Research Article

Predicting quality of English language teaching through augmented reality competencies and TPACK model components among Kuwaiti undergraduates

Omaymah E. AlSuwaihel 1 *
More Detail
1 Curriculum & Instruction Department, Kuwait University, Sabah AlSalem University City, Alshadadiya, P.O. Box. 13281, 71 423, KUWAIT* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), October 2024, ep534, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15486
Published: 17 October 2024
OPEN ACCESS   473 Views   272 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Background: Augmented reality is among the emerging technologies that hold greater potential in the context of foreign language learning. No research has been done to date to investigate pre-service teachers’ competencies in augmented reality and their association with quality of teaching English and technological and pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) model components in the state of Kuwait.
Aim: This study aimed to assess the utility of using augmented reality competencies and English as a foreign language (EFL) TPACK model components to predict the quality of English language teaching of pre-service undergraduates.
Method: A total of 317 students enrolled in college of education at Kuwait university were recruited and responded to three online questionnaires measuring EFL TPACK, teachers’ augmented reality competencies, and quality of teaching English skills (QELT).
Results: Results indicated a significant positive association among all variables at 0.01 level. Teacher’s augmented reality competencies (TARC), TPACK, technological knowledge (TK), and technological content knowledge (TCK) were significant predictors of QELT. One-way ANOVA revealed that there was no significant effect of gender on the TARC, TPACK, TK, TCK, and QELT. The cut-off-criteria of the mean scores indicated that all participants strongly believe that they acquire the essential competencies of augmented reality in EFL classrooms and possess a high level of proficiency in TPACK. Descriptive statistics showed that more than (70%) of pre-service teachers selected “strongly agree” and “agree”, 13% or less selected “strongly disagree” and “disagree” while 26% or less selected “neutral” response. Linear regression analysis revealed that TARC, TPACK, TK, and TCK were significant predictors of QELT.
Keywords: augmented reality, quality of English language teaching, TPACK model, Kuwaiti students, pre-service teachers

CITATION (APA)

AlSuwaihel, O. E. (2024). Predicting quality of English language teaching through augmented reality competencies and TPACK model components among Kuwaiti undergraduates. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep534. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15486

REFERENCES

  1. Ahmed, E. A., Alkhaldi, S. M., Alduraidi, H., Albsoul, R. A., & Alhamdan, M. Z. (2023). Quality of life of mothers and fathers of children with autism spectrum disorder in Jordan. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/17450179-v19-e230529-2022-40
  2. Akbana, Y. (2023). The substantial need for digitalizing language teaching methods and materials. In E. A. Yunus, & K. Gülten (Eds.), Digitalizing English language teaching. Pegem Academy Publishing Training and Consultancy Services.
  3. Al Rubaie, R. (2010). Future teachers, future perspectives: The story of English in Kuwait [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Exeter.
  4. Alenezi, A. A., Alazemi, A. M., & Alnwaiem, A. F. (2021). Willingness to communicate in Kuwaiti EFL classroom settings. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 9(4), 12–26.
  5. Alenezi, M. A. (2022). English in Kuwait: A pattern-driven perspective [Doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin].
  6. Alfelaij, B. (2016). Why integrating technology has been unsuccessful in Kuwait? An exploratory study. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(3–4), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016672901
  7. Almutairi, M. A. (2021). Underachievement in English speaking skills among Kuwaiti EFL students at the college of basic education: Possible causes and possible solutions. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(1), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1201.23
  8. Al-Nouri, R. M. (2019). Why are Kuwaiti students weak in the English language? Multi-Knowledge Electronic Comprehensive Journal for Education & Science Publications, 26, 1–25.
  9. Anderson, A. (2019). Virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence in special education: A practical guide to supporting students with learning differences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429399503
  10. Assaf, H. M. (2023). A comprehensive exploration of challenges that English as foreign language learners in Kuwait encounter and suggestions for enhancement [Master thesis, Asia University].
  11. Bahrani, T. (2011). Technology as an assessment tool in language learning. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p295
  12. Basri, F. (2023). Factors influencing learner autonomy and autonomy support in a faculty of education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1798921
  13. Billinghurst, M., & Dünser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.111
  14. Bizetto, C. A. (2020). The challenges and benefits of teaching writing as a skill. Educational Resurgence, 2(4), 32–39.
  15. Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with technology, 18(3), 33–53.
  16. Bostancıoglu, A., & Handley, Z. (2018). Developing and validating a questionnaire for evaluating the EFL ‘total PACKage’: Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for English as a foreign language (EFL). Computer Assisted Language Learning 31(5–6), 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1422524
  17. Buhamad, A. M., Almisad, B. M., & Alsaffar, R. D. (2024). Poor performance of teachers in public education schools in Kuwait using educational technology. International Journal of Learning and Development, 14(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v14i1.21653
  18. Byram, M., Porto, M., & Yulita, L. (2023). Beyond teaching languages for communication—Humanistic perspectives and practices. Languages, 8(3), Article 166.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030166
  19. Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well-known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994
  20. Daif-Allah, A. S., & Aljumah, F. H. (2020). Developing the English language teaching skills of Saudi teachers of young learners. English Language Teaching, 13(3), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n3p20
  21. Dalim, C. S. C., Dey, A., Piumsomboon, T., Billinghurst, M., & Sunar, S. (2016). TeachAR: An interactive augmented reality tool for teaching basic English to non-native children. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 82–86). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0046
  22. Deng, L. & Chan, W. (2016). Testing the difference between reliability coefficients alpha and omega. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416658325
  23. Dirin, A., Alamäki, A., & Suomala, J. (2019). Gender differences in perceptions of conventional video, virtual reality and augmented reality. International Association of Online Engineering. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i06.10487
  24. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
  25. Farrell, T., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Essentials for successful English language teaching. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  26. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 2–77. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
  27. Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Commentary on coefficient alpha: A cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9098-4
  28. Han I. (2017). Attributes of quality English teachers and teaching perceived by academic high school students in Korea. Modern English Education, 18(4), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2017.18.4.07
  29. Işık, A., & Sarı, R. (2021). Are English language teachers assessment literate?. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.877706
  30. Karacan, C. G., & Akoglu, K. (2021). Educational augmented reality technology for language learning and teaching: A comprehensive review. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i2.3715
  31. Khotimah, K., Basthomi, Y., & Eliyanah, E. (2023). EFL pre-service teacher development for autonomy: Rethinking future autonomy supportive teacher. In Proceedings of the 20th AsiaTEFL-68th TEFLIN-5th iNELTAL Conference (pp. 321–329). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-054-1_27
  32. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
  33. Kongaut, C., & Bohlin, E. (2016). Investigating mobile broadband adoption and usage: A case of smartphones in Sweden. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.12.002
  34. Koşar, G. (2023). An examination into pre-service English-as-a-foreign-language teachers’ self-perceived technological pedagogical-content-knowledge. E-Learning and Digital Media, 21(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231156169
  35. Küçük, S., Yılmaz, R. M., & Göktaş, Y. (2014). Augmented reality for learning English: Achievement, attitude and cognitive load levels of students. Journal of Education and Science, 39(176), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3595
  36. Lee, L. K., Chau, C. H., Chau, C. H., & Ng, C. T. (2017). Using augmented reality to teach kindergarten students English vocabulary. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (pp. 53–57). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET.2017.20
  37. Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T.-S. (2014). TPACK: A new dimension to EFL teachers’ PCK. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 681–693.
  38. Liu, T. Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00329.x
  39. Martínez, A. A., Benito, J. R. L., González, E. A., & Ajuria, E. B. (2017). An experience of the application of augmented reality to learn English in infant education. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Symposium on Computers in Education (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2017.8259645
  40. Mohamed, M. H., & Razali, A. B. (2019). Augmented reality in teaching and learning English reading: Realities, possibilities, and limitations. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(4), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v8-i4/6696
  41. Nikou, S., Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. A. (2022). Towards a teachers’ augmented reality competencies (TARC) framework. In M. E. Auer, & T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), New realities, mobile systems and applications, proceedings of international conference on interactive mobile and communication technologies and learning (vol. 411, pp. 203–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96296-8_19
  42. Perlman, D. (2011). The influence of an autonomy-supportive intervention on preservice teacher instruction: A self-determined perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(11), 73–79.
  43. Redondo, B., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Sánchez Ruiz, R. (2020). Integration of augmented reality in the teaching of English as a foreign language in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00999-5
  44. Sáez-López, J. M., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Gómez Carrasco, C. J. (2020). Augmented reality in higher education: An evaluation program in initial teacher training. Education Sciences, 10(2), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020026
  45. Suryadi, A. I. (2021). Augmented and virtual reality for teaching English to young learners: Practical ideas. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Symposium of Foreign Language Learning (The 12th AISOFOLL) (pp. 100–108).
  46. Tryzna, M., & Al Sharoufi, H. (2017). English language education policy in Kuwait. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa. Language Policy, vol. 13 (pp. 77–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46778-8_6
  47. Tseng, J. J, Chai, C. S., Tan, L., & Park, M. (2020). A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 948–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531
  48. Tulgar, T. A. (2019). In between reality and virtuality: Augmented reality in teaching English to young learners. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 41, 356–364.
  49. Wood, W., & Li, S. (2005). The empirical analysis of technology camel. Issues in Information Systems, 6(2), 154–160.
  50. Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2016). Robust coefficients alpha and omega and confidence intervals with outlying observations and missing data: Methods and software. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415594658