Examination of ELT Lecturers’ Digital Technology Integration Levels Via SAMR Model During Emergency Remote Education

Abstract

the present study investigated the digital technology integration levels of the English Language Teaching lecturers during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency remote education conditions via SAMR Model. The study employed a correlational design by employing a Likert-type questionnaire with 243 English Language Teaching lecturers employed at 20 universities geographically dispersed into the seven districts of Turkey. Universities were selected by depending on the statistical data of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. The results showed that synchronous teaching platforms were mainly employed as overhead projectors, which underlined the dominant usage of Substitution level without lecturers’ effective interferences to the activities. Transforming either the frame or content of the original materials was also promoted largely under the Modification level but placed after the Redefinition level, which is time and effort-demanding, and promoted densely after the Substitution level. The Augmentation level was the least promoted one since participants were of the opinion that increasing or decreasing the number of robotic activities is less useful than Modification and Redefinition level-appropriate practices. Apart from that, while participants’ digital technology integration levels were found related to their gender, background education, and online teaching experiences; seniority and age were not found to be significant indicators of the participants’ digital technology integration levels.

Keywords

• SAMR Model
• digital technology integration
• emergency remote education

References

1. Akkaş, F. D. (2023). An evaluation of an English Language course given via distance education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(1), 30-46.
2. Alivi, J. S. (2019). A review of TPACK and SAMR models: How should language teachers adopt technology? Journal of English for Academic and Specific Purposes, 2(2), 1-11.
3. Arstorp, A. T. (2018). Future classroom labs in Norwegian pre-service teacher education. In Innovative Technologies and Learning: First International Conference, ICITL 2018, Portoroz, Slovenia, August 27–30, 2018, Proceedings 1 (pp. 288-292). Springer International Publishing.
4. Aziz, H. (2010). The 5 keys to educational technology. The Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/16/the-5-keys-to-educational-technology.aspx
5. Beisel, C. A. (2017). New or novice teacher integration of mobile learning instruction. [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest.
6. Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay Company.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011), Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. [A guidance book on data analysis for social sciences]. İlköğretim Online, 7(1), 6-8.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.

9. Doğan, Y. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin uzaktan çevrim-içi yabancı dil öğrenmeye yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Turkish university students’ views on distance online foreign language learning]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(1), 483-504.
10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
11. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 47-61. https://doi-org/10.1007/BF02299597
12. Frost, J. (2019). Regression analysis: An intuitive guide for using and interpreting linear models. Statistics By Jim Publishing.
13. Gürer, M. D., Tekinarslan, E., & Yavuzalp, N. (2016). Çevrimiçi ders veren öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitim hakkındaki görüşleri [Opinions of instructors who give lectures online about distance education]. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 47-78.
14. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
15. Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi-org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091
16. Hockly, N. (2012). Mobile learning. ELT Journal, 67(1), 80-84.
17. Howard, B., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 455-462.
18. Howlett, K. M., Allred, J., Beck, D., & Mysore, A. R. (2019). An English learner service-learning project: Preparing education majors using technology and the SAMR model. Call-Ej, 20(2), 128-149.
19. Işıklı, E. (2017). Buharkent Meslek Yüksekokulu’nda örgün öğretim programındaki öğrencilerin “5i” uzaktan öğretim derslerine karşı tutumları [The attitudes of students at formal education programs of Buharkent Vocational School towards distance education courses]. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 7(2), 94-101.
20. Jude, L. T., Kajura, M. A., & Birevu, M. P. (2014). Adoption of the SAMR Model to Asses ICT Pedagogical Adoption: A Case of Makerere University. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(2), 106-115. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2014.V4.312
21. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research (3rd ed). CBS Publishing Japan Ltd.
22. Kolb, L. (2019). Smart classroom-tech integration. Educational Leadership: The Tech-Savvy School, 76(5), 20–26.
23. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., & Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In C. A. Chapelle, & S. Sauro (Eds.). The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 217-233). John Wiley & Sons.
24. Martin, T. J. (2020). The effect of teacher perceptions and self-efficacy for technology with the use of the SAMR model. [Doctoral dissertation, Wingate University].
25. Mirzajani, H., Rosnaini, M., Ayub, A. F. M., & Wong, S. L. (2016). “Teachers’ Acceptance of ICT and Its Integration in the Classroom.” Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 26-40.
26. Morris, P. E. (2021). Teachers and Tech: The Relationship Between Motivation to Incorporate Educational Technology and Teacher Job Satisfaction. [Doctoral dissertation, Centenary University].
27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914
28. Pallant, J. (2011). Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Open University Press.
29. Pepeler, E., Özbek, R., & Adanır, Y. (2018). Uzaktan eğitim ile verilen İngilizce dersine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri: Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi örneği [Students’ views on english lesson taught through distance education: Muş Alparslan University sample]. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(3), 421-429.
30. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the horizon 9(5), 1-6.
31. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
32. Puentedura, R. R. (2012). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Hippasus.
33. Puentedura, R. (2014). Learning, technology, and the SAMR model: Goals, processes, and practice. Hippasus. http:// www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/09/
34. Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning - Formerly The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 1-15.
35. Seven, M. A. (2012). Uzaktan ve örgün eğitime devam eden öğrencilerin ingilizce dersindeki başarı düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of achievement levels in English courses of students studying in distance and formal education]. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 16(50), 215-228.
36. Singh, Y. K. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New Age International.
37. Şirin, R., & Tekdal, M. (2015). İngilizce dersinin uzaktan eğitimine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri [Students’ views on English language courses through distance education]. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 323-335.
38. Yaman, İ. (2015). Üniversitelerde zorunlu İngilizce (5i) derslerinin uzaktan eğitim yoluyla verilmesinin artı ve eksileri [Pros and cons of offering compulsory English courses (5i) through distance education at universities]. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(7), 967-984.
39. Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2020). Five big ideas for effective teaching: Connecting mind, brain, and education research to classroom practice. Teachers College Press.