رابطه سبک های مدیریت کلاس با باورها درباره تلفیق فناوری آموزشی در بین مدرسان زبان انگلیسی

دوماهنامه علمی - پژوهشی رهیافتی نو در مدیریت آموزشی

مقاله 15، دوره 10، شماره 38، شهریور 1398، صفحه 329-352   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

روح اله شریفی^{* 1}؛ فاطمه همتی²؛ رضا غفارثمر³

¹گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی. دانشگاه پیام نور. تهران، ایران.

²گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران. ایران

³گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت: 30 مرداد 1396،  تاریخ بازنگری: 08 آبان 1396،  تاریخ پذیرش: 01 دی 1397 

چکیده

هدف از این پژوهش بررسی رابطه بین سبک های مدیریت کلاس مدرسان زبان انگلیسی با رویکرد آنها در ارتباط با تلفیق فناوری آموزش با برنامه درسی فراگیران می باشد که بر روی 172 نفر (زن=114 و مرد=58) از مدرسان زبان انگلیسی شاغل در موسسات آموزش زبان انگلیسی شهر شیراز انجام گردید. در این پژوهش سه نوع سبک مدیریت (سبک غیرمداخله گر، تعاملی و مداخله گر) بر اساس چارچوب نظری ولفگانگ و گلیکمن(1998) در نظر گرفته شد و متغیر فناوری آموزشی با توجه به شش مولفه تشکیل دهنده آن (ریسک پذیری و احساس راحتی با فناوری، مزایای اداراک شده به کارگیری فناوری، باورها و رفتارها در ارتباط با استفاده از فناوری در کلاس، فواید آموزشی، اجرایی و ارتباطی، پشتیبانی فنی و بهره گیری فراگیران از فناوری آموزشی) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. داده های این پژوهش در دو مرحله جمع آوری گردید که در اولین مرحله با پاسخ نمونه 172 نفری به دو پرسش نامه سبک مدیریت کلاس (1998) و فناوری آموزشی(2008)، داده ها جمع آوری گردید.ضریب پایایی دو پرسشنامه از طریق کرونباخ آلفا به ترتیب 887/0 و 853/0 محاسبه گردید. در این مرحله روش انجام این پژوهش توصیفی از نوع پیمایشی می باشد. در مرحله دوم، شش نفر از مدرسان با تجربه به صورت هدفمند انتخاب گردیدند و در یک مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته شرکت کردند. نتایج نشان داد که سبک مدیریت مداخله گر سبک غالب مدرسان می باشد و اینکه مدیریت آموزشی با 5 مولفه و مدیریت افراد و رفتار هر کدام با 3 مولفه فناوری آموزشی ارتباط معنادار داشتند. تحلیل رگرسیون چندگانه نیز نشان داد که سه مولفه فناوری به طور معناداری از قدرت پیش بینی سبک مدیریت کلاس برخوردار می باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

سبک های مدیریت کلاس؛ فناوری آموزشی؛ باور معلمان؛ آموزش زبان انگلیسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Study on the Relationship between EFL Teachers’ Classroom Management Styles and their beliefs about the Integration of Technology

نویسندگان [English]

Rouhollah Sharifi¹؛ Fatemeh Hemmati²؛ Reza Ghaffar Samar³

¹Department of Applied Linguistics. Payame Noor University. Tehran, Iran.

²Department of Applied Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

³Department of Applied Linguistics. Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The main objective of this study is the investigation of the relationship between classroom management styles and EFL teachers’ attitudes toward the integration of technology into learners’ curriculum. The participants of the study comprised of 172 EFL teachers (female=114, male=58) teaching at different language institutes in Shiraz. Three styles of classroom management (interventionist, non-interventionist, and interactionist) were explored based on the theoretical framework of Wolfgang and Glickman (1982) and the variable of educational technology was investigated in terms of six subscales (Risk-taking Behaviors and comfort with the technology, Perceived benefits in using technology in the classroom, Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology, Technology Support and Access, Administrative and Instructional Uses and Students General and Specific Needs) . The data of the study was collected in two stages. At first, the participants were asked to answer the classroom management inventory of Attitude and Beliefs on Classroom Control (ABCC) developed in 1998 and Teacher Technology Integration Survey (TTIS) which was developed in 2008. In the second stage, six available EFL teachers based on purposive sampling participated in semi-structured interviews discussing the barriers to the integration of technology. The findings showed that the interventionist style is the dominant management style among teachers and classroom management was also shown to be significantly correlated with five out of six elements of educational technology. Multiple regression analysis also revealed that three out of six elements of educational technology significantly predicted the type of management style, the EFL teachers favored. predicted the type of management style, the EFL teachers favored.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

EFL teachers, classroom management styles, educational technology, teacher beliefs

مراجع

References

-             Alavi, L. S., & Soleimani, Z. (2013). A Comparison of Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes towards Class Control in terms of Demographic Characteristics. Scientific Journal Management System, 14(4), pp 115-136.

-             Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. The Professional Educator, 34(1), 1.

-             Aminyazdi, A., & Aali, A. (2009). Effects of Classroom Management Styles on Developing Pupils’ Metacognitive Skills. Foundations Of Education, 9(1). (in Persian)

-             Anderson, L. M., & Bird, T. (1995). How three prospective teachers construed three cases of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), pp 479-499.

-             Bakhshayesh, A. (2013). Investigating the Relationship between Classroom Management Styles and Personality Traits of Yazd Primary School Teachers. Scientific Journal Management System, 14(4), pp 185-198. (in Persian)

-             Baldwin, B., & Martin, N. (1994). Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of an Inventory of Classroom Management Style. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

-             Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher Professional Engagement and Constructivist-Compatible Computer Use. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Report# 7.

-             Beggs, T. A. (2000). Influences and Barriers to the Adoption of Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the Presented at Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference 2000.

-             Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language learning & technology, 1(1), pp 60-81.

-             Dehganzadeh, H., Aliabadi, K., & Dehganzadeh, H. (2016). Developing Design Framework of Eduational Game for Types of Cognitive Domain Subjects in Micro Level with Inductive Content Analysis and Eval-uation of its Effectiveness in Concept Learning. Research in School and Virtual Learning, 4(13), pp 7-20.

-             Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teachers College Record, 91(3), pp 347-360.

-             Emadi, S. R., & Yekta, S. (2016). The Effect of Apprenticeship Method Based on Multimedia Instruction on the Motivation and Academic Achievement of Students in Thermal Installations Course in the Manual Skills Branch. Scientific Journal Management System, 7(26), pp 1-17.

-             Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. The elementary school journal, 80(5), pp 219-231.

-             Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), pp 47-61.

-             Ewa M. Golonka , Anita R. Bowles , Victor M. Frank , Dorna L. Richardson & Suzanne Freynik (2014) Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27)1(, 70-105

-             Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385-395.

-             Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2014). Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 106-120.

-

-             Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50, pp 12-12.

-             Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of first‐year, fifth‐year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19(4), pp 558-562.

-             Handal, B. (2004). Teachers’ instructional beliefs about integrating educational technology. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 17 (1). Retrieved on September, 28, 2008.

-             Hemmati, F. (2016). Face to Face versus E-learning: An Investigation into the Performance of TEFL Master's Students of Payame Noor University. Research in School and Virtual Learning, 3(11), pp 49-58.

-             Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968). Jackson found that elementary teachers engage in as many as, 300.

-             Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective: Merrill.

-             Khajedadmir, A., Nastiezaie,. N, & Pourgaz, A. (2016). The Relationship between Classroom Management and Graduate Students’ Academic Procrastination. Journal of  Medical Education Development. 7(3)pp 10-1). (in Persian)

-             Maja Grgurović, Carol A. Chapelle and Mack C. Shelley (2013). A metaanalysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, pp 165-198

-             Martin, N. K. (1997). Beliefs Regarding Classroom Management Style: Differences between Male & Female, Urban & Rural Secondary Level Teachers. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), pp 101-105.

-             Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998). Class Size and Teacher Graduate Study: Do These Variables Impact Teachers' Beliefs regarding Classroom Management Style? Paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Houston, TX. 

-             Mirzaeian, V. R. (2016). Outlook of Instructors and Students on Ethical Issues in Computer Assisted Language Learning. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 8(3), 39-52.

-             Naserzade, M., Sheikhi, S, (2015). The Study of Classroom Management Styles of Faculty Members in Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Iran.  Strides in the Development of Medical Education. 13(2) 38-48.

-             Nunan, D. (1999). A foot in the world of ideas: Graduate study through the Internet. Language Learning and Technology, 3(1), pp 52-74.

-             Pourasghar, N., & Zare, H. (2015). Previous Experience of University Students and Tasks Performance Connected to Computer: Role of Computer Self - Efficacy, Computer Anxiety and Gender. Research in School and Virtual Learning, 3(9), pp 69-82. (in Persian)

-             Robertson, S., Calder, J., Fungi, P., Jonest, A., O'Shea, T., & Lambrechtst, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers & palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(4), pp 194-204.

-             Rose, M. (1979). Classroom Management. The 78th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Edited by Daniel Duke. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. NASSP Bulletin, 63(430), pp 109-110.

-             Sugar, W. (2002). Applying human-centered design to technology integration: Three alternative technology perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), pp 12-17.

-             Vannatta, R. A., & Banister, S. (2008). Measuring teacher technology integration: Going beyond teacher use: AERA.

-             Weinstein, C. S., Mignano, A. J., & Romano, M. E. (2011). Elementary classroom management: Lessons from research and practice: McGraw-Hill New York.

-             Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for researchers. London: Routledge

-             Wolfgang, C. H., & Glickman, C. D. (1980). Solving discipline problems: Strategies for classroom teachers (2 ed.). Boston, MS: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

-             Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2015). Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), pp 68-85.