Manpower, and Health
Institutes at the Ministry of Health. The private HE institutions include: nine
university and colleges.

The two forms of the questionnaire were distributed to all institutions with specific
instructions on the people and ways to fill them. Participants were 159 faculty,
technical, and administrative members of staff who responded to the questionnaire.
This sample represents more than 45% of the total population as indicated by
institutions' statistics. It should be noted that some returned questionnaires had some
missing values and this has slightly affected the data analysis process.

Table 1 describes the participants’ distribution in relation to demographic variables:
institution, type of institution, age, nationality, gender, job area, and qualification.
Only three variables; namely: job, type of institution and qualification, were used for
analysis purposes because they are more influential than other variables.
Table (1)
Participants' Distribution based on Demographic Variables

6

Technical/Admin
No. Variable Levels Faculty
Staff
1 Institution University 11 13
College 90 45
2 Type of Public 60 14
Institution Private 41 44
3 Age 20-29 10 30
30-39 33 19
40-49 35 7
50-59 21 56
60-65 2 2
4 Nationality Omani 24 53
Expatriate 77 4
5 Gender Male 70 48
Female 31 9
6 Job Specialty Educationalist 4 -
Educationalist/Academic 97 -
Technician - 26
Administrator - 15
Technician/Administrator - 17
7 Qualification PhD 36 11
MA 44 9
BA 21 28
Ed. Diploma - 7
8 Total 101 58
159

Data Analysis, Findings, and Discussions: Part One

7

The Analysis of the Questionnaires

I. The Current and Prospective Quantitative Levels of Technical and
Technological Equipment/Facilities

I.A. Current Quantities

The Technical/Administrative staff were asked to summarize their institutions' current
instructional equipment/facilities on a quantity categories scale of: (5-20); (20-50);
(50-100); (>100); and (not applicable). Table 2 lists the current quantity categories in
ratios as perceived by Technical and Administrative staff.

Table (2)
Percentages of the Technical/Administrative Staff Responses on the Current
Equipment/Facilities Quantities (n=58)
Item 5-20 20-50 50-100 > 100 NA
OHP 46.6 6.9 5.2 1.7 39.6
Slide Projector 48.3 5.2 1.7 - 44.8
Audio Recorder 48.3 5.2 1.7 - 44.8
VCR 41.4 5.2 5.2 - 48.2
Computer 19.0 3.4 6.9 25.9 44.8
LCD Data Show 32.8 3.4 6.9 8.6 48.3
Monitors 25.9 6.8 5.2 12.1 50.0
Photo/Digital Camera 41.4 3.4 - 3.4 51.8
Digital Video Camera 46.6 3.4 - 1.7 48.3
Scanner 50.0 6.9 - 1.7 41.4
Printer 29.3 17.3 1.7 1.7 50.0
Smart Board 34.5 5.2 - 1.7 58.6
Microphone 32.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 51.7
Headphones 27.5 5.2 5.2 12.1 50.0
Audio Studio 29.3 3.5 1.7 1.7 63.8
TV Studio 29.3 1.7 - - 69.0
Closed Circuit TV Lab 27.6 1.7 - - 70.7
Language Lab 32.8 - - - 67.2
Multimedia Lab 31.1 - 1.7 - 67.2
Intranet 22.4 - 1.7 10.4 65.5
Instructional Software 17.2 15.6 6.9 3.4 56.9

8

40

35

30

25
Ma ( )
en%

20

15

10

5

0
5-20 20-50 50-100 100-

Current Equi pm ent/Faci l i ti es Quanti ti es

Fig. 1 Current Equipment/Facilities Quantities

Table 2 and Fig. 1 above show that less than (50%) of the sample shows that almost
all equipment/facilities are in the range of (5-20) in numbers. The finding points out
that those ET equipment/facilities are currently few in numbers in higher education
institutions. This finding is verified by another; more than (50%) of the sample
indicated that their institutions currently lack most of these equipment and facilities.
These ratios are alarming specifically if new technologies (e.g. Intranet - 65.5%; and
multimedia/language labs- 67.2% each) are to be considered.

I.B. Future Needs

The Technical/Administrative staff were asked to expect their institutions' future
needs of instructional equipment/facilities in terms of quantity categories of: (5-20);
(20-50); (50-100); (>100); and (not applicable). Table 3 lists the expected quantity
categories in ratios as perceived by Technical and Administrative staff.

30

25

20
en )
M a (%

15

10

5

0
5-20 20-50 50-100 100- >

Expected Increase in Equipment/Facilities Quantities

Fig. 2 the Expected Increase in Equipment/Facilities Quantities

9

Table (3)
Percentages of the Technical/Administrative Staff Responses on the Expected
Increase in Equipment/Facilities Quantities (n=58)
Item 5-20 20-50 50-100 > 100 NA
OHP 25.9 17.2 6.9 1.7 48.3
Slide Projector 31.1 6.9 6.9 1.7 53.4
Audio Recorder 29.4 6.9 8.6 1.7 53.4
VCR 31.1 5.2 8.6 1.7 53.4
Computer 6.9 5.2 10.3 24.2 53.4
LCD Data Show 19.0 8.6 58.6 5.2 8.6
Monitors 12.1 8.6 8.6 10.4 60.3
Photo/Digital Camera 29.3 5.2 5.2 1.7 58.6
Digital Video Camera 29.3 8.6 5.2 1.7 55.2
Scanner 24.1 12.1 5.2 1.7 56.9
Printer 19.0 13.8 10.3 1.7 55.2
Smart Board 17.2 8.6 5.2 6.9 62.1
Microphone 25.9 3.4 5.2 6.9 58.6
Headphones 19.0 5.2 5.2 10.3 60.3
Audio Studio 24.1 8.6 3.4 1.7 62.2
TV Studio 25.9 5.2 1.7 - 67.2
Closed Circuit TV Lab 25.9 1.7 1.7 - 70.7
Language Lab 32.8 3.4 1.7 - 62.1
Multimedia Lab 29.4 3.4 1.7 - 65.5
Intranet 22.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 62.1
Instructional Software 17.3 8.6 6.9 6.9 60.3

Missing values have an effect on these findings, specifically the lack of many
responses which was analytically categorized as (not applicable). However, Fig. 2 and
Table 3 above show a noticeable and more balanced increase in the expected
quantities. A tendency to expand on the portable, new, and less expensive
technologies was observed. There is also a tendency to utilize electronic software and
equipment. This implies an awareness to expand on the e-learning, e-classroom, and
digital multimedia technologies.

By this, the 1st and 3rd research questions are answered.

10

II. The Effectiveness of the Current Design and Production of
Instructional Software
The participants were asked to describe their current experience to design and produce
instructional software on a Rating scale of four options: (very advanced); (advanced),
(beginner); and (not applicable); these options were analytically given the values of:
(3), (2), (1), and (zero) consecutively. Then, participants' responses were arranged in
descending order according to their means. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of
this question.

Table (4)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on
Designing/Producing Instructional Software
Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
NA beginner advanced v. advanced
Transparencies 2.06 1.13
27 13 40 76
28 20 45 59
E-learning 1.89 1.12
Software
35 22 40 55
Instructional CDs 1.76 1.17
35 23 34 56
Presentation 1.75 1.19
Software
37 23 38 57
Slides 1.74 1.19
39 24 38 48
Databases 1.64 1.19
40 30 34 39
Multimedia 1.50 1.17
Software
53 21 35 40
Videotapes 1.42 1.23
52 24 35 37
Statistical Software 1.39 1.20
59 23 30 40
Audiotapes 1.34 1.24
*Theoretical Mean between 0-3.

Table 4 shows that the means are between (1.34) and (2.06). In light of this, it was
found that only the experience of transparencies design/production is at its advanced
level since its mean was above the theoretical mean (2). Although this finding sounds
to be consistent with Table 11 (see III.B.) findings in that the ability to use
presentation software is at its advanced level, it also shows that the participants'
experience in designing and producing instructional software is not as effective as
expected.

In order to shed more light on this finding, a comparison between faculty members'
and Technical/Administrative staff was conducted using t-test. Table 5 below shows
the results of t-test which indicate significant differences in favor of faculty members.
This means that Technical/Administrative staff is far less in their instructional
software design/production experience than the faculty members. This, in turn,
implies the need to improve their experience through training and practice to enable
them to perform their technical/administrative tasks.

11

Table (5)
Designing/Producing Instructional Software and t-test for Job Variable
Job n Mean SD t Sig.
Faculty 100 1.77 .87
2.195 .030
Technical/Administrative Staff 57 1.45 .90

Another t-test was carried out to compare the participants' design/production
experience and their type of institution. The test results shown in Table 6 reveal no
significant differences which indicate that participants' experiences in both public and
private higher education are the same.

Table (6)
Designing/Producing Instructional
Software and T-test for Type of Institution Variable
Type of Institution n Mean SD t Sig.
Public 74 1.76 .96
1.43 Non sig.
Private 83 1.55 .81

12

III. The Effectiveness of the Current Use of Instructional
Software/Equipment

III. A. Value to use instructional software/equipment

The participants were asked to evaluate the classroom's use of the instructional
software/equipment on a Rating scale of three options: (indispensable); (negligible),
and (don't know); these options were analytically given the degrees of: (2), (1), and
(zero) consecutively. Then, the participants' responses were arranged in descending
order according to their means. These are listed in Table 7.

Table (7)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on the
Value of Using Instructional Software/Equipment
Frequencies
Mean*
Item SD
DN negligible indispensable
9 6 137
Presentation Equipment 1.84 .50
14 7 132
Presentation Software 1.77 .60
13 10 130
Computer for Instructor Use 1.76 .59
14 11 129
Internet Link 1.76 .59
15 13 123
Many Computers for Students Use 1.72 .64
18 10 124
Instructional CDs 1.70 .67
15 20 118
Instructional Software 1.67 .65
24 26 100
Scanner 1.51 .80
29 15 104
Monitors 1.51 .76
28 21 102
Printer 1.90 .79
28 44 79
E-learning Software 1.34 .77
21 56 70
Smart Board 1.33 .72
34 33 84
Multimedia Software 1.33 .76
26 48 76
E-mail Software 1.33 .82
38 32 78
Microphone 1.27 .85
49 31 69
Headphones 1.13 .88
55 44 51
Digital Video Camera 0.97 .84
60 41 49
Photo/Digital Camera 0.93 .85
* Theoretical Mean between 0-2.

Table 7 shows that the means are between (0.93) and (1.84). After comparing these
means with the theoretical mean (1), it was found that participants' perceive using (16)
instructional software/equipment in the classrooms as indispensable to the classroom
teaching in their institutions. This implies the respondents' belief and awareness on
the role of instructional technology in higher education.

To probe the role of the participants' job to their evaluation of instructional
software/equipment, t-test was carried out. However, the t-test results indicate no
significant differences in relation to job variable (see Table 8). This suggests an
unequivocal understanding amongst faculty members and Technical/Administrative
staff towards the value of instructional technology for teaching process.

13

Table (8)
Value of use Instructional
Software/Equipment and t-test for Job Variable
Faculty 99 1.47 .42
.268 Non Sig.

The role of qualification in this evaluation was sought by conducting ANOVA test.
Again, it is obvious that the result shown in Table 9 shows no significant differences
which points to the equal consideration of all qualification levels (PhD, MA, and BA)
in regard to evaluation of instructional technology.

Table (9)
ANOVA for Value of use Instructional Software/Equipment
Source of Variance S.S df M.S F Sig.
Between Groups .00962 2 .00481
.254 Non Sig.
Within Groups 28.635 151 .190

Another t-test for type of institution variable confirmed that no significant differences
exist (see Table 10). This again implies that respondents of both public and private
sectors equally signify the value of instructional technology.

Table (10)
Value of use Instructional
Software/Equipment and t-test for Type of Institution Variable
Public 72 1.41 .46
1.674 Non Sig.
Private 82 1.52 .40

In sum, the significance that the participants demonstrate on the value of using
instructional software/equipment in their institutions' classrooms is not influenced by
their job, qualification, or type of institution.

III. B. Ability to Use instructional Software/Equipment

• Ability to Use instructional software

The participants were asked to describe their ability to use the instructional software
in teaching/workplace on a rating scale of four options: (very advanced); (advanced),
descending order according to their means. Table 11 shows the descriptive statistics of
the responses.

14

Table (11)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on their
Ability to Use Instructional Software in Teaching/Workplace

Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
8 6 39 85
Search Engines 2.46 .83
5 5 55 72
Word Processors 2.42 .73
7 10 49 70
WWW 2.34 .83
11 7 43 71
Internet Explorer 2.32 .91
9 19 46 61
Presentation Software 2.18 .91
20 10 44 62
36 11 37 51
Videotapes 1.76 1.22
31 18 41 46
Audiotapes 1.75 1.15
34 31 29 39
Database 1.55 1.16
52 25 24 28
E-learning Software 1.22 1.19
50 28 25 23
Multimedia Software 1.17 1.14

means with the theoretical mean (2), it was found that participants' perceive (6) of
their abilities to use the instructional software in teaching/workplace as advanced.
This finding could be attributed to the fact that the six instructional software are the
most updated and the easiest to operate.

The abilities were compared to job variable using t-test. Table 12 shows that no
significant differences exist. This means that the ability to use the instructional
software is not influenced by job; and the abilities of both faculty members and
Technical/Administrative staff are the same.

Table (12)
and t-test for Job Variable
Faculty 84 1.95 .77
.439 Non Sig.

ANOVA test was done to compare the ability to use instructional software to
qualification. Significant differences at the level (0.045) were found as shown in Table
13.

Table (13)
ANOVA for Ability to Use Instructional Software in Teaching/Workplace
Between Groups 3.294 2 1.647
3.182 .045

15

In order to verify the difference direction, the above test was followed by Scheffe test.
The results shown in Table 14 below indicate that significant differences at the level
(0.05) between BA and PhD holders exist in favor of PhD holders. This means that the
PhD holders are more able to use instructional software. This could be attributed to
PhD holders' continuous practice of instruction.

Table (14)
Multiple Comparisons Scheffe for Ability to Use Instructional Software
in Teaching/Workplace
(I) (J) (I-J) Sig.
PhD MS .00614 Non Sig.
PhD BS .3478 .05
MS BS .2864 Non Sig.

A t-test was also conducted to compare the ability to use instructional software to type
of institution. The results shown in Table 15 show no significant differences. This
means that the ability is the same in both sectors' institutions.

Table (15)
and t-test for Type of Institution Variable
Public 72 1.41 .46
1.674 Non Sig.
Private 82 1.52 .40

• Ability to use instructional equipment

The participants were asked to describe their ability to use the instructional equipment
and facilities on a rating scale of four options: (very advanced); (advanced),
descending order according to their means. Table 16 below shows the descriptive
statistics of the responses.

16

Table (16)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on their
Ability to Use Instructional Equipment/Facilities
Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
6 9 42 76
Computer 2.41 0.81
11 9 46 70
OHP 2.29 0.91
17 9 42 67
Monitors 2.18 1.02
16 13 42 61
Printer 2.12 1.02
13 14 53 51
LCD Data Show 2.08 0.94
20 16 47 54
Slide Projector 1.99 1.05
25 11 39 58
Audio Recorder 1.98 1.13
23 18 38 56
VCR 1.94 1.11
26 14 40 55
Headphones 1.92 1.13
24 17 40 53
Audio Studio 1.91 1.11
25 17 47 45
Intranet 1.84 1.09
28 12 52 42
Microphone 1.81 1.10
32 14 43 42
Photo/Digital Camera 1.73 1.16
30 28 34 41
Digital Video Camera 1.65 1.14
37 24 36 32
Multimedia Lab 1.49 1.15
52 17 31 23
Smart Board 1.20 1.18
60 17 26 26
Scanner 1.14 1.21
64 19 26 19
Language Lab 1.00 1.14
73 12 24 22
TV Studio 0.96 1.19
77 15 20 15
Closed Circuit TV Lab 0.79 1.10

means with the theoretical mean (2), it was found that participants' perceive (4) of
their abilities to use the instructional equipment/facilities as advanced. It is observed
that these uses are of new, electronic, and portable technologies. This reflects both
sectors' participants' awareness concerning the importance of these technologies.
This finding was substantiated by the findings of Tables 17, 18, and 19 (see below).

To verify the role of the participants' job in their ability to use the instructional
equipment and facilities, a t-test was done. Table 17 presents the results of that test. It
was found that no significant differences are there; which means that job does not
play a role in identifying the abilities to use instructional equipment.

Table (17)
Faculty 84 1.72 .78
.380 Non Sig.

ANOVA test was conducted to compare the ability to use the instructional equipment
and facilities to qualification variable. No significant differences were observed as

17

presented in Table 18. This shows no influence exist due to qualification in
determining the respondents' ability to use instructional technology.
Table (18)
ANOVA for Ability to Use Instructional Equipment/Facilities
2.649 Non Sig.

To compare the ability to use instructional equipment/facilities to type of institution, a
t-test was conducted. Table 19 presents the results of that test. It was found that no
significant differences exist because of this variable.

Table (19)
And t-test for Type of Institution Variable
Public 63 1.81 .84
.934 Non Sig.
Private 76 1.68 .70

This generally reveals a conformity of that the abilities to use instructional
equipment/facilities is not influenced by other variables related to job, or
qualification, or type of institution.

III. B. Frequency of Use Instructional Software/Equipment

The participants were asked to describe the frequency of their use of the instructional
software and equipment in their teaching/workplace on a rating scale of four options:
(daily); (weekly), (monthly); and (never used); these options were analytically given
the values of: (3), (2), (1), and (zero) consecutively. Then, participants' responses
were arranged in descending order according to their means. Table 20 (see next page)
shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.

means with the theoretical mean (2), it was found that the all means were below the
theoretical mean. Frequency of use seems thus to be weak. Surprisingly, this
contradicts the participants' belief of the value of instructional technology summarized
in Table 16 above. This reveals that the practice in the field is not as it is on the
attitudinal level. However, this finding could be explained by the impact of some
impediments listed in Tables 23 and 26 (see III.C.) in teaching and workplace which
may obstruct the frequent use of instructional technology.

18

Table (20)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on the
Frequency of Use Instructional Software/Equipment
Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
NU monthly weekly daily
27 50 27 41
Statistical Packages 1.57 1.09
16 65 40 30
Presentation Software 1.56 0.93
30 52 23 37
51 38 14 43
Database 1.34 1.23
59 17 41 33
Slide Projector 1.32 1.21
51 33 37 30
OHP 1.30 1.14
47 38 36 27
Scanner 1.29 1.10
34 61 31 16
LCD Data Show 1.20 0.93
17 96 23 12
Word Processors 1.20 0.75
14 107 20 10
Search Engines 1.17 0.73
21 95 30 9
Computer 1.17 0.68
16 105 24 9
E-mail Software 1.17 1.05
46 54 23 24
Monitors 1.17 1.01
40 68 15 25
WWW 1.17 0.68
19 101 26 7
Internet Explorer 1.14 0.68
69 24 19 34
VCR 1.12 1.24
75 18 19 37
Multimedia Software 1.12 1.27
44 60 35 12
Intranet 1.05 0.91
52 54 21 19
Instructional Software 1.05 1.01
72 25 25 27
Photo/Digital Camera 1.05 1.18
77 17 22 27
Multimedia Lab 0.99 1.20
75 23 18 28
Digital Video Camera 0.99 1.21
43 77 19 8
Printer 0.95 0.80
72 31 17 22
E-learning Software 0.92 1.12
86 17 21 25
Audio Recorder 0.90 1.18
82 19 26 19
Microphone 0.88 1.12
91 21 23 14
Headphones 0.73 1.04
91 20 16 17
Smart Board 0.72 1.07
106 11 8 19
Audio Studio 0.58 1.07
109 11 9 15
Language Lab 0.51 1.00
113 11 4 17
Closed Circuit TV Lab 0.48 1.01
111 10 10 12
TV Studio 0.46 0.95

Job variable does not seem to influence the frequency of use. This finding was derived
from a t-test conducted and presented in Table 21. It shows no significant differences
due to this variable.

Table (21)
Faculty 99 1.04 .50
1.323 Non Sig.

To verify whether the type of institution affect the frequency of use or not, a t-test was
carried out. The test results are presented in Table 22 below. It was found that no

19

significant differences is there due to this variable; which means that both sectors'
participants have the same frequency of use.

Table (22)
Public 73 1.10 .48
.614 Non Sig.
Private 82 1.05 .48

III. C. Impediments of Use

• As perceived by faculty members

The faculty members were asked to choose the impediments of using the instructional
software and equipment in their teaching on a rating scale of four options: (definite
impediment); (possible impediment), (not impediment); and (don't know); these
options were analytically given the values of: (3), (2), (1), and (zero) consecutively.
Then, participants' responses were arranged in descending order according to their
means. Table 23 shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.

Table (23)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Faculty Members’ Responses on
the Impediments to Use Instructional Technology
Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
DN N. I. P. I. D. I.
14 4 29 34
Little Number of Fixed/Portable Equipment 2.02 1.08
16 6 27 33
Little Financial Support 1.94 1.13
14 3 38 26
Students' Ignorance of How to Use Costly ET 1.94 1.03
17 7 25 30
Lack of Internet Links in Classrooms 1.86 1.15
20 2 36 23
Insufficient Time to Help Students 1.77 1.12
19 3 38 20
Little ET Training 1.74 1.09
25 2 28 27
Student's/ Low Awareness of ET Importance 1.70 1.22
25 6 25 26
Little Administrative Support 1.63 1.22
23 3 39 17
Small Size/Unequipped Classrooms 1.61 1.11
21 9 34 18
ET is Time Consuming in terms of 1.60 1.10
Plan/Design/Produce Media
30 2 30 19
Technical Difficulties 1.47 1.22
28 8 31 14
Students become lazier when using ET 1.38 1.14
34 4 25 14
Inappropriateness of ET for My Academic 1.23 1.21
Specialization
33 11 30 8
Increase of Cheating Amongst Students when 1.16 1.07
Using ET
42 4 26 9
Class Management Difficulty resulting from 1.02 1.14
Students Disturbance when Using ET
49 9 19 3
Feeling of the Possibility of Being Replaced 0.70 0.96
by ET

means with the theoretical mean (2), it was found that only one impediment (i.e. Little
Number of Fixed/Portable Equipment) was perceived by faculty members as
important. This reveals the need to increase the numbers of equipment in order to

20

reach more effective levels of instructional technology applications in higher
education institutions. This finding could be related to the findings presented in Table
2 and Table 3 on current and future quantitative needs.

To see the role of faculty members' qualification on impediments to use instructional
technology, ANOVA test was conducted. Table 24 shows the results of this test which
report no significant differences due to qualification variable. This means that all
faculty members' levels of qualification (PhD, MA, and BA) recognize the same
impediments.

Table (24)
ANOVA for Impediments to Use Instructional Technology (as Perceived by Faculty)
Source of Variance S.S df MS F Sig.
Between Groups .253 2 .126
.303 Non Sig.

A t-test was also conducted to determine the effect of type of institution on faculty
members' perception of impediments of use. The test results presented in Table 25
prove that there were no significant differences in relation to type of institution
variable. This means that both sectors’ faculty members recognize the same
impediments.

Table (25)
Impediments to Use Instructional Technology (as Perceived by Faculty)
Public 58 1.56 .67
.176 Non Sig.
Private 25 1.59 .57

• As perceived by Technical/Administrative staff

The Technical/Administrative staff were asked to choose the impediments of using
the instructional software and equipment in their workplace on a rating scale of four
options: (definite impediment); (possible impediment), (not impediment); and (don't
Know); these options were analytically given the values of: (3), (2), (1), and (zero)
consecutively. Then, participants' responses were arranged in descending order
according to their means. Table 26 (see next page) shows the descriptive statistics of
the responses

means with the theoretical mean (2), it was found that (4) impediments were perceived
as important by the Technical/Administrative staff. These impediments are as follows:

1. Little training on ET.
2. Little financial support.
3. Ignorance of how to use costly instructional software/equipment.
4. Low awareness of the importance of ET.

21

Table (26)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Technical/Administrative Staff
Responses on the Impediments to Use Instructional Technology
Frequencies
Item Mean* SD
DN N. I. P. I. D. I.
3 -- 15 31
Little ET Training 2.51 0.7
9
5 3 15 27
Little Financial Support 2.28 0.9
7
8 -- 15 25
Ignorance of How to Use Costly ET 2.19 1.0
8
7 2 16 23
Low Awareness of ET Importance 2.15 1.0
5
9 3 23 14
Little Administrative Support 1.86 1.0
4
13 4 15 15
Little Number of Fixed/Portable Equipment 1.68 1.2
0
15 -- 19 14
Technical Difficulties 1.67 1.2
1
14 2 19 12
Inappropriateness of ET for Some Academic 1.62 1.1
Specializations 7
16 6 14 12
Lack of Internet Links 1.46 1.2
0
14 7 17 8
ET is Time Consuming in terms of 1.41 1.1
Plan/Design/Produce Media 1

It seems that this finding reflects the Technical/Administrative staff concerns on their
roles as planners, designers, and trainers. To enable them performing these roles, they
have to be given the right amount of training, money, and learning on technologies of
instruction.

There were no significant differences in perceiving the impediments of use due to the
Technical/Administrative staff qualifications. This finding was concluded from
ANOVA test conducted and presented in Table 27 below.

Table (27)
ANOVA for Impediments to Use Instructional Technology
(as Perceived by Technical/Administrative Staff)
2.378 Non Sig.

Further, there was no significant differences in perceiving the impediments of use due
to the Technical/Administrative staff type of institution. This finding was concluded
from a t-test conducted and presented in Table 28 below.

22

Table (28)
Impediments to Use Instructional Technology
(as Perceived by Technical/Administrative Staff)
Type of Institution n Mean Std. Deviation t Sig.
Public 10 1.64 .87
.937 Non Sig.
Private 41 1.88 .70

This result shows conformity of respondents' perceptions on the issue of impediments.
They identify the same impediments.

To this end, the 2nd research question is answered.

VI. The Current and Prospective Human, Financial, and Training
Resources

VI. A. Training

• Current Training

The participants were asked to describe their in-service training workshops attended.
Table 29 shows both the responses and results of Chi2 test in relation to qualification
variable.

Table (29)
In-Service Training Attended and Chi2 Test for Qualification Variable (n= 148)
0-5 6-10 >11
Chi2
Item Sig.
Workshop(s) Workshop(s) Workshop(s)
PhD 28 13 4
MS 35 8 7 6.046 Non Sig.
BA 42 6 5

Table 29 reveals that participants of most levels of qualification attended (0-5)
workshops. Chi2 value shows no significant differences. This means that qualifications
held by the participants have no effect on their in-service training and the number of
workshops attended.

The participants were asked to describe hours allocated weekly for their own self
career development. Table 30 shows both the responses and results of Chi2 test in
relation to qualification variable.

Table (30)
Allocated Weekly Self Career Development Hours and
Chi2 Test for Qualification (n= 152)
1-9 10-19 20-29
Chi2
Item Sig.
Hour(s) Hour(s) Hour(s)
PhD 9 17 21
MS 12 24 17 14.134 .007
BA 25 16 11

23

Table 30 reveals that most levels of qualification allocated (10-19) weekly hours for
self-development. Chi2 value shows a significant differences at the level of (0.007) in
relation to qualification held by the participants. This means that qualifications
positively influence the self-development weekly hours.

The participants were also asked to describe the number of conferences attended.
Table 31 shows both their responses and results of Chi2 test in relation to qualification
variable.

Table (31)
Number of Conferences Attended and Chi2 Test for Qualification (n= 137)
5 6-10 >11
Chi2
Item Sig.
conferences conferences conferences
PhD 34 8 5
MS 36 7 2 9.737 .045
BA 34 1 1

Table 31 reveals that most levels of qualification attended (5) conferences during their
employment. Chi2 value shows significant differences at the level of (0.045) in
relation to qualification held by the participants. This means qualifications held by the
participants have a positive effect on the number of conferences attended

• Future Training Needs

The participants were asked to choose areas of training they need to do on a rating
scale of three options: (very important); (important), and (not important); these
options were analytically given the values of: (2), (1), and (zero) consecutively. Then,
participants' responses were arranged in descending order according to their means.
Table 32 (see next page) shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.

Table (32)
Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Responses on
Future Training Needs
Frequencies Mean* SD
Item
N. I. I V. I.
44 58 34
Using Audiovisual Equipment 1.93 .76
52 52 31
Using Digital Technology 1.84 .77
49 62 24
Using Statistical Packages 1.81 .71
49 62 21
Using E-learning Software 1.79 .70
58 56 18
Evaluating Instructional Media 1.70 .70
57 60 16
Designing Using Software 1.69 .68
58 61 15
Using Presentation Equipment 1.68 .67
75 38 23
Using Internet 1.62 .76
74 48 14
Designing Instructional Software 1.56 .65
71 52 12
Designing and Producing Instructional 1.56 .68
Media
90 33 11
Using Computers 1.41 .64

means with the theoretical mean (1), it was found that all training areas were

24

perceived by the participants as important. This finding shows that the participants
think that the need is persistent to get resourceful and multi-purpose training in ET.

To verify this finding, a t-test was conduct to explore the job variable in relation to
future training needs. The test results are listed in Table 33. The mean of faculty
members in this test was (1.7597) and the mean of Technical and Administrative staff
was (1.5127). The results report that significant differences were found at the level of
(0.005) in favor of faculty members. This finding can be attributed to the continuous
instruction and research practiced by faculty members.

Table (33)
Future Training Needs and t-test for Job Variable
Job n Mean Std. Deviation t Sig.
Faculty 98 1.76 .49
2.834 .005

ANOVA test was also conducted to examine the role of qualification in the training
needs. The test results are shown in Table 34. Significant differences were observed at
the level of (0.018).

Table (34)
ANOVA for Future Training Needs
Between Groups 1.819 2 .910
4.121 .018

In order to verify the difference directions, the above test was followed by Scheffe
test. The test results show significant differences at the level of (0.012). This makes it
clear that BA holders are more in need for training than the MA holders (see Table
35). Since the BA holders are usually newly-employed in higher education
institutions, the finding shows that they require more attention in terms of training.

Table (35)
Multiple Comparisons Scheffe for Future Training Needs
(I) (J) (I-J) Sig.
PhD MS - .1654 Non Sig.
PhD BS .1048 Non Sig.
MS BS .2702 .012

Another t-test was conducted to compare public and private institutions' participant
responses to their perception of future training needs. The result presented in Table 36
shows no significant differences due to type of institution. This means that both
sectors' participants look at the future training needs from the same perspective.

Table (36)
Future Training Needs and t-test for Type of Institution Variable
Type of Institution n Mean Std. Deviation t Sig.
Public 64 1.70 .48
.405 Non Sig.
Private 75 1.67 .48

25

VI. B. Human and Financial Resources and Research Funds

The Technical/Administrative staff was asked to give figures on their current and
future annual human and financial resources, and research funds in their institutions.
Table 37 shows the figure ranges of their responses.

Table (37)
The Participants’ Responses on Rages of
Annual Human and Financial Resources and Research Funds
(as Perceived by Technical/Administrative staff)
Item Current Future
Technical Staff 2-50 1-80
Annual Budget (R.O.) 300-50.000 400-750.000
Research Funds (R.O.) 6.000 20.000

Table 37 shows a huge increase in future resources in terms of staffing, budgeting,
and research funding. This implies that more technicians and administrators should be
prepared in the field of ET in order to meet these needs and manage the resources.
Since no higher education institution in the Sultanate has a specialized department of
ET; higher education will need to have specialized departments in ET and to recruit
more specialized faculty members to teach courses offered by these departments.

Pearson Correlation test was conducted to compare the job specialty variable
(Technician, Administrator, and Technician/Administrator) and the current/future
resources of: staffing, budgeting, and funding research. The results of this test are
shown in Table 38.

Table (38)
Pearson Correlation for Annual Human and Financial Resources and Research Funds
Item Technical Staff Annual Budget Research Funds
Current - .228 - .336 .003
Future .056 .481 - .559

Table 38 results shows no significant differences between the current/future resources
and the job specialty variable which means that the three categories of job specialty
perceive their current and future resources in the same way.

To this end the 4th, 5th and 6th research questions are answered.

26

Data Analysis, Findings, and Discussions: Part Two

The Analysis of the Interviews
Four faculty members were interviewed to discover the extent to which they
understand the value of ET in teaching and learning processes. Information will be
sought concerning how thoughtful these faculty members are in using ET, so as to
reveal the influential elements behind their use, understanding and attitudes. The first
respondent who uses technology in his teaching is an Omani national. He has taught
for approximately six years. His rank in the University is that of Assistant Professor.
The second respondent who uses ET constantly is also an Omani national. She has
taught for approximately ten years. Her rank in the university was Assistant Professor.
The third respondent in this regard is an Omani national. He has taught for
approximately three years. His rank in the University is a lecturer. The fourth one who
does not use ET at all in his teaching is also an Omani national employed as Assistant
Professor.
The interviews model examines the way faculty members are influenced and
encouraged to use ET in their teaching, through the different ways they perceive its
value in structuring their lectures and, therefore their students’ learning. It also
concerns the way faculty members acknowledge the practical benefits of using ET:
for example, how it enhances students’ learning, makes ideas accessible,
comprehensible and clear, as well as how it may save teaching and learning time, and
is thus able to aid interaction and participation between lecturers and their students.

I. Faculty members’ understanding of the value and the effectiveness of
ET in organizing the structure of a lecture

I.A. Interviews

• Interview with faculty member 1
Questioner: “What are the reasons which make you use these particular types of ET? “

Answer: “… It gives me the chance to organize my lecture and present most of the
course objectives at the same time”.

Questioner: “as an example of ET, where have you found transparencies to be the
most useful? “

Answer: “… transparencies save my time, organize my lecture and help my students
take notes. They play a major role in organizing, preparing and arranging the topic”
Questioner: “Through your extensive experience of this technology, where have you
found it to be the most useful and effective?”

Answer: “….It helps me arrange and organize my lecture or presentation in the lab in
a sequenced and orderly way”

27


Questioner: “Through your extensive use of education technology, where have you
found it to be the most useful and effective?”

Answer: “….I found it effective in some long lectures, which last more than two
hours. These long lectures can become boring if I use only chalk and talk. So in such
lectures I try to use ET, which helps me display ideas and their sequence in a
systematic manner and to go from one point to another easily and smoothly. I also use
video. I found it useful to explain the topic better than I could say it…..”

I. B. Interpretation of Interviews

These faculty members understood the general notion that ET helps them keep tidy
and in sequence the essential aspects of the information to be communicated to their
students. In this regard they understand that ET is a tool which keeps the logic of their
lecture in a required sequence. These faculty members also understood that ET is
useful and effective in structuring the logical sequence of the ideas and facts which
they wish to present to their students. ET helped them both organize and prepare their
lectures in many different teaching contexts, such as classrooms, laboratories and
lecture theatres.

Faculty member 1 explained this idea of clear presentation because he highlighted the
importance of well-designed OHPs being used to enhance the clarity and flow of
information from which students can readily make notes.

Faculty member 2 noted that ET helped her to present and display complex ideas,
because she found, from experience, that OHP transparencies can be designed to lay
out the sequence of ideas clearly. Thus, she asserted that her use of OHPs was
effective and useful in the organization of her teaching since she was able to display
many of the course objectives.

Faculty member 3 has found that particular technologies are useful and effective in
teaching science in laboratory conditions. His use of multimedia technology, for
example helped him demonstrate very complex biological ideas to a large group of
students, because he was successfully able to relate one fact to another clearly.

Faculty member 4 has also found ET, especially OHP and PowerPoint, useful and
effective in managing students’ attention and concentration in his lecture. It helped
him to display his ideas in sequence in a systematic manner and enabled him to go
from one point to another easily and smoothly. He also found that selected videotapes
which related to his lecture were useful and effective in enhancing the flow of
information, as well as to explain some topics better than he could in his own words.

It is clear from faculty members’ responses that they understand the essential
purposes in using ET are to organize their teaching so as to:
• Organize the structure of the lecture;
• Present complex ideas.

28

II. Faculty members’ understanding of the effectiveness and value
of ET in presenting complex idea.

II.A. Interviews


Questioner: Through your extensive experience of this technology, where have you
found it the most useful and effective?

Answer: “…I can say that I have found this technology 95% useful and effective…..
It reduces students’ questions about aspects they have not grasped. Before this
technology was available it was more difficult to draw students’ attention and to make
it clear what I was talking about. Now with this new technology, we can overcome all
these problems”.


Questioner: “What are the reasons which make you use a particular type of ET instead
of other media?”

Answer: “… It gives me the chance to organize my lecture and present most of the
course objectives at the same time, because for this course I have to present many
objectives at all levels and I used to write them on the board. This took most of my
time especially, as I have to designate part of the course for students’ practice”.

II. B. Interpretation of Interviews

The responses of these two faculty members reflect their understanding of the value
and the effectiveness of using ET in presenting complex ideas. The first faculty
member indicated that the new technology helped him reduce the students’ questions,
because he used to have to bring every student to the microscope to see the bacteria
sample, which used to take most of the lecture time. In addition, his students often to
ask him to repeat what he have said. It was also difficult for him before multimedia
technology was available to convey clearly what he was talking about to a large group
of students because it contained a lot of visual information which each student need to
see. So with the help of this new technology he was able to overcome all the problems
he previously confronted because he used ET to project images whether from
microscope, video or computer on a screen for all his class to see.

The second faculty members also understood that ET was helpful and effective in
presenting complex ideas. She indicated that transparencies gave the opportunity to
present most of her course objectives, instead of writing them on the board which took
most of her time. By listing key ideas on OHP transparencies she could relate one idea
to another directly and easily.

Thus, faculty members demonstrated that ET was important in helping them present
complex ideas and facts clearly, concisely and economically. This approach of
organizing ideas and information to be learned is an established approach.

29

Faculty members’ understanding of the effectiveness of ET skills in
helping students’ concentration

III.A. Interviews


Questioner: Where have you found transparencies or videotapes effective and useful?

Answer: “…They attract my students’ attention and make them concentrate on the
subject especially if I use more than one medium and display video and audio
materials”.


Questioner: Where have you found overhead projector and video programs or any
other technology you use effective and useful?

Answer: “…it helps my students to understand and concentrate their thinking on the
topic”

III. B. Interpretation of Interviews

With regard to students’ learning, faculty members indicated that ET was useful and
effective because it helps their students concentrate and focus directly upon the
information being communicated. For example she found that students respond very
well to both video and audio materials because they attract interest and subsequently
engage the students in the work so that they fully concentrate on the information
displayed. Images and words projected on a screen provide students with
opportunities to write information at their own pace. This means that they can
concentrate and also see relationships between ideas better.

Faculty member 1 found that when he uses ET, his students enjoy the lecture, because
he feels that they understand the subject better and therefore fully concentrate on it.

Faculty member 2 indicated that ET helped keep her students concentrate on the
subject matter. From her experience, her teaching can be designed and planned in
advance to focus on key issues. For this reason she claimed that presenting audio and
video materials was effective and useful in promoting students’ learning because for
example, videos are prepared materials which are designed to communicate specific
information.

Thus, faculty members who used ET found it useful and effective in students’
learning improving students’ concentration on the subject matter because ET provide
pre-prepared materials which are legible, clean and sequenced. It is these elements
which enable the learner to concentrate directly to the subject matter.

30

VI. Faculty members’ understanding of the effectiveness of ET skills in
attracting students’ attention to subject matte.

VI.A. Interviews

• Interview with faculty members 1

Questioner: “In your extensive use of this particular technology, where have you
found it the most useful?”

Answer: “… it occupies my students’ time and attracts their attention to the topic”.


Questioner: “Where have you found transparencies and videotapes or any other
technology you use effective and useful”?

Answer: “It was very effective and useful in attracting students’ attention….”


Questioner: ““If we talk again about your use of ET, what encourage you to make
such heavy use of it? What is its value?

Answer: “……and encourages them to participate more fully and to pay attention to
the subject matter”

VI. B. Interpretation of Interviews

Faculty members express their views and understanding of the value and effectiveness
of ET, because it helps them communicate clearly and directly with their students
through attracting their attention to the subject they teach. Because students tend to
concentrate better, they therefore learned better the information being provided.

Faculty member 1 stated that he found multimedia technology useful and effective in
attracting students’ attention to the topic he is talking about because he found when
using such technology in a large group of students he does not need to repeat what he
is explaining to his students since multimedia helped his student focus more on the
subject he teaches.

Faculty member 2 also found the use of videotapes effective and useful, and indicated
that well-planned and designed video and audio materials can attract students’
attention to the subject matter that is because the power of visual information
designed and live videos cannot be underestimated.

Faculty member 3 also supports his colleagues’ views that the use of ET helped him
attracting his students’ attentions because he has noticed that when using ET his
students seem to focus more in the subject he teaches. Thus, faculty members
demonstrate their beliefs that ET was effective and useful in promoting students
learning through attracting their students’ attention to the subject matter.

31

V. Faculty members’ understanding of the effectiveness of ET skills to
facilitate face–to–face interaction

V.A. Interviews


Questioner: “Where have you found transparencies to be the most useful?”

Answer: “…using transparencies give me the chance to face my students and interact
with them”.


Questioner: “what encourages you to continue with use of ET?

Answer: “…it creates interaction and a participation atmosphere and also encourages
the students to think of using alternative means in their teaching careers in the future”.

• Interview with Faculty member 3

Questioner: “What are the reasons that make you use particular types of ET instead of
other media?”

Answer: “….When I use transparencies I face my students and interact with them”.

Questioner: “Through your extensive use of ET, where have you found it useful and
effective”?

Answer: “…I also found video useful to explain the topic better than me, and to create
the interaction with the students.

V. B. Interpretation of Interviews

Students’ interaction with the subject matter, and with their instructor, is one of the
issues in which faculty members demonstrate their understanding of the value of ET
in students’ learning. Using ET to facilitate interaction with their students also
encourages tutors to use it regularly. These faculty members understood that students’
engagement is an important element of the learning process. So they use ET to create
and manage their students’ interaction with the topic and with their instructors. This is
brought about by the fact that ET can hold and present complex information in written
and visual form and can be viewed clearly. Importantly, the learner can see
interrelationship of ideas more readily.

Faculty member 1 noted that ET gave him the opportunity to interact with her
students because the use of OHP presentation helped her face her students and make
eye contact and allowed her to interact with them.

32

Faculty member 2 developed this idea by saying that changing the classroom
environment through the use of different technologies created interactions and student
participation during her lecture. She also asserted that using ET encouraged her
students to think of the use of alternative methods when they become teachers.

Faculty member 3 has found ET useful and effective in face to face learning because
using transparencies helped face-to-face interaction with students.

Faculty member 4 has also found ET useful and effective. He highlights the
importance of selecting appropriate videotapes in developing face to face interaction.

These responses show faculty members’ understanding of the essential role of using
ET in assisting students learning. They use ET to create and manage their student’s
interaction with the topic and with their instructors. They understand that creating
interaction is very important in learning task.

VI. Faculty members’ understanding of the effectiveness of (ET) skills
in helping students' self-directed learning

VI.A. Interviews


Questioner: “what encourage you to use ET continuously?”

Answer: “…it helps in the self- directed learning situation.”


Questioner: “what encourages you to use ET continuously?”

Answer: “… it assists students' self-directed learning”


Questioner: “what encourage you to use ET continuously?”

Answer: “…. the students now depend on themselves…”

Questioner: “Do you mean it helps in self-directed learning?”

Answer: “Yes, it is very important in developing self-directed learning”

33

Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology

Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology

Similar to Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Levels and techniques of evaluation in educational technology