1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education
  4. Volume 2012, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2012, Issue 1
  • EISSN: 1703-1958

Abstract

This research aimed to investigate the impact of e-learning supported by cooperative learning on students' achievement in the core Arabic language course (ARAB100) delivered through the Blackboard system at Qatar University, State of Qatar. The was the basis for the design of the study which employed a 2 × 2 quasi-experimental factorial design to investigate the interaction between the independent variables of the research: e-learning supported by cooperative learning (EL+CL) and e-learning not supported by cooperative learning (EL − CL) with gender as a moderator variable and achievement in the Arabic language as a dependent variable. An achievement test was developed and administered to a sample of 170 undergraduate students (85 male and 85 Female) majoring in different subjects from seven colleges of the University over a 10-week period. Analysis of the findings by the two-way ANCOVA procedure was used to examine the three postulated hypotheses. The findings of this study showed that students assigned to the e-learning modules supported by cooperative learning (EL+CL) mode attained significantly higher adjusted mean scores on Arabic language achievement than students working on the e-learning module that were not supported by the cooperative learning (EL − CL) mode. Male students attained significantly higher adjusted mean scores on the achievement test than females using the same modules. No significant interaction effect was detected between e-learning modes and gender on achievement. In conclusion, the principles of the activity theory need to be considered when designing e-learning modules supported by cooperative learning activities in order to promote Arabic language learning.

© 2012 Hassan, Fook, licensee Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Journals.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1
2014-03-01
2024-11-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nmejre/2012/1/nmejre.2012.1.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ishtaiwa F. Factor influencing faculty participation in e-learning: the case of Jordan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. 2006;. University of Washington, ProQuest Information and learning Company, UMI Microform 3224236.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Shin JH, Hong K. Simple and powerful interactive e-learning system using VXML: Design and implementation of web and PSTN Linked efficient learning system. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA, International Conference, Glasgow, UK, May 8-11, 2006. Proceedings. 2006; 1::354–363.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ismail MI. Effectiveness of collaborative learning, combined with uncertified electronic learning in the development of collection and job skills with a group in the area of IT education to students of Qatar University, Faculty of Education. Magazine Coll Educ Azhar Univ. 2004; 125::361–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Joy SM, Tora K, Bikson C, Richard N, DeSisto L, Al Hamadi M, Al Thani SJ. The Reform of Qatar University. RAND Education and the RAND-Qatar Policy Institute, programs of the RAND Corporation. 2009;. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/permissions.html (May 3, 2010).
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Lai C, Kuo M. Gender differences in CALL programs for English as a second language acquisition. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Annual International Meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE). 2007;. (18th, San Antonio, TX, 2007, 2833–2836), ERIC, retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED496190.pdf (October 21 2010).
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Song H. Effects of Gender and Perceived Interaction on Learner Motivation, Sense of Community, Socialization, Instructor Role and Learner Role in Internet-Based Distance Education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. USA: College of Education of Ohio University 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Herring S. Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. 1994;. Retrieved July 8, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/Computing/Articles+ResearchPapers/gender- differences-communication (April 7, 2008).
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Graddy DB. Gender salience and the use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in online course discussions. Am J Dist Educ. 2006; 20:4:211–229.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Davidson-Shivers GV, Morris S, Sriwongkol T. Gender and online discussions: similarities or differences? In: Montgomerie CViteli J, eds. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia. Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001. Chesapeake, VA: AACE 2001;:361–366.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hsi S, Hoadley CM. Productive discussion in science: gender equity through electronic discourse. J Sci Educ Tech. 1997; 6:1:23–36, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ541787). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/12380 .
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Mhailan M. The Effect of Specialization, Acceptance Program, Year of Study, Nationality and Sex on The Arabic Spelling Skill among the University of Jordan Students. Dirasat: Educational Sciences. 2010; 37:2:5–22, (Arabic journal).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fakhroo A, Abdulmoneam AM, Fawzi M, Salim M. Core curriculum annual report: Core Curriculum Program, Qatar University 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Anastasiades PS, Vitalaki E, Gertzakis N. Collaborative learning activities at a distance via interactive videoconferencing in elementary schools: Parents' attitudes. Computers & Education. 2008; 50:4:1527–1539, Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.003.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Merino DC, Lopez ES, Gonzalez IG. Which Are the Determinants of Online Students' Efficiency in Higher Education? Technology Enhanced Learning. Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform First International Conference, TECH-EDUCATION 2010, Athens, Greece, May 19-21, 2010. Proceedings. 2010; 73::209–215.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Al-Sharaabi WA. The effects of e-moderators in collaborative online learning in Wiki on quality of writing, engagement and collaboration among students with different levels of self-regulated learning. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Wallentin M. Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: a critical review. Brain Lang. 2009; 108::175–183, Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/b&l (March 11, 2010).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Onchwari J. Technology and student learning: toward a learner-centered teaching model. AACE J. 2009; 17:1:11–22. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 24, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/26258 .
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Nguyen N. The influence of gender, age, nationality and proficiency levels on language learning strategy use. MWERA Annual Meeting. Columbus, Ohio: Westin Great Southern Hotel 2008;. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p273617_index.html (June 2, 2010).
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Wen W. Activity theory and second language acquisition. Sino-US English Teaching. 2008; 5:5:19–23, http://jennypanella.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/interesting- article-on-second-language-acquisition.pdf .
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Wickersham LE, Espinoza S, Davis J. Teaching online: three perspectives, three approaches. AACE J. 2007; 15:2:197–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Engestrom Y. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit 1987.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Joyes G, Chen Z. Researching a participatory design for learning process in an intercultural context. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2007; 3:3, Retrieved from: http://images.google.com.qa/imgres?imgurl = http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/images/articleimages/EDICT-2007-361. (September 7 2009).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Canagarajah AS, Wurr AJ. Multilingual communication and language acquisition: new research directions. Reading Matrix. 2011; 11:1, January 2011, retrieved from: http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/january_2011/canagarajah_wurr.pdf (May 9, 2011.).
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lantolf JP, Genung PB. I'd rather switch that fight: an activity-theoretical study of power, success and failure in a foreign language. In: Kramsch C, ed. Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspective. London: Continuum 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Field AP. Discovering statistical using SPSS: and Sex and Drug and Rock “n” Roll. 3rd ed. London: Sage 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. In: Anderson LWKrathwohl DR, eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman 2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Brunning JL, Kintz BL. Computational Handbook of Statistics. 4th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers 1996;:78–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 1998.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kinnera PR, Gray CD. SPSS 16 Made Simple. New York: Psychology Press 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Arbaugh JB, Benbunan-Fich R. The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decis Support Syst. 2007; 43:3:853–865.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Norton P, Hathaway D. Comparing two online learning environments: a classroom of one or many? In: Crawford C, ed. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007. Chesapeake, VA: AACE 2007;:2064–2071. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/24886. (January 17, 2008).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Devedzic V. Intelligent web-based computer-supported collaborative learning. Stud Fuzziness Soft Comput. 2005; 178::81–110, (online) Springer link available: www.springerlink.com .
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Anderson T. Modes of interaction in distance education: recent developments and research question. In: Gmore MMAnderson WG, eds. Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates 2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sun P, Tsai R, Finger G, Chen Y, Yeh D. What drives a successful e- Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput Educ. 2008; 50:4:1183–1202.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Vygotsky L. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nussbaum M, Alvarez C, McFarlane A, Gomez F, Claro S, Radovic D. Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Comput Educ. 2009; 52:1:147–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Monahan T, McArdle G, Bertolotto M. Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Comput Educ. 2008; 50:4:1339–1353.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. El-Deghaidy H, Nouby A. Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education program. Comput Educ. 2008; 51:3:988–1006.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pragnell MV, Roselli T, Rossano V. Can a hypermedia cooperative e-learning environment stimulate constructive collaboration? J Educ Tech Soc. 2006; 9:2:119–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Guzdial M, Turns J. Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. J Learn Sci. 2000; 9:4:437–469, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3 .
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Caspi A, Chajut E, Saporta K. Participation in class and in online discussions: gender differences. Comput Educ. 2008; 50:3:718–724.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Eagly AH, Karau S. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Bull. 2002; 109:3:573–598.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Peregoy SF, Boyle OF. Reading, Writing and Learning in ESL: A Resource Book for Teaching K-12 English Learners, 5/E. Pearson Education 2008;. ISBN-13: 9780205593248.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gunn C. Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. JALN. 2003; 7::14–30, http://www.cs.lamar.edu/faculty/osborne/COSC1172/v7n1_gunn.pdf .
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ono H, Zavodny M. Gender and the internet. Soc Sci Quart. 2003; 84:1:111–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Price L. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: challenging stereotypical views of women. J Comput Ass Learn. 2006; 22:5:349–359.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kramarae C. Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock. on. In: Moore DAnderson W, eds. Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 2003;:261–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rickert A, Sacharow A. It's A Woman's World Wide Web. Reston, VA: Media Matrix and Jupiter Communications 2000.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Yukselturk E, Bulut S. Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. J Educ Tech Soc. 2009; 12:3:12–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Benbunan-Fich R, Hiltz SR. Correlates of effectiveness of learning networks: the effects of course level, course type, and gender on outcomes. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 2002;:8. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2002.993855.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Astleitner H, Steinberg R. Are there gender differences in web-based learning? An integrated model and related effect sizes. AACE J. 2005; 13:1:47–63, http://www.mendeley.com/research/are-there-gender-differences-in-webbased-learning-an- integrated-model-and-related-effect-sizes-2/ .
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Lu J, Yu CS, Liu C. Learning style, learning patterns and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Inform Manage. 2003; 40:6:497–507, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720602000642 .
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Sierra C, Wang M. Gender, discourse style and equal participation in online learning. In: Richards G, ed. Proceedings of E-Learn 2002 Conference. Chesapeake, VA: AACE 2002;:2364–2367.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Chyung SY. Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy and academic performance. Quart Rev Dist Educ. 2007; 8:3:213–222, http://www.mendeley.com/research/age-gender-differences-online-behavior-selfefficacy- academic-performance/.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rovai AP, Baker JD. Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning and interpersonal interactions. Quart Rev Dist Educ. 2005; 6:1:31–44.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1
Loading
E-learning modules supported by cooperative learning: Impact on Arabic language achievement among Qatar University students
Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education 2012, 1 (2014); https://doi.org/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1
/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1
/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2012.1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): activity theory, cooperative learning, e-learning and language development and teaching with technology in higher education

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error