Current status of educational technologies

Education Tech Research Dev(2007)55:395–410DOI10.1007/s11423-007-9041-xI N TE R N A TI O N A L R E V I EWCurrent status of educational technologies at Omanihigher education institutions and their future prospectiveAli S.Al-MusawiPublished online:1May2007ÓAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology2007Abstract 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/adminis-trative staff questionnaire.One hundred andfifty-nine participants were involved in the study.They represented all educational technologists who have been with the public and private Omani higher education institutions.Thefindings show a tendency for future expansion with less expensive technologies and the need for training.Some impediments of ET use were also found.Important recommendations from this study include:the need to support Omani higher education institutions with technical and human resources to increase and activate the use/number of new instructional media and equipment. Keywords Educational technologyÁUtilizationÁImpedimentsÁTrainingÁOmanÁHigher educationIntroductionEducational media and technology(ET)play a significant role within the teaching and learning process in higher educational institutions and is 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.The Sultanate of Oman is situated in the south-eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula.The Omani educational system is A.S.Al-Musawi(&)Instructional and Learning Technologies Department(ILT),College of Education(COE),Sultan Qaboos University(SQU),P.O.Box32,123Al Khodh,Muscat,Sultanate of Omane-mail:asmusawi@.om396 A.S.Al-Musawi semi-central with basic education curriculum consisting of three stages.Basic education in Oman is free at all levels but it is not compulsory.The Omani open higher education gives many opportunities to the learners.There are,for example,courses of4-year duration at teacher training in addition to technical and banking institutes.There are more than20 universities and colleges in both public and private sectors.These institutions increasingly rely on educational and information technologies to develop their students’skills and organizational infrastructures.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 to determine the future needs for development of ET in Oman.Literature reviewEducational technology and learningResearch,in the1990s,indicates that educational technologies such as instructional radio and films were as effective as traditional classroom instruction(Hannafin&Savenye,1993). Computer-based education,when used in‘‘tutorial’’or‘‘drill and practice’’mode,leads to equivalent student’s achievement when compared to other kinds of classroom methods such as personal tutoring(Viadero,1997).Likewise,one of thefirst Omani experimental research conducted on on-line instruction(OLI)at Sultan Qaboos University(SQU)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 areas.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).New research shows the overall effects of technology on student outcomes may be greater than previously thought(Kulik,2002).ET is generally recognized as a powerful means to boost student achievement(Waxman,Connell,&Gray,2002).There can be little doubt that technology is very important for all students;moreover,it can be critical for students with special needs(Edyburn,Higgins,&Boone,2005;Lee,2000).In fact, school use and access to new and current technologies is on the rise and more and more states in the U.S.have established technology standards for students,teachers,and administrators (Fox,2005).Literary evidence suggests that teaching and technology processes either may directly impact student outcomes or may interact with technology features and indirectly impact outcomes(Waxman,Lin,&Michko,2003).Research also indicates that appropriate technology use can be very beneficial to increase educational productivity(Byrom& Bingham,2001;Clements&Sarama,2003;Kulik,2002;Waxman et al.,2002).Coppola (2004)elaborates that without strong teacher knowledge of ways to use ET,precious instruction time can be wasted(p.4).To sum,it could be argued that ET may not directly affect students’achievement,but it improves their learning styles and thinking processes. Educational technology issuesThe support for ET by administrative/faculty members of staff at the Omani higher education system has become more positive.ET is actively developing in terms of staffing, equipment,andfinance due to two main factors:improvements and new acquisition ofCurrent status of educational technologies at Omani higher education397 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;Al Khawaldi,2000).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 donot 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 of the technology as a competitor for student’s attention,and complacency with old practice by senior faculty(Akinyemi& Al Musawi,2002;Hannafin&Savenye,1993).In response to the above mentioned issues, Boyd(1997)recommends that institutions employ a technology trainer.A clear trend toward 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). Thesefindings are supported by the need to initiate college/university media specialist certification/accreditation programs(Abu Jaber&Osman,1996;Al Khawaldi,2000). 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 to update their skills by acquiring new skills in order to manage educational innovations.This is corroborated in the literature which states that to use technology teachers need more and teacher training on technology(Bialo &Soloman,1997;Boyd,1997;Zehr,1997).To deal with issues raised above,more higher education institutions are requiring administrators,faculty,and technicians to take tech-nology 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).Educational technology:the Omani contextOmani 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&Abdelraheem,2004a).Students currently 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). SQU adopted e-learning by providing its faculty members with WebCT tools combined with face-to-face instruction.An increase in the number of on-line courses being offered and their users are noticeable.Internet instructional uses by SQU faculty members are, however,mostly limited to obtaining information and rich resources.This suggests that they should be trained and encouraged to broaden their use beyond the present status (Abdelraheem&Al Musawi,2003;and Al Musawi&Abdelraheem,2004b).Major results show that e-learning is needed and its standards must be set before it can be developed,398 A.S.Al-Musawi disseminated and diffused.This might help to overcome problems of high enrollment and limited access to Omani higher education(Al Musawi&Akinyemi,2002).In this research,several questions have been raised.They are centered upon how higher education institutions’key personnel such as specialists,technicians,and administrators perceive current and future issues regarding ET.Research objectiveThis research was designed to assess the current status of ET in order to discover the difficulties of implementation and further develop its utilization in Omani higher education.It also aimed at determining indicators which help to discover the future trends in ETfields. Significance of the researchThe 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.Research questionsSeveral 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 current use of instructional software/equipment effective?3.What are the impediments of ET use at higher education institutions?4.What are the needs for future training resources and university programs in ETfield?Research methodsThe 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 standardized surveys that have been previously used and validated at international organizations.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.There were four sections 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 of statements,thefirst and the second sections,along with some parts of the questionnaires,were generally in the form of open-ended questions.This is due to the specific nature of theCurrent status of educational technologies at Omani higher education399 questions posed asking for quantities,difficulties,and impediments.The reliability coefficient was measured by alpha-Cronbach and it was found between.85and.89.Research design and statistical analysisIn 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,and60–65).•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 Chi-square test. ParticipantsThe 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 higher education 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 how to complete the questionnaire.Participants were159faculty, technical,and administrative members of staff who responded to the questionnaire.This sample represents more than45%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.Table1describes 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.Data analysis,results,and discussionsThe current and prospective quantitative levels of technical and technological equipment/facilitiesFor this part of the data analysis it is worth mentioning that the utility of the number of equipment/technology items could give more meaningful insight of the Omani context400 A.S.Al-MusawiTable1Participants’distribution based on demographic variablesNo.Variable Levels Faculty Technical/admin.staff1Institution University1113College90452Type of institution Public6014Private41443Age20–29103030–39331940–4935750–59215660–65224Nationality Omani2453Expatriate7745Gender Male7048Female3196Job specialty Educationalist4–Educationalist/academic97–Technician–26Administrator–15Technician/administrator–177Qualification PhD3611MA449BA2128Ed.diploma–78Total10158159since it reflects the infrastructural preparation made at the institutions to become ready for technology transfer and infusion.However,frequencies of use of these and other web applications will be assessed later.Further,items that seem to be obsolete elsewhere(e.g., conventional photographicfilm cameras,VCRs,and slide projectors)are still widely used by many of the institutions that were surveyed.Current quantitiesThe 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).Table2lists the current quantity categories in ratios as perceived by technical and administrative staff.Table2shows that between (19%)and(50%)of the sample shows that almost all equipment/facilities are in the range of(5–20)in numbers.The lowest is(19%)for the number of computers.Thefinding points out that those ET equipment/facilities are currently few in numbers in higher education institutions.Thisfinding is verified by anotherfinding which shows that more than(50%)Current status of educational technologies at Omani higher education401 Table2Percentages of the technical/administrative staff responses on the current equipment/facilities quantities(n=58)Item5–2020–5050–100>100NAOHPs46.6 6.9 5.2 1.739.6 Slide projectors48.3 5.2 1.7–44.8 Audio recorders48.3 5.2 1.7–44.8 VCRs41.4 5.2 5.2–48.2 Computers19.0 3.4 6.925.944.8 LCD data show32.8 3.4 6.98.648.3 Monitors25.9 6.8 5.212.150.0 Photo/digital cameras41.4 3.4– 3.451.8 Digital video cameras46.6 3.4– 1.748.3 Scanners50.0 6.9– 1.741.4 Printers29.317.3 1.7 1.750.0 Smart boards34.5 5.2– 1.758.6 Microphones32.7 5.2 5.2 5.251.7 Headphones27.5 5.2 5.212.150.0 Audio studios29.3 3.5 1.7 1.763.8 TV studios29.3 1.7––69.0 Closed circuit TV labs27.6 1.7––70.7 Language labs32.8–––67.2 Multimedia labs31.1– 1.7–67.2 Intranet points22.4– 1.710.465.5 Instructional software17.215.6 6.9 3.456.9of 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 points—65.5%;and multimedia/language labs—67.2%each)are to be considered.Future needsThe technical/administrative staff were asked to project their institutions’future needs of instructional equipment/facilities in terms of quantity categories of:(5–20);(20–50); (50–100);(>100);and(not applicable).Table3lists the expected quantity categories in ratios as perceived by technical and administrative staff.Missing values have an effect on thesefindings,specifically the lack of many responses which was analytically categorized as(not applicable).However,Fig.1and Table3show 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 new technological innovations.The abovefindings provide information to answer thefirst research question on the current quantitative levels of technical and technological equipment/facilities.The effectiveness of the current use of instructional software/equipment Frequency of use instructional software/equipmentThe participants were asked to describe the frequency of their use of 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:Table 3Percentages of the technical/administrative staff responses on the expected Increase in equipment/facilities quantities (n =58)Item 5–2020–5050–100>100NA OHPs25.917.2 6.9 1.748.3Slide projectors 31.1 6.9 6.9 1.753.4Audio recorders 29.4 6.98.6 1.753.4VCRs 31.1 5.28.6 1.753.4Computers 6.9 5.210.324.253.4LCD data show 19.08.658.6 5.28.6Monitors12.18.68.610.460.3Photo/digital cameras 29.3 5.2 5.2 1.758.6Digital video cameras 29.38.6 5.2 1.755.2Scanners 24.112.1 5.2 1.756.9Printers 19.013.810.3 1.755.2Smart boards 17.28.6 5.2 6.962.1Microphones 25.9 3.4 5.2 6.958.6Headphones 19.0 5.2 5.210.360.3Audio studios 24.18.6 3.4 1.762.2TV studios25.9 5.2 1.7–67.2Closed circuit TV labs 25.9 1.7 1.7–70.7Language labs 32.8 3.4 1.7–62.1Multimedia labs 29.4 3.4 1.7–65.5Intranet points 22.3 5.2 5.2 5.262.1Instructional software17.38.66.96.960.3Fig.1The expected increase in equipment/facilities quantities402 A.S.Al-MusawiCurrent status of educational technologies at Omani higher education403 (3),(2),(1),and(0)consecutively.In the data analysis,participants’responses were arranged in descending order according to their means.Table4shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.Table4shows that the means are between(.46)and(1.57).After comparing these 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.However,thisfinding could be explained by the impact of some impediments listed in Tables5and6(seeTable4Frequencies,means,and standard deviations of the participants’responses on The frequency of use instructional software/equipmentItem Frequencies Mean a SDNU Monthly Weekly DailyStatistical packages(data entry/analysis)27502741 1.57 1.09 Presentation software16654030 1.56.93 Instructional CDs30522337 1.47 1.10 Databases(data entry/analysis)51381443 1.34 1.23 Slide projectors59174133 1.32 1.21 OHPs51333730 1.30 1.14 Scanners47383627 1.29 1.10 LCD data show34613116 1.20.93 Word processors17962312 1.20.75 Search engines141072010 1.17.73 Computers2195309 1.17.68 E-mail software16105249 1.17 1.05 Monitors46542324 1.17 1.01 WWW40681525 1.17.68 Internet explorer19101267 1.14.68 VCRs69241934 1.12 1.24 Multimedia software75181937 1.12 1.27 Intranet points44603512 1.05.91 Instructional software52542119 1.05 1.01 Photo/digital camera72252527 1.05 1.18 Multimedia labs77172227.99 1.20 Digital video cameras75231828.99 1.21 Printers4377198.95.80 E-learning software(WebCT,Blackboard)72311722.92 1.12 Audio recorders86172125.90 1.18 Microphones82192619.88 1.12 Headphones91212314.73 1.04 Smart boards91201617.72 1.07 Audio studios10611819.58 1.07 Language labs10911915.51 1.00 Closed circuit TV labs11311417.48 1.01 TV studios111101012.46.95 a Theoretical mean between0and3404 A.S.Al-Musawi Section‘‘Educational technology issues’’)in teaching and workplace which may obstruct the frequent use of instructional technology.Thesefindings gave the answer on the second research question on the current use of instructional software/equipment.Impediments of useAs perceived by faculty membersThe 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),(no impediment),and(does not know).These options were analytically given the values of:(3),(2),(1),and(0)consecutively.Participants’responses were arranged in descending order according to their means.Table5shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.Table5shows that the means are between(.70)and (2.02).After comparing these 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 reach more effective levels of instructional technology applications in higher education institutions.Thisfinding could be related to thefindings presented in Tables2 and3on current and future quantitative needs.Table5Frequencies,means,and standard deviations of the faculty members’responses on the impediments to use instructional technologyItem Frequencies Mean a SDDN NI PI DILittle Number of Fixed/Portable Equipment1442934 2.02 1.08 Littlefinancial support1662733 1.94 1.13 Students’ignorance of how to use costly ET1433826 1.94 1.03 Lack of Internet links in classrooms1772530 1.86 1.15 Insufficient time to help students2023623 1.77 1.12 Little ET training1933820 1.74 1.09 Student’s/low awareness of ET importance2522827 1.70 1.22 Little administrative support2562526 1.63 1.22 Small size/unequipped classrooms2333917 1.61 1.11 ET is time consuming in terms of Plan/design/produce media2193418 1.60 1.10 Technical difficulties3023019 1.47 1.22 Students become lazier when using ET2883114 1.38 1.14 Inappropriateness of ET for my academic specialization3442514 1.23 1.21 Increase of cheating among students when using ET3311308 1.16 1.07424269 1.02 1.14 Class management difficulty resulting from students disturbance whenusing ETa Theoretical mean between0and3As perceived by technical/administrative staffThe 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),(no impediment),and(does not know). These options were analytically given the values of:(3),(2),(1),and(0)consecutively. Then,participants’responses were arranged in descending order according to their means. Table6shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.Table6shows that the means are between(1.41)and(2.51).After comparing these means with the theoretical mean(2),it was found that(4)impediments were perceived as important by the technical/adminis-trative staff.These impediments are as follows:(1)little training on ET;(2)littlefinancial support;(3)ignorance of how to use costly instructional software/equipment;and,(4)low awareness of the importance of ET.It seems that thisfinding 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.Thesefindings relate to the third research questions on the impediments of ET use at higher education institutions.Training needsCurrent trainingThe participants were asked to describe their in-service training workshops attended. Table7shows both the responses and results of Chi-square test in relation to qualification variable.Table7reveals that participants of most levels of qualification attended(0–5) workshops.Chi-square value shows no significant difference.This means that qualifications held by the participants have no effect on their in-service training and the number of workshops attended.Table6Frequencies,means,and standard deviations of the technical/administrative staff responses on the impediments to use instructional technologyItem Frequencies Mean a SDDN NI PI DILittle ET training3–1531 2.51.79 Littlefinancial support531527 2.28.97 Ignorance of how to use costly ET8–1525 2.19 1.08 Low awareness of ET importance721623 2.15 1.05 Little administrative support932314 1.86 1.04 Little Number of Fixed/Portable Equipment1341515 1.68 1.20 Technical difficulties15–1914 1.67 1.21 Inappropriateness of ET for some academic specializations1421912 1.62 1.17 Lack of Internet links1661412 1.46 1.20 ET is time consuming in terms of plan/design/produce media147178 1.41 1.11 a Theoretical mean between0and3Table7In-service training attended and chi-square test for qualification variable(n=148)Item0–5Workshop(s)6–10Workshop(s)>11Workshop(s)Chi-square Sig.PhD28134 6.046Non-sig. MS3587BA4265The participants were asked to describe hours allocated weekly for their own self career development.Table8shows both the responses and results of Chi-square test in relation to qualification variable.Table8reveals that most levels of qualification allocated(10–19) weekly hours for self-development.Chi-square value shows a significant differences at the level of(.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.Table9shows both their responses and results of Chi-square test in relation to qualification variable.Table9reveals that most levels of qualification attended(5)conferences during their employment. Chi-square value shows significant differences at the level of(.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 needsThe participants were asked to choose areas of training they required using a rating scale of three options:(very important),(important),and(not important);these options were analytically given the values of:(2),(1),and(0)consecutively.Then,participants’responses were arranged in descending order according to their means.Table10shows the descriptive statistics of the responses.Table10shows that the means are between(1.41) and(1.93).After comparing these means with the theoretical mean(1),it was found that all training areas were perceived by the participants as important.Thisfinding shows that the participants think that the need is persistent to get resourceful and multi-purpose training in ET.To verify thisfinding,a t-test was conduct to explore the job variable in relation to future training needs.The test results are listed in Table11.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(.005)in favor of faculty members.Thisfinding can be attributed to the continuous instruction and research practiced by faculty members.ANOVA test was also conducted to examine the role of qualification in the training needs.The test results are shown in Table12.Significant differences were observed at the level of(.018).In order to verify the difference directions, Table8Allocated weekly self career development hours and chi-square test for qualification(n=152)Item1–9hour(s)10–19hour(s)20–29hour(s)Chi-square Sig.PhD9172114.134.007 MS122417BA251611。