An in-depth study of a computer course in United Arab Emirates secondary schools

International Journal of Educational Development 20 (2000) 323–331www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

An in-depth study of a computer course in United ArabEmirates secondary schools

Chris Cloke*, Masir Al-AmeriDepartment of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK

Abstract

The UAE Ministry of Education introduced a computer course to first year secondary students from 1991/2. Thispaper presents the results of an in-depth study of the views of key participants in the course. The results show thatthe course is appreciated by the students and teachers but it is limited in its effects. It lacks integration into the secondarycurriculum and is not followed up by further study of computers in later years of secondary education. In summary,this innovation represents a very positive step in introducing new technologies into UAE schools but further develop-ments are needed to capitalise on it. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:United Arab Emirates; Computer education; Secondary education; Attitude scales

1. Introduction

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) was one ofthe first countries in the Arab World to introducea course in computers as a compulsory element inits secondary schools (15 to 17 year old students)(Nooh et al., 1991). The original intention was tohave a course in both the first and second years.However, the first year course only wasimplemented. The course was introduced in phasessuch that from the academic year 1991/2 all sec-ondary schools taught the course (UAE Ministryof Education 1988, 1989).

The introduction of such a course represents amajor innovation for the UAE education system,

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+44-1225-826826; fax:+44-1225-826113.

E-mail address:[email protected] (C. Cloke).

0738-0593/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0738 -0593(99 )00078-4

or any education system for that matter. Educationin the UAE has developed rapidly from as late asthe early 1950s when boys were taught at the feetof imamms in traditional schools called Kutab (Al-Mazrui, 1984). Now all regions of the UAE haveschools for both boys and girls and there is a wellestablished University. Primary education (6 to 12year olds) is free and compulsory. The preparatory(12 to 14 year olds) and secondary (15 to 17 yearolds) phases are both free but not compulsory.Much of the development of education has beenfinanced by oil wealth. It also represents anincreasing commitment towards education by theUAE in common with other Arab States.

The introduction of a computer course by theUAE Ministry for Education also signifies thatthere are rapid changes happening within thesociety. Like many developed and developingcountries, the UAE is experiencing an increasinguse of Information Technologies (UAE Ministry of

324 C. Cloke, M. Al-Ameri / International Journal of Educational Development 20 (2000) 323–331

Education, 1988). The University already requiresall students to develop IT skills. It was anticipatedthat the computer course in the first year of second-ary education would link with the computercourses being run at the University (UAE Ministryof Education, 1993).

There appeared to be little formal evaluativework being carried on the course. It was felt thatsome information gathering of this course mightprovide some valuable insights into such a devel-opment and provide useful lessons for other similarinnovations. The research presented in this articlerepresents the key findings from an in-depth studyof the course particularly the impressions gainedby those concerned with it.

2. Background.

The UAE Ministry of Education decided tointroduce the course for a limited number ofschools for the academic year 1988/9. They helddiscussions with interested parties and experts dur-ing the year and set up a small pilot in five second-ary schools (3 male and 2 female) across the coun-try teaching a pilot curriculum. In fact, thecurriculum went through a number of revisionsduring the early 1990s as the scheme expanded to50% of secondary schools in 1989/90 and to allschools in 1991/2 (Nooh et al., 1991).

UAE schools employ mostly teachers from othercountries, usually from neighbouring Arab Stateson short term contracts. As expected, there was dif-ficulty in recruiting teachers to teach the curricu-lum. The UAE teacher training system was notproducing computer teachers, so existing teacherswith some computer background and untrained andinexperienced teachers were used.

The equipment used was purchased centrallyand installed and maintained commercially. It wasPC based using AT and XT technologies currentat the time. The software used was DOS-based andconsisted of generic packages, word processor(Arabic), graphics, spreadsheet and database. Com-puter labs were set up in the schools consisting of25 workstations connected to a printer.

The computer curriculum itself was supportedby a textbook for all students. Teachers tended to

follow the textbook very closely. Examinationswere set by the school. The curriculum was essen-tially a computer awareness course. It consisted oftopics such as:

Data processing

The information revolutionData and informationFile organisationProcessing dataRepresentation of data in the computerWhat computers doTypes of computer

The structure of the computer

Input devicesThe central processing unitOutput devicesStorage unitsOperating systemsApplications programmes

The operating system

Using the disk operating systemMaking directoriesWorking with filesDealing with indexingMaking backups of files

Applications programmes

Word processing in ArabicUsing a paintbrush programme(UAE Ministry of Education, 1993)

Computer lessons consisted of theory sessionsalternated with practical sessions in the computerlab. Two Computer Supervisors were appointed.Their role was to visit the schools regularly andmonitor the teaching of the computer curriculum.

It is clear that the model used for these courseswas the computer studies and computer awarenesscourses which were being taught in the UK andUSA in the early part of the 1980s. These gaveway largely to applications based work in schoolsand a greater emphasis on the role of the computer

325C. Cloke, M. Al-Ameri / International Journal of Educational Development 20 (2000) 323–331

as a learning tool rather than an object of study inits own right. As in some other countries, there wasno encouragement to integrate computers into theteaching of other subjects. Computers becameanother subject on the curriculum.

Hawkridge et al. (1990) presents a useful analy-sis of purposes behind the introduction of com-puters into the education systems of developingcountries. He puts forward four popular rationales.These are:

2.1. The social rationale

Education policy makers see this as the mostpopular rationale. They recognise that in developedand developing countries all students (and citizensfor that matter) should be unafraid of computersand should know something about how they workand what they can do. This is a recognition thatsociety is changing and that new information tech-nologies are part of that change. Some have argued(e.g. Stonier, 1983; Toffler, 1980) that computersand new technologies are instruments of change.Others (e.g. Robbins and Webster, 1989) see thedevelopment of computer technologies as part ofsocial change which is happening anyway. Which-ever position is taken, there is an identified needto ensure that all can operate effectively with thenew technologies not only in the workplace butmore widely in society.

2.2. The vocational rationale

Many students will need to acquire a high levelof skills with computers if they are to control them.Countries need the next generation of technocratswho will programme the computers, build newones, maintain existing ones, etc. Some will alsoneed to have high level information processingskills as part of their occupation. Given scarceresources, this is a strong argument for a degreeof specialisation in computer education in schools,whereas the Social Rational argues for computereducation for all.

2.3. The pedagogic rationale

There is a long tradition of using computers asteaching tools. This history begins in the 1960s and

1970s in the use of Computer Assisted Learning(CAL) to teach a wide range of subjects. Thedevelopment of computer education in UK schoolsduring the 1980s was founded on the notion ofteaching with or through computers rather thanabout computers. Kemmis et al. (1977) in hisevaluation of a UK Higher Education developmentprogramme presented a powerful analysis of thedifferent aspects of CAL. This included the use oftutorial or instructional programs which taught afixed body of knowledge through to programswhich facilitated learning by reducing what issometimes referred to as inauthentic labour.Examples of the latter would be the library datab-ase which enables the reader to quickly find abook, or the word processor which enables learnersto create and edit text. Further categories includedsimulation and modelling situations in which thelearner either used pre-existing models or devisedand developed their own.

2.4. The catalytic rationale

Computers can be seen as powerful instrumentsof change. The introduction of a computer into aschool management system, or even into a teach-er’s classroom should, at the very least, promptthought about the best way of making use of theresource. Such reflection ought to be based on ananalysis of how things are done at present. Theteacher, used to whole class teaching, faced witha single computer must think about individualisedlearning, since the computer is essentially amachine to be used by one or two students at most.Computers, therefore present a challenge to exist-ing orthodoxies. Like them or loathe them, youcannot ignore them.

From this analysis, it appears that the UAEGovernment was adopting the social rationalemainly in that it had created a computer awarenesscourse for all secondary students. This is supportedby the clear aims of the computer curriculumwhich were:

1. Removing students’ fears of computers.2. Preparing students for the future by becoming

generally aware of the technology available.3. Promoting investigation and scientific ways of

thinking.


4. Enabling students to cope with changes insociety.

5. Enabling students to use computers in univer-sities and higher education.

6. Enabling students to achieve some skills incomputer technology in order to help them intheir working lives.UAE Ministry of Education, 1988.

At the time of the study, secondary education wasnot universal and many of the students from thisphase went on to University where they would takethe computer courses on offer to all students. Thesocial rationale did not, therefore, extend to thewhole population.

Unfortunately, the pedagogic rationale is absent.At the time of the study, there was no intention forteachers of other subjects to use the facilities forthe teaching of their subjects. The computer inno-vation in secondary schools represented, essen-tially, the creation of a new subject together withappropriate management and infrastructure.

3. Collecting evidence about the course

It was not the intention to carry out a formalevaluation of the computer course in terms oflearning achievement or outcomes. The intentionwas to gather data about the course and its impacton the participants—the students, their parents andteachers. We were particularly interested in thesocial and cultural impact of the course based onHawkridge’s analysis described above. It was notour intention to assess the effectiveness of it butto consider the impact of it upon interested parties.This included the approaches to teaching and learn-ing employed.

In order to gather the views and attitudes of thevarious parties several instruments were designedand tested. Computer teachers, head teachers andsupervisors were interviewed using structuredschedules which were piloted once beforehand.Students were subject to questionnaires.

4. Student evidence

The student questionnaires were in two parts.One part consisted of carefully constructed banksof attitude questions which were analysed as asummative scale (Lemon, 1973). The second partconsisted of more open ended questions intendedto provide supporting evidence to the summativescales. The questionnaire also sought informationabout the student including background and accessto computers at home.

The attitude questions had five possibleresponses: Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion,Disagree and Strongly Disagree.

The questions were derived largely from theliterature where there are a number of such scalesalready published. In addition, the questions weregiven to a group of 40 people for comment andcriticism. This panel consisted of 13 supervisorsand 27 teachers. Both male and female consultantswere used from a range of subject specialisms. Thetranslation of the questions from English versionsinto Arabic was carefully checked by languageexperts.

The questionnaire consisted of four banks ofquestions which sought views on:

1. the students’ views towards computers2. The students’ views towards the teaching and

learning style adopted in the course3. The students’ views of the course materials4. Students’ views about their parents encourage-

ment

as well as questions about the student’s back-ground and subject choices.

The banks were piloted twice. Reliability andvalidity were tested using a range of proceduresincluding test–retest, split half and item analysis.The item analysis test allows items to be identifiedand eliminated which do not behave in the sameway as the rest of the questions in the bank.

After two pilot studies, reliable banks were gen-erated. It was felt necessary to pilot the scalestwice since the first pilot resulted in a number ofsignificant changes. Results from the main studygave Cronbach Alpha values for the first two scalesabove the recommended 0.8 (0.9 and 0.83). How-


ever, the third and fourth scales had lower values(0.7 each) which indicated that they ought to beused with some caution.

The theory of summative scales is such thatsummation of scores from a bank of individualitems can be treated as interval data. This isbecause the variations in perceived differencesbetween the various options (agree, disagree, etc.)compensate for each other. More details of thistheory can be found in Lemon (1973).

5. Parental questionnaires

It was hoped to be able to gather informationabout parents’ views of the course. It soon becameevident in the pilot study that questionnairesreturned from parents had been completed by stu-dents themselves. Parents seemed to feel unable torespond to the questions for a variety of reasons.This was the main reason for adding a bank ofitems to the student questionnaire concerning par-ental encouragement.

6. Teacher interviews

It was decided to interview all the computer tea-chers in the schools chosen. A highly structuredschedule was devised and piloted through consul-tation with two headteachers, one computer super-visor and three computer teachers. Headteachersand computer supervisors were also interviewed.

7. First year university students

At the time of the study (1995), the first cohortof students was entering the University havingstudied the computer course during their first yearof secondary education. A small follow-up studywas conducted with a sample of students to findout their reactions to the course and also how itrelated to the compulsory computer course theywere following at University.

Table 1The sample of students for the main study

Emirates Male Female Total

Abu Dhabi 142 140 282Dubai 70 70 140Sharjah 70 70 140Ajman 70 70 140Umm-Al-Quwain 68 70 138Ras-Al-Khaimah 70 70 140Fujairah 70 70 140Total 560 560 1120

8. The sample

The sample of people used in the final study waslarge as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

The sample was chosen using a stratified randomtechnique. Schools were balanced according togender (there are no mixed schools in the UAE atthe secondary phase) and the region with AbuDhabi provided a double sample because it is thelargest region. Schools were selected randomlyfrom within these categories. There were only twocomputer supervisors and most of the officials con-cerned with the innovation were interviewed.

Once permission was obtained, the schools werevery cooperative. The student questionnaires wereadministered with a teacher and one of theresearchers present. Full response rates were,therefore, obtained from the sample.

9. Discussion

The four scales which formed the main part ofthe student questionnaire revealed some quite

Table 2The people interviewed during the main study

Male Female Total

Teachers 21 18 39Headteachers 8 8 16Computer 2 0 2SupervisorsOfficials 5 0 5First Year 19 30 49University Students


interesting evidence. All four gave good distri-butions with a slight negative skew. The resultsfrom the scales were analysed usingt-test or univa-riate ANOVA with a Kruskal–Wallis test alsobeing conducted as a non-parametric backup.There was close agreement between these twomethods of analysis.

All four scales gave highly significant positiveresponses from the sample. This showed that stu-dents were highly positively disposed towardscomputers and the computer course in general.More detailed analysis of the results indicated thatthere were some interesting differences betweengroups of students. The data was analysed in termsof the following explanatory variables:

GenderSecondary Option (students opt in their firstyear for a science or arts path)Emirate and SchoolComputer at homeNationality (this was essentially indigenousUAE or other Arab State)Parents’ use of a computerSocio–economic status

The last variable (socio–economic status) was dif-ficult to determine. There are no published scales.Therefore, a scale developed by Hassan (1991) forUAE school children was used. It is likely that therange of socio–economic background for these stu-dents will be narrower than the national range sincesecondary education is a non-compulsory stage.Students are, therefore, likely to be from back-grounds which will value secondary education andwhere there is the necessary finance available tosupport children through it.

The results are represented in Table 3.The figure represents thep value for either the

t test or univariate ANOVA (where appropriate)and the figure in brackets represents thep valueobtained for the Kruskal–Wallis test. The test ofsignificance chosen was forp#0.01; non-signifi-cant results (i.e. accepting the null hypothesis) arein italics.

The socio–economic status (SES) factor showedno significance. This was probably due to the dif-ficulty in devising such a scale for the UAE. There-

fore, no significance can be attached to these fig-ures. It may be that such factors have no social orcultural significance in the UAE, or more likely,the sample is somewhat homogeneous as far asSES is concerned. This argument is supported bya comparison between the two factors SES and“having a computer at home”. There was no sig-nificant difference found using a Chi-square test(p=0.03), which indicates that there is equal likeli-hood of finding computers at home for the differentcategories of SES defined by Hassan’s method.

More promising results came from the other fac-tors. There are no significant differences in all fourscales with respect to Gender. This result may atfirst be surprising given the evidence in the litera-ture (e.g. Collis, 1985; Okebukola, 1993). How-ever, it is becoming increasingly evident that girlsare equally as interested and motivated by com-puters as boys, depending upon the circumstancesof the computer experience. Factors such as lengthof experience (Cloke, 1996) and type of software(Nelson and Watson, 1991) can influence attitudes.It must also be remembered that the students arein single-sex schools. Gender differences are oftenreduced in such circumstances because there is lesslabelling of “boys” and “girls” subjects (Culley,1988). This result is, therefore, very encouragingfor the UAE as women begin to play an increasingrole in society and the world of work.

As expected, science students seem to be morepre-disposed towards the computer course thannon-science students (Secondary Option). Studentswho had a computer at home or whose parents usedcomputers were generally more pre-disposedtowards the course. Again, this is an expectedresult based on evidence from other countries(Martin, 1991). However, there appeared to be dif-ferences in the way the course was being receivedbetween different schools and regions. This wasindicated in the “Emirates and Schools” factorwhich produced significant variations for all thescales. This should be a cause for concern for theUAE Ministry. Since each school was equippedwith the same resources, a common curriculum andtextbook, differences would appear to be a resultof differences in the quality of teaching. This couldbe accounted for by the rather mixed backgroundof the computer teachers themselves.


Table 3Results of inferential tests on the student questionnaire data

The students’ views towardsComputers Teaching and learning Course materials Parental

style encouragement

Gender 0.51 (0.39) 0.19 (0.19) 0.72 (0.76) 0.02 (0.02)Secondary Option (science 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.05)against arts)Emirates and School 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)Computer at home 0.01 (0.06) 0.26 (0.34) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.00)Nationality 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.38 (0.36)Parents’ use 0.01 (0.01) 0.13 (0.12) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)Socio–economic 0.24 (0.15) 0.48 (0.30) 0.40 (0.23) 0.17 (0.22)

The scales which related to the course itself(teaching and learning styles, course materials)gave overall positive responses but there wereclearly some significant differences emerging fromthe more detailed analysis by the factors. Thequalitative evidence suggested that studentsappreciated the teaching and learning stylesadopted, this is reflected in the lack of differencesin this scale for the various factors. This is to becontrasted with the views upon the coursematerials. The qualitative evidence suggested someproblems here and it is clear that some groups ofstudents had more problems with the coursematerials than others.

Students were also asked to respond to a numberof closed and open-ended questions outside of thescales. Their purpose was to provide contextualinformation and to provide opportunity for freerexpression of views.

25% of the students claimed to be using com-puters outside of school. Opportunities exist withhome computers (31% had computers at home) andvarious computer clubs and societies illustratingthe fact that computers are playing an increasinglysignificant part of life in the UAE with males tend-ing to dominate home use.

Relatively small numbers of students expressedmajor concerns about the course in the open-endedquestions. 19% responded that there should bemore sessions; 13% complained about the use ofEnglish with some of the software; 15% felt theyneeded more practice. Given that these are free andunsolicited responses, they give an indication that

the course was not long enough and the studentslacked opportunity to develop the skills taught. Afew also complained about the theoretical contentof the course (8%) and wanted more practice time.11% of the students pointed out that softwarebought at around 1990 is rapidly going out of dateand that more up to date software and hardware isalso needed.

Staff interviews supported most of these views.The computer teachers, headteachers and super-visors were interviewed using essentially the sameschedule. Teachers in UAE schools are mostly onshort-term contracts and do not feel confident inexpressing their views too strongly. However, theydid raise specific criticisms including:

O the course is taught only for one year;O the computers used are old;O the lack of technicians;O inadequate software;O the curriculum is not well organised;O the total number of computer sessions per week

is not enough;O the lack of formal educational qualifications for

computer teachers;O the shortage of computer teachers;O the absence of computer training.

All the teachers recognised the importance of thecomputer course for the future of the students andthey acknowledged the high levels of interest gen-erated by it amongst the students. The lack of con-tinuity with other years of schooling is the crucial


omission. Most schools across the world are work-ing with out-dated equipment. It is inevitable. It isalso going to be difficult to recruit teachers withskills which are in short supply in most places.However, the lack of continuity does mean thatlearning which takes place in the first year of sec-ondary is not consolidated. When the studentsleave school two years later it is lost. This wasborne out by the follow-up study of universityundergraduates.

10. Interviews with undergraduates

Interviews were conducted with 49 first yearundergraduates at the University (UAE has onlyone University). All the students interviewed haddone the first year secondary computer course twoyears earlier. The students reflected the generalfeelings about the course which emerge from theanalysis of the student data and interview data fromteachers, headteachers and supervisors. They feltthat the lack of continuity between the course andtheir current computer studies meant that muchlearning was lost. They also pointed out that thecomputer course at secondary level is mostly inArabic, but their computer course at University isin English. English is quite often the language ofinstruction for computers at high academic levelsin most developing countries, principally becausemost advanced software is in English. This isclearly going to be a problem if the computercourse at secondary level is to be developed. SomeArab countries have tried to develop their ownsoftware as a counter to the cultural influencesengendered by using software from developedcountries such as the USA and the UK (Kotite,1986; Hawkridge et al., 1990).

The students made specific recommendationsconcerning the course. They felt that more timeshould be spent on it; that it should be more practi-cal and less theoretical; there should be strongerlinks with the University core computer course;teaching quality needed to be improved; andattempts should be made to link the computer workmore strongly with work in other subjects.

11. Conclusions

The computer course for first year secondarystudents represents a very positive introduction tocomputer education for UAE schools. Few coun-tries in the Middle East have attempted such aninnovation. Criticisms of it should not be seen asundermining the whole enterprise. Few countriescan claim to have solved the problems associatedwith computers in schools. As an example, recentevidence in UK schools (Goldstein, 1997) stillindicates severe problems even after more than 16years since the first steps towards the introductionof computers into UK schools.

The evidence presented by all the parties con-sulted in this research were consistent in recognis-ing the importance of this course and the enthusi-asm of the students towards it. All the scalesshowed positive responses towards the course andcriticisms were always within the context of a gen-erally positive feeling about the initiative. Theanalysis of factors derived from the scales ident-ified differences which followed patterns similar toresearch largely based in Western countries. This,in itself, is a significant result. It indicates thatthere are cultural and social similarities in the waysin which different societies are adopting the newtechnologies.

The messages for improving the course arestrong and consistent. There clearly needs to begreater continuity between the course in the firstyear of secondary education and the next stages ofeducation or employment. Providing more conti-nuity should also meet the students’ needs to havemore time to develop skills. There needs to be amore practically based pedagogy which willdevelop the students’ skills in ways which aredirected towards meeting the stated aims of pro-moting problem solving in context. Finally thereneeds to be better support and training for the tea-chers of IT who are a scarce resource in any coun-try.

References

Al-Mazrui, I.B.M., 1984. The History of Education in theUnited Arab Emirates since the Beginning of the Century


to the Present (in Arabic). College of the Western Studies,University of Panjab, Lahore.

Cloke, C., 1996. Laptop computers in secondary science:experiences in two Wiltshire comprehensive school sciencedepartments. School Science Review 77, 45–53.

Collis, B., 1985. Reflections on inequities in computer edu-cation: do the rich get richer? Education and Computing 1,179–186.

Culley, L., 1988. Option choice and careers guidance: Genderand computing in secondary schools. British Journal ofGuidance and Counselling 16 (1), 73–82.

Goldstein, G., 1997. Information Technology in EnglishSchools: A commentray on inspection findings 1995–6.OFSTED in conjunction with NCET, London.

Hassan, M.M., 1991. A Study of the Motor Development ofChildren in the United Arab Emirates and the Presence ofRelated Variables. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath.

Hawkridge, D., Jaworski, J., McMahon, H., 1990. Computersin Third World Schools: Examples, Experience and Issues.Macmillan, London.

Kemmis, S., Atkin, R. and Wright, E., 1977. How Do StudentsLearn? Working papers on computer assisted learning.UNCAL Evaluation Studies. Occasional Publications 5.Centre for Applied Research in Education, University ofEast Anglia.

Kotite, P., 1986. The Coordination of Education Policies andPlans with those in the fields of Science, Technology, Cul-ture and Communication: A Survey of Experience in Coun-tries of the Arab Region. UNESCO, Paris.

Lemon, N., 1973. Attitudes and their Measurement. B.A. Bats-ford, London.

Martin, R., 1991. School children’s attitudes towards computersas a function of gender, course subjects and availability ofhome computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7,187–194.

Nelson, C.S., Watson, J.A., 1991. The computer gender gap:children’s attitudes, performance and socialisation. Journalof Educational Technology Systems 19, 345–353.

Nooh, A.S., Mandorah, M.M., Al-Arefi, A.D., 1991. The Pro-ject of Introducing Technology into General Education inthe Arab States: A Study of the Availability of the Require-ment (in Arabic). Arabic Bureau of Education for theGulf States.

Okebukola, P.A., 1993. The gender factor in computer anxietyand interest among some Australian High School Students.Educational Research 35, 181–189.

Robbins, K., Webster, F., 1989. The Technical fix: Education,Computers and Industry. Macmillan Education Ltd, London.

Stonier, T., 1983. The Wealth of Information: A Profile of thePost-Industrial Economy. Thames Methuen, London.

Toffler, A., 1980. The Third Wave. Pan Books Ltd, London.United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, 1988. The Project

of Teaching Computers in the United Arab Emirates (inArabic). Ministry of Education, Abu Dhabi.

United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, 1989. The Expan-sion of the Teaching of Computers Experiment in the UnitedArab Emirates (in Arabic). Ministry of Education, AbuDhabi.

United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, 1993. ComputerPrinciples for the First Secondary Phase (in Arabic). Minis-try of Education, Abu Dhabi.

Documents

An in-depth study of a computer course in United Arab Emirates secondary schools