دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها940
تعداد مقالات7,748
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,815,871
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله9,131,288
Arabzamani, Samira, Arab Mofrad, Ali, Rajabi Esterabadi, Ali. (1401). Iranian EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Pedagogical Perception of the Role of Technology Integration in Classrooms. جلوه هنر, 6(1), 111-136. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33557.1398
Samira Arabzamani; Ali Arab Mofrad; Ali Rajabi Esterabadi. "Iranian EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Pedagogical Perception of the Role of Technology Integration in Classrooms". جلوه هنر, 6, 1, 1401, 111-136. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33557.1398
Arabzamani, Samira, Arab Mofrad, Ali, Rajabi Esterabadi, Ali. (1401). 'Iranian EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Pedagogical Perception of the Role of Technology Integration in Classrooms', جلوه هنر, 6(1), pp. 111-136. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33557.1398
Arabzamani, Samira, Arab Mofrad, Ali, Rajabi Esterabadi, Ali. Iranian EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Pedagogical Perception of the Role of Technology Integration in Classrooms. جلوه هنر, 1401; 6(1): 111-136. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33557.1398

Iranian EFL Teachers’ Conceptual Pedagogical Perception of the Role of Technology Integration in Classrooms

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 6، دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 11، مرداد 2022، صفحه 111-136    اصل مقاله (576.77 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2021.33557.1398
نویسندگان
Samira Arabzamani1؛ Ali Arab Mofrad* 2؛ Ali Rajabi Esterabadi3
1MA Student, Department of English Language Teaching, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran
2Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
3BA Student, Department of English Language Teaching, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
چکیده
Although extensive research has been conducted on successful technology integration, encompassing the readily available technology, providing a techno-based environment, and applying high-level technology in the classroom still seem to be very much in the minority. Moreover, technology integration illustrates additional barriers, including teachers’ and students’ technology-based knowledge and schools’ financial problems. In contrast to earlier findings in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, however, little evidence seems to be available about Iranian teachers' classroom uses of the technology. Therefore, this paper aims to present the Iranian teacher's conceptual pedagogical perception of technology integration and illuminate how technology integration impacts teachers' classroom practice. To this end, 10 Iranian EFL teachers in private and public schools in Golestan Province were interviewed. The qualitative data of the interviews were recorded in English and transcribed; they were then coded and analyzed by employing thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) via NVivo 12 computer software to show the dimensions and components of the conceptual model of technology integration. One of the themes extracted from the thematic analysis of the Iranian teachers’ perceptions was the lack of technological knowledge. That is, a limited understanding of teachers about using technology in their teaching was viewed as a significant problem. Another theme referred to the limited use of technology which makes teachers use computers as a supplementary tool. In addition, it was found that the educational context does not create need-based technology conditions for them, leading to the teachers' ineffective use of technology.
کلیدواژه‌ها
teacher’s perception؛ technology integration؛ thematic analysis؛ grounded theory؛ Iranian EFL teachers
عنوان مقاله [English]
درک آموزشی معلمان زبان انگلیسی ایرانی از نقش ادغام فناوری در کلاس‌های درسی
نویسندگان [English]
سمیرا عرب‌زمانی1؛ علی عرب‌مفرد2؛ علی رجبی استرابادی3
1دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علوم انسانی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران
2استادیار، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علوم انسانی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران
3دانشجوی کارشناسی، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علوم انسانی، واحد گرگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گرگان، ایران
چکیده [English]
اگرچه پژوهش‌های گسترده‌ای روی ادغام موفقیت‌آمیز فناوری، به اجرا درآمده‌است، اما به نظر می‌رسد هنوز در کلاس، گنجاندنِ فناوریِ قابلِ دسترس، مهیاکردن محیطی فناوری‌محور و به کار بردن فناوریِ سطح بالا زیاد مورد استفاده قرار نمی‌گیرد. همچنین، ادغام فناوری موانع دیگری شامل دانش فناوری‌محور دانش‌آموزان و معلمان و مشکلات مالی مدارس را نشان می‌دهد. برخلاف یافته‌های پیشین در بافت‌های زبان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی، به نظر می‌رسد شواهد اندکی در مورد کاربردهای فناوری کلاس معلمان ایرانی در دسترس باشد. بنابراین، این مقاله بر آن است تا درکِ آموزشی معلمان ایرانی دربارة ادغام فناوری و روشن ساختن چگونگی تأثیرات ادغام فناوری بر عملکرد کلاس‌های معلمان ارائه دهد. در این راستا، با 10 معلم زبان انگلیسی ایرانی در مدارس خصوصی و دولتی در استان گلستان مصاحبه شد. داده‌های کیفی مصاحبه‌ها به انگلیسی ثبت و رونویسی شد؛ آن‌ها سپس، با استفاده از تجزیه و تحلیل موضوعی (براون و کلارک، 2006) از طریق نرم‌افزار رایانه‌ای ان ویوو 12، کدگذاری و بررسی شد تا ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های ادغام مدل مفهومی فناوری را نشان دهد. یکی از موضوعاتی که از تحلیل موضوعی درکِ معلمان ایرانی استخراج شد، نبود دانش فنی بود. موضوع دیگری که به این کاربردِ محدودِ فناوری اشاره می‌کند، استفاده‌ کردن معلمان از رایانه به عنوان ابزاری تکمیلی است. افزون بر این، این یافته به دست آمد که بافت آموزشی شرایط فناوری نیاز-محور را برای آن‌ها ایجاد نمی‌کند که منجر به استفادة غیر مؤثر معلمان از فناوری می‌شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
درک معلم, ادغام فناوری, تحلیل موضوعی, نظریة زمینه‌ای, معلمان زبان انگلیسی ایرانی
مراجع
  1. Abrams, Z. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00041-0
  2. Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rodgers, M., & Sussex, R., (1985). Computers, language learning, and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Ahmadi, M. R. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/ijree.3.2.115
  4. Albion, P., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond foundations: The role of vision and belief in teachers’ preparation for the integration of technology. TechTrends, 46(5), 34-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02818306
  5. Amado-Salvatierra, H. R., Hilera, J. R., Tortosa, S. O., Rizzardini, R. H., & Piedra, N. (2016). Towards a semantic definition of a framework to implement accessible e-learning projects. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(7), 921-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.3217/jucs-022-07-0921
  6. Amiri, F., & Saberi, L. (2019). The impact of the learner-centered approach on learners' motivation in Iranian EFL students. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.9756/IAJSS/V6I1/1910015
  7. Ashrafzadeh, A., & Sayadian, S. (2015). University instructors’ concerns and perceptions of technology integration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 62-73. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.071
  8. Becker, H. (1991). How computers are used in United States school: Basic data from the 1989 I. E. A. computers in education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.2190/P2UT-R3U3-FK1L-B89L
  9. Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1998). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software: Teaching, learning, and computing (Report No. 3). National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.; Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED437927
  10. Bishop, M. J., & Spector, J. (2014). Technology integration. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop, Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, (pp. 817-818). Springer.
  11. Bodomo, A. B. (2010). Computer-mediated communication for linguistics and literacy: Technology and natural language education. Information Science Reference.
  12. Braine, G. (2004). Teaching second and foreign language writing on LANs. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 93-107). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  14. Burkholder, J. (1995). An annotated bibliography of the literature dealing with teacher training in the uses of the computer in education (Report No. 3). Office of Education, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED260696
  15. Campoy, R. (1992). The role of technology in the school reform movement. Educational Technology, 32(8), 17-22. http://dx.doi.org/doi/10.5555/134991.134995
  16. Clariana, R. B., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 5-http://dx.doi.org/doi/10.1007/BF02298149
  17. Clark, T. (2000). Virtual high schools: State of the states: A study of virtual high school planning and operation in the United States. Western Illinois University, Center for the Application of Information Technologies.
  18. Coniam, D. (2002). Perceptions of a multimedia syllabus – making the demands of a performance test more accessible. System 31(1), 55-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00073-8
  19. Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series, 18, 41-53.
  20. Cox, M. J., Webb, M. E., Abbott, C., Blakely, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature: A report to the DfES (ISBN: 1844781356). https://mirandanet.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ict_pedagogy.pdf
  21. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. Routledge.
  22. Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of research on computing in education, 31(3), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782252
  23. Ding, A. C. E., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Lu, Y. H., & Glazewski, K. (2019). EFL teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices with regard to using technology. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(1), 20-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1537816
  24. Donaldson, R., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. CALICO Journal, 16(4), 530-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cj.v16i4.531-557
  25. Ducate, L., & Arnold, N. (Eds.). (2006). Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.
  26. Duffy, T., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. (1996). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In T. Liao (Ed.), Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 51-78). Springer Verlag.
  27. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
  28. Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782269
  29. Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8(1), 8-  https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088391008001002
  30. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035872
  31. Gilakjani, A. (2017). A review of the literature on the integration of technology into the learning and teaching of English language skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n5p95
  32. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1995.tb01014.x
  33. Habibi, A., Abdul Razak, R., Yusop, F., Mukminin, A., & Yaqin, L. (2020). Factors affecting ict integration during teaching practices: A multiple case study of three Indonesian universities. Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1127-1144. http://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4150
  34. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 261-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/444044
  35. Hanson-Smith, E. (2000). Technologically enhanced learning environments. Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
  36. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
  37. Hignite, M. A., & Echternacht, L. J. (1992). Assessment of the relationships between the computer attitudes and computer literacy levels of prospective educators. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 24(3), 381-391. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/145685/
  38. Hochman, A., Maurer, M., & Roebuck, D. (1993). Buttons and cards and fields, oh my! Tech Trends, 38(2), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763856
  39. Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(9), 1-13. http://jrre.psu.edu/ articles/26-9.pdf.
  40. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
  41. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022
  42. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 horizon report. The New Media Consortium.
  43. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Prentice-Hall.
  44. Karimi, L., Khodabandelou, R., Ehasani, M., & Ahmad, M. (2014). Applying the uses and gratifications theory to compare higher education students’ motivation for using social networking sites: Experiences from Iran, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and South Africa. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(1), 53-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6115
  45. Kearns, J. (1992). Does computer coursework transfer into teaching practice? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 8(4), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.1992.10784181
  46. Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb01127.x
  47. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/329999
  48. Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 105-120). University of Hawaii.
  49. Kim, H. K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers. Calio Journal, 25(2) 241-259. http://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.25.2.241
  50. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002205741319300303
  51. Kollias, V., Mamalougos, N., Vamvakoussi, X., Lakkala, M., & Vosniadou, S. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes to and beliefs about web-based collaborative learning environments in the context of international implementation. Computers & Education, 45(3), 295-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.012
  52. Kronnenberg, N. (1994). Developing communicative and thinking skills via electronic mail. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 24-27. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/78350/
  53. Lak, M., Soleimani, H., & Parvaneh, F. (2017). The effect of teacher-centeredness method vs. learner-centeredness method on reading comprehension among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-10. https://european-science.com/jaelt/article/download/4886/2415
  54. Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning: Acquiring cultural knowledge via on-line newspapers and intercultural exchanges via online chat rooms. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 101-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24147651
  55. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25231
  56. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting the effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22950/.
  57. Mahmoudzadeh, S. (2014). The effect of using PowerPoint on Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of abstract vocabulary. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1077-1084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.519
  58. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1993.10782088
  59. Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 121-141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027940260201
  60. Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Information technology and its impact on American education. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  61. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543062003307
  62. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-cen­tered learning environment. Education Technology Research & Development, 51(2), 57-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504526
  63. Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E's of education: Enabled, engaged, empowered: How today's educators are advancing a new vision for teaching and learning. http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/ pdfs/SU10_3EofEducation_Educators.pdf
  64. Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). ICT use in EFL classes: A focus on EFL teachers' characteristics. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v1n2p17
  65. Raygan, A., & Moradkhani, S. (2020). Factors influencing technology integration in an EFL context: Investigating EFL teachers’ attitudes, TPACK level, and educational climate. Computer Assisted Language Learning (online).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839106
  66. Riasati, M. J., Allahyar, N., & Tan, K. E. (2012). Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(5), 25-30.  https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/1495/1427
  67. Ritchie, D., & Wiburg, K. (1994). Educational variables influencing technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(2), 143-153.
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234796304_Educational_variables_influencing_technology_integration
  69. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 229-254. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.46.3.b
  70. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
  71. Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer-mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00050
  72. Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modeling approaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 67-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003
  73. Sepehr, H., & Harris, D. (1995). Teachers’ use of software for pupils with specific learning difficulties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11(2), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1995.tb00118.x
  74. Soleimani, H., & Arabloo, P. (2018). Technology training courses in Iran and their effectiveness in helping teachers to use technology in their classrooms: A study. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6(2), 14-19.
  75. Strommen, E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 466-476. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013124592024004004
  76. Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. Teachers College Press.
  77. Todd, N. (1993). A curriculum model for integrating technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(3), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.1993.10784201
  78. Todman, J., & Dick, G. (1993). Primary children's and teachers’ attitudes toward computers. Computers in Education, 20(2), 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(93)90088-Z
  79. Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & Van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 494-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00285.x
  80. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016). Erratum to: Understanding the relationship between teachers? Pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 577-584. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
  81. Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Atomic Dog Publishing.
  82. Ushioda, E. (2000). Tandem language learning via e-mail: From motivation to autonomy. ReCALL, 12(1), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344000000124
  83. Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F. K., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). ICT in the learning-teaching process: Teachers' views on the integration and obstacles. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32, 164-178.
  84. Violato, C., Mariniz, A., & Hunter, W. (1989). A confirmatory analysis of a four-factor model of attitudes toward computers: A study of preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(1), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1989.10781915
  85. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
  86. Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  87. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Logos International. DOI: 10.12691/jll-4-1-2
  88. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(1), 57-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012970
  89. Wetzel, K. (1993). Models for achieving computer competencies in preservice education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(4), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.1993.10784208
  90. Woodrow, J. E. (1990). Locus of control and student-teacher computer attitudes. Computers in Education, 14(5), 421-432. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FCBG3-X2UE-DQGY-YWH9
  91. Woodrow, J. E. (1992). The influence of programming training on the computer literacy and attitudes of preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 200-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1992.10782044
  92. Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. A., & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher-centered and/or student-centered learning: English language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n3p18
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 783
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 502


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب