Computer-Assisted Language Learning : Learners, Teachers and Tools [1 ed.] 9781443865432, 9781443860567

Citation preview

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Learners, Teachers and Tools

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Learners, Teachers and Tools

Edited by

Jeong-Bae Son

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Learners, Teachers and Tools Edited by Jeong-Bae Son This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Jeong-Bae Son and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-6056-5, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6056-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................... vii Chapter One ................................................................................................ 1 Low-Achieving Language Learners in Self-Directed Multimedia Environments: Transforming Understanding Pei-Lun Kao and Scott Windeatt Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 21 Mobile Natives: Japanese University Students’ Use of Digital Technology Peter Gobel and Makimi Kano Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 47 A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning in College ESL Contexts Moonyoung Park Chapter Four ............................................................................................. 69 An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia as a Resource for Learning Academic English Reza Dashtestani Chapter Five ............................................................................................. 97 Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge with Digital Materials Kean Wah Lee, Shi Ing Ng and Choon Keong Tan Chapter Six ............................................................................................. 122 Moving beyond Basics: From CALL Coursework to Classroom Practice and Professional Development Jeong-Bae Son Chapter Seven......................................................................................... 150 Connectivist Learning: Reaching Students through Teacher Professional Development Vance Stevens

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Eight .......................................................................................... 173 Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Online Tools and Professional Development Jeong-Bae Son Contributors ............................................................................................ 187 Index ....................................................................................................... 188

PREFACE This book is an examination of contemporary issues related to learners, teachers and tools in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environments. It explores the interrelationship among the three components of CALL and presents the findings of recent work in the field of CALL. As the third volume of the Asia-Pacific Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (APACALL) Book Series, it is a valuable contribution to CALL communities and offers great opportunities for readers to engage in discussions on CALL research and practice. The book includes eight chapters peer-reviewed by independent reviewers. Chapter 1 looks into low-achieving language learners’ use of self-study multimedia materials. Chapter 2 reports on a study of Japanese university students’ use of computers and mobile phones. Chapter 3 deals with English as a second language (ESL) learners’ needs for mobileassisted language learning (MALL) tasks. Chapter 4 focuses on Iranian university students’ use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. Chapter 5 examines Malaysian in-service teachers’ experiences in developing digital storytelling. Chapter 6 investigates how language teachers apply their knowledge and skills gained from a formal CALL course to their teaching practice and professional development. Chapter 7 discusses connectivist learning in connection with teacher professional development and learning networks. Finally, Chapter 8 explores CALL practitioners’ use of online tools and professional development in the field of CALL. A collaborative effort has been made in publishing this refereed volume. I am grateful to the authors whose work appears in the book. My thanks also go to all reviewers of submitted manuscripts. In addition, I would like to thank my family for their love and support during the production of this book. Jeong-Bae Son May 2014

CHAPTER ONE LOW-ACHIEVING LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN SELF-DIRECTED MULTIMEDIA ENVIRONMENTS: TRANSFORMING UNDERSTANDING PEI-LUN KAO CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY, TAIWAN

SCOTT WINDEATT NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY, UK

Abstract Multimedia materials offer the opportunity for language learners to practice with multiple media, work at their own pace, choose their own route through the materials, and receive feedback. A number of studies have highlighted difficulties faced by learners in coping with multimedia features in particular when used for self-study or remedial purposes although little research has been conducted into the learning processes associated with these problems. This chapter reports on a study of 12 lowachieving language learners working with self-study multimedia materials. Using data from interviews, learning diaries, observation, and questionnaires, the changes in attitudes and learning processes are charted over a period of an academic year, and followed up with interviews 12 months later. Initial benefits from using the multimedia materials give way to learners’ disappointment with their rate of progress, and with perceived shortcomings in the materials. The process of dealing with these problems, however, acts as a catalyst for the development of their ideas about what it means to be a learner, and by the end of the study there is evidence of a

2

Chapter One

transformation in their understanding not only of language learning but also of learning in general. Keywords: Computer-assisted language learning (CALL), multimedia, learning strategies, low-achieving language learner, self-study.

Introduction Multimedia language learning materials offer the opportunity for users to practice with multiple media, allow learner-control over pace and choice of routes through the material, and provide feedback. This study is concerned with exploring the extent to which the potential benefits of such software are realized for low-achieving learners, the problems they encounter, the ways in which those problems are tackled, and with the longer-term effects of working with such materials on both language learning and learning in general. The participants in the study are learners of English who used a variety of multimedia CD-ROM titles in selfdirected study mode over a period of two semesters in a university in Taiwan. Data collection involved interviews, debriefings, focus groups, and teacher observation, with follow-up interviews 12 months after the initial interviews.

Literature Review Low-achieving language learners Achievement can be defined in terms of the work students do, or in terms of “self-perception”, “personal knowledge” and “self-determination” (van Lier, 1996, p. 119). The former can be described as the “outer perspective”, in which achievement is assessed mainly by tests or exams conducted by others, and the latter the “inner perspective”, which characterizes individuals in terms of self-knowledge, self-assessment and self-regulation (Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick, 1992, p. 167). Although the inner perspective is not widely accepted as a measure of academic performance, a personal sense of competence or success is evidence of self-determination and self-regulation on the part of learners who are actively assessing their individual achievement or progress. Studies of successful language learners, as defined by performance in tests or examinations, suggest that in many respects there is a major difference between learners at different proficiency levels in terms of the language learning strategies that “good” (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975) or

Low-Achieving Language Learners

3

“unsuccessful” language learners (Vann & Abraham, 1990) use. Success might also be affected by individual differences among learners (Mitchell & Myles, 2004), including cognitive factors (i.e., intelligence, language aptitude and language learning strategies) and affective factors (i.e., language learning attitudes, motivation, language anxiety and willingness to communicate) (Gardener & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993). Larsen-Freeman (2001) refers to these as learner contributions, and categorizes them as learner attributes (i.e., age, aptitude, personality, learning disabilities, and social identities), learner conceptualizations (i.e., motivation, attitude, cognitive style and beliefs) and learning actions (i.e., learning strategies). Among those learner contributions anxiety, or feelings of apprehension, may be especially important as learners who experience language anxiety tend to perceive themselves as incompetent in comparison with their peers (Price, 1991), or self-justify themselves as lacking ability or low-achievers. Motivation has also been shown to affect both achievement, and attitudes towards language (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; van Lier, 1996). Intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) may be more likely to lead to long-term retention of learning (Arnold & Brown, 1999) as intrinsically motivated learners tend to be more persistent when they encounter academic challenges, volunteer for tasks and demonstrate higher academic performance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Mitchell, 1992; Walker, Greene, & Mansell., 2006). Extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation as adding extrinsic rewards can lead to a reduction of pleasure in an intrinsically interesting task, and of efficiency (Kohn, 1990). Attitudes – cognitive (e.g., what a person knows or believes about the objects of attitudes), affective (e.g., the degree of like or dislike of the class) and behavioural (Wenden, 1991) – are also closely associated with achievement and positive or negative attitudes can affect learning outcomes.

Self-directed language learning Knowles (1975) refers to self-directed learning as the process of conducting a series of tasks (e.g., needs analysis, goal setting, materials selection, strategy use, and self-assessment), and Candy (1991) identifies self-directed learning in terms of four products: “personal autonomy, selfmanagement, learner-control and autodidaxy” (p. 23). Self-directed learning has the potential to benefit language learners through catering for students’ individual needs, learning styles or preferences (Gardner & Miller, 1999; Sheerin, 1997) by accommodating time or physical

4

Chapter One

constraints that prevent learners from going to regular classes and providing additional practice. However, research suggests that self-directed learners are motivated, self-disciplined, self-confident and goal-oriented when meeting challenges (Taylor, 1995) and these are qualities that learners either need to bring to a self-directed learning course, or need to develop in order to benefit from it. Little (1989) refers to the need to “learn how to learn and to apply that skill to the learning of a language” (p. 63). Learners may be disposed towards independence of this kind but lack the required skills, knowledge, or abilities (Sheerin, 1997). Giving students the opportunity to direct their own learning, therefore, does not automatically lead to greater autonomy or result in language learning. It requires explicit “learner training and support mechanisms, appropriate use of technology, the design of access systems to support self-direction, teacher and learner involvement, and the integration of self-access with the curriculum” (Benson, 2001, p. 134).

Computer-assisted language learning and interactive multimedia learning materials Joiner (1997) identifies five main characteristics of multimedia materials: immediacy, interactivity, control, multisensory input, and the availability of various options for obtaining help. These features allow language learners to explore, discover, ponder, search, question, answer and receive feedback (Brett, 1998). The availability of multiple media (e.g., text, video, music) in a single interactive environment can help learners with different learning needs or preferences by offering a variety of presentation modes (Pusack & Otto, 1997) and this can lead to a more positive impact on students’ learning attitudes and achievements than lessons using only text (Atkinson, 2002; Moreno, Mayer & Lester, 2000). The control feature of multimedia environments can allow learners to choose the pace and sequence of the learning process, learning content and tasks, when to access help functions, and whether to start, stop, and repeat listening material. Interactivity can also play a valuable role in providing access to instant help with the linguistic demands of a task, including synchronized subtitles (Day, 2004) and feedback on their performance. Control and interactivity have been reported to facilitate deep learning, by actively engaging the learners in the learning process (Evan & Gibbons, 2007). Given opportunities to adjust the amount and difficulty of input, for example, learners can avoid the danger of frustration through “information overload” (Pennington, 1996, p. 9). Nonetheless, this feature may pose challenges for learners whose metacognitive knowledge is not yet

Low-Achieving Language Learners

5

sufficiently developed for them to exercise effective control over the learning process (Wenden, 2001). Learners may, for example, encounter problems when they choose materials which are at an inappropriate level or present cultural problems (Pusack & Otto, 1997). Murday, Ushida and Chenoweth (2008) also report frustration on the part of the learners with feedback from the computer, and with the amount of time they spend learning how to deal with technical problems. The present study, therefore, addresses the following research questions: 1. How do low-achievers perceive self-directed multimedia learning environments? What language learning problems do they encounter? 2. How do they cope with the problems? 3. How do they perceive the impact of the multimedia language learning experience?

Research Design Participants and sampling The major criteria for selecting participants were low achievement in English, defined as those who scored 50-65 out of 100 for English in Taiwanese National Entrance Examination (NEE), and high foreign language anxiety, according to the results of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) test. The FLCAS test was administered to 150 freshmen and a purposive sampling procedure was adopted to identify 20 potential subjects who were then invited to participate in individual pre-interviews, and to complete a demographic questionnaire on their background, education, perceived English proficiency, experience of self-studying English, and of using multimedia materials for learning English. The aims and requirements of the study were explained to the potential subjects. Eight of the potential subjects then decided to withdraw and 12 agreed to participate. Of these, two were males and ten females, majoring in Nursing, Business Management and Information Management. The participants had a similar educational background, having learned English since junior high school when they were about twelve, or even younger, at private language institutes. However, the experience was not always enjoyable, and their aim in studying English was only to pass examinations. They appeared to have a limited awareness of language

6

Chapter One

learning strategies, rarely had opportunities to practice listening and speaking in class and expressed a deep fear of those two skills. Although they regarded English as very important for their future career, they displayed a strong sense of helplessness and feelings of low self-esteem as a result of their failure to find effective ways of improving their performance or overcoming their fear of learning the subject.

Data collection instruments and procedures Qualitative inquiry concerns itself with “how the world is understood, interpreted, experienced or constituted” by “seeing through the eyes of the people being studied” (Bryman, 2004, p. 279). The study used participants’ learning diaries and interviews as the major source of data, together with notes from observation by the researcher or self-observation by the students, debriefings, and questionnaires. The participants took part in a weekly self-directed study session in the university audio-visual centre over a period of two semesters, 28 sessions in all, from October to April. Each weekly session involved eighty minutes of self-study using CD-ROM software, followed by ten minutes of debriefings in groups of three or four at the end of each session. The instructor briefly introduced different software they could choose from (e.g., interactive movies, comedies, magazines, news, dictionaries) encouraged them to try different functions (e.g., recording, role-play, repetition, tests), and offered assistance as necessary to solve technical problems, such as installing software. The participants could choose whatever they liked to work on in each session, and how they wanted to work. They then shared their reflections at the debriefing in either English or Chinese (their first language). Participants also had to submit weekly learning diaries by e-mail, with reflections on various aspects of their learning such as what content they learnt, how they learnt it, what particular software functions they used, problems or insights, selfevaluation of their progress or changes that they noticed compared with previous sessions, important events in the learning process, and inner thoughts. To investigate the longer term effects of the study, follow-up interviews were conducted with the participants one year after the course finished.

Data analysis The data were explored to identify emerging patterns, categories and theories (Bryman, 2004; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995; Marshall &

Low-Achieving Language Learners

7

Rossman, 1995) relevant to the research questions. The data were triangulated firstly by using multiple data collection methods, secondly by comparing data from different participants and at different times during the study, and finally by using a “member check” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314) technique in which the researcher confirmed the interview transcripts translated from Chinese to English with the participants to make sure the interpretations accurately presented their own views.

Results Initial perceptions The initial views the participants expressed were mostly positive. They considered the main features of multimedia environments (i.e., multiple media, control and interactivity) (Pusack & Otto, 1997) engaging, relaxing, fun and effective, and these features had a positive impact on learners’ intrinsic motivation and learning attitude at this stage. The participants, for example, felt motivated to make repeated attempts until they succeeded at a task because, they reported, of the non-threatening nature of the feedback, the intriguing content, and the control which they had over the pace of their learning. Most were positive about the presence of peers working alongside them during the class in the audio-visual centre, and about reflective activities (e.g., debriefings, learning diaries), as they felt this promoted a sense of community. Some contended that their presence increased their extrinsic motivation or gave them power or provided constraints that helped them persist with their learning, although others felt that the presence of peers or the instructor was a source of pressure, anxiety or even a threat, and this affected their willingness to carry out particular kinds of practice (e.g., speaking).

Emerging problems Fear of speaking the target language All participants experienced pressure and anxiety, and struggled with the speaking activities, mainly in the first few sessions; others had great difficulty with speaking throughout the whole semester, which in turn affected their willingness to do certain tasks involving speaking. Evidence of their attitude could be seen in their body language (e.g., covering their mouths while speaking, or looking round at others in the room) and the

8

Chapter One

interview data identified this as a “psychological obstacle” that affected their willingness to use the interactive “record” or “role-play” functions in the software. S1: Originally, I would like to use recording, but I was very scared of speaking English. Then I decided to give up. But definitely, I will try it next time…However, I am truly afraid of English. Maybe I still could not overcome my psychological obstacles! When the instructor was near me, I felt very frightened at once. Though I knew the instructor was kind, I still could not overcome this feeling. S6: I spoke super quietly…how I said was very bad…especially when I saw the shadow (of the instructor behind me) stop on the monitor, I just froze immediately.

Problems with listening Difficulties with listening activities mainly concerned the perceived speed of speech in the listening passages, the number of difficult words and problems posed by linked sounds. The participants reported problems caused by “the long chunks of unknown words” and words that “stuck together”, leading to frequent access to, and perhaps over-use of, help functions, and complaints that much time was “wasted” on “timeconsuming checking of meanings”, resulting in “limited progress”. These problems were exacerbated by the participants choosing to use software whose content was beyond their level of proficiency. In the first semester some participants chose to try different material in each session, which often led to frustration. Problems with the technology The two main activity types in the multimedia software that provided practice in speaking and feedback on their performance were “record” and “role-play”. The participants needed to listen to the model sound track in the text, comprehend the sentence or word, then repeat it, or, in a “roleplay” activity, respond to it, and then record themselves. However, the speech-recognition software which provided feedback on the participants’ recordings required a high standard of accuracy in pronunciation, word stress and intonation. This was especially problematic in the role-play activity as they had to record without the benefit of a model to copy. The participants initially had great expectations of the speech-recognition function in the materials, but in practice were frustrated by their constant

Low-Achieving Language Learners

9

failure, despite repeated drilling practice or sentence repetition, to produce speech that the software accepted as correct. Two main factors seemed to be responsible for this failure, and consequent frustration. One was their poor self-correction strategies. It seemed extremely difficult for them to identify the difference between their output and what was modelled, as they imitated the model provided many times but still had difficulty in adjusting their intonation or pronunciation to match the model. A second factor was the lack of flexibility of the speech-recognition software. A teacher would have noticed their growing frustration and identified when their pronunciation was “good enough”. These participants, however, were faced with the challenge of learning to appreciate the limitations of the software and deciding this for themselves. S2: Psychologically I still think there is an obstacle for me with the English intonation which makes it extremely difficult for me to learn…when it is my turn to speak it becomes very unnatural. It is very strange! We don’t have that kind of intonation in Chinese.

The problems the learners encountered echo those reported in other studies (e.g., Sheerin, 1997; Wenden, 1991, 2001). With low selfconfidence or lack of pre-requisite linguistic proficiency, the learning process in self-directed multimedia environments can be complex and a struggle.

Coping with the difficulties Overcoming fear As the course progressed the participants found ways of tackling their problems. Interviews, self-report and observation data suggested that most of them were more relaxed at the end of the first semester, and less “afraid” of the target language. Their body language had changed and most of them no longer covered their mouths while recording. Occasionally some participants observed others, but not as often as they did earlier in the course. Several factors seemed to contribute to this change. Firstly, the group dynamic became more friendly and supportive, as most participants were enthusiastic about the debriefing discussion and willing to share their experience of the listening and speaking practice. There also seemed to be less fear of speaking in the presence of peers, and observing those who “dare to speak or sing loudly” encouraged them to speak up themselves.

10

Chapter One

Finally, familiarity with the target language and the self-confidence generated as a result “practising frequently” helped reduce their fear of speaking since they believed they would progress as long as they “often keep touching English”. S3: I don’t feel very afraid of speaking English now because I listen to English more often. I guess I can understand it more. I would listen to dialogues or articles in advance. In this way, I can be involved with the situation more easily. Also because of practicing frequently, comparatively I would dare to speak… In the past, I would not even like to touch English at all because I could never learn it, well, no matter how hard I tried. It made me feel annoyed! It’s different now. I felt because I’m slowly making progress, I believe I can improve my English to be much better.

Tackling listening and speaking problems The participants learned to use multiple strategies, taking advantage of software functions that could help them. The most commonly reported strategy was repetition. Repetition of listening activities provided the opportunity to become immersed in the phonological elements (e.g., accent, intonation, linking sound) that they were unfamiliar with or resistant to, with some reporting that they were “more used to English if they listened to it more often” and felt more self-confident, which reduced their fear that the speech in the audio would be too fast for them to keep up with. S2: I think I have improved my listening as I can understand more and I won’t be stuck because of one or two unknown words. I won’t be worried if I cannot understand something. I can guess… I used to be very scared (of English). I used to feel very unfamiliar with it… Now I don’t think so negatively… Perhaps, I have more confidence… In listening, I made much progress. Because I repeat the listening and I practice every week, I have more feeling for it. It helps me guess more easily.

However, meeting the standards required by the speech-recognition software, was still a challenge. The requirements of speaking tasks such as role-play were so demanding that some participants avoided them, found other ways of practising speaking, or focused on other skills instead.

Low-Achieving Language Learners

11

Perceptions of the impact on language learning Participants reported that the experience of learning in a self-directed multimedia environment also had an impact on various aspects of learning in a conventional English class as well as in non-English learning contexts. Listening One aspect that was affected was listening to lectures in their ordinary English classes. The main changes the participants reported were that they became less anxious or worried when they heard the target language in class. The data suggest two reasons, one being their belief in their ability to understand the lecture if they made the effort. For instance, some described themselves as having become “braver at guessing”. Instead of waiting for the teacher to translate the content into their first language, they took an active approach by trying to work out the meaning for themselves. In contrast to what some participants had previously described as an “unknown” or “unidentified humming” sound, which was how they heard English in class, they claimed that they were now more willing to concentrate on lectures and make an effort to learn. Another reason for the reduction in anxiety was the participants’ use of learning strategies. For example, they reported applying a selective attention strategy while listening to the lecture, by focusing on the teacher’s intonation or on keywords, and ignoring some unknown words. Speaking They also reported greater willingness to participate in speaking activities in contrast to the passive attitudes recorded in the first interview (e.g., they never volunteered even when they knew the answers). Some participants reported no longer being afraid that “they may say something stupid” or that “others may not understand them”. They emphasized that their “fear of speaking” seemed to gradually disappear, by slowly adjusting to the conditions in the class (e.g., by imitating how the class teacher spoke in class). S6: I used to have little self-confidence especially when I had to talk in front of the whole class. I did not know what to say or where to put my hands. Now I just feel it is alright if I say something wrong. Even when the teacher calls my name and asks me to answer, I still want to give it a try even if I am not sure about the answer… The multimedia definitely helps me to gain self-confidence, especially after listening and speaking practice.

12

Chapter One

Perceptions of the impact on non-English learning contexts The participants generally felt that the learning experience in multimedia environments was rewarding, not least because it also affected various aspects of how they studied their major (i.e., nursing, business management and information management), how they managed their university studies and other aspects of their life. Impact on studying other subjects The interview data provided evidence that the learning strategies and problem-solving techniques, positive attitudes and determination they had developed were transferred to learning tasks in their specialized subjects. For instance, when one participant transferred her major in her sophomore year, her inability to understand the English terms which were frequently used in the lectures caused her problems and she was at risk of failing the course. However, she was determined to avoid failure by using the strategy of recording the lectures, playing and re-playing them, taking notes and reading terms out aloud. This method of “keeping on repeating listening” was crucial to her self-confidence, and to eventually gaining more control of the learning situation. S1: I made up my mind. Like I learnt in multimedia, I recorded (the lecture) and went back to listen to it. At first, I asked others about the terms all the time, such as flexion, extension…etc. Then I cannot bear with it and decide to record it. I spent three days and kept listening to the recording. And I took notes and read the terms out. I feel more confident afterwards. I am very familiar with the process, keeping on repeating listening. From then, I feel what the teacher says becomes easier for me. It was chaos at first, but I must deal with it.

While the repetition strategy enhanced this student’s self-confidence and motivation, another asserted that an auditory strategy, the habit of “reading out loudly”, helped her remember specialized terms more effectively. In her view, sensitivity to the target language and motivation were the key factors to helping her cope with her major, and especially the class lectures. S3: Now I still have a habit of reading English out loudly, especially the special terms. When I studied Pharmacology, the teacher warned us that the terms of medication were difficult to remember. Then I found the method of reading them out really impressed me and helped me memorize them more easily… The other thing which makes me different from my friends is that I would pay much

Low-Achieving Language Learners

13

attention to listen to English if I hear any. I think I have more interest in learning English and more willingness to touch it.

Another student transferred strategies learned in the multimedia environment by trying her best to guess the meaning of what the teacher said in class in her major, and by using guessing strategies while reading textbooks and handouts rather than depending so much on translated versions. S2: I told myself to try to read the original textbook in English, not the Chinese version…I sometimes give myself some challenges. For example, during the test, I will try not to read Chinese first but English, to see whether I can understand those. Or I would try not to translate them when I read the handouts and browse through it. Unless there are some words that are important, I will then check the definition.

For another student the experience of using the multimedia software and the strategies she developed nurtured positive beliefs in her ability to manage her specialized studies. She believed that she could “gradually cope with” her difficulty in understanding the English in her textbook because of the work she had done in tackling problems with the multimedia software (“I know where to start tackling them”). S6: I can understand the textbook better now. …. I feel the statements are not hard so that I can gradually cope with it… To some extent, I have a similar feeling as when I dealt with my subjects. What I mean it is the feeling that I have gone through a similar process before. So when I face the problems now, I know where to start tackling them. Then I can get involved in the situation quickly.

Another student was also aware of changes in her attitude as she was now interested in learning English rather than being resistant to it. She actively applied language learning strategies she had learnt to studying her major, nursing, saying “Comparatively, I know better about how to catch main points of an article”. S5: I learn to apply the structure of English in my study now. The vocabulary is very different as it relates to nursing. But I learnt to use the methods I learnt in the multimedia. In the past, I would immediately say: “Wow! There is no way I can understand it”. Now it’s alright. If I read an article, I may browse it quickly and guess the outline of it. Then I know the direction to check and which words I must check or which ones I simply ignore. Comparatively, I know better about how to catch the main points of an article. I used to check every unknown word I read in the past, which was extremely exhausting!

14

Chapter One

One student claimed that “finding methods to solve problems was something she learnt from multimedia”, and that an appropriate attitude towards learning was essential for university study (“that is what a university student should be like”). S1: I learn to deal with problems and plan while facing problems. Just like multimedia, I record and listen to it! I will try to guess meaning of some words. At least, when the teacher said a long sentence mixed with Chinese and English, I would guess the meaning of some words. For my study, I have to figure out the answer till I truly understand them if there are problems. I suppose that is what a university student should be like. S1: Finding methods to solve problems for each subject is something I learn from multimedia. I have to think which way is suitable. Then I look for different ways. For example, I did poorly with a test on a subject, ‘Human Development’. Then I interchangeably referred to books from the library in both English and Chinese for a few times. Then I understood it finally. It’s like using different resources in multimedia. If I don’t understand English I can check the Chinese translation. Then I will watch English subtitles and I repeat listening to it again. Then I simply think, ‘Yes. That’s it!’ Through the process, I’ve got it!

The impact of the multimedia experience on learning methods and on attitudes towards learning was even more rewarding for one student than the actual learning of English. The process of making decisions, finding solutions and setting goals helped her to become more independent and confident, which helped her achieve her personal goal of becoming ‘what a university student’ should be. S6: The reflective process helps me realize that the process of learning in multimedia environments actually helped a lot with other school subjects. Unlike high school, we need to make decisions and find solutions. Being a university student means being independent. The experience is really helpful.

In the final interview one year after the project finished, she described the impact that the multimedia experience on her as a person. S6: The influence of the learning experience with multimedia is great for me both in my studies and the growth of personality, and changes my thinking in many ways. Regarding my growth in my freshman year, I felt very happy for myself… I learnt different viewpoints to understand learning English. Also after learning this subject, I may use this method to learn other subjects. For example, during the project, I learnt how to plan my learning while using multimedia. Now I apply the same patterns to other subjects. It really changed my attitudes and learning methods. I did not notice that until I reflected back later on.

Low-Achieving Language Learners

15

The experience of working in multimedia environments, therefore, had identifiable benefits beyond the immediate context of the study. What the evidence shows is not only the impact of strategy use, self-confidence and motivation on their studies but also on the development of more general, positive qualities, such as responsibility and independence. Beyond the university The participants’ increased self-confidence and motivation had an effect on the way they saw their future. For these low-achievers, goals that they once considered beyond their reach now seemed possible. Previously, because of their low level of proficiency in English, they would not have considered any path that required a high level of English, such as studying for a higher degree or working abroad, and, while they were still aware of the hard work they would face in reaching their goals, they now had a much more positive attitude and faith in their ability to tackle the challenges. S1: I am still interested in improving my English because I want to join CIEE, working part-time in USA. I used to think my English was rubbish. So I thought that was just a dream. But I think my English is not too bad now as my listening is improved. Joining CIEE is my goal. I really, truly, sincerely want to go to America. My roommate has been there. And she said everything is huge in America. But the food is disgusting! (laugh) It is very hard as my sister failed the interview. Though I am a bit worried, I supposed I still have a chance to pass it. S2: I struggled a lot when my family encouraged me to go to America. They told me to study graduate school and work there. The salary seems great and I have relatives there as well. I have given it a thought, to start preparing TOEFL, like others do. I know it would be a long way to go but I may try it. S4: I know I need to improve my reading as I plan to be a nurse in Africa. I started to have this idea since I was freshman but I was not too sure about my English before. But now I know I need to keep improving my English and I have the confidence to achieve it. S5: I would like to be a nurse abroad. Many of my senior schoolmates also plan to go. But I need to take some action from now on. To achieve that, English is very important. It won’t be easy. But I know how to plan for it now.

Discussion The overall aim of this study was to provide a contextual understanding of how the self-directed multimedia learning process for self-study purposes is constructed and interpreted by the participants. The

16

Chapter One

first research question concerns the participants’ initial perceptions of their experience, and problems they encountered. They showed a positive attitude towards the multimedia features in the software and their comments on the learning experience suggested that, at that stage, the selfdirected multimedia course was meeting their need for a non-threatening environment, interesting learning materials, and scaffolding. This confirms claims in previous research (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; van Lier, 1996) that learners’ intrinsic motivation may respond if basic psychological needs are met. However, problems began to emerge with listening and speaking tasks which were partly due to a lack of the “phonological knowledge” (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005, p. 30) needed to manage self-directed listening and speaking tasks effectively. Nor had they yet developed effective strategies for assessing their language needs in order to choose practice material of an appropriate level. More generally, they had unrealistic expectations about the level at which they should be performing, and the rate at which they should be progressing, and for some the presence of peers and the instructor inhibited them. Their initial, mostly positive reactions were increasingly replaced by resistance to learning the target language, indicative, at the transitional stage, of a lack of readiness (Gardner & Miller, 1999) to accept the new roles and the attendant responsibilities that self-directed learning required. The second research question addressed the issue of how the participants coped with those emerging difficulties. This involved a combination of cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) which they developed as a result of growing familiarity with the language learning tasks and the software functions. As their task knowledge grew (Wenden, 2001) and they became more flexible and effective in their choice of strategies, their self-confidence and intrinsic motivation grew as well. An important factor in this change was that the participants had sufficient time to explore the multimedia environments in a supportive atmosphere, with scaffolding available both in the software, and from peers, who played a crucial role in strengthening each others’ motivation and confidence in dealing with problems. Those factors which had previously had a negative impact, they now began to see as a source of scaffolded help in solving problems. The last question explored participants’ perceptions of the wider impact of the experience. What they had learned from working in the multimedia environment was transferred in a variety of ways to other contexts, including learning in conventional English classes, tackling their non-English majors, managing university study and planning their future. The problem-solving processes they had learned and the success they

Low-Achieving Language Learners

17

experienced in this study had a positive effect on the way they pursued knowledge, but also on their “inner perspective of achievement” – selfknowledge, self-assessment and self-regulation (van Lier, 1996).

Conclusion The value of conducting this study over a longer term is confirmed by the fluid nature of the changes that were identified over time in the participants’ attitudes, in the problems they faced, and in the problem solving strategies they developed. Teachers and institutions who recommend the use of multimedia materials for self-study purposes therefore need to be aware of the complex task that students are likely to face if they are to use these resources effectively, and of the time and support needed to help develop the skills and knowledge required to benefit from them. The study adopted a structured approach to self-study, with the discipline of a timetable and reflective activities, and interaction with peers and a teacher, which was effective in helping participants deal with their fluctuating reactions as the study progressed. Without this structure, many would probably have given up. With this structure, their understanding of how to learn developed to the point where the structure was no longer necessary. The main lesson to draw from this study is therefore that it is essential to consider the needs of both the students who use these materials, and of teachers who work with those students, to ensure that learners have a framework within which they can work that provides structured linguistic, technical and emotional support as these needs arise and evolve, and that teachers have the understanding, training and support they need to help learners cope with those evolving needs.

References Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, R. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427. Brett, P. (1998). Is multimedia effective for language learning? An intuitive, theoretical and empirical perspective. Retrieved from http://home.wlv.ac.uk/~le1969/art4.htm. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Pearson Education.

18

Chapter One

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford. Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Day, R. R. (2004). A critical look at authentic materials. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 1, 101-114. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on motivation, Vol. 38 (pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1147-1160. Flowerdew, J., & Miller L. (2005). Second language listening. USA: CUP. Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-Access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). A student’s contributions to second language learning: Part I: cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211-220. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language learning: Part II: affective factors. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11. Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-Access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Joiner, E., G. (1997). Teaching listening: how technology can help. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 77-120). Lincolnwood IL: National Textbook. Kohn, A. (1990). Rewards hamper creativity. San Francisco Chronicle (June 21), B3-B4. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed Learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, Cambridge: The Adult Education. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Little, D. (Ed.), (1989). Self-access systems for language learning: A practical guide. Dublin: Authentik. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive /affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition.

Low-Achieving Language Learners

19

In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in research (pp. 12-24). London: Pearson Education. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moreno, R., Mayer R. E., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. In J. Bourdeau, & R. Heller (Eds.), Proceedings of the world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia, and telecommunication (pp. 741-746). ED-MEDIA 2000. Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163. Mitchell, J. V. (1992). Interrelationships and predictive efficacy for indices of intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-assessed motivation for learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25, 149–155. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2008). Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online. Computer assisted language learning, 21(2), 123-142. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. (1996). The power of computer in language education. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 1-14). Houston: Athelstan. Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Pusack, J. P., & Otto, S. K. (1997). Taking control of multimedia. In M. D. Bush & M.T. Robert (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 1-46). Illinois, USA: National Textbook. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Ryan R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992).When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: A theory of internalization and selfregulation in school. In A. K. Boggiano, & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 167-188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20

Chapter One

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 304-318. Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning in P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 54-65). London: Longman. Taylor, B. (1995). Self-directed learning: Revisiting an idea most appropriate for middle school students. Paper presented at the Combined Meeting of the Great Lakes and Southeast International Reading Association, Nashville, TN, Nov 11-15. (ED 395287). van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. London: Longman. Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198. Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1-12. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Cambridge: Prentice Hall. —. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: the neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44-64). London: Pearson Education.

CHAPTER TWO MOBILE NATIVES: JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY PETER GOBEL AND MAKIMI KANO KYOTO SANGYO UNIVERSITY, JAPAN

Abstract “Digital native” is a term popularized by Prensky (2001a) for people born in the digital era (after 1980). The term has been used to raise awareness of differences in learning styles of this group compared with previous generations of students and their teachers, leading to important implications for education. This chapter deals with the present generation of students and their relationship to technology, providing empirical data obtained in a Japanese context. Using a survey questionnaire, the study reported in this chapter examines 337 Japanese university students’ use of digital technology (primarily computer and mobile phone use) in academic and non-academic settings, as well as student preferences for digital or paper-based learning materials. The results of the study show that students have a wide access to digital media and information and communication technologies (ICTs), but are limited in their use of certain kinds of media and technology. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the survey results for classrooms and teachers, as well as what this means for the role of computers in self-study contexts and new methodologies in Japanese higher education. Keywords: Digital native, learning style, culture, ICT use, Japanese university.

22

Chapter Two

Introduction Recently, particularly in the US and Europe, educators are arguing that a new generation of learners has entered higher education, one which has grown up with digital media and technology as an integral part of their everyday lives. It is claimed that this group’s use of information and communication technology (ICT) differentiates them from previous generations of students and, in particular, from their teachers. It is argued that the importance of new technologies within the lives of these young people is so significant, that how and what we teach must fundamentally change to adapt to the new skills and cognitive and social features of these digital natives (Gibbons, 2007; Prensky, 2001a; Underwood, 2007). At the same time, many institutions are rapidly moving towards more digitalbased learning, with computer-assisted language learning (CALL) curricula and content management system (CMS) and learning management system (LMS) courseware becoming more and more common. Although the push for more digital-based learning and the use of digital technology can be seen in many parts of the world, it should be argued that major changes in teaching and the educational environment need to be carefully balanced with the results of empirical research. This chapter reviews recent educational research and analyzes the current situation regarding the digital natives debate, and how it relates to Japanese higher education. We begin by briefly defining the digital native debate, and then review the assumptions underlying these claims. Following this, we explore the debate in terms of Japanese higher education, providing data to support an argument that the debate itself may not be applicable to the Japanese educational system. Third, we consider the results of a survey of Japanese university students, and suggest how the survey results can be of help to both educators and administrators in higher education.

Review of the Literature Digital native definition At the center of the original definition of the digital native is the fact that people born in the last two decades have always been surrounded by, and interacted with, digital technologies. Prensky (2001a) calls this younger generation “digital natives”, as they are all, “native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (p. 1). In contrast are those born before 1980, whom Prensky refers to as “digital

Mobile Natives

23

immigrants”. Prensky suggests that they may adopt new technologies but will still have strong connections to the pre-digital past, making them unable to fully understand the natives. This has been likened to a digital accent, and can be seen in cases where, for example, people print out emails, or have them read to them, rather than accessing them solely online. These two groups acted as a springboard for other researchers and theorists to come up with a spectrum of other terms. These terms form a continuum running from the “digital recluse” and “digital refugee” who do not use computers by choice; to “digital explorer” who seeks out technology to help them work better and faster; to “digital innovator” who creates new tools; and up to the “digital addict” who is dependent on technology. Toledo (2007) adds another term to this spectrum, the “digital tourist” (p. 88), who views technology with curiosity, but resists implementing it in their own jobs and lives. Prensky (2001a, 2001b) argues that one of the consequences of the digital environment is the way that young people think and process information compared to older generations. He argues that digital natives are used to faster reception and transmission of information, allowing them to parallel process and multi-task. Being brought up on video, DVDs, and gaming, they prefer graphics before text. They expect instant gratification and frequent rewards, and a parallel to this is how video games are played. Jukes and Dosaj (2006) have created descriptions of behaviors that they feel differentiate digital native learners from many of their teachers. They argue that digital immigrant teachers prefer a slow and controlled release of information, singular tasking (as opposed to multi-tasking), text over pictures, sound and video, linear and sequential presentation, standardized testing, and delayed rewards. Digital native students, on the other hand, prefer multimedia, parallel processing and multitasking, pictures and video before text, immediate relevance, and instant gratification. If this is so, then the differences between digital natives and the digital immigrant/tourist groups have profound implications for education: if young people now have a range of different preferences that do not match current educational practices, then current ways of teaching need to change. In fact, many schools and teachers have not responded to the alleged new ways in which students communicate and access information. Although ICT has allowed university educators to create environments that are more closely aligned with the preferences of digital natives, one downside seen in the US is a gap or digital disconnect between students and teachers (Tapscott, 1997; Underwood, 2007). Teachers and

24

Chapter Two

administrators set the tone for ICT use at school, resulting in a gap between how teachers approach ICT use and how students approach it. Prensky (2001a) argues that the gap has resulted in the digital natives being taught by digital immigrants who are not talking the same language. However, is this actually the case? Those in support of this digital native/immigrant divide usually assign broad characteristics (e.g., a specific learning style or set of learning preferences as listed above) to an entire generation, and suggest all young people are technology experts (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). Certainly, many parents who are dependent on their children to solve their computer troubles would agree with this, and it is true that the percentage of young people who use ICT is higher than the older population (e.g., Cheong, 2008; Dutton & Helsper, 2007). However, there is significant variation within the young population in how and why they use these new technologies and in the effectiveness of that use (e.g., DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Facer & Furlong 2001; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007). Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) argue that the two factors of age and breadth of use do not determine whether someone is a digital native or not. Helsper and Eynon (2010) support this argument with a large-scale survey that suggests not only age, but educational level, experience and gender also play a part. These last two studies suggest that, although there may be a gap between students and teachers, it is possible to close it. This is an important point as the majority of evidence in support of the concept of the digital native is based on data related to age and specific use.

Digital native research In an effort to learn about the impact of the Internet on the daily lives of university students, Jones and Madden (2002) surveyed over 2,000 students from 27 US colleges and universities. The results showed a generally positive attitude towards computer use in college, with many students using computers as an effective means of academic and social communication. In addition, the results showed 20% of the participants had begun using computers when they were under 9 years old, with all respondents reporting computer experience by high school. These findings are certainly limited, but highlight the clear difference in upbringing between the students and their digital immigrant instructors, who experienced academic life with books, pens, and paper. More recent research into how young people in higher education access and use ICT questions the digital native trend by comparing digital device activity and ownership. In a survey of 4,374 students across 13 US

Mobile Natives

25

universities, Kvavik, Caruso and Morgan (2004) found that the majority of respondents owned personal computers (93.4%) and mobile phones (82%). The most common ICT activities were word processing, emailing, and surfing the Internet for pleasure. On the surface, this supports the digital native model of Prensky and others. However, most of the ICT activity was communication or school-based, with only 21% of the students reportedly engaged in creating their own content and multimedia for use on websites such as Facebook and YouTube. This led the researchers to suspect that a significant proportion of the students surveyed had skills of a lower level than might be expected of digital natives, who according to Prensky are comfortable with ICT. This trend is supported in more recent studies with Australian university students (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krause, 2008; Oliver & Goerke, 2007) showing similar patterns in access to ICTs. These studies also found that, although ownership of ICTs was high, use of the associated technologies (blogs, downloading podcasts, etc.) was far from universal. In China, Li and Raniery (2010) reported that digital natives in China are not necessarily digitally competent, with competency depending on educational background (the kind of school) and age. Interestingly, competency was not significantly influenced by PC ownership or Internet access/use. It must be noted that general ICT use may differ significantly from ICT use for learning purposes. Students’ use or non-use of technology for learning may be a complex relationship between competency, perceived usefulness, and support. In an effort to uncover factors that predict student use of technology for learning, Lai, Wang and Lei (2012) surveyed Hong Kong undergraduates regarding their ICT use and attitudes towards the use of technology in learning. The results of their survey study suggested that compatibility between students’ learning styles and technology, support from peers and teachers, and general attitudes toward technology were predictors of ICT use for learning. In contrast, the students’ perception of their own ICT skills and the perceived usefulness of the technology were weaker predictors of students’ technology use. It may be that there is as much variation within the digital native generation as between the generations, and that differences exist across cultures as well. The purpose of the present study is to survey the current state of ICT use among Japanese university students, their learning style preferences, and compare these results with the present definitions for digital natives. If there is indeed a distinct digital native generation in Japan, and their learning style preferences match the model hypothesized

26

Chapter Two

by Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and Brown (2000), then changes to the teaching style and curriculum of higher education are warranted.

Culture, learners, and technology acceptance Studies on technology acceptance have proliferated in recent years, with a wide variety of theoretical models being proposed to explain differences in individual acceptance and use of ICT. The technology acceptance model (TAM) promoted by Venkatesh, Morris and Davis (2003) has proven useful in predicting adoption and use of ICT. By investigating perceived usefulness, performance and outcome expectancies, and relative advantage, user attitudes towards technology can be used to help explain acceptance and use of ICT. For example, there seem to be some clear differences between students regarding technology, and this may lie in how they use the technology and how important they perceive it to be. Gu, Zhu, and Guo (2010) found that, although Chinese students had extensive experience using ICT outside of the classroom, ICT adoption in the classroom could only be explained by a complex relationship between personal factors and social influence. Related to this may be students’ learning preferences, which are greatly influenced by culture. Social and contextual views of learning suggest that learning is fundamentally a social and cultural activity. In this context, learning styles and preferences are not only individual, but also influenced by the social context in which they have developed. As such, a student’s approach to learning will be based in part on cultural influences in the form of prior learning experiences (Lattuca, 2002). A number of recent studies (e.g., Lee, Chang, & Tsai, 2009; Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011) have highlighted the tension between learner-centered and teachercentered pedagogies, and how culture (e.g., the traditional roles of teacher and student) may influence the degree of ICT adaptation in a learning environment. Some cultures subscribe to learning cultures that expect the teacher to set the tone and determine the direction for how students learn. In these cultures the teachers are seen as authorities on the subject matter and the manner in which students receive knowledge. It has been hypothesized that this perspective could have a negative effect on the adaptation of certain aspects of ICT such as CALL (Olaniran & Agnello, 2008; Yang & Tsai, 2008).

Mobile Natives

27

Japanese ICT use Japan is, in general, a very digitally connected country. According the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), computer access per household was at 87.2%, with 67.1% of households online in 2009 (OECD, 2011). The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) reports that Japan has some of the world’s highest broadband speeds, resulting in Internet access among those from ages 1349 being over 90% (MIC, 2012). Japan reportedly has the highest mobile phone ownership in the world (Takahashi, 2008) and the world’s second largest number of Internet-ready mobile phone users, according to MIC (2012). Throughout Japan, and across all age and socioeconomic groups, mobile phones are widely used to access the Internet and email in Japan rather than being used only for phone calls (Mito & Ono, 2008). This multiple use of mobile phones has helped to blur the boundaries between ICT and mobile technologies. In Japan, mobile phones have become central to young peoples’ identities and social lives, just as for youth in other countries (Boase & Kobayashi, 2008). From shortly after the year 2000, computer literacy in schools has been part of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) educational curriculum. MEXT goal for implementing ICT training in schools is to promote computer literacy so that students may participate in an information-oriented society (Moriyama et al., 2009). In 2002 a new Course of Study was designed, introducing a new compulsory curriculum area called Information Studies. These Courses of Study are government guidelines for schools, though schools have a good deal of flexibility in interpretation and implementation of most Courses of Study (Lockley, 2011). Due to a number of factors such as time, budget and staff availability, most schools focus only on basic ICT skills such as word processing, spreadsheets and presentation slides. Although the goals of the Information Studies are admirable, the reality is quite different. A lack of funds and modern equipment, minimal teacher training, as well as a lack of direction and vision from senior staff and school administrators, has limited the effect of the MEXT goals. These factors may help to explain why the ICT proficiency and confidence of Japanese school students is one of the lowest in the OECD, particularly in higher level computing tasks such as programming and multi-media presentations, but also in routine tasks such as email and typing (Ohashi, 2010, cited in Lockley, 2011). In addition to a lack of support in public schools, ICT investment (training and infrastructure) in both the public and private sectors is one of

28

Chapter Two

the lowest in the industrialized world (Lockley, 2011). Given this background, and the recent push among upper-level universities toward a more ICT-related educational format, how do students respond to these demands? Is the educational shift in higher education proposed in the US and elsewhere relevant to the Japanese situation? Are Japanese students digital natives using Prensky’s terms, or are they something else? The present study seeks to understand students’ attitudes towards digital technology. It is hoped that through understanding the ‘digital state’ of our students, we can better inform teachers and administrators on how best to implement ICT in the university environment. A questionnaire was devised to address the following general questions: 1. How do a sample of Japanese university students use ICT and mobile technology in non-academic settings? 2. How do a sample of Japanese university students use ICT and mobile technology in an academic setting? 3. Do students’ learning style preferences lean more towards digital media or paper-based media?

Methodology The setting The university in question is a private university in Kyoto, Japan, with over 13,000 students enrolled. The majority of the students are what can be considered social studies and liberal arts students, with a small group of science majors. The university itself is ranked in the top 10 in the area in terms of academic standing. In an effort to maintain that standing and attract more students in a country with a declining university student population, the university has been aggressive about modern infrastructure on campus. The campus has Wi-Fi throughout the buildings and in many public areas, has over 1,600 computers available to students in a variety of open computing rooms, library access, and CALL classrooms and computer labs. Fulltime faculty are provided with computers in their offices, and both faculty and staff have dedicated server space available to them for storing documents on the university server. In addition, the university has adopted the Moodle LMS for both students and faculty. Every year the university computer service center administers an online questionnaire. In 2011, 2,161 students responded to the questionnaire. Of the students who responded to the questionnaire, 98% have access to a computer at home. 74% of the students own their own

Mobile Natives

29

computer, with 46% of them purchasing their computer before starting university and another 40% purchasing one during their first year of university. 95% of the respondents were connected to the Internet. 98% of them felt a computer was necessary for them, with 76% saying that they often used a computer. Interestingly, only 22% of them said that they frequently used word processing software, only 10% said that they used spreadsheet software, and 13% said that they often used presentation software. 54% reported frequently using online search engines, while only 11% reported using the university’s library search engine. This online survey has been administered since 2008, and the results have been similar every year, with the number of students owning computers, and computer use and habits remaining stable, plus or minus 5% over that time. Based on this online survey, and the digital facilities offered on campus, we can safely say that the media and material are there for the students, creating an environment conducive to digital natives. The one drawback to this data is that the questionnaire was administered online, and that only 17% of the students responded to it. To get a more accurate picture of student use and attitudes towards digital media, a paper-based, random sampling method seemed to be a safer way to acquire data, which was what was done in this case.

The survey This study employs a data collection survey, requiring responses on a four-point Likert scale. The questionnaire examined Japanese university students’ use of ICT in academic and non-academic settings, and their learning style preferences (digital- or paper-based). The questionnaire consisted of 75 questions, including items concerned with background information (Questions 1-4), student mobile phone and computer use (513), student familiarity with software and websites (14-38), student activities using mobile phone and computer (39-68), and learning preferences (69-75). The contents and format of the questionnaire was in line with the previously published TAM (Venkatesh, Morris, & Davis, 2003). The questionnaire was administered in class, in a paper-based format. Questions were in Japanese and based on a pilot questionnaire created one month prior to the full questionnaire, and interviews and discussions with students regarding their use of ICT.

30

Chapter Two

Participants The data was collected from 337 first-year students at a private university in Kyoto, Japan. Eight faculties were included in the sample (Table 1), although one faculty (Computer Science) was treated separately. The gender mix was 250 males and 87 females, with most respondents between the ages of 18 and 19. Half of the students lived with their families, and half the students reported living away from home (either in an apartment or a dormitory). Intact classes in each faculty were chosen at random, with students completing the questionnaire during class time. Average completion time was approximately 20 minutes. Table 1: The Number of Respondents by Faculty Faculty Economics Business Law Language Culture Science Life Science Computer Science Total

# 59 50 48 26 50 20 33 51 337

Results The findings give an interesting view of the use of technology by young Japanese people in university settings, as shown below. All the results discussed here are based on the answers from the respondents from the 7 faculties without including the computer science majors, unless otherwise specified.

Students’ mobile phone and computer use In addition to more than 1,600 computers on campus available to students, almost all of the students (97%) have access to a computer at home, either as a main user of the home computer (65%), or sharing a computer with their family (31%). Even though they are in environments where they can use computers both at home and at school, the majority do not seem have much confidence in their computer skills, with 45% evaluating their computer skills as “fair” and 33% as “poor”.

Mobile Natives

31

Figure 1. Computer availability at home

Figure 2. Self-evaluated computer skills

About half of the students are using smart phones (130), and the rest are using conventional mobile phones (154). We asked when and where they use their phones and computers, and for how long (see Figures 3 and 4). It turned out that major use times for both phones and computers are in the evening till bedtime, mainly at home. They seem to prefer computers at home to using them at school. Figure 5 shows the students’ limited

32

Chapter Two

hours of using computers. The majority of them use computers less than three hours a day (59% less than one hour, 29% 1-3 hours) while they use phones much longer (45% 1-3 hours, 36% more than 3 hours). Even when we look at the result from the computer science majors (Figure 6), their computer use is not greatly different from the other students. Only 32% of them use computers for more than three hours a day, and 78% answered that they use phones for 1-3 or more hours. To find out how students use computers, phones and other media, and how they exchange data among them, we asked them where they store their pictures. As shown in Figure 7, 54% of them store their photos in their phones, and 15% in their cameras. This suggests that almost 70% of them do not move the pictures from the device they used for taking them. Less than 20 % use computers to store pictures, and very few use other media. Only 3 of them answered that they use website to store their pictures. This clearly shows their very limited data exchange among devices.

Figure 3. When do you use a computer?

Mobile Natives

Figure 4. Where do you use a computer?

Figure 5. How much time on PC/phone

33

34

Chapter Two

Figure 6. How much time on PC/phone (computer science majors)

Figure 7. Where do you store your pictures?

Students’ familiarity with websites and software Questions 14 through 38 were designed to investigate students’ familiarity with websites and software. They were asked to answer on a 1-

Mobile Natives

35

4 scale, 1 being “use it a lot,” 2 “sometimes use it,” 3 “know about it, but don’t use it,” and 4 “don’t know it.” Table 2 shows the average of the scales for each item. The items with an average higher than 3 shows that majority of them answered either 3 or 4, which shows their unfamiliarity, while the average lower than 2 can be considered to show that most of them are familiar with the item. Among all the websites and software, only 4 items were marked lower than 2 (i.e., YouTube, Yahoo, Google and mixi [a social network site popular among Japanese youth]). Even though many of the students are required to use Moodle, Word, and Excel (and possibly PowerPoint) at school, their reported familiarity was not very high (2.1, 2.11, and 2.44 respectively). This suggests that their use of websites and software are very limited. Table 2: Familiarity with Websites and Software Website YouTube Yahoo Google mixi Moodle Amazon Rakuten Twitter Facebook Excite Myspace Flickr Picasa

Answer 1.38 1.52 1.71 1.87 2.1 2.35 2.59 2.76 3.05 3.52 3.64 3.71 3.75

Software Word iTunes Excel Skype PowerPoint MediaPlayer RealPlayer Openoffice Moviemaker iMovie Prezi Googledocs㻌

Answer 2.11 2.15 2.44 2.46 2.58 2.76 3.31 3.56 3.56 3.62 3.63 3.66㻌

Note: Averages on a 4 point Likert scale – 1-use it a lot; 2- sometimes use it; 3know how, but don’t use it; 4- don’t know how.

Students’ activities using mobile phones and computers To investigate what they do with their phones and computers, we gave a list of activities that we assumed they do either with phones or computers, or both, and asked them to rate them on a 1-4 Likert scale, again 1 being “use it a lot,” 2 “sometimes use it,” 3 “know about it, but don’t use it,” and 4 “don’t know it.” (Table 3). As a result, we found that what they do with their phones and with their computers is quite different. They send messages and do social networking (i.e., mixi) with their

36

Chapter Two

phones, but surprisingly, they do not with their PC for those purposes. They check school information (class cancelation and classroom change, etc.) with both phones and PCs, but they do not read nor do online shopping much, and they hardly pay for goods with either of the devices. Activities they do mainly on the computers rather than with phones are to listen to music, use search engines, watch movies and TV programs, do research and write school papers. Considering the number of hours a day they spend using phones (Figure 5), their activities are rather limited, and they use phones mainly to be connected with their friends by texting and social networking. They do school assignments with computers, but do not use computers much to entertain themselves other than to listen to music and to watch videos. Activities such as playing games, downloading music, editing photos and movies are not done as much as searching for information, doing research, and writing papers. Looking back the result of picture storage (Figure 7), it is understandable that they do not edit pictures since most of the pictures are stored in the device they use to take those pictures, which seldom have editing functions. As far as online reading is concerned, we can simply conclude that they do not read much whether digitally or paper-based. Table 3: Reported Phone and Computer Activity Activities Sending email and messages Using bookmarks to save addresses Communication (blogs, chatrooms, SNS) Checking school information (POST) Listening to music Using a search engine to find information Watching movies or TV programs Playing games Downloading music Editing photos and movies Research for a report or paper Online Shopping (Amazon, Rakuten) Reading books, magazines, or newspapers Paying for goods Writing a report or paper

Phone 1.33 1.71 1.90 1.95 2.07 2.13 2.22 2.33 2.40 2.46 2.53 2.78 2.95 3.14 3.27

PCs 2.69 1.63 2.50 1.50 1.81 1.80 1.66 2.59 2.17 2.63 1.55 2.31 2.69 3.01 1.59

Note: Averages on a 4 point Likert scale – 1-use it a lot; 2- sometimes use it; 3know how, but don’t use it; 4- don’t know how.

Mobile Natives

37

Learning preferences The last part of the questionnaire was about their learning preferences (Figures 8 and 9). We asked if they prefer to do school activities such as lectures and reading assignments in class or out of class, and paper-based or computer-based. Their preferences seem to be quite traditional and are generally in class, paper-based. They prefer doing research and writing a paper outside of class, and computer-based, but for other activities, they showed preference to do them in class, and paper-based, especially taking a test/quiz and lecture. This is against the recent trend of the university administration which is quickly shifting from paper-based to computerbased distribution of information. We have to admit that they are not ready for learning digitally yet.

Figure 8. Students’ learning preferences – location

Figure 9. Students’ learning preferences – media

38

Chapter Two

Discussion Limitations As with all studies of this nature, there were a number of limitations that must be addressed. One of the limitations of the study was that the majority of the respondents were first-year students. Although they were representative of the first-year population, many of the students did not have adequate experience with many of the online activities surveyed, and so could only respond regarding their preference for activities they were familiar with, rather than a real choice between two or more options. For example, Question 69 was concerned with online lectures, or lectures outside of class, which few students are still unfamiliar with, and many more could not even conceive of. Future research might consider a more longitudinal study, looking at possible changes in attitudes towards online activities and computer use. A second limitation was the clear gender bias of the respondents. As the majority of the students were male, gender may have skewed the results. Previous studies have reported that gender played a role in ICT use (Helsper & Eynon, 2010), and future studies should seek to have a more balanced ratio for gender. That being said, the gender ratio adequately reflected the faculties in which the questionnaire was administered. A third limitation is the possible interpretation of some of the items. For example, the last six items were phrased as paper- or computer-based (see Appendix), ignoring mobile devices, which may have resulted in different data. Given the respondents’ penchant for mobile use, this seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Regardless, student views on learning clearly follow the results of Jarvis and Szymczyk (2010), where students preferred off-line learning for various activities. Indeed, it seems that these first-year students would prefer to continue in a highly structured, papercontext, despite the inroads made by the administration and computer center to increase the online options for learning. Finally, it must be noted that questionnaires of this sort, concerned with digital technology, become outdated very quickly. At the time of survey administration, mixi was the predominant social networking site used by the students. This rapidly changed to Facebook, and has moved on to another social networking site: Line. These changes may affect how students interact with their peers and their teachers. In addition, the predominance of smartphones among Japanese university students, over 80% at some schools, has changed how students access information, and what they expect from ICT both inside and outside the classroom.

Mobile Natives

39

Conclusion This paper examined the state of ICT and digital media use among a small sample of Japanese university students, in an effort to determine the extent to which generation, experience in using the Internet, and breadth of use were indicators of digital nativeness. In contrast with the original digital native argument put forth by Prensky (2001a, 2001b), it seems clear that generation or breadth of use alone does not define one as a digital native. It is obvious from the data that these students are exposed to and have a greater range of ICTs in their lives, but this does not guarantee confidence and skill in interacting with these technologies. There were two surprising findings from the present study. First was the self-reported general lack of computer use and skills among the majority of the respondents. Even the students in the Computer Science Faculty reported more phone use than computer use. That their computer and phone use times coincided in the evening hours suggests that computer use is probably secondary to phone use in general. In addition, the fact that the students generally have little confidence in their computer abilities, and rarely manipulate data beyond the basic creation stage (i.e., photos) suggests that their reported lack of confidence in their computer ability is probably accurate. They seem to be consumers of a great deal of media, but in a very limited fashion. These findings support the results of previous studies both in Japan and the UK (Holmes, 1998; Margaryan, Littlejoh, & Vojt, 2011). The second surprising finding is their preference for traditional forms of learning and studying. During the administration of the questionnaire, many students even expressed confusion at the idea of out-of-class lectures, or online presentations. For the majority of the respondents, lectures, discussions, presentations, tests and quizzes should take place in the classroom. Indeed, to most of them school and learning is seen as a face-to-face activity. It seems that most of them view computers as learning tools only in the sense of performing searches for information and writing papers (two activities that seem very closely linked in many students’ eyes, if we were to measure the amount of plagiarism from sites such as Wikipedia). This is in contrast to many of their teachers and the administration, who are keen to adopt digital technology inside of the classroom. However, although the administration is enthusiastically promoting Moodle and digital learning, culturally predominant teachercentered pedagogy may be influencing how digital technology is being used. Previous studies in this area (e.g., Ertmer et al., 2012; Li & Ni, 2011) have suggested that teacher beliefs and attitudes about the relevance of

40

Chapter Two

technology in education played key roles in shaping ICT practices. If this is the case, then, despite positive attitudes toward technology in education, teachers may use technology mainly for teacher-centered purposes. The students also overwhelmingly prefer paper-based reading materials to online materials, even if they could download them to their phones. In a recent class, rather than provide printed materials, one of the researchers made PDF files of the readings available on the university Moodle LMS. Over half of the students in the class did not download the files, and the majority of those who did download them printed them out, rather than saving them as PDF files to read on their mobile devices or computers. These two general findings suggest that the respondents are not the digital natives that Prensky describes. They do not feel confident using computers or computer software, but are quite adept at certain activities and functions, primarily communication-related activities using their phones. For many of the students in this survey, their phones are not far from their hands, and they spend a great deal of time reading and sending messages. It is for these reasons that we would label the students in this study as mobile natives. This would be a more accurate description of their use of digital media and their confidence in using ICTs. This study suggests that, despite prevalent ICT use among the student population outside of class, they have in no way abandoned more traditional methods of classroom learning and out of class study. This suggests that it would be a mistake for teachers and administrators to blindly adopt a digital learning and LMS route for all aspects of the university environment. The prevalent arguments for CALL and LMS: 24/7 access and flexibility, were not supported by the findings in this study. Accessibility and flexibility mean little when the target users are ignoring the technology or prefer different media. Administrators and LMS providers clearly need to take students’ preferences for paper-based materials into account and not simply replace them with CALL alternatives. This is not to say that CALL and LMS should be avoided. Rather, a blended approach which combines both digital and paper-based materials should be considered. In addition, the implications of the present study results for LMS design need to be addressed. At presents, many LMSs seem to be driven by and designed for resources which fail to allow students to work on mobile devices; administrative concerns regarding security and privacy limit access via cellular networks and smartphones. We suggest that if CALL and LMS are to have a larger role in universities, they must embrace mobile technology. That being said, digital learning shows few signs of replacing paper-based materials among this population.

Mobile Natives

41

Students clearly do recognize a role for LMS and CALL, but they do not seem to prefer it to paper-based and traditional learning. It could be argued that today the primary role of computers in Japanese self-study contexts is as a search engine and writing tool. For many of the reasons listed above, the idea of the computer and CALL as ways to assist language learning does not seem prevalent among our students. This suggests that there is a need for more training and support, for both faculty and staff, regarding the use and implementation of LMS and CALL in the curriculum. The opportunities CALL and the LMS offer are already in place, and perhaps more support and training would allow teachers and students to make better use of these tools.

References Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and break with social ties – a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 930-943. Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, March/April, 10-20. Cheong, P. H. (2008). The young and the techless? Investigating Internet use and problem-solving behaviors of young adults in Singapore. New Media and Society, 10(5), 771-791. Cosgrove, J., Zastrutzki, S., & Shiel, G. (2005). A survey of ICT in postprimary schools. The Irish Journal of Education, 36, 25-48. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Working Paper Series (15) Princeton University, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/cultural policy/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio+Hargittai.pdf. Dutton, W. H., & Helsper, E. J. (2007). The Internet in Britain: 2007. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://www.worldinternetproject.com/_files/_Published/_oldis/Ox IS%20Report%202007.pdf. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423435.

42

Chapter Two

Facer, K., & Furlong, R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the ‘Cyberkid’: Young people at the margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451-469. Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the net generation. Paper presented at EDUCAUSE, Australasia. Retrieved from http://www.caudit.edu.au/ educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Gibbons2.pdf. Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2010). Meeting the “Digital Natives”: Understanding the Acceptance of Technology in Classrooms. Educational Technology & Society 16(1), 392-402. Helsper, J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. Holmes, B. (1998). Initial perceptions of CALL by Japanese university students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(4), 397-409. Jarvis, H. (2008). Computers and independent study: Practices and perceptions of students. In P. Torres and R. Marriott (eds.), Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition (pp. 367-386). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Jarvis, H., & Pastuszka, L. (2008). Electronic literacy, reading skills and non-native speakers: Issues for EAP. CALL-EJ Online 10(1). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/10-1/jarvis.html. Jarvis, H., & Szymczyk, M. (2010). Student views on learning grammar with web- and book-based materials. ELT Journal 64(1), 32-44. Jones, S., & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org /Reports/2002/The-Internet-Goes-to-College.aspx. Jukes, I., & Dosaj, A. (2006). Understanding digital children (DKs): Teaching & learning in the new digital landscape. Retrieved from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/Jukes++Understanding+Dig ital+Kids.pdf. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First-year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology 2004: Convenience, connection, and control. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 59, 569-579.

Mobile Natives

43

Lattuca, L. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academic work. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 711-39. Lee, M-H, Chang, C-Y, & Tsai, C-C (2009). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ perceptions of and preferences for teacher authority in the Earth Science classroom with relation to their attitudes and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1811-1830. Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL Teachers’ Technology Use in China: Patterns and Perceptions. RELC Journal, 42(1), 69-85. Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent? A study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 1029-1042. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide, New Media & Society, 9, 671-696. Lockely, T. (2011). Japanese students’ experience of ICT and other technology prior to university: A survey. JALTCALL Journal, 7(1), 93102. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440. MIC (2012). Publication of the 2012 White Paper “Information and Communications in Japan.” Retrieved from http://www.soumu.go.jp/ johotsusintokei/whitepaper/h24.html. Mito, A., & Ono, H. (2008). The diffusion of mobile Internet in Japan. The Information Society, 24, 292-303. Moriyama, J., Kato, Y., Aoki, Y., Kito, A., Behnoodi, M., Miyagawa,Y., & Matsuura, M. (2009). Self-efficacy and learning experience of information education: In case of junior high school. AI and Society, 23, 309-325. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. OECD (2011). OECD Factbook 2011–2012: Economic, environmental and social statistics. OECD. Olaniran, B.A., & Agnello, M.F. (2008). Globalization, educational hegemony, and higher education. Journal of Multicultural Educational Technology, 2(2), 68-86. Oliver, B., & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171-186. .

44

Chapter Two

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1, On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. —. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Takahashi, T. (2008). Japanese young people, media and everyday life, towards the internationalizing of media studies. In Drotner, K., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.), International handbook of children, media and culture (pp. 413-430), London: Sage. Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill, New York. Toledo, C. (2007). Digital culture: Immigrants and tourists responding to the natives’ drumbeat. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2007, 19(1), 84-92. Underwood, J. (2007). Rethinking the digital divide: Impacts on student tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 213-222. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., & Davis, G. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Yang, F., & Tsai, C. (2008). Investigating university student preferences and beliefs about learning in the web-based context. Computers & Education, 50, 1284-1303.

Mobile Natives

Appendix

45

46

Chapter Two

CHAPTER THREE A TASK-BASED NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR MOBILE-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING IN COLLEGE ESL CONTEXTS MOONYOUNG PARK IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, USA

Abstract While mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) has recently attracted researchers’ interest in various domains, empirical findings on learners’ desired tasks with the target language via mobile-assisted learning remain limited. Looking for potential synergy between task-based language teaching (TBLT) and MALL, this chapter investigates language learners’ real-world target tasks in MALL. The goal of the study outlined in this chapter is to inform future development of pedagogic tasks for academic English as a second language (ESL) courses. ESL learners’ previous experience using mobile devices, as well as their attitudes and wants regarding MALL, is investigated using a task-based needs analysis survey with 3 ESL program administrators, 10 teachers, and 22 college ESL learners at a large state university in the United States. The study found that the ESL learners already make good use of various functions of their mobile devices and have positive attitudes towards MALL. Both ESL learners and teachers highly ranked target tasks for listening and speaking skills, as well as activities integrating short message service (SMS) and the Internet. Based on the identified target tasks, a MALL task typology was created and is presented in this chapter to provide an authentic and comprehensive resource for future development of MALL tasks, lesson plans, and curricula.

48

Chapter Three

Keywords: Computer-assisted language learning; mobile-assisted language learning; task-based language teaching; task-based needs analysis.

Introduction Considering the popularity and potential of mobile technologies in language learning and teaching, it is not surprising that an increasing amount of second language research on mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) is emerging in the computer-assisted language learning (CALL) literature. As a research domain, MALL is in a preliminary, yet evolving, stage; most MALL-oriented research seems to investigate language learners’ perceptions of MALL. Though some studies point out the challenges and disadvantages of MALL that result from the limitations of mobile technology (Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005) and the high cost of mobile devices (Kiernan & Aizawa, 2004; Stockwell, 2008), a decade of endeavors to implement MALL has shown that MALL can provide language learners with opportunities to negotiate meaning and to engage with comprehensible input and output. However, little research has been conducted on what specific target tasks language learners want to perform and what they are able to do with the target language in MALL using the four language skills. Given this growing interest in the potential of these tools, the study discussed in this chapter investigated tasks that language learners need to perform in English as a second language (ESL) contexts by conducting a task-based needs analysis. The goal of the analysis was to identify target tasks that are realworld language tasks the ESL learners want to undertake using a mobile device so as to better understand learners’ needs in MALL

Background Mobile-assisted language learning A review of the literature on MALL reveals that the collection of studies can be classified roughly into two categories: review studies and experimental studies. The former grouping of studies has described and critiqued the approaches taken to MALL implementation with a specific device, and has suggested directions for future MALL. Despite numerous challenges, such as small screen sizes, limited audiovisual quality, limited text message length, virtual keyboarding, limited power, and high costs, the portability and high rate of ownership of mobile devices provides a

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

49

potential foundation for language learners to study or practice with manageable chunks of information in any place and on their own time, thereby taking advantage of the devices’ convenience (Chinnery, 2006). Although synchronous speaking and listening activities are suggested as one of the potential directions of MALL (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2007), the majority of published MALL research has focused on asynchronous and text-based vocabulary and reading activities (Samuels, 2003) – the “anytime, anyplace” principle of mobile learning is not yet fully realized in MALL due to pedagogical and technical difficulties. The experimental studies have sought to explore how mobile technology benefits and challenges language learners by measuring learners’ perceptions or specific language learning gains using mobile devices. These studies have had various emphases in language domains, language learning contexts, and mobile device usage: for example, implementation of real-life tasks and learners’ perceptions using portable digital assistant (PDA) and global positioning systems in Japanese EFL contexts (Ogata et al., 2008); effectiveness of various mobile media such as mobile emails and mobile Web and patterns of mobile device usage among Japanese EFL learners (Thornton & Houser, 2005); students’ reactions to language learning materials developed specifically for mobile phones (Kennedy & Levy, 2008); effectiveness of tablet PCs for collaborative reading activities for elementary EFL learners (Lan, Sung, & Chang, 2007); the potential of short message service (SMS) in learning English vocabulary (Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009); and comparison of learners’ abilities to complete tasks in two different platforms, a mobile phone and a desktop computer (Stockwell, 2010). To better exploit the full range of mobile-assisted learning and more effectively support learner needs, it seems critical to shed light on “technology-mediated tasks” (Chapelle, 2001, p. 2) based on the exploration of the interface between CALL and second language acquisition. This could suggest that further research into the use of taskbased language teaching (TBLT) in MALL is needed to identify language learners’ real-world target tasks through a task-based needs analysis to inform future development of MALL tasks, lesson plans, courses, and curricula.

Task-based needs analysis TBLT is an approach to second or foreign language education that integrates theoretical and empirical foundations for good pedagogy with a focus on tangible learning outcomes in the form of “tasks” – that is, what

Chapter Three

50

learners are able to do with the language. Within the framework of TBLT, a task-based needs analysis acknowledges the fact that different students may have different language learning needs, or may need to use the target language in different situations and different domains. Therefore, a taskbased needs analysis not only informs goal description and goal selection, but at the same time provides a direction for the construction of pedagogical activities in the classroom (Norris, 2009). Two major advantages of task-based needs analyses over other conventional needs analyses are: (a) a task-based needs analysis identifies the target language use in a real-world situation using the dynamic qualities of the target discourse; and (b) the results of a task-based needs analysis can be readily used as input for task-based lessons or course design (Long, 2005). The significance of conducting a task-based needs analysis is clearly pointed out in Long and Norris’s (2000) six steps to developing a TBLT program: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Conduct a task-based needs analysis to identify target tasks; Classify target tasks into target task types; Derive pedagogic tasks; Sequence pedagogic tasks; Implement syllabus with appropriate methodology and pedagogy; Assess student achievement using task-based, criterion-referenced performance tests.

Regarding the six steps to developing a TBLT program, the aim of the current study is to accomplish the first step of identifying target tasks. Target tasks of college ESL learners, instructors, and administrators were identified through interviews and a questionnaire, and then classified into more superordinate target task types. To validate the data and increase the credibility of the interpretation of the collected data, the study discussed in this chapter employed multiple sources of data by including three groups (administrators, ESL teachers, and ESL learners) in the needs analysis.

The Study Aims The primary aims of this study were to identify target tasks for MALL among ESL college students attending a large U.S. university and to classify the identified tasks into target task types. In doing so, administrators’, teachers’, and learners’ perceptions of the challenges and potentials of the application of mobile devices for language learning and

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

51

teaching were taken into account. The study also aimed to investigate the usability of mobile devices for language learning and teaching among college ESL learners and teachers. Keeping these aims in mind, the following research questions were developed: 1. What are ESL administrators’, teachers’, and learners’ use of mobile devices, including frequencies, preferences in mobile device functions, and experiences in using mobile teaching and learning? 2. What are ESL program administrators’, teachers’, and learners’ attitudes towards and wants for using mobile devices for language learning and teaching? 3. What are target language tasks in four language skills (reading, listening, speaking, and writing) that college ESL learners need/want to perform in mobile-assisted language learning and teaching?

Subjects For the study, qualitative semi-structured interviews were individually conducted with four ESL teachers and four ESL students. The teachers were graduate teaching assistants in the English department at the university. Their ages ranged from 24 to 34 with 1 to 5 years of EFL/ESL teaching experience at the college level; three were females from Korea and one was a male from Turkey. The student participants were all male and Chinese native speakers; their ages ranged from 20 to 22 with 9 to 11 years of English learning experience. To investigate the participants’ attitudes towards MALL, perceptions of mobile device usability, and desired target tasks in MALL, an online questionnaire was administered to 3 ESL program administrators, 10 ESL teachers, and 22 current ESL students at a large American state university. The administrators had from 4 to 20 years of teaching experience and the teachers had 1 to 9 years of teaching experience. The students had from 7 to 16 years’ experience learning English, and their fields of study included Business, Sociology, Psychology, Fashion Design, and Family and Consumer Sciences. 15 students were native Chinese speakers, 6 were native Korean speakers and 1 was a native Turkish speaker; 18 students were male and 4 were female.

52

Chapter Three

Instruments Semi-structured interviews and an online questionnaire were employed to collect data for the study. A series of questions was developed for the semi-structured interviews. These questions could be divided into four major categories covering participants’ (a) bio-data, (b) current use of mobile devices, (c) desired target language tasks for MALL, and (d) perceptions of the potentials and challenges of MALL. Based on a review of the literature (Ek, 1975; Watanabe, 2006; Yoshida & Naganuma, 2003) and findings from the interviews, an online questionnaire was developed to further examine administrators’, teachers’, and students’ perceptions of ESL learners’ overall target task needs for the use of English in MALL. The survey consisted of closed-response items (including four-point Likert-scale items) and open-ended response items targeting students’ current use of mobile devices, desired target tasks with subcategories including reading, listening, speaking, and writing, and personal background information. The questionnaire was administered to 25 volunteer participants.

Analysis procedures The analysis of the semi-structured interviews focused on ESL learners’ and teachers’ attitudes towards and use of mobile devices, perceived challenges and potential, and desired target tasks in MALL. Prior to implementation of the online task-based needs analysis survey, the semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand potential survey participants’ experiences with and opinions about MALL. The recordings of the four student and four teacher interviews were analyzed, and findings summarized in the next section were used to design the online questionnaire. Semi-structured interview data and open-ended responses concerning students’ and teachers’ perceptions of MALL and their desired target tasks in MALL were categorized under three themes: (a) target tasks in four language skills; (b) integration of mobile technology for current language learning and teaching; and (c) perceived challenges in and potential of MALL. With quantitative data, descriptive statistics were calculated to investigate how the administrators, teachers, and students perceived the degree of importance of target tasks based on the four language skills. Since the number of the participants (3 administrators, 10 teachers, and 22 students) was small, their responses were compared only in descriptive ways.

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

53

Results The findings from the interviews and the online questionnaire were classified into three thematic areas: (1) current mobile device use and actual practice in MALL; (2) perceptions of MALL focusing on its potentials and challenges; and (3) desired target tasks in MALL.

Interviews To understand students’ and teachers’ use of mobile devices and desired target tasks in MALL, semi-structured interviews were conducted with four college ESL students and four ESL teachers. See Table 1 for a summary of the interviews. The semi-structured interviews revealed universal agreement among the ESL student and teacher interviewees about the potential of mobileassisted learning, including portability, practicability, and accessibility made possible through the widespread ownership of mobile devices; however, both students and teachers pointed out several challenges to MALL, such as small screen size, inconvenient keypads, high costs for online service and devices, limited battery power, and learners’ common use of the devices for communication or entertainment rather than for learning tools. As an interesting contrast, only one out of four teacher participants in the interviews reported having used a smartphone, and most interviewed teachers mentioned use of their mobile devices as communication tools. On the other hand, three out of four students have been using smartphones for more than a year, utilizing various functions with the devices. The students favor using smartphone devices for consulting English. An additional contrast is that the interviewed students are highly motivated to use MALL for various target tasks covering the four language skills, while the teachers are rather skeptical about the potential of MALL for several reasons, including technological limitations and pedagogical challenges in the class-wide facilitation of MALL. This contrast of perceptions implies what seems to be a gap between the teachers and students regarding their experience with, mastery of, and expectations for mobile technologies.

Chapter Three

54

Table 1: Summary of Semi-Structured Interviews Owned Devices Daily use Favorite functions Potentials Challenges Desired English tasks Owned Devices Daily use Favorite functions

Teacher A Cell phone

Teacher B iPod, cell phone

Teacher C Cell phone

Teacher D iPhone, iPad

20-30 min Phone call, SMS Vocabulary study, simple interface Various learners’ needs, small screen Aural communication

40 min-1hr Phone call, SMS Easy mobility

15-20 min Phone call, SMS High penetration rate

30 min

Small keypad

A tool for fun not for learning

A tool for fun not for learning

Phone reservation, watching Ted Talk Student B iPhone

Phone conversation practice

Vocabulary, listening practice

Student C iPhone

Student D iPad, iPhone 1 hr Dictionary, SMS, email, music Easy mobility, high accessibility Small keypad, limited interaction

Student A iPod 2-3 hrs Dictionary, Internet, music, SMS, ebook Anytime, anywhere

1 hr Dictionary, Internet, game, music Convenience

30 min-1hr Dictionary, Internet, phone call, SMS

Challenges

Cost for Apps and Internet service

Limited battery, cost for mobile device,

Desired English tasks

Web conference, short writing via SMS

Listening, speaking practice, ebook reading

Limited functions (compared to a PC) Pronunciation practice with Apps

Potentials

Online blogging, speaking practice with voice record function

Current mobile device use and actual practice of MALL All three groups who participated in the online questionnaire mentioned that they owned a mobile phone, with some owning more than one mobile device. The findings indicate that the students access the Internet more readily than the administrators and teachers. Though 15 student respondents (68%) of 22 own an Internet-enabled phone, a closer look into the collected questionnaire data shows that 7 students (32%) with a mobile phone without an Internet connection have a tablet PC, iPad, or iPod Touch that enables them to have occasional access to the Internet.

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

55

Even though the types and models of the participants’ mobile devices are varied, the wide-spread ownership of Internet-accessible mobile devices, especially among the students, is evident. Regarding the frequency of usage of various mobile device features, there seems to be agreement among the participants that SMS is the most frequently used feature of the mobile device, followed by the sending and receiving of emails. Interestingly, only the administrators and teachers ranked voice calling as the second most frequently used mobile device feature, which may suggest that the primary use of a mobile device for the administrators and teachers is for oral communication with other people. However, the students report using various other features such as a web browsing function for schoolwork and leisure, and text chatting and music playing features, more frequently than the voice call feature. When asked to rank the desirability of various mobile device functions, receiving notifications about course-related information (e.g., class cancellation, test scores) was ranked as the first or second most desired function by the students and teachers. The next most highly ranked function was doing in-class tasks such as taking lecture notes and completing out-of class tasks such as receiving or submitting assignments and consulting with other students. Responses to closed- and open-ended questions aimed at understanding the participants’ actual practice in MALL point to a clear discrepancy between the teachers and students regarding their experience with MALL. Only 1 (33%) or 3 administrators and 2 (20%) of 10 teachers had experienced mobile-assisted learning and teaching, but 14 (64%) of 22 students had experienced MALL. The participants also reported what specific activities they had experienced in MALL (see Table 2). Their responses show that writing activities in MALL are the least practiced among the four language skills, which may be the result of technological limitations in mobile technology or pedagogical issues in the implementation of writing activities in MALL. A variety of MALL activities reported, especially by the students, reveal mobile-assisted vocabulary learning to be the most popular MALL activity, followed by watching videos. These results concerning students’ prevailing use of mobile technology for vocabulary learning support up and coming trends in MALL research and highlight the potential for future studies to explore the implementation of and activity design in MALL.

56

Chapter Three

Table 2: MALL Activities Experienced by Participants Participants Administrators Teachers

Students

Administrators

MALL Activities Podcasts in a listening strategy class (LS) Download the listening part of the lesson on my mobile phone and play it in class (LS) Subscribe to podcasting / internet news (LS, R) Practice vocabulary via smart phone applications (R) Use YouTube on iPhone to watch (LS) Chat with others (W/R) Use the dictionary in iPhone to memorize vocabulary (R) Check new words on my laptop, or listen to English news (R/LS) Watch English movies and listen to English music (LS) Listen to English songs and watch videos (LS) Look up new words (R) Look up for unknown words (R) Practice English pronunciation and listening (LS) Read e-book and news (R) Record my pronunciation, dictionary, internet for checking my sentence (LS/R) Use dictionary and book program (R) Use electrical dictionary on cell phone (R) Watch videos (LS) Write on Twitter (W) Podcasts in a listening strategy class (LS)

Note: (R) = Reading; (LS) = Listening/Speaking; (W) = Writing

Participants’ perceptions of MALL Contrary to what was expected, only 14 students (63%) reported feeling confident in their technology skills and 8 students (36%) felt uncertain about their technology skills. By contrast, 9 teachers (90%) expressed confidence in their technology skills. In terms of the participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of MALL, 9 teachers (90%) agreed that mobile devices are useful for language learning and teaching; however, a relatively lower percentage of the students (77%) acknowledged the effectiveness of MALL. Additionally, 1 teachers (10%) and 5 students (23%) expressed apprehension about the shortcomings of using mobile devices for language learning and teaching. When asked to report their perceptions of the challenges and potential of MALL, the administrators and teachers pointed out more specific concerns about MALL, including teachers’ and students’ level of preparedness in the use of mobile technology, psychological barriers (e.g., distraction, limited interaction), and limited functionality of the devices. The students, on the other hand, perceived MALL to be promising, and they suggested more specific function-oriented potential (e.g., access to

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

57

online resources and various functions for language learning, voicerecording, listening, note-taking) than challenges. Based on the findings from the interviews and the online questionnaire, the participants’ perceived challenges in MALL can be divided into four categories: technological factors (e.g., small screen and keypad, limited functionality); cost factors (e.g., high cost of mobile devices, data service charges, mobile application software); environmental factors (e.g., learners’ preference for PCs over mobile devices in task completion); and psychological factors (e.g., students’ perceptions of a mobile device as a tool for entertainment, not as a tool for studying).

Target task need in MALL Open-ended survey Table 3 summarizes open-ended responses concerning the participants’ desired target tasks in MALL according to the four language skills. Although it was an open-ended question, the survey results indicate consistent patterns throughout the four language skills. Overall, the participants in the three groups mentioned task needs which were well-balanced across the four language skills. In terms of target tasks for reading skills, “reading course-related materials” was commonly acknowledged as the most desired target task, followed by “consulting vocabulary resources and browsing the web” as the second and third most desired target tasks by the three groups. In the case of listening skills, the students appeared to utilize various sources for their listening practice. Among the desired target task responses, “listening to music” was the most preferred target task followed by “practicing vocabulary pronunciation”, which was also greatly stressed by the students in reading skills. Although it was not mentioned by the students, the teachers regarded “watching online lectures” as the most necessary listening task. For speaking skills, “formal phone conversation” was suggested as the most needed speaking task by all three groups. Yet, the students specifically stated their desired speaking tasks and provided detailed task contexts (e.g., “making a reservation in a restaurant and a hotel”, “ordering food”, “calling customer service to get a refund”, “practicing presentation” and “calling an academic advisor to make an appointment”).

Chapter Three

58

Table 3: Open-ended Responses on Desired Target Tasks in MALL Administrators

Teachers

Students

READING

Reading texts on/offline (4) Looking up vocabulary (4) Browsing web (3) Following GPS direction (1) Taking notes (1)

Reading text on/offline (19) Looking up vocabulary (12) Browsing web (4) Reading emails (2) Taking an Internet poll (1) Chatting online (1)

LISTENING

Listening to Podcasts (5) Checking voice message/ARS/A ccents on the phone (3) Taking online lectures (2) Listening to music (1)

SPEAKING

Making casual phone calls (5) Making formal phone calls (4) Recording voicemails/notes (4)

Taking online lectures (15) Listening to music (8) Watching YouTube (6) Listening to pronunciation practice (4) Listening to Podcasts (3) Listening to News (2) Checking ARS/Voice Checking voice message (2) Making formal phone calls (20) Videochatting/CMC (6) Making casual phone calls (5) Recording voicemails/notes (5) Using voice search (3)

Reading text on/offline (26) Looking up vocabulary (19) Browsing web (7) Training of reading skills (theme, topic sentence, grammar (4) Sending text message (4) Reading emails (3) Social networking (2) Reading movie subtitles (1) Listening to music (17) Listening to pronunciation practice (11) Watching movies (10) Watching TV programs (9) Listening to recorded lectures (8) Listening to voice chatting (5) Watching YouTube (4) Listening to Podcasts (3) Listening to Radio (2) Listening to News (2) Taking listening comprehension tests (2) Taking dictation (2) Playing games (1) Making formal phone calls (29) (e.g., making a reservation, ordering food, calling to customer service, professors) Making casual phone call / chatting (23) Practicing after voicerecording (5) Making a presentation (4)

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning WRITING

Taking notes of lectures (3) Sending SMS (2) Composing emails (2) Writing academic papers (1) Posting on social networking sites (1)

Posting on SNS sites (9) Writing essays online sources (6) Composing emails (5) Chatting online (4) Writing academic papers (4) Taking notes (3) Sending SMS (2) Filling out official forms (1)

59

Taking notes (19) Sending SMS (9) Posting on social networking sites (8) Writing an Emails (7) Writing essay with online sources (6) Surfing the Internet (4) Keeping an diary (3) Chatting online (2) Making a presentation (2) Writing academic papers (2) Giving feedback on writing (1)

Note. (N) = Number of times mentioned by participants

Regarding writing skills, both administrators and students emphasized “taking lecture notes” as the most necessary writing task, followed by “sending an SMS”. Teachers proposed that “posting on social networking sites” is the most preferred writing task for ESL learners, which was also mentioned by the other two groups. Additionally, “writing emails” was viewed as the third most necessary target task by the three groups. Closed survey In ranking their desired target tasks in the four language skills in 40 given target tasks, the participants’ preferences again appear to be wellbalanced among all language skills and, unexpectedly, writing tasks were ranked slightly higher than the other tasks. The overall mean values of the three groups for the four language skills indicate that the administrators and teachers expressed a greater interest in and need for enhancing writing skills through the target tasks; on the other hand, the students’ responses showed a lesser preference for the target tasks regarding writing skills. Reading “Receiving vocabulary of the course textbook via SMS” was highly ranked by all three groups in the target tasks for reading skills. From the provided options, the students recognize “reading text from textbook via SMS”, “reading vocabulary in textbook via SMS”, “reading an article from

60

Chapter Three

newspapers in English”, and “reading class announcements, feedback, and homework via SMS” as highly desired target tasks. All of the four reading tasks that the students emphasized are based on their course textbook. Compared to the students, the teachers consider reading tasks as less desirable; however, the teachers also agreed that course-related tasks were very necessary. Listening and speaking “Answering questions in the listening practice assignments” was perceived as the most necessary target task by the students. Additionally, “communicating in daily conversation” and “making reservations for transportation, restaurants, and hotels” were also marked as very important. In contrast, the administrators and teachers perceived tasks that need complex functions and accuracy, such as “practicing listening skills on an ESL website”, “exchanging opinions with classmates”, “listening to teacher’s feedback on assignments”, and “listening to voice messages”, as the most needed target tasks for students. “Asking teachers for favors on the phone” and “singing one’s favorite song in English” were perceived as the least necessary target tasks among the task items by the administrators and teachers. Interestingly, when each group’s most wanted target tasks in listening and speaking skills are compared, the administrators and teachers emphasize listening skills, while the students express a greater need for and interest in speaking skills. Writing Compared to other skills, the administrators and teachers regarded writing tasks as the most necessary, emphasizing the need for “writing emails with friends and instructors”. The students ranked “keeping a diary”, “taking lecture notes”, “writing emails with instructors”, and “posting on course website and SNS” lower than 20 out of 40 target task items in the overall ranking. Although the administrators and teachers did not recognize a strong need for it, the students expressed a target task need for synchronous online chatting with friends. Cognitively more demanding and complex target tasks such as “writing a summary of a novel or other people’s opinions” and “writing class feedback on a course website” were ranked lower than 35 out of 40 target task items by the student group.

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

61

Discussion The current study examined how ESL administrators, teachers, and students utilize mobile devices, their experiences with MALL, and their desired target tasks in the four language skills. Wide-spread ownership of mobile devices was reported by all participants – they all own at least one mobile device. Specifically, all students are equipped with more than one Internet-enabled mobile device, which supports learners’ strong interest in the web browsing function of mobile devices and suggests exciting potential for online second language learning with mobile devices. This potential for MALL using the Internet was also confirmed in the questionnaire responses about the frequency of the use of mobile device functions. The students reported that they engage in a variety of web-based activities (e.g., chatting online, sending emails, web surfing), using mobile devices more than five times per day. Further investigation of the students’ specific behavior with web-based activities may offer valuable information to better implement web-based mobile learning activities in the English language learning classroom. Despite their frequent use of mobile devices, the students expressed somewhat lower confidence in their technological skills than the teachers. There might be several reasons for this. First, the teachers’ greater confidence might be due to this particular teacher participant group’s background and interest in technology, as they were all graduate students majoring in applied linguistics and technology, thus likely had a greater degree of interest in technological applications. Second, the mobile devices the students are currently using appear to be more technologically demanding, with more functions and options, than those owned by the teachers. Third, there may be a conceptual gap between the students and teachers concerning what each group believes to be technological mastery. Specifically, a greater number of students use a smartphone with an Internet connection and make greater use of various functions of the device than the teachers do. This may suggest that the relatively lower confidence reported by the students as compared to the teachers could be attributed to different expectations about technological mastery in mobile device use. Considering the rapid advancement of mobile technology, enhancing student confidence will be a challenging goal; however, it seems to be important and necessary to train students and teachers in the required mobile technology needed for desired target tasks before the actual implementation of MALL. There is no doubt that there are a large number of limitations in the actual implementation of MALL, as has been highlighted in previous

62

Chapter Three

studies (e.g., Stockwell, 2008; Wang & Higgins, 2006). This chapter reconfirmed administrators’, teachers’, and students’ perceived challenges of MALL. The challenges and limitations mentioned by the participants in the current study (i.e., technological factors, cost factors, environmental factors, and psychological factors) must be taken into consideration in the development of mobile-assisted target tasks, lesson plans, and course design to better implement MALL tasks in a given context. For example, carefully planned MALL activity design may include an interface or activity type that alleviates technological challenges (e.g., keypad and screen size limitation) or provide technologically less demanding activities (e.g., vocabulary activities via SMS) so that the activities can be implemented on any mobile device, be it a smartphone or a conventional cell phone without Internet connection, to reduce the cost. The perceived challenges of MALL identified by the participants in this study also have been noted by several other researchers (e.g., Houser, 2005; Lee, 2006; Svensson, 2003); however, taking note of what the students are trying to achieve through mobile devices and how to better facilitate their desired target tasks, with consideration to the challenges revealed in the study, is of greater importance. In that sense, the study’s attempt to collect and analyze the three groups’ desired target tasks may help to provide an authentic foundation for using TBLT and MALL effectively. Using the administrator, teacher, and student interviews and questionnaire responses, the study has attempted to identify target tasks in four language skills for MALL. Comparing the top 20 most desired target tasks among the three groups, target tasks for listening and speaking are ranked most highly, followed by writing and reading target tasks. The participants’ preference for listening and speaking tasks can also be understood by considering the concerns about technological limitations (e.g., small screen, inconvenient keypad) that were revealed in the interview and the questionnaire. Regarding target tasks for reading skills, the participants ranked SMS or Internet-based text communication tasks and course-related text reading as high priorities. As most vocabulary-focused MALL studies have suggested, SMS can be one of the most practicable means of implementing identified target tasks, regardless of students’ cell phone types or Internet connection. Although there could be several issues to take into account regarding the use of SMS for task implementation (e.g., limitation of input characters, text message charge), task development using SMS may be a practical starting point for actual MALL implementation in ESL classes.

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

63

In terms of target tasks for listening and speaking skills, the student group shows an exceptionally strong need for listening and speaking tasks; students rank target tasks for speaking higher than those for listening. This finding implies that students will be more motivated to learn the L2 when provided with opportunities to engage in speaking MALL speaking tasks with authentic and various interlocutors, including other classmates and the teacher. To better realize these target tasks, the compatibility between an online course website or a class blog and students’ mobile devices must be considered so that students can upload speech samples and share them with interlocutors. When it comes to the target tasks for writing skills, there seems to be a slight discrepancy between identified needs cited by administrators and students. Although the administrators recognized a strong need for writing tasks, the students acknowledged very little need for overall writing tasks except target tasks integrated with SMS and emails. As highlighted in the target tasks for reading skills, SMS presents great potential for target task practice. Reflecting the results of studies on the task-based needs analysis for TBLT program development (Long, 1985; Long & Norris, 2000), the study classifies identified target tasks into target task types. The typology of target tasks and task types can be an effective and authentic resource for MALL lessons or curriculum development. The superordination and subordination of the target tasks can help ESL instructors or curriculum developers to better understand and sequence ESL learners’ superordinate task types and subordinate target tasks in MALL lessons or curriculum development, thus covering all the identified target tasks within the time limits of a class hour. Although some of the desired target tasks mentioned in the open-ended questionnaire differed from those in the closed-response question on the preferred target tasks, they fit within the typology in Table 4. Although little difference existed in the priority of the target tasks among the three participant groups, the current study indicates that ESL learners, as well as administrators and teachers, had certain desires and preferences for target tasks in MALL. In addition, this needs analysis made it possible to at least identify a set of domain-independent task types, and survey respondents were able to elaborate on target tasks connected to each of these task types. It thereby seems potentially feasible to develop a task-based MALL program to meet the needs of ESL administrators, teachers, and students based on the findings of the study.

Chapter Three

64

Table 4: Desired Task Type and Target Tasks Task Types

Target Tasks

Locating information from English source

On the Internet On the online dictionary In newspapers In news magazines, In textbook For casual chatting For reservation (e.g., hospital, restaurant) By note-taking course lectures With Pod cast

Making/taking telephone inquiry formally/informally Summarizing English source by note-taking Sending/receiving emails

Posting written contents online

Listening to English source online

To instructors about course related issue To invite To make cancelation To make reservations On social networking sites On the course website to submit given assignments On the course website to reply classmates’ comments Music News Video Movie Pod Cast

Conclusion This study confirms the widespread use of mobile devices among ESL administrators, teachers, and students. The findings of the study reveal that the ESL teachers and students expressed confidence in technology skills needed for mobile device use and acknowledged the many potential uses of MALL, such as accessibility, mobility, and functionality. On the other hand, questionnaire respondents pointed out various concerns and challenges of MALL, including environmental, psychological, and technological barriers. Regarding their prior experience with MALL, most students had already experienced learning vocabulary, watching podcasts, writing on social networking sites, and reading a variety of online sources in English. In spite of the numerous limitations of MALL, its identified potential and teachers’ and learners’ accumulated mobile-assisted learning

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

65

experiences may provide valuable foundations for the design and development of authentic MALL tasks, lesson plans, and curricula. Although a great number of desired target tasks were acknowledged among the three groups in the open-ended responses, the poll showed a clear consistency over the four language skills. Responses on the preferred target tasks in the closed questions also coincided with the results of the desired target tasks in that the respondents preferred learning new vocabulary, reading texts online or offline, listening to music, watching videos, making and taking phone calls, note-taking, and writing emails and SMS over other tasks. These target tasks were categorized into task types as a step towards providing a basis for designing and organizing taskbased MALL in a given context as well as for implementing future taskbased needs analyses. It should be noted that this study is not without limitations. The collected information on task types and target tasks may supply a foundation for specifying general MALL goals; however, the task types and target tasks do not provide the specifics of the content, context, and performance necessary for setting objectives, task sequences, and assessment measures. By integrating user-generated target tasks in openended responses with those in closed responses, a more complete framework of task-based needs analysis could be developed. The small number of survey participants is also problematic as the study was not designed to be representative. Additionally, findings from the questionnaire may be valid only in a given context. To meet contextspecific needs, an even more specific and well thought-out task-based needs analysis should be designed and conducted. For future work, more qualitative research seems to be necessary to understand the qualitative aspect of participants’ mobile device use and experiences with MALL. Furthermore, an updated task-based needs analysis questionnaire needs to be developed based on the desired target tasks collected in this chapter to complement the task items in the closed response questions. Another question remains pertaining to the integration of task-based assessment in MALL, which creates a challenge in the implementation of a task-based approach. In-depth investigations with experienced participants may need to be conducted to tailor aspects of the task constructs, such as example target tasks and realistic assessment criteria, for specific target tasks.

66

Chapter Three

Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Professor Jeong-Bae Son and anonymous reviewers for their sincere encouragement and insightful feedback. The author is also greatly indebted to Professor Carol Chapelle and Professor Volker Hegelheimer for their continuous support and advice throughout the completion of the study. A special thanks goes to student and teacher participants who helped the author with the interviews and online survey.

References Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). M-learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 78-91. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chinnery, G. (2006). Emerging technologies: Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/emerging/default. html. Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2008). L’italiano al telefonino: Using SMS to support beginners’ language learning. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 315-330. Kiernan, P. J., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Mobile language learning now and in the future. In P. Svensson (Ed.), Från vision till praktik: Språkutbildning och Informationsteknik [From vision to practice: Language learning and IT] (pp. 295-310). Nätuniversitetet, Sweden: Swedish Net University. Kukuslka-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007, September). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening? Paper presented at EUROCALL 2007, Conference Virtual Strand. Retrieved from http://vsportal2007.googlepages.com/=Kukulska_Hulme_and_Shield_ 2007.pdf. Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 130-151.

A Task-Based Needs Analysis for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

67

Lee, T. (2006). Pleasurable cities: A discussion paper. UK: FutureLab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/project _reports/Pleasurable_Cities_discussion_paper.pdf. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 7799). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. —. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 1-76). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Long, M. H., & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 597-603). London: Routledge. Nah, K. C., White, P., & Sussex, R. (2008). The potential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean context. ReCALL, 20(3), 331-347. Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M.H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578-594). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ogata, H., Hui, G. L., Yin, C., Ueda, T., Oishi, Y., & Yano, Y. (2008). Supporting mobile language learning classrooms. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2, 271-282. Samuels, J. (2003). Wireless and handheld devices for language learning. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/ Resource_library /proceedings/03_50.pdf. Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 253-270. —. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of the platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95110. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/stockwell.pdf. Svensson, P. (2003). Virtual worlds as areas for language learning. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language learning online: Towards best practice (pp. 123142). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217-228. Van Ek, J. (1975). Systems development in adult language learning: The threshold level in a European unit credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

68

Chapter Three

Wang, S., & Higgins, M. (2006). Limitations of mobile phone learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 3-14. Watanabe, Y. (2006). A needs analysis for a Japanese high school EFL general education curriculum. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in Second Language Studies, 25(1), 83-163. http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/ uhwpesl/25(1)/Watanabe.pdf. Yoshida, K., & Naganuma, K. (2003). Eigo can-do anketo chousabunnseki houkokusho: Bassuibann [English can-do survey report: A summary]. Retrieved from http://benesse.jp/berd/center/open/kokusai/report/2003/ 07/rep0716.html.

CHAPTER FOUR AN ANALYSIS OF EAP STUDENTS’ USE OF WIKIPEDIA AS A RESOURCE FOR LEARNING ACADEMIC ENGLISH REZA DASHTESTANI UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN, IRAN

Abstract The use of Wikipedia can facilitate English for academic purposes (EAP) students’ simultaneous grasp of electronic literacy and academic English proficiency. However, to date, there is a dearth of research on students’ use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. To contribute to this research area, this mixed methods research presents the findings of a questionnaire (n=275) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (n=112) on analyzing Iranian EAP students’ use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. The evaluation of the students’ attitudes towards the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English indicated general acceptance and positive perspectives despite the presence of impeding factors. Concerning the students’ perceptions on the credibility of information of Wikipedia, the findings of the study indicated that the students trust the academic information of Wikipedia moderately. However, the students mainly use Wikipedia for non-academic purposes and prefer its Persian (their native language) version of information to the English one. Data analysis showed that the students lacked English competence, electronic and information literacy to use academic information of Wikipedia effectively. In this chapter, the author argues that it is essential that EAP instructors and authorities strive to develop positive attitudes towards Wikipedia as a learning tool and encourage students to use its information efficiently and critically.

70

Chapter Four

Keywords: English for academic purposes, attitudes, Wikipedia, electronic literacy, perceptions.

Introduction The use of the Internet and online tools has created tremendous opportunities for English as a foreign language (EFL) students to learn English more conveniently and effectively. As a result, a number of researchers and scholars have directed their attention towards the use of the Internet for EFL learning (e.g., Aydin, 2013; Shin & Son, 2007; Son, 2007, 2008). The use of Web 2.0 technologies and applications has become popular and widespread in language teaching contexts and individuals’ daily lives (Wang & Vásquez, 2012). The use of Web 2.0 tools has enabled students to be involved in the construction and reconstruction of information as well as collaborative and autonomous EFL learning (Elam & Nesbit, 2012). Nowadays, a plethora of Web 2.0 technologies, including blogs, wikis, podcasts, social networking sites and multipleplayer games, are available to EFL students. Due to easy availability of Web 2.0 applications, EFL students are inspired to use these technologies frequently. In addition, a great deal of research has been conducted to evaluate the applicability of Web 2.0 technologies for EFL learning and teaching (e.g., Godwin-Jones, 2003; Lund, 2008; Miceli, Murray & Kennedy, 2010; Murray & Hourigan, 2008; Sun, 2009; Sykes, Oskoz & Thorne, 2008). Similarly, the application of wikis for learning English has become a topic of considerable interest in recent years. Moreover, EFL experts and scholars have considered the use of wikis beneficial for improving EFL students’ writing and social skills (Castañeda & Cho, 2013; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Kost, 2011; Li, 2012). A wiki can be defined as “a freely expandable collection of interlinked Web pages, a hypertext system for storing and modifying information, a database, where each page is easily edited by any user with a forms-capable Web browser client” (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001, p. 14). A wiki, as a component of Web 2.0 technologies, offers numerous merits and affordances for EFL students since it enables them to share a large quantity of data and information conveniently (Boulous, Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006). Research has revealed that the use of wikis would facilitate immediate and convenient access to information, effective and international collaboration and interaction, provision of quality feedback, improvement of writing skills and critical thinking and autonomous learning (Franco, 2008; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Li; 2012; Li & Zhu, 2011; Lundin, 2008; Zorko, 2009).

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

71

English for academic purposes (EAP) instruction is based on learnercentered approaches to language teaching (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Specifically, EAP is defined as “the teaching of English with the specific aim of helping learners to study, conduct research or teach in that language” (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001, p. 8). In EAP instruction, considerable emphasis has been placed on promoting students’ levels of electronic literacy (Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000). A number of researchers have directed their attention to the use of wikis to improve EAP students’ electronic literacy and academic English (Felea & Stanca, 2010; Kovacic, Bubas & Zlatovic, 2007; Kuteeva, 2011; Papadima-Sophocleous & Yerou, 2013). Particularly, the use of wikis for EAP learning would foster EAP students’ awareness of the audience, academic genres and text types (Alyousef & Picard, 2011; Kuteeva, 2011). The use of wikis for EAP learning and instruction would assist EAP students to increase their academic literacy. Academic English proficiency and electronic literacy are the major components of academic literacy. Therefore, EAP students who are competent in information and communications technology (ICT) skills and academic English would have considerable opportunities to enhance their academic literacy.

Wikipedia: Challenges and Affordances for Students Wikipedia is an open-content and free encyclopedia on the Internet whose content can be edited and constructed cooperatively and publicly (Forte & Bruckman, 2006). In educational contexts, students have taken increasing interest in the use of Wikipedia as an instrument for searching and accessing information for their learning (Jennings, 2008; Lim, 2009; Rainie & Tancer, 2007). Despite this immense popularity of the use of Wikipedia among students, many educational experts and teachers have expressed concerns over students’ trust in the quality of information of Wikipedia (Calkins & Kelley, 2007, 2009; Davis, 2003). As Calkins and Kelly (2009) suggest, one major challenge to the use of Wikipedia for educational purposes is that many contributors can add information to it without any limitation. The information they add is not reviewed or evaluated prior to its inclusion in Wikipedia. This problem creates a significant challenge to the credibility of free and open-content information of Wikipedia. Easy access to, cost-effectiveness and variety of subjects and topics of Wikipedia have increased students’ interest in using academic and non-academic information of this Web 2.0 tool more than other online resources and technologies.

72

Chapter Four

As for the limitations of Wikipedia, Farzan and Kraut (2013) point out that the quality of its information varies from subject to subject. It is possible to find a large quantity of high-quality information regarding specific topics, even though there is much low-quality information about a number of other topics. This limitation of Wikipedia would be one of the most considerable challenges from the perspectives of many educational experts and scholars. The other limitation is related to the absence of specialists’ and experts’ contributions to Wikipedia. If information related to each field of study is added to Wikipedia by the relevant experts and researchers, the quality of its information will increase significantly. The other obstacle is that some contributors might have limited English language proficiency to add information to Wikipedia. This issue may cause misunderstanding or misinterpretation concerning the content of the information of Wikipedia. In terms of students’ use of Wikipedia for academic purposes, Jennings (2008) recommends that educational experts and practitioners should not adopt negative attitudes towards students’ use of this Web 2.0 technology. It can be suggested that, if teachers make attempts to raise students’ awareness of the proper use of Wikipedia for their academic purposes, students may benefit from different affordances and merits of it. According to Warnick (2004), the identity of authors might not be the most significant factor to establish the credibility of online information. Giles (2005) emphasizes that the information of Wikipedia can be very beneficial since it is available in different languages and is created collaboratively. The use of Wikipedia has also been regarded as a facilitator for improving students’ writing and reading abilities (Khani & Khosravian, 2013; Lundin, 2008). Jennings (2008) proposes that the use of Wikipedia would foster students’ information literacy. He stresses that instructors should motivate students to make use of Wikipedia. He stresses that, through the use of Wikipedia, students can be aware of different standards and elements of information literacy, including determining the nature and extent of the required information, accessing the information effectively, evaluating the information critically, using the information for a specific purpose, and understanding the legal, political and economic situation in which the information is used or retrieved (American Library Association, 2000). The use of Wikipedia might also improve students’ ability to think and act critically. A change in educational authorities’ and teachers’ attitudes towards Wikipedia should occur so that they consider it as a significant learning aid for students.

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

73

Research on the Use of Wikipedia for Educational Purposes Although a wide range of research studies have been undertaken to explore wikis for improving students’ learning, only limited research has been carried out on the use of Wikipedia for educational purposes. However, there are two major research trends regarding the use of Wikipedia for educational purposes. Concerning the first research trend, which is mostly associated with the research conducted in EFL contexts, some studies (e.g., Anzai, 2008; Farzan & Kraut, 2013; Khany & Khosravian, 2013) have analyzed the effect of the use of Wikipedia on students’ improvement of language skills. The results of these studies indicate that the use of Wikipedia is a facilitator for improving students’ writing and reading skills. Most students held positive attitudes towards the use of Wikipedia for the improvement of their language skills. Following this line of research, Khany and Khosravian (2013) investigated the use of Wikipedia for improving Iranian EFL students’ reading comprehension. The use of pre-tests and post-tests showed that Wikipedia can be a suitable source of authentic texts which can improve EFL students’ reading comprehension considerably. In addition, they reported that the use of Wikipedia in the EFL classroom would increase students’ motivation and autonomy. Farzan and Kraut (2013) conducted a research study on university students’ involvement in adding scientific articles to Wikipedia. They reported that both undergraduate and graduate students had positive perspectives on the use of Wikipedia since it helped them improve their writing ability. The second research trend has explored students’ perspectives on the credibility of the information of Wikipedia. While several studies (e.g., Calkins & Kelley, 2007, 2009; LaFrance & Calhoun, 2012; Lim, 2009; Rainie & Tancer, 2007) have been conducted to address the research trend in educational contexts, this area of research has remained uninvestigated in EFL contexts. Lim (2009) analyzed college students’ perceptions on and motivation for the use of Wikipedia. While students’ perceptions of Wikipedia were generally positive, their perceptions of the information quality of its texts were not very positive. Lim concluded that teachers should not discourage students from using Wikipedia and they should encourage students to use it efficiently and properly. Calkins and Kelley (2009) described an inquiry-based approach in which students were asked to analyze the content of Wikipedia critically. They argued that most students considered Wikipedia as an effective and useful learning tool. The students did not evaluate and use the information of Wikipedia critically.

74

Chapter Four

Similarly, LaFrance and Calhoun (2012) reported that the use of Wikipedia inspired their students to perceive Wikipedia as a beneficial learning tool which was more efficient than other traditional learning tools. The students were also willing to use Wikipedia as an academic tool rather than a tool for personal use. In Iran, before the Islamic Revolution, Iranian EAP textbooks and materials were developed by the British Council. At that time, several major-specific EAP textbooks were produced, published and used by different universities (Eslami, 2010; Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). After the Islamic Revolution in 1978, different course-specific textbooks were developed and published by the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (MSRT) following a measure to establish various EAP courses for different disciplines (Eslami, 2010). In 1985, the Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities, which is responsible for producing academic resources and textbooks in Iran, started to publish and develop EAP textbooks for different disciplines. The major objective of EAP courses in Iran is to enable students to get familiar with academic vocabulary, read major-specific English texts, translate texts from English to Persian, and join conferences (Eslami, 2010; Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). Mazdayasna and Tahririan (2008) criticize Iranian EAP instruction since it is highly dependent on textbooks and examination. It is also believed that Iranian EAP students do not have the expected EAP competence at the end of these courses. Of all four language skills, reading comprehension is the focus of EAP courses and textbooks in the EAP context of Iran (Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). More importantly, learning EAP occupies a considerable role in Iranian university students’ academic success. Eslami (2010) suggests that “in expanding circle countries like Iran, where English is mainly used for academic purposes, EAP plays a highly important role” (p. 3). According to the EAP curriculum in Iran, all university students should attend one to three EAP courses taught by content or EFL instructors. The EAP courses are three-credit courses which are held three hours per week. There are two types of English courses: general English courses and EAP courses which are usually discipline-specific (Eslami, 2010). Eslami (2010) points out that “an important section of the graduate entrance exam is students’ level of competence in their related EAP field” (p. 15). Regarding Iranian undergraduates of engineering, Amirian and Tavakoli (2009) point out that there are EAP courses offered for students of engineering in Iran. The EAP courses are related to all engineering majors and engineering students are supposed to achieve the proficiency to read academic texts and vocabulary after attending these courses. However, they believe that the EAP courses

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

75

for engineering students are not effective and do not prepare students for their specific occupational and academic contexts in future. In recent years, in Iran, considerable emphasis has been placed on the integration of technology into the EAP curriculum. More specifically, Eslami (2010) suggests that the use of technology and learner-centered approaches can improve the current EAP instruction in Iran. Similarly, Baghban (2011) emphasizes that authentic materials should be used in the Iranian EAP courses. Professional websites are effective resources which Iranian EAP students might benefit from significantly. Furthermore, in Iran, EAP students should be able to read and use Internet resources related to their needs and specific majors (Barjesteh & Shakeri, 2013). Wikipedia is one of the most popular Internet resources among Iranian university students. Most university students in Iran use Wikipedia for conducting their course projects or learning academic topics. As Ghafghaziolasl, Jamali Mahmui and Asadi (2011) assert, while the use of Wikipedia is very common among Iranian students, no research has been undertaken concerning its challenges and merits. Therefore, the study reported in this chapter is an attempt to evaluate Iranian EAP students’ perceptions on their use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. In addition, possible limitations on the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English are identified and reported. To achieve these aims, the following specific research questions were formulated: 1. What are the attitudes of Iranian EAP students towards the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 2. What is the current situation of Iranian EAP students’ use of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 3. What are the perceptions of Iranian EAP students of their ability to use Wikipedia for learning academic English efficiently?

Method For the specific purposes of this study, a quantitative-qualitative descriptive research design was adopted to analyze the perceptions of EAP students about the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. Employing a descriptive research design enables researchers to identify the perceptions of participants on their beliefs and opinions (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Since exploring students’ perceptions about a phenomenon might be a complex issue, both questionnaires and interviews were employed for data collection in this study. As Shih (1998) argues, triangulation can be used for completeness and confirmatory purposes.

76

Chapter Four

The confirmatory feature of triangulation is used to ensure the consistency and validity of the instruments. The completeness aspect emphasizes that triangulation enables researchers to acquire an in-depth understanding and analysis of the phenomenon under investigation. In the study, both confirmatory and completeness purposes were taken into account through the conduction of methodological triangulation.

Subjects Participants in the study were 275 EAP undergraduate students of chemical engineering. Their average age was 22.7 years. All participants used Wikipedia as they had indicated in the questionnaire. They consisted of 87 females and 188 males. As for their English proficiency, a total of 183 students reported that they were at the elementary or pre-intermediate level of English proficiency and 92 students stated that they were at the intermediate or upper-intermediate level of English proficiency. The participants had an average of 6.7 years of Internet use experience and 9.6 years of computer use experience. Cluster sampling was considered to select the participants from eight Iranian universities. After conducting the survey, the participants were invited to participate in the follow-up interviews. Among the 275 students who completed a questionnaire, 112 students participated in follow-up interviews.

Instrumentation Questionnaire Initially, a questionnaire was employed for the purposes of the study. The development of the questionnaire came from the review of the relevant literature and theoretical backgrounds on the use of Wikipedia in educational and EFL/EAP contexts (e.g., Calkins & Kelley, 2007, 2009; Davis, 2003; Jennings, 2008; Lim, 2009; Rainie & Tancer, 2007). A total of 22 EAP students and 8 EAP instructors were further interviewed to help the researcher focus the items of the questionnaire on the purposes and context of the study. The questionnaire items were then evaluated by a team of 6 senior instructors of applied linguistics and three university instructors of educational technology. Several consulting sessions were held in which the team evaluated the items of the questionnaire qualitatively and quantitatively. After each consulting session, the researcher received feedback on how to tailor the items of the questionnaire into the aims of the study. The layout and content of the questionnaire were amended after multiple evaluations were carried out by

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

77

the team of experts. The questionnaire was finalized when all the experts had consensus on the suitability of the questionnaire for the aims of the study. The final questionnaire comprised three sections. The aim of the first section was to explore the EAP students’ attitudes towards the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. The section was constructed based on a four-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly disagree). The second section of the questionnaire consisted of 12 items. The section was designed to investigate the EAP students’ current use of Wikipedia for learning academic English based on a five-point Likert scale (from never to always). The last section which examined the EAP students’ abilities to use Wikipedia for learning academic English was based on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 Not proficient to 4 Proficient). A total of six items were included in the section. A Cronbach’s Alpha test was run to examine the reliability of the items of the different sections of the questionnaire. The results of the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the WKUHH VHFWLRQV RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH Į   DQG   ZHUH considered acceptable and satisfactory with regard to the purposes of the study (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991). The original language used for the questionnaire was Persian since the participants’ native language was Persian. Paper-based versions of the questionnaires were distributed among the participants. In terms of the ethical issues related to the administration of questionnaires, the aims of the study were explained to the participants and their voluntary participation in the study was ensured through giving the participants a consent form prior to their participation in the study. The consent form was developed based on the procedures for developing consent forms pointed out in Mackey and Gass (2005). Interviews As for follow-up semi-structured interviews, the interview questions were developed based on the same literature used for the development of the questionnaire. The triangulation of the interview data with the questionnaire data was also considered to ensure the credibility of the qualitative data. As for the content validity of the questions, the same team of experts (i.e., 6 senior instructors of applied linguistics and 3 university instructors of educational technology) evaluated the questions of the interviews. The Persian version of the questions was used to interview the participants. The participants responded in Persian. The same ethical procedures, which were used for administrating the questionnaires, were,

Chapter Four

78

adopted for the interviews accordingly. The finalized interview protocol included six questions: 1. What do you think about the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 2. What do you think are the benefits of using of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 3. What do you think are the limitations of using of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 4. How do you use Wikipedia for learning academic English? 5. Do you use/prefer the Persian version or the English version of Wikipedia for learning academic English? 6. What do you think about your ability to use Wikipedia for learning academic English?

Data analysis A descriptive analysis was employed to analyze the data of the questionnaires. The mean, standard deviation and percentage were provided for the analysis of responses to each item. The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. A content analysis was performed to analyze the data of the interviews. Specifically, two raters read the interviews and then transcribed and translated them into English. To ensure inter-rater reliability, the two coders reported the emerging themes and then the common emerging themes reported by both coders were selected and presented to enrich the findings. Based on Mackey and Gass’s (2005) framework for estimating inter-rater agreement and reliability, the inter-rater reliability percentage of 91.6% was achieved which seemed to be appropriate for the purposes of the study.

Results EAP students’ attitudes towards the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English Survey findings As shown in Table 1, the students showed positive attitudes towards some affordances of using Wikipedia for learning academic English, including time-efficiency, suitability of using Wikipedia for doing class projects, easy and free access to Wikipedia, improvement of reading comprehension and learning general/academic vocabulary via the use of Wikipedia.

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

79

Table 1: EAP Students’ Attitudes towards the Use of Wikipedia for Learning Academic English Items

The use of Wikipedia increases my academic English vocabulary knowledge The use of Wikipedia increases my general English vocabulary knowledge The use of Wikipedia improves my reading comprehension ability The use of Wikipedia improves my English writing ability Wikipedia is easily accessible to EAP students Using Wikipedia is free of charge Wikipedia can be used both at home and in the class Wikipedia is a suitable resource for conducting research and class projects in English Using Wikipedia saves time to find academic information Wikipedia is comprehensive regarding its English academic content The use of Wikipedia facilitates the learning of academic English Reliable academic information can be accessed via Wikipedia

1. Strongly disagree (%) 5.8

2. Disagree (%)

3. Agree (%)

16.4

4.4

Mean

SD

40.7

4. Strongly agree (%) 38.2

3.1

0.88

11.6

45.5

38.5

3.21

0.77

3.3

10.5

55.6

30.5

3.13

0.72

9.5

22.5

47.6

20.4

2.77

0.69

1.1

4

37.5

57.5

3.51

0.62

2.2

6.9

43.6

47.3

3.36

0.70

4

13.5

47

35.6

3.13

0.61

2

10.9

26.5

61.5

3.46

0.80

3.3

10.2

37.1

49.5

3.34

0.75

9.8

44.4

28

17.8

2.54

0.9

2.2

10.9

39.6

47.3

2.81

2.17

9.5

29.1

33.8

27.6

2.79

0.96

Chapter Four

80

Interview findings The results of the interviews are in line with the results of the questionnaires. Out of 112 students, 96 students (85.7%) mentioned that Wikipedia is a suitable and useful resource for learning academic English. 100 students (89%) pointed out that the English information of Wikipedia is easily accessible and free. 93 students (83%) also stated that the use of Wikipedia improves their EAP reading comprehension. 51 students (44.6%) reported that using Wikipedia could help them improve their academic vocabulary. Wikipedia is a very good resource for improving English. It is full of academic topics and words. I also think that hyperlinks are the other important aspect of using Wikipedia. They help us learn new terms and expressions by simply clicking that word or expression. (Student 14) One interesting benefit of the use of Wikipedia for EAP students is that the topics of Wikipedia are easily searchable by using different search engines. When you search for an academic topic, the first search results are usually related to Wikipedia and it saves your time to search for academic topics, especially when you don’t have enough time to search for academic topics. (Student 31) Different sources are often used in order to create academic texts of Wikipedia. Through checking the academic text of Wikipedia, we can gain access to different sources related to a certain academic text. This is very important and useful for me and I think for other EAP students. (Student 79)

Although a majority of the students perceived the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English as beneficial, some of them explained that using Wikipedia for learning academic English has some limitations. It was reported that academic English texts of Wikipedia have some language errors and students cannot trust the grammaticality of the sentences of its texts. 39 students also complained about some statements and sentences which were based on the writers’ opinions and biases, rather than scientific sources. 42 students mentioned that academic information of Wikipedia is not reliable. Our main problem is that Wikipedia and the academic information on it are full of language errors. When I read some texts of Wikipedia, I get confused most of the times. Sometimes you may see some sentences which are not grammatical. (Student 88)

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

81

My idea is that academic texts of Wikipedia are not reliable. For example, some texts have been extracted from some sources, but the writers do not insert the names of the sources. (Student 102) I think the main problem is that we don’t know anything about the identity of people who add information to texts of Wikipedia. We even don’t know whether these people are experts in our field or are laymen who have copied and pasted some texts from other sources. (Student 12)

EAP students’ current use of Wikipedia for learning academic English Survey findings The students reported that they sometimes read academic English information of Wikipedia (see Table 2). A majority of students never or rarely edit or add information to Wikipedia, check the sources, check the authenticity of information of Wikipedia, check the up-to-dateness of information and check whether information is based on fact or opinion. Table 2: EAP Students’ Current Use of Wikipedia for Learning Academic English Items

1. Never (%)

2. Rarely (%)

4. Frequen -tly (%) 22.9

5. Always (%)

Mean

SD

1.1

3. Sometimes (%) 63.3

Reading academic English information of Wikipedia Editing academic English information of Wikipedia Adding new academic English information to Wikipedia

0

12.7

3.12

0.35

67.6

26.5

5.8

0

0

1.38

0.6

83.6

14.2

2.2

0

0

1.18

0.44

Chapter Four

82 Checking sources which are used in the text of Wikipedia Checking the authenticity of the information of Wikipedia Checking whether the information of Wikipedia is based on fact or personal opinions Checking the up-todatedness of academic information provided on Wikipedia Crosschecking the information of Wikipedia with other texts and sources

56

32

10.9

1.1

0

1.54

0.69

49.8

25.8

18.9

4.7

0.7

1.82

0.97

40.4

32.4

20

4.4

2.9

1.96

1.02

30.5

34.5

20.7

7.6

4.7

2.21

1.12

39.3

36.4

12.4

8.4

3.6

2.04

1.14

Table 3 depicts that a majority of the students sometimes use the English information of Wikipedia while they use the Persian version of Wikipedia more frequently than the English version. It indicates that the students prefer the Persian version of the information of Wikipedia to its English version.

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

83

Table 3: Language that EAP Students Use for Academic Information of Wikipedia Items

1. Never (%)

2. Rarely (%)

English Persian (native language)

8.3 0

14.5 3.3

3. Sometimes (%) 70.9 32

4. Frequen -tly (%) 4.7 52

5. Always (%)

Mean

SD

1.5 12.7

2.78 3.75

0.74 0.72

Table 4 illustrates that the students mainly use the information of Wikipedia for their non-academic purposes. It indicates that Wikipedia is not used for academic purposes by Iranian EAP students even though they have positive attitudes towards using Wikipedia for learning academic English. Table 4: Students’ Use of Academic and Non-academic Information of Wikipedia Items % Non-academic purposes 82.5 Academic purposes 17.09 The values in Table 5 indicate that a majority of the students trust the academic information of Wikipedia moderately. This shows that the majority of the students are aware that the information might have limitations and lack credibility. Table 5: Students’ Trust in Academic Information of Wikipedia Items

1. No trust (%)

2. Little trust (%)

Students’ degree of trust in academic information of Wikipedia

13.1

16

3. Moderate trust (%) 49.5

4. High trust (%)

5. Very High trust (%)

Mean

SD

14.2

7.3

2.86

1.04

Chapter Four

84

Interview findings To confirm the results of the questionnaire, the interviews showed that 95 students (85%) occasionally read academic English information of Wikipedia. 88 students (78.5%) mentioned that they copy and paste parts of academic texts from Wikipedia for their term projects or research papers. 103 students (91.9%) used the Persian texts of Wikipedia more frequently than the English ones. The followings are some excerpts from the students’ responses: I sometimes try to search and find academic English information of Wikipedia. For my class projects, I have to copy and paste parts of information of Wikipedia for my class projects. Actually, I don’t have enough time to check the other sources since Wikipedia is usually enough for my purposes. (Student 81) I use the Persian academic information of Wikipedia more frequently than its English information. Of course, as you know the Persian information on Wikipedia is really poor and incomprehensible, but I feel more comfortable to use the Persian version of Wikipedia. (Student 63) The English version of Wikipedia is very difficult to be understood, especially when it contains academic English. It is usually full of vocabulary that I can’t understand. So if I see that there is some Persian information I will use the Persian one. (Student 47)

EAP students’ abilities to use Wikipedia for learning academic English Survey findings The total mean of the third section of the questionnaire is 2.23, indicating that the majority of the students perceived to be a little proficient in the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. Specifically, the students were a little proficient in academic English reading, general English reading, adding new information, editing academic English, and academic writing when using Wikipedia (see Table 6).

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

85

Table 6: EAP Students’ Abilities to Use Wikipedia for Learning Academic English Items Your ability to read academic English information of Wikipedia Your ability to read general English information of Wikipedia Your ability to add new academic English information to Wikipedia Your ability to edit academic English information of Wikipedia Your Internet literacy to use Wikipedia and its services Your academic English proficiency to use the information of Wikipedia Your ability to write academic English texts of Wikipedia

1. Not proficient (%) 20

2. A little proficient (%) 50.9

3. Fairly proficient (%) 25.1

4. Proficient (%) 4

Mean

SD

2.13

0.79

15.6

40.7

36

7.6

2.36

0.84

25.5

42.5

29.5

2.5

2.07

0.83

16.4

43.3

28.4

12

2.31

0.90

4.4

33.8

53.1

8.7

2.67

0.72

27.3

34.9

30.5

7.3

2.17

0.91

34.5

46.2

16.4

2.9

1.87

0.79

Interview findings A total of 102 students (91%) stated that their levels of academic and general English proficiency were not adequate for using English information of Wikipedia. Due to this inadequate language proficiency, most EAP students are not able to read and write academic information of Wikipedia. 53 students (47.3%) also reported that they did not know how

86

Chapter Four

to use Wikipedia efficiently or were not familiar with different services of it. The followings are some excerpts from the students’ responses: Since my English is not that good, I have to spend much time on reading English texts of Wikipedia or use the Persian version of the text. However, the Persian versions are usually very short and different from its English version. Thus, I believe that a good command of English is very important when we want to use Wikipedia for our academic purposes. (Student 25) Basically, there are different services of Wikipedia, but I don’t know most of them I guess. I just know how to change languages and I think this is not enough. (Student 96) I am very slow at reading academic English information of Wikipedia and this makes me bored with reading academic English texts using Wikipedia. I guess this problem is both related to my English proficiency and my habit of using printed reading texts. (Student 74)

Discussion The aim of the study was to analyze EAP students’ perceptions on the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English and explore possible challenges to the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. The study found that the Iranian EAP students held positive attitudes towards the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. One important finding was that a majority of the students perceived the use of Wikipedia as beneficial for their reading comprehension and academic vocabulary learning. Interestingly, there was a discrepancy between the students’ actual use of Wikipedia for language learning and their positive attitudes. This discrepancy might be associated with a wide range of factors which can discourage the students to use technology for their academic and educational purposes. The lack of technology use can be directly related to the issue that Iranian EAP courses are designed based on inadequate and unsound needs analysis procedures (Amirian & Tavakoli, 2009; Eslami, 2010; Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). Therefore, the existing EAP curriculum should be responsive to the needs and attitudes of EAP students and should decrease the discrepancy between students’ perceptions and their actual learning practices since EAP instruction is developed based on the analysis and consideration of the needs, perceptions and preferences of students (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Furthermore, it is crucial that EAP providers and curriculum developers strive to motivate EAP students to make use of online technologies and eliminate factors which would discourage EAP students from using online

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

87

applications and learning aids, including Wikipedia. It appears that a plethora of challenges and obstacles, including low computer and information literacies, poor English proficiency, lack of online facilities in EAP courses, teachers’ lack of interest and ability to use technology and traditional approaches to teaching and learning, can influence students’ use of online technologies. Further research is required to explore factors which prevent EAP students from using online technologies despite their positive attitudes and perspectives. The use of Wikipedia as a tool to improve students’ reading comprehension has also been confirmed in previous research studies (e.g., Forte & Bruckman, 2006; Khany & Khosravian, 2013; Mak & Coniam, 2008). Parts of the findings of the study are similar to the findings of previous studies which showed the positive attitudes of students towards the use of Wikipedia for learning English (Farzan & Kraut, 2013; LaFrance & Calhoun, 2012; Lim, 2009). Searchability and accessibility of information of Wikipedia were the other considerable merits of its use for learning academic English. The results of the study suggest that the students are aware of the benefits of the use of Wikipedia for learning academic English. They also indicate that the students would have high levels of motivation and confidence to use Wikipedia for learning academic English since they adopt positive attitudes towards its use for learning academic English. It is paramount that EAP teachers and authorities take these positive attitudes of EAP students into account and motivate them to use the academic information of Wikipedia more efficiently and effectively. EAP teachers can assign specific tasks to students and motivate them to do the tasks through checking academic English information of Wikipedia. Alternatively, students can be instructed to use Wikipedia collaboratively to learn academic English in the EAP classroom. As the participants in this study reported, Wikipedia can easily be accessed through the Internet or students’ mobile phones. EAP teachers can combine learning through the use of Wikipedia with mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) by means of designing specific tasks and activities. For example, EAP students can have access to Wikipedia pages offline and revise the content and form of its information inside and outside the classroom. These sorts of activities would motivate EAP students to use their mobile phones and Wikipedia for academic purposes. Future research should be directed towards EAP teachers’ perceptions of the use of Wikipedia for learning or teaching academic English since very limited research has been conducted to explore teachers’ attitudes in this regard.

88

Chapter Four

The interview data indicated that the students perceived that the existence of language errors in the texts of Wikipedia is a major limitation of its use for learning academic English. Teachers should raise their students’ awareness that there might be some language inconsistencies in the texts of Wikipedia since all contributors to Wikipedia may not have the same levels of English proficiency. The participants also pointed out that lack of credibility and reliability is another limitation of information of Wikipedia. EAP students should be trained to read and use the information of Wikipedia critically. EAP teachers can raise students’ awareness of these limitations of Wikipedia through designing specific tasks that require students to use Wikipedia critically and effectively. To overcome these problems, EAP students’ information literacy should be improved. They need to evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected information into their knowledge base and value system (American Library Association, 2000). What seems important is to enhance students’ information literacy in order to enable them to benefit from information-rich resources while they should be aware of potential limitations and challenges. As Jennings (2008) argues, teachers should not discourage or prevent students from using Wikipedia as a learning tool due to its limitations. Also, they should train students to act as information literate individuals who can think and act critically when they use online information. Concerning EAP students’ current use of Wikipedia for learning academic English, the results of the study showed various patterns. The students seem to use Wikipedia mainly as a tool for reading comprehension. A majority of the students do not edit the information or include new information in Wikipedia. The students also do not read and use the information of Wikipedia critically. The students use Wikipedia more frequently for non-academic purposes than for academic purposes. They use the Persian texts of Wikipedia more frequently than the English ones. The students trust the information of Wikipedia moderately. The students’ lack of the use of Wikipedia for academic purposes can be linked to different factors, including lack of motivation, lack of computer literacy, or inadequate English proficiency. The students’ use of Persian versions of information of Wikipedia is also problematic since as some students mentioned in the interviews, most of these Persian texts are short and poor regarding their content and credibility. As confirmed in the literature, however, Wikipedia can be used as a suitable source to improve students’ writing abilities while the Iranian EAP students use Wikipedia exclusively for reading purposes. This issue might be associated with the fact that the focus of Iranian EAP courses is primarily on reading comprehension and

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

89

translation (Eslami, 2010; Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). Iranian EAP students may not be able to write academically since they are not instructed to write for professional communities and academic purposes. Therefore, EAP instructors and authorities should consider academic writing as a potential need of students and conduct research to adopt effective approaches to teaching writing in EAP courses. In addition, writing in online environments would require specific skills which are different from those required for offline environments. The participants reported that they had limited EFL, Internet, and information literacy in order to use the information of Wikipedia efficiently. EAP courses should help students improve their academic literacy since learning academic English can be an important component of EAP students’ academic literacy. With the advent of different literacies, the concept of academic literacy should be broadened and expanded. EAP students should have high levels of computer skills, English, and information literacy. The use of Wikipedia might enable EAP students to improve these literacies. EAP students should be socialized into international academic communities and high levels of computer literacy and English proficiency will help them join these academic communities conveniently and effectively. Web 2.0 applications will enable EAP students to foster their English proficiency and information literacy simultaneously and facilitate their integration in wider academic communities. Specifically, the use of Wikipedia enables EAP students to improve these literacies. It is essential that EAP teachers strive to help students improve these literacies. For instance, EAP teachers can design reading comprehension and writing activities and tasks on Wikipedia. For doing such tasks, students will need to write and read academically and use different properties of Wikipedia, which will promote their computer and information literacy. Moreover, educational authorities can play a significant role in motivating EAP teachers to improve students’ ability to use online resources. EAP teachers should make attempts to enhance their computer and information literacy as well. When EAP teachers have high levels of computer and information literacy, they can supervise, motivate, and train their students to use various information-rich resources on the web.

Conclusion Unlike previous studies which investigated the use of Wikipedia for improving students’ writing or reading skills, this study conducted an indepth analysis of students’ use of Wikipedia for learning academic

90

Chapter Four

English. It can be concluded from the findings of this study that Wikipedia could be a useful resource for improving students’ academic English. Wikipedia is a very popular wiki among the majority of students even though very limited attention has been devoted to the ways students use it for academic purposes. The analysis of the students’ use of Wikipedia and its academic information reveals that the students might not be prepared for or competent in using it effectively. Changing the status quo regarding students’ use of Wikipedia for academic purposes might be a challenging task. The notion of information literacy has changed with the advent of the Internet and Web-based technologies and genres. Iranian educational authorities and EAP providers are recommended to raise students’ awareness of new emerging online genres and applications, and equip them with the relevant skills and knowledge required for using Internetbased applications. In Iran, much more attention should be devoted to meeting EAP students’ technology-related needs and attitudes. EAP authorities and decision-makers in Iran are recommended to include Internet-based activities and resources, including Wikipedia-based activities, in EAP students’ textbooks. At present, EAP textbooks in Iran are not designed based on the actual needs of EAP students in different disciplines (Eslami, 2010; Mazdayasna & Tahririan, 2008). As Ghafghaziolasl et al. (2011) argue, motivation plays a key role in Iranian students’ use of Wikipedia. When students feel that they can cooperate with other students to create a shared identity for themselves, they will be motivated to edit the information of Wikipedia or add to it. Ghafghaziolasl et al. (2011) propose a strategy which can help students use Wikipedia appropriately and actively. Specifically, Iranian EAP instructors can cooperate with students to edit, read, and create specific information of Wikipedia critically and ethically. As a result, EAP instructors can foster students’ English, electronic, and information literacy simultaneously. Alternatively, they can assign collaborative projects to students and help the students improve their proficiency. Optimally, there should be cooperation between EAP instructors, content instructors, and EAP students to achieve the most desirable effects. The cooperation will provide students with ideas and guidelines for the appropriate use of Wikipedia for educational purposes. In language teaching contexts, online tools and applications can be used and selected purposefully (Son, 2011). Son (2011) advises EFL practitioners to take heed of a number of parameters when they use online tools for language teaching. These parameters include the person who uses online tools, the time of the use of the tools, the location in which the tools are used, the reason for the use of the tools, and the ways in which the

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

91

tools are used. When using online tools, including Wikipedia, EAP teachers should consider the contextual factors mentioned earlier. Jarvis (2001) points out that access to credible information and resources is one of the major challenges to the use of the Internet for EAP instruction and learning. Jarvis (2001) asserts that EAP students should consider some factors, including the identity of authors who provide information, the credibility of websites, and the presence of references in the text when they use online resources and information. EAP providers and course designers should take into account that the mere use of the Internet and online tools cannot guarantee efficient and effective improvement in learning. To use online resources efficiently, it is highly important that caution be exercised in order to equip EAP teachers and students with necessary skills and equipment. In the Iranian EAP context, there should be appropriate and timely awareness-raising programs and measures in order to prepare students for the appropriate use of Wikipedia and other online tools. In this respect, Iranian EAP authorities should train both instructors and students for the appropriate use of online tools. Obviously, the inappropriate and unethical use of Wikipedia and its information would result in users’ distrust in online information and tools. Moreover, without improving Iranian students’ levels of English proficiency, they would not be able to use various online resources appropriately. Basically, Iranian EAP students should have adequate levels of general English proficiency (GEP) as a requirement for learning academic English. When EAP students lack the required levels of GEP, they cannot make use of most online information effectively. Iranian EAP providers and practitioners are recommended to promote students’ levels of GEP. In the Iranian context, EAP students do not seem to have high levels of GEP and, for this reason, most of them might be deprived of using the large amount of academic information available on the Internet. Considering the lack of research on the use of wikis and other information-rich resources for EAP instruction, there are a plethora of opportunities to conduct future research on the effect of the resources on EAP students’ learning. Since EAP instruction is based on students’ needs and reasons for learning (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), future research can be directed towards EAP students’ academic needs. There are also opportunities for directing future research towards the use of wikis to enhance EFL/EAP students’ levels of critical thinking and information literacy. Perceptions of EAP instructors and content instructors can also be a topic of interest for further research. While EAP instruction and course design are highly dependent on students’ perceived needs and wants, it is

92

Chapter Four

essential to examine the perceptions of other EAP stakeholders on the use of Wikipedia for learning EAP. Current EAP courses in Iran seem to be designed based on unsound needs analysis studies since the efficiency of EAP courses is not researched appropriately (Eslami, 2010; Eslami, Eslami-Rasekh, & Quiroz, 2007). Therefore, in order to reach the maximum efficiency, EAP courses should be designed based on research on students’ actual needs and preferences. It is not the type of technology which improves the quality of learning and teaching, but it is the way that a certain type of technology is used in a specific context which will facilitate the process of learning. In terms of the use of Wikipedia in EAP context of Iran, it is recommended that all EAP stakeholders make attempts to help students use the information of Wikipedia effectively and ethically. There should also be rapport and cooperation among all EAP stakeholders in order to normalize the use of specific technologies, including Wikipedia, in the context of Iran.

References American Library Association (2000). Association of college and research libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/ standards.pdf. Amirian, Z., & Tavakoli, M. (2009). Reassessing the ESP courses offered to engineering students in Iran. English for specific purposes world. 8(23), 1-13. Alyousef, H., & Picard, M. (2011). Cooperative or collaborative literacy practices: Mapping meta-discourse in a business students’ wiki group project. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 463480. Anzai, Y. (2008, November). Introducing a wiki in EFL writing class. Paper presented at World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Las Vegas, Nevada. Aydin, S. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching and learning: the case of Turkey. Computer Assisted Language Leaning, 26(3), 214-233. Baghban, Z.Z.V. (2011). Attitudes of the Iranian EAP students majoring in computer and information technology regarding authentic materials. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(10), 1437-1441. Barjesteh, H., & Shakeri, F. (2013). Considering the issues of language for specific purposes at Iranian university: Its genesis/problems and suggestions. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3(3), 540-552.

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

93

Boulous, M., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-69206-41.pdf. Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. R. (2007). Evaluating Internet and scholarly sources across the disciplines: Two case studies. College Teaching, 55(4), 151-156. Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. R. (2009). Who writes the past? Student perceptions of Wikipedia knowledge and credibility in a world history classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(3), 123-143. Castañeda, D. A., & Cho, M. H. (2013). The role of wiki writing in learning Spanish grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 334-349. Davis, P. (2003). Effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior: Guiding student scholarship in a networked age. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 3(1), 41-51. Elam, J. R., & Nesbit, B. (2012). The effectiveness of project-based learning utilizing Web 2.0 tools in EFL. The JALT CALL Journal, 8(2), 113-127. Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Teachers’ voice vs. students’ voice: A needs analysis approach to English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 2-11. Eslami, Z. R., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Quiroz, B. (2007). Needs analysis of Iranian EAP students. ESP Across Cultures, 4, 21-37. Farzan, R., & Kraut, R. E. (2013). Wikipedia classroom experiment: Bidirectional benefits of students’ engagement in online production communities. Retrieved from http://kraut.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut. hciresearch.org/files/open/Farzan12SocializingVolunteersInAnOnlineC ommunity-cr.pdf. Felea, C., & Stanca, L. (2010). Wiki tools and English for academic purposes-fostering collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education. Revista de Informatica Sociala, 14, 55-65. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publication and learning. In S. Barab, K. Hay & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 182-188). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

94

Chapter Four

Franco, C. D. P. (2008). Using wiki-based peer-correction to develop writing skills of Brazilian EFL learners. Novitasion-Royal 2(1), 49-59. Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Ghafghaziolasl, SH., Jamali Mahmui, HR., & Asadi, S. (2001). Factors which motivate or demotivate individuals to cooperate in creating the Persian version of Wikipedia. Pazhuheshnameye Ketabdari va Etelaresani, 1(1), 89-108. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438(70), 900-901. Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for online collaboration. Language Leaning and Technology, 7, 21-16. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jarvis, H. (2001). Internet usage of English for academic purposes courses. ReCALL, 13(2), 206–212. Jennings, E. (2008). Using Wikipedia to teach information literacy. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(4), 432-437. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58. Khany, R., & Khosravian, F. (2013, March). The application of Wikipedia for enhancing Iranian EFL students’ reading proficiency. Paper presented at the Global Summit on Education, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative wiki projects. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 606-620. Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Zlatovic, M., (2007). Using a wiki system for learning activities in a specialist English academic course. In Proceedings on the Conference Computers in Education, 30th International Convention MIPRO 2007, Opatija, Croatia, pag. Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writerreader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57. LaFrance, J., & Calhoun, D.W. (2012). Student perceptions of Wikipedia as a learning tool for educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(2), 1-15. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley. Li, M. (2012). Use of wikis in second/foreign language classes: A literature review. CALL-EJ, 13(1), 17-35.

An Analysis of EAP Students’ Use of Wikipedia

95

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2011). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82. Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189-2202. Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35-54. Lundin, R. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 432-448. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455. Mazdayasna, G., & Tahririan, M. H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 277-289. Miceli, T., Murray, S.V., & Kennedy, C. (2010). Using an L2 blog to enhance learners’ participation and sense of community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 321-341. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist of socio-cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20(1), 82-97. Papadima-Sophocleous, S., & Yerou, C. (2013). Using wikis in an English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) context: University students’ perceptions and reflections. Teaching English with Technology, 13(2), 23-54. Rainie, L., & Tancer, B. (2007). Wikipedia users. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pew internet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf. Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching concepts and practice (pp. 171185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shih, F.-J. (1998). Triangulation in nursing research: issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(3), 631-641. Shin, H.-J., & Son, J.-B. (2007). EFL teachers’ perceptions and perspectives on Internet-assisted language teaching. CALL-EJ Online, 8(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/8-2/h-js_j-bs.html.

96

Chapter Four

Son, J.-B. (2007). Learner experiences in Web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 21-36. —. (2008). Using Web-Based language learning activities in the ESL classroom. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), 34-43. —. (2011). Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej57/int.pdf. Sun, Y. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88-103. Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546. Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412-430. Warnick, B. (2004). Online ethos: Source credibility on an “authorless” environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 256–265. Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 645-665.

CHAPTER FIVE DEVELOPING MALAYSIAN ESL TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGICAL, PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE WITH DIGITAL MATERIALS KEAN WAH LEE, SHI ING NG AND CHOON KEONG TAN UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH, MALAYSIA

Abstract Preparing in-service teachers to teach pupils of the 21st century can be daunting given the fact that studies have consistently shown that technology integration shows disappointing levels of penetration and success. In an attempt to explore and better understand the integration of technology into language teacher education, a semester-long study was conducted on a cohort of in-service teachers’ integration of technology in developing English as a second language (ESL) digital materials in a Malaysian context. The purpose of the study was to investigate the inservice teachers’ experiences in exploring and producing their own digital storytelling (DST) in the form of teaching materials on topics related to the new Malaysian Standard Primary School English curriculum (KSSR) by way of attempting to develop the teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). To operationalize this study, two research questions were formulated: (1) How does developing DST help the inservice teachers to develop their TPCK? (2) What are the affordances and challenges faced in developing the DST? A total of 122 Primary School English teachers in Borneo Sabah participated in the study. Data was mainly drawn from reflective journals and focus group interviews. On the basis of the qualitative findings, it could be inferred that the teachers developed positive attitudes towards technologies and showed a firm intention to try new experiences with DST in the classroom. It is

98

Chapter Five

concluded that DST is a helpful tool for integrating technology into the curriculum as it appears to allow teachers’ to mobilize their multiple knowledge on curricular contents, pedagogy and technology. Keywords: Digital storytelling, in-service teachers, technology integration, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).

Introduction Current digital technology affordances have augmented the age of learning from a prescribed rigidity to a perpetual evolving symbiosis between learners and knowledge. This learning symbiosis actuates an organic relationship between the learning institution and societal enhancement with the confidence of generating a viable 21st century society for “information and knowledge are the new forms of wealth and are the driving force for development” (Anderson, 2010, p. 10). 21stcentury society members are identifiable through these 5 key phases: (i) connect; (ii) collaborate; (iii) critical; (iv) creative; and (v) communicate. These features reflect the myriad of skills nurtured through 21st century learning as 21st century learners known as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) or identified as “generation M (media), generation V (virtual) or generation C (connected, creative and click)” (Selwyn, 2008, p. 10) are constantly connected between offline and online spaces (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Research has noted that a 21st century learners have the ability to mesh information from different media (digital users, text, graphic, video and audio) [collaborate, critical and creative] and declaring that meshed information between the ‘connect’ and ‘communicate’ phase: web-based bulletin boards/ online forums (Krish et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2012; Sung & Wu, 2013); web 2.0 technology (Lockley & Promnitz-Hayashi, 2012; Mohd Hafiz Zakaria et al., 2010); and social networking sites (Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan et al., 2010). These 5Cs propel 21st century learners to seek continuous learning after the end of formal learning for this “new global environment” (Anderson, 2010, p. 10). In 1991, Malaysia formulated a blueprint to drive the country to achieve ‘developed’ status by 2020, recognized as Vision 2020, through cultivation of “a confident … society, infused by strong moral and ethical values … that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient” (Mohamad, 1991, p. 1). In order to achieve Malaysia’s Vision 2020, imperative is placed on developing and sustaining 21st century skills within learners.

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

99

Policy planning undertaken at macro level ensures alignment between a nation’s direction and its direct stakeholders at management (ministry and district), and enforcement at institutional level (school and teachers) to reinforce digitally literate citizens. For policy planning and implementation to be successful, thus, the teacher becomes the sole mediator in implementing policies regarding the development of digitally literate learners at the classroom level. However, for teachers to be able to help learners become digitally literate, teachers should be equipped with competencies which match that of the digital age constitution (Leighton & ICT in Education, 2012). Therefore, there is a need to develop teachers’ digital literacy competencies to translate traditional pedagogies to adapted yet contemporary pedagogies through incorporation of the full-range of technological tools (hardware and software) (Leighton & ICT in Education, 2012). Improvement of this particular human resource points to one key area – teacher professional development through partnership with higher education institutions to create existent and comprehensive training programs supported by informed theories and methods such as the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework (Leighton & ICT in Education, 2012; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Somekh, 2007). The Malaysian government acknowledges the importance of developing teachers’ pedagogy and digital literacy competencies and created professional development programs to support in-service schoolteachers seeking professional progression with the confidence of producing 21st century citizens. There is a large body of literature on studies investigating motivation and readiness of teachers towards technology integration in formal learning and the extent of support provided to teachers using technology in formal learning but there is a dearth of literature on investigating teachers’ experiences of professional development and selfownership in creating a teaching and learning tool for local usage. This study was conducted to examine in-service primary school teachers’ professional development and self-ownership experiences through the TPCK lens using the concept of digital storytelling as pedagogy and producing the output – a digital story. To operationalize this study, two research questions were formulated: (1) How does developing DST help in-service teachers develop their TPCK? (2) What are the affordances and challenges faced in developing DST?

100

Chapter Five

Literature Review Digital storytelling Digital storytelling (DST) has transformed the art of storytelling using technology bits and bytes, where stories are published and viewed through digital channels online (Brear, 2007). Robin (2013a) mentions DST is not exclusive for the use of fictional narratives turned digital, rather encompasses a large genre from “digital documentaries … digital essays, electronic memoirs, etc.” (para. 1). DST demonstrates versatility to be used in the education realm as an information transmitter across a multitude of topic areas from mathematical formula explanation to surgery procedure (for a detailed explanation on the usage of DST, refer to Matthews-DeNatale, 2008). Digital storytelling describes the creative design and development process experienced by an active technology user to produce a novel output or product in the form of a digital story. The DST framework is highly influenced by seven elements (i.e., point of view; a dramatic question; emotional content; the gift of your voice; the power of the soundtrack; economy and pacing) popularized by Center for Digital Storytelling (n.d.) and ten elements (i.e., the overall purpose of the story; the narrator’s point of view; a dramatic question or questions; the choice of content; clarity of voice; pacing of the narrative; use of a meaningful audio soundtrack; quality of the images, video and other multimedia elements; economy of the story detail; and good grammar and language use) proposed by Robin (2013). These elements ensure the message of the story is transmitted clearly with an impact to viewers. Robin (2013b) views “DST as an effective instructional tool for teachers … to facilitate learning” (para. 1). Studies, largely in America, have been conducted to examine to what extent DST can be influential in developing learners as critical reflective individuals (Banaszewski, 2002; Barrett, 2006), DST as a standard-based evaluative tool (Clemens & Kreider, n.d.) and DST as facilitative medium for special needs/gifted/remedial learners (Abas & Badioze Zaman, 2010; De Craene, 2006; Sylvester & Greenridge, 2009). Nevertheless, DST affordances exceed its role as another instructional tool in the classroom. A different affordance provided by DST is at its design stage whereby it becomes a sandbox for teachers to experiment combining pedagogical and technological aspects to facilitate learning in the classroom. Teachers have to strike a fair balance between technology, pedagogy and knowledge content during the creation of DST to enhance formal learning yet catering to the different learning styles of their students in the classroom.

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

101

Additionally, teachers need to deploy their creative skills consisting of “conceptualizing, writing, performing, selecting, imaging, integrating and signifying” (Benmayor, 2008, p. 195) to sustain the integrity of storytelling instead of generating a heavy content-learning product. Yuksel, Robin and McNeil (2011) conducted a study on determining the role of DST in an educational context from the perspective of educators/teachers and students on a global scale. According to the study, a majority of the educators/teachers expresses DST as a support-learning tool and the same group of respondents from America and Canada went one step further in acknowledging DST as a medium to cultivate personal soft skills (e.g., critical reflection, collaborative participation). The creation process during DST encourages teachers to simultaneously execute the role of the content expert (teaching and learning aspect), director (creative and soft skills aspect) and end-user (21st century learners). Therefore, the process and product cycle of DST is in perpetual motion between the technological, pedagogical and idiosyncratic affordances if DST is to be effective in an educational environment. A good way to ensure a stable perpetual motion between these affordances is by “careful planning and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of these affordances” (McLouglin & Lee, 2007, p. 667) to generate competent DST creators and users.

Conceptual framework A conspicuous model supporting in-service teachers’ presence towards employing web or technology driven tools during lessons is derived from augmenting Shulman’s (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) theoretical model with the technology component is acknowledged as a TPCK model. The TPCK model developed by Koehler and Mishra (2005) acknowledges technology as a separate entity with dedicated predispositions and affordances subservient to its locality. The TPCK model combines pedagogy, content and technology whereby the fulcrum belongs to a combination of the three (Figure 1).

102

Chapter Five

Technological Content

Technological Pedagogical

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

Pedagogical Content Figure 1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025)

The constructs in the TPCK framework from Mishra and Koehler (2006) are briefly discussed here. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is theorized as “deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning” and includes “knowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, pp. 1026-1027). “Content knowledge” (CK), on the other hand, is posited as “knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught … including knowledge of central facts, concepts, theories, and procedures within a given field” (p. 1026). Technological knowledge (TK) includes knowledge of operating systems and computer hardware, and the ability to use standard sets of software tools. It also includes “knowledge of how to install and remove peripheral devices, install and remove software programs, and create and archive documents” (p. 1027). Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is described as “a blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction” (p. 1021). Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) is defined as “knowledge about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related.” (p. 1028). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), on the other hand, is termed as “knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (p. 1028). Thus, cumulatively, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is posited as an overarching concept of good teaching with

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

103

technology. TPCK requires an “understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.” (p. 1029) Koehler and Mishra (2005) reiterated that the introduction of technology causes representation of new concepts and requires developing a sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between technology, content, pedagogy and locality warranting a congruous teaching and learning domain. Despite the prevalent framework, a great deal of literature has highlighted the difficulty of attaining consensus towards identifying the distinctiveness of two components – pedagogy and content – within the TPCK model (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Graham, 2011; Segall, 2004). Archambault and Barnett (2010) have questioned the dichotomy of both components as “content, in the form of scholarship, cannot exist without pedagogy, and that explanations of concepts are inherently pedagogical in nature” (p. 1658). Due to this conundrum, the model warrants extensive investigation in defining constructs for each component to allow for a more collective and consistent understanding during application. However, without delving (and acknowledging) into the model’s perplexity, the structure is employed as a blueprint to map the designing parameters of a technology tool (DST in this study) in aiding learning. At the same time, a technology tool can only be as effective as the person wielding it in identifying and involving the tool effectively to deliver a lesson. The lesson delivered using effective technology facilitates meaningful learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) for learners to dismantle, reconstruct and applied novel knowledge in authentic situations. The performance of technology is determined by the transformation of the teacher’s perspicacity according to the following four facets – knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs and subject and school culture (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

104

Chapter Five

Table 1: Facet Definition Taken and Adapted from Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) Facet Knowledge

Self-efficacy Pedagogical beliefs Subject and school culture

Definition Knowledge encompasses the dimensions involved in delivering a classroom lesson ranging from content, pedagogy, classroom management, differentiating content to locality, curriculum implementation, context-based educational goals and beliefs, and strategies to incorporate technology to supplement teaching and learning. Self-efficacy focuses on the confidence level of the teacher towards their ability in utilizing knowledge to facilitate succinct learning. Pedagogical beliefs examine the influence of implications and consequences of learning in shaping the values of teachers. Subject and school culture involves teacher either adjusting or abandoning plausible teaching and learning approaches depending on constraints within school and learners’ culture.

These facets are interdependent and notably influence the teacher in developing technology-dependent teaching and learning tools. Literature has revealed self-efficacy to be imperceptibly significant in ensuring the growth of the other three facets (refer to Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). By allowing teachers to witness and experiment how technology helps promote learning cements positivity in teacher’s self-efficacy and beliefs about technology. In order for teachers to execute the TPCK model and be “digital practitioners” in the classroom, the following facets requires a system to function symbiotically for teachers to place significant value upon TPCK and implement meaningful technology habits (Ertmer & Ottenbreith-Leftwich, 2010). As such, the intent of this study was to develop a deeper understanding of how an improvised DST project couched in a problem-based learning (PBL) approach and implemented in the context of a self-designed instructional design. The Plan, Produce, Publish (Reflect) (PPP(R)) framework can help to develop the in-service teachers’ TPCK. The proposed instructional design PPP(R) framework is adapted from the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model with a sequential materials development cycle approach in mind starting from the analysis up to evaluation phase (Table 2). While the concept of instructional system (ISD) design has been around since the early 1950s, ADDIE first appeared in 1975. It was created

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

105

by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University for the U.S. Army and then quickly adapted by all the U.S. Armed Forces (Watson, 1981). When the ADDIE model first appeared in 1975, it was strictly a linear or waterfall model. This PPP(R) framework was created to provide a clear instructional framework to engage the teachers through conversations about computer tools, pedagogy and content to better prepare teachers for technology integration. Table 2: Key Components of PPP(R) ISD Model (adapted from ADDIE ISD Model) ADDIE ISD Model

Plan, Produce, Publish, Reflect (PPP(R)) ISD Model

Analysis Plan Design Development

Produce

Implementation Evaluation

Publish Reflect

Key components

Acquire content knowledge and task analysis, design user interface, objectives, content outline, functional elements, storyboards Develop performance support content, script, create graphics and animation sequences, create supplemental learning guides Installation and implementation Test functionality, usability, validate content accuracy and revision based on feedbacks

The Study Participants A total of 122 in-service English teachers participated in the study. These teachers were the first cohort non-graduate in-service teachers currently studying for a specially tailored 4-year degree course in TESL in the School of Education and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Sabah, Malaysia. They were enrolled in a core course titled TZ40303 – Integrating Technology in the Primary School. The students of this course taught English Language at the primary level in Borneo, Sabah. Their ages ranges from late-20s to mid-40s. All of them have been English teachers for at least one year, with an average of 12 years’ teaching experience.

106

Chapter Five

Course design The course was divided roughly into three chronological phases based on a self-designed PPP(R) framework adapted from the popular ADDIE instructional design model. For the study, the in-service teachers explored the concept of DST as pedagogy, considered examples of the approach in their syllabus, and produced their own digital stories in the form of teaching materials on topics related to the new Standard Primary School English curriculum (KSSR). Language learning is organized using a modular approach emphasizing on the development of basic language skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing). This curriculum hopes to produce learners equipped with the required basic English Language and learning skills fundamental towards developing critical citizens to be a part of an effective and productive society. For example, Theme/Topic: World of Self, Family and Friends Module: Listening & Speaking Listening to environmental sounds in a form of a story Over the 14-week blended learning course, involving both face-to-face (21 hours) and online learning (21 hours), DST was its main focus throughout three face-to-face (F2F) sessions, with each session focusing on the three instructional design phases of plan, produce, publish and reflect (see Figure 4). The first session of the F2F meetings involved looking at a few samples of digital stories taken from YouTube. The focus of the introductory session was to get the students to deliberate and reflect in groups on the following three issues: 1. The purpose of the DST (What?) 2. The combination of technologies used to convey the message of the DST (How?) 3. The effectiveness of the story and what contributed to its effectiveness During the class period, the in-service teachers were provided with a list of potential topics to research for their own digital story products related to the new KSSR curriculum. The rubric that would be used to evaluate students’ finished work was also provided and discussed. At the end of the session, they were instructed to research their chosen topics and to prepare a digital story script prior to the next class meeting. A DST storyboard template was also handed out to help the teachers in planning

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

107

about the purpose, audience and how to best sequence the information in their stories. This formed the first phase – planning phase. The second F2F session was conducted in a workshop-like manner where the attention was focused on how to integrate the different elements of the DST, namely sounds, movies, pictures, narration, and mood. All teachers were instructed to bring along their laptops to the class which is Wi-Fi enabled. Working in groups, they were encouraged to explore web resources to prepare their digital stories. The processes for adding text, recording narration, editing the motion and duration of frames, selecting transitions, and adding music were likewise explored. The teachers were given one month to complete their DST in their respective groups. This formed the second phase – the production phase. The third and final F2F session was focused on peer review and evaluation of completed DST using the evaluation rubric. First, the teachers presented their final DST to their peers. Viewing the DST projected on the big screen was highlighted and elevated the work from an assignment to a creative production. The atmosphere during Session Three was celebratory. Besides watching the final product, each learning team was tasked to select two DSTs to be evaluated. Evaluation was done based on the rubrics that the teachers have drawn up. The final task after the evaluation was to publish the DSTs that they have created on video hosting sites (e.g., YouTube) and published on a WikiSpace site to allow sharing of resources with their colleagues. Figure 2 summarises the design involved.

Figure 2. Course design based on Plan-Produce-Publish & Reflect (PPP(R)) framework

108

Chapter Five

Method To probe the teachers’ learning experiences, three types of data were collected, namely: learning reflections by the in-service teachers (reflective journals), records and artefacts that reflect the overall design and organization of the course (DSTs), and focus group interviews. In the case of reflective journals, the teachers were required to keep a journal to chart their reflections and comments during the planning, creation and implementation and evaluation process of the DST, focusing their reflections on their experiences on the opportunities afforded and challenges faced in their dealings with: (i) learning of the content; (ii) the learning tools; and (iii) working with fellow teachers. Records and artefacts included their story-boards, group progress report, assessment feedback and a CD-ROM containing their final DST product. Focus-group interviews were conducted with two voluntary groups of teachers (n=15) at the end of the semester to probe deeper into the affordances and challenges faced. Data were coded and analysed iteratively based on two criteria: saliency and saturation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was addressed based on the techniques of prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, and referential adequacy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To identify tacit aspects of TPCK and teachers change in developing technology-dependent teaching and learning tools, triangulation was mainly used (Patton, 1990). To ensure referential adequacy, attempts were made to capture and document the data in their original form. Verbatim quotes were used in some instances to give a flavour of the teachers’ experiences engaging in the process of creating the DSTs. To ensure consistency, the data were coded by two coders until consensus was reached.

Findings and Discussions The findings are organized and discussed based on the following two research questions formulated: (1) How does developing DST help inservice teachers develop their TPCK? (2) What are the affordances and challenges faced in developing technology-dependent teaching and learning materials. Firstly, this section presents how the production of the DST helped in developing the tacit TPCK knowledge based on the triangulation of three data sources (i.e., the reflective journals, records and artefacts collected during the course, and the focus group interviews). Following that, the second research question is discussed based on the four

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

109

facets proposed by Ertmer and Ottenbreith-Leftwich (2010) to illuminate the affordances and challenges faced by the in-service teachers.

Q1: How does developing DST help in-service teachers develop their TPCK? To find out how developing DST materials helped the in-service teachers develop their TPCK, both the reflective journals and transcripts of focus group interviews were thematically analysed and coded iteratively using Nvivo based on criteria of saliency and saturation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Figure 3 shows the themes generated.

Figure 3. Themes inductively generated from qualitative data

Three major themes were identified: (1) pedagogical skills, (2) information and communication technology (ICT) skills, and (3) working together. It was found that producing the DST materials has benefited the in-service teachers in three major ways: first, in improving their ICT skills; second, in enhancing their collaboration; and third, in cultivating their pedagogical skills. Further elaboration of each theme is presented below: (a) ICT skills According to the in-service teachers, their ICT skills have been improved the most. A total of 63 students believed that the efforts in producing the DST helped them to improve their ICT skills as illustrated in the following verbatim quotes: Throughout the course, I have learned a lot of knowledge related to the use of technology in teaching. Among them are the processes of building DST correctly and effectively. By using the suitable software, I and my team can

Chapter Five

110

produce a good and interesting DST. We also use technology to communicate with each other such as email and Facebook to finish DST project because of the distance factor between the group members. (SS04) I think that this course helped me improve my knowledge and skills in technology. For the future, I hope I can learn more about technology so that it will continuously motivate me to explore and learn new things like what we did this semester which is – movie making. I am looking forward for another course that connected with technology. (SS08) This course definitely had improved my knowledge about ICT. There’s a wide range of ICT to be explored and it is not specified on a particular field only [sic]. Before this, I only used videos downloaded from YouTube for my lessons, but after going through this course, I learned to make my own DST. (SS11)

(b) Working together The second most helpful theme was the theme on working together: 51 students responded that producing the digital materials helped to enhance their collaboration. The followings are a few snippets of the responses made: When it comes to the task or assignment given, we able to work it out in time which is not burden for us [sic]. Moreover, we are very excited and enjoyed to complete the tasks assigned by the lecturer. In addition, most of our collaboration were held at the social networks such as Facebook and email. (SS08) This course gave us chance to work in a group. We interacted via emails, Facebook, WhatsApp and online chats to discuss our assignments and share materials to [sic] each other. (SS17) The experience gain [sic] from the assignments helped me to realize that a good relationship with others can be build [sic] through conversation, discussion and sharing. (SS25)

(c) Pedagogic skills The third theme generated was pedagogic skills, where a total of 41 students claimed the digital project helped to enhance their pedagogic skills. Some relevant quotes include: This course taught me that it is no longer sufficient for teachers merely to impart content knowledge. As teachers we should be more creative in

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

111

providing knowledge to the students, just like when we created the DST. (SS02) The course had taught me that technology is only a tool and the teacher is the facilitator. It means teacher [sic] must know how to use the latest software, know how to tackle technology. A teacher have [sic] to catch up with the speedy development of technology so he/she will not left behind, Kids nowadays are very informative and to me, it will be a shame if a teacher know less about something. (SS03) Through this course, I’d noticed that the traditional storytelling has a new face with the growing technology today: Digital Storytelling. This is one of the new twists of the technology that every teacher in Sabah especially those in the rural schools MUST know and master it. With the emerging technologies, it is easy for me to discover the benefits of digital storytelling and I can reach a wider audience by uploaded it through the internet (YouTube). I can use the power of music, pictures, videos and narrative while creating the story. (SS12) I am really glad to have an opportunity to do this course. It is not just I learned on how to design our own digital story telling but now , I found a way to use technology as a tool in teaching. (SS23)

In short, the findings have shown that the teachers actually learned a number of skills and knowledge that contribute to the development of their TPCK. To further explore the teachers’ TPCK development, the data were also analysed based on the PPP(R) framework used, as shown in Table 3, to show how the in-service teachers integrate TPCK at varying degrees into the planning, production, publication and reflection stages of their DST development. As can be seen in the narratives, the teachers appeared to have developed their TPCK in coming up with the digital materials. The PPP(R) instructional framework emerged as relevant to the implementation of DST as pedagogy for the teachers as they worked together to discuss and reflect on the relevant materials and approach to be used at the different stages of planning, production, and publication. In the planning stage, the teachers were required to research a topic, write the script and gather the raw material (media such as photos, videos, and music) for their digital stories. They collaborated to collect media, researched and wrote the scripts, and produced their stories as an out-ofclass assignment. The planning stage did not pose much of a problem to the teachers as most of them have the necessary pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as to how to plan their DST.

Chapter Five

112

Table 3: Analysis of In-Service Teachers’ Narratives Integrating TPCK at Varying Degrees in the Planning, Production and Publication of Their DST Sequence of PPP(R)

Examples

Types of knowledge being developed

Plan

We decided to choose the latest Year 1 New Primary School Curriculum (KSSR) theme of World of Stories with the topic “Dilly Duck’s Doughnut”. We chose this topic because it is easy, simple and most of my group members were teaching KSSR Year 1 pupils. We found that this topic to be nice and useful for pupils to understand and learn better as children love to watch cartoon or animal characters. Based on the learning standard provided, we want the pupils to listen and enjoy simple stories focusing on listening and speaking skills. We all agreed to select a topic from the KSSR Year 2 textbook, Unit 17, page 133 to 134. There is a story on those pages entitled ‘Wishes’ that really caught our attention. It was about a mermaid who wishes that she could fly and a seagull who wishes that he could swim. We thought that the story would be the best one for this project since it was interesting and had all the elements that we need in a story – a starting point and also a very good climax. We read up the articles that we had downloaded from Schoology and exchange ideas and opinions with one another. Though the textbook does not provide any ending for the story, we really like the idea in the textbook where the pupils are encouraged to think of a suitable ending for the story. We think it provides the opportunity for us to teach our pupils thinking skills (predicting outcome) as well as encourage them to think creatively. We found that there are many ways and strategies to make DST. We went through all the information and analyze it. My leader Safrina suggested to use FLASH at the beginning but we found out that it was so hard to handle and it took a lot of time to prepare.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

Produce

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Content Knowledge (CK) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Technological Knowledge (TK)

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

Publish

Reflect

We had to download a free software from the Internet called the ‘DVD Video Soft Audio Converter’ so that we could convert the files to *wav or *mp. We also used ‘Power MP3 Cutter’ to edit the length of each of the files. When it came to editing the voice of the mermaid character, we realized that the recording of Cornelia’s voice was too soft and it was being drowned by the background music. We tried a software called ‘Audacity’. ‘Audacity’ allowed us to amplify Cornelia’s voice recordings and make it loud enough for our movie. In completing the image for the digital storytelling, we used the Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Paint. At first, we planned to scan the picture but the outcome was not attractive. So we drew them to make them livelier. We worked hard for the rest of the week, editing the video and importing the voices. Since our voices were saved in *amr files, we could not import them directly to Windows Movie Maker. Our group leader managed to upload our masterpiece to the Youtube the day after. After uploading the video on Youtube, I copied the embedded code and posted our video to TZ40303 UMS’ Wikispaces. Before showing our DST to the children, we discussed about how we can use the DST with the English teachers in our own schools. In our opinion, as teachers we must practice how to make and use the DST in the teaching process so that our pupils will learn something from the technology used. Integrating technology in the teaching and learning session is better than using books. I think that DST would be extremely useful not only in teaching the Listening and Speaking skills, but also the Reading and Writing skills. I could also see the DST potentials in teaching Level 2 classes, Year 6 particularly. As most of my Year 6 pupils are struggling with Reading Comprehension, I believe I could use DST to solve this problem and help my pupils. I believe that with the aid of graphics and sounds and other audio-visual stimuli, the pupils’ comprehension could be improved.

Technological Knowledge (TK)

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Technological Knowledge (TK)

Technological Knowledge (TK) Technological Knowledge (TK) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

113

114

Chapter Five

The second phase required the teachers to produce the DST. This phase was the most challenging for them as many of them were not too familiar with the various tools needed to put the DST together. They were also overwhelmed with the variety of ways and strategies that could be used to produce the DST, as illustrated below: We found that there are many ways and strategies to make DST. We went through all the information and analyze it, my leader Safrina suggested to use FLASH at the beginning but we found out that it was so hard to handle and take time to prepare. Lastly, we all agreed and decided to use the Windows Movie Maker as to get the best final product for our DST. (SS35)

Despite the challenges faced, all teachers succeeded in producing their DST. Here it could be seen that the teachers need to activate constructs such as TK, TPK, PCK to produce the DST. The third phase required the teachers to first evaluate and publish their finished projects on public sharing sites such as YouTube and Wikispaces to increase their investment in the finished project. The process of doing so inevitably develops their CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPCK. It also gave them a sense of pride to see their own work in public sharing sites. One teacher commented: After uploading the video on Youtube, I copied the link, pasted it on our group’s Facebook wall and then tagged all my group members. They were hysterical with excitement. Our first ‘online movie’! Are we going to be famous? (SS22)

An implicit aim of the DST project was to produce localized yet authentic work, which has a real-world value beyond the completion of a course. In sharing, it provided an opportunity for the teachers to contribute to the larger educational community. The final phase of reflection allowed the teachers to make connections between the content, technology and their instructional practice. In learning to produce the DST, the teachers were made to think, talk, and write about their experiences as learners. It was important for them to consider the learning value of DST for students they are currently teaching. The following illustrates the success of doing so: We are all grown-ups and we are all teachers, but it was amazing when we realized how listening to the mere sound of our own voices in a simple video that we designed had managed to make us extremely excited. We imagined the impact if such a project were to be done with our pupils in school. How much more excited the little children would be! (SS22)

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

115

On the basis of attempting to explore DST as a strategy to engage and motivate teachers to integrate technologies into the curriculum, it seems that the teachers have developed positive feelings towards technologies and have shown a firm intention to try new experiences with DST in the classroom. It also appears that DST is a helpful medium for integrating technology into the curriculum as it allows the teachers to activate and develop their multiple knowledge on curricular contents, pedagogy and technology.

Q2: What are the affordances and challenges faced in developing technology-dependent teaching and learning tools? Findings on the affordances and challenges faced in developing the DST are presented and discussed based on the four facets proposed by Ertmer and Ottenbreith-Leftwich (2010) mentioned earlier. Knowledge Possessing knowledge and highlighting awareness of knowledge with the intention to develop them further differentiates between individual cognitive and creative stagnation and progress. Among 122 teachers, 63 teachers (51.6%) reflected their concern about technology knowledge during the creation of DST while placing less concern about pedagogical and content knowledge. The teachers recognized that equipping themselves with technology knowledge is the first step towards realizing the nation’s target of developing technology literate students. However, the teachers acknowledged being in the “knowing what it does” category compared to the “knowing how to use” category despite undergoing various professional development courses. Before DST, my experiences are limited to using technology as a way to ‘show’ or ‘present’, but never to ‘demonstrate’ or ‘explain’… (SS22)

Thus, it is crucial that teachers are given the opportunities to cement their technology skills to progress to designing digital materials to provide meaningful learning (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Self-efficacy Self-efficacy refers to the confidence level teachers have in facing the unknown and raising the confidence through different approaches such as mastery learning, observation, trial and error and positive experiences

Chapter Five

116

(Ertmer & Ottenbreith-Leftwich, 2010). Findings revealed the presence of a number of discourses associated with the lack of confidence in their technology knowledge to create DST materials, such as “worried and concerned”, “no knowledge”, “difficult”, “nervous”, and “easier said than done.” I have never heard of DST before, so I’m rather worried and concerned whether we can produce one … (SS44)

Nevertheless, there was a group of six teachers who possessed the humility to acknowledge their deficiencies and took measures to improve themselves as shown in their reflection notes. I have arranged a workshop for my group with Mr TTL at the school library of SJK(C) Chung Hwa… (SS07)

The willingness to develop themselves as teachers augurs well for this group of teachers to be better equipped to face the “digital race” in line with the drive to infuse more technology into teaching and learning in the national primary curriculum. Pedagogical beliefs Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs comprise of different sets of expectations, generalizations, and opinions based upon their experience, perceptions and values of societal alteration, goals and choices (Ertmer & Ottenbreith-Leftwich, 2010). The pedagogical shift of the focus of the national primary curriculum from product to process affects the dynamics of the teacher and student relationship and alters the structure of delivering lessons and the use of different tools to engender meaningful learning. The teachers involved in producing DST were sensitised to the different elements needed for the DST to support meaningful learning. In so doing, the process of DST creation becomes a sandbox for the teachers to experiment and challenge their pedagogical beliefs to monitor which beliefs are still applicable in the current digital world. Before this, I would look at technology as merely a tool, nothing more and nothing less. With DST, technology has become more than just a tool. It has changed my view and perspectives on technology and pedagogy … (SS22)

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

117

Subject and school culture Conforming to culture or “cultural pressure” is a burden to different groups of communities, especially when it becomes difficult to perform to the norm (Brodie, 2004). The teachers in this program are culture pressured from both ends – the national administration and the local community. Most of the in-service teachers in the BEd TESL program teach in remote areas where basic necessities such as regular electricity supply and clean piped water are luxuries, and computer paraphernalia such as laptops and LCD projectors are difficult to access. Yet these teachers are required to conform and carry out their duties without the necessary amenities. Despite the “culturally” imposed constraints, 18 inservice teachers (15%) decided to trial their DST in their respective schools. All of them reported receiving positive feedback from their students and colleagues. In the case of Teacher J, he received positive feedback from his colleagues who trialled his group’s DST. Their students found the DST to be attractive, and frequently stopped their teachers to ask questions about the characters in the DST. Based on the findings presented along the dimensions of Ertmer and Ottenbreith-Leftwich’s (2010) framework, it seems reasonable to conclude that DSTs can be effectively used to develop the teachers’ TPCK. However, their usefulness is contingent upon the teachers’ knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs and subject and school culture in which they are employed. There are obvious challenges faced in developing technology-dependent teaching and learning tools. However, if in-service teachers are provided with the opportunities to witness and experiment how technology can promote learning, it is believed that such experience will help cement positivity in the in-service teacher’s self-efficacy and beliefs about technology.

Conclusion The study was conducted to explore DST as a strategy to engage and motivate in-service teachers to integrate technologies into the curriculum. Based on the teachers’ positive words and expressions, it appears that the in-service teachers developed positive feelings towards technologies and showed a firm intention to try new experiences with DST in the classroom. Thus, it could be concluded that digital stories are helpful tools for integrating technology into the curriculum as it appears to allow teachers to mobilize their multiple knowledge on curricular contents, pedagogy and technology. However, the predominantly promising findings have to be

118

Chapter Five

critically assessed. It is because this study was only conducted over one semester. Further study over a longer duration might provide clearer indication of the affordances and challenges faced. This study has also demonstrated that while TPCK provides a useful conceptual framework to guide technology integration, it cannot be used in isolation without considering other factors that may impinge on its use. For technology integration to happen, it is important to create authentic contexts to “facilitate meaningful learning” for the teachers to dismantle, reconstruct and applied novel knowledge in authentic situations as underscored by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010). The used of the PPP(R) instructional model also emphasized the need to have a clear instructional framework to engage the teachers through conversations about computer tools, pedagogy and content to better prepare teachers for technology integration. It is recommended that further and more extensive research should be conducted to better understand how teachers bring together their knowledge of content, pedagogy and technology to design appropriate and effective instruction for their students.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the fund allocated by the Centre of Research and Innovation, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia for this particular study. The author would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Denis Andrew D Lajium for fine-tuning the Nvivo analysis done on the qualitative data.

References Abas, H. & Badioze Zaman, H. (2010). Digital storytelling design with augmented reality technology for remedial students in learning Bahasa Melayu. In Z. Abas, I. Jung & J. Luca. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn 2010 (pp. 3558-3563). AACE. Penang, Malaysia. Anderson, J. (2010). ICT transforming education: A regional guide. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development and assessment of ICTTPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge. Computers and Education, 52(1), 154-168. Archambault, L. M. & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPCK framework. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

119

Banaszewski, T. (2002). Digital storytelling finds its place in the classroom. Multi-media & Internet@Schools. Retrieved from http:// www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan02/banaszewski.htm. Barrett, H.C. (2006). Digital stories in e-portfolios: Multiple purposes and tools. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/digistory/purposes mac.html. Benmayor, R. (2008). Digital storytelling as a signature pedagogy for the new humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(2), 188204. Brear, D. (2007). Digital storytelling. Retrieved from http://members.shaw.ca/dbrear/dst.html. Brodie, R. (2004) Virus of the mind: The new science of meme. Seattle, WA: Integral Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id= s6p8lkD5xiIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=virus+of+the+mind+richard+ brodie#PPA48,M1. Center for Digital Storytelling (n.d.). Digital storytelling for youth script writing and the seven elements. Retrieved from http:// electronicportfolios.org/academy/digitalstorysite/training/workshophandouts/Script_Writing_7Elements.doc. Clemens, S., & Kreider, M. (n.d.). Digital storytelling in the curriculum. Retrieved from http://web.mac.com/digistoryteller/DigitalStorytelling/ Home.html. De Craene, M. (2006, August). Using & teaching educational technology. Educational technology: ICT in education. Retrieved from http://terryfreedman.org.uk/artman/publish/printer_804.php/Digital. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. Graham, C. R. (2011) Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content. Computers and Education, 57(3), 1953-1960. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Krish, P., Maros, M., & Siti Hamin Stapa. (2012). Sociocultural factors and social presence in an online learning environment. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 201-213. Leighton, S., & ICT in Education. (2012). Asia Pacific Ministerial Forum on ICT in Education 2012. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.

120

Chapter Five

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lockley, T., & Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2012). Japanese university students’ CALL attitudes, aspirations and motivations. CALL-EJ, 13(1), 1-16. Matthews-DeNatale, G. (2008). Digital storytelling: Tips and resources. Boston, MA: Simmons College. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664-675). Singapore, December 2-5, 2007. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008) Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalyst for pedagogical change. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of education technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 641-652). Melbourne, November 30 – December 3, 2008. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Mohamad, M. (1991). The way forward: Vision 2020. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan00 3223.pdf. Mohd Hafiz Zakaria, Watson, J., & Edwards, S. L. (2010). Investigating the use of Web 2.0 technology by Malaysian students. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(1), 17-29. Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan, Norlida Ahmad, & Mohamad Jafre Zainal Abidin. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187. Ng, S. I., Lee, K. W., Tan, C. K. & Yeo, L. M. (2012). Digitally engendering soft skills through stixy – A web-based bulletin board. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(3), 7389. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books: New York. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Robin, B. (2013a). What is digital storytelling? Retrieved from http:// digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/page.cfm?id=27&cid=27&sublinkid=29.

Developing Malaysian ESL Teachers’ TPCK with Digital Materials

121

—. (2013b). Educational uses. Retrieved from http://digitalstorytelling. coe.uh.edu/page.cfm?id=27&cid=27&sublinkid=30. Segal, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489-504. Selwyn, N. (2008). Educational hopes and fears for web 2.0 in TLRP-TEL (2008). Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning. London: TLRP-TEL. Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd Ed). New York: Macmillan. Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London: Routledge. Sung, K. Y., & Wu, H. P. (2013). Comparing paper and forum journaling in the second language classroom. CALL-EJ, 14(1), 16-29. Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling writers. Reading Teacher, 63(4), 384-395. Watson, R. (1981, October). Instructional system development. Paper presented at the International Congress for Individualized Instruction. EDRS publication ED 209 239. Yuksel, P., Robin, B., & McNeil, S. (2011). Educational uses of digital storytelling all around the world. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1264-1271). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

CHAPTER SIX MOVING BEYOND BASICS: FROM CALL COURSEWORK TO CLASSROOM PRACTICE AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JEONG-BAE SON UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

Abstract This chapter addresses the issue of transfer from computer-assisted language learning (CALL) coursework to language teaching practice and teacher professional development. The study reported in this chapter specifically looks at and examines a formal CALL course offered as an optional course for postgraduate students at an Australian university. It employs surveys and follow-up interviews to investigate how language teachers, who had previously completed the CALL course, use CALL in their teaching situations and how they continue their professional development in CALL. The results of the study indicate that the teachers valued the CALL knowledge and skills they gained in the CALL course as the coursework opened their eyes to the potential of CALL in the classroom and the evaluation of CALL materials. The teachers expressed a desire for more knowledge on how best to integrate CALL as well as for further professional development and training in CALL. Findings enhance our understanding of the impact of CALL coursework on CALL practice in situated contexts and provide practical implications for language teacher education. Keywords: Computer-assisted language learning, postgraduate coursework, language teacher education, professional development, technology integration.

Moving beyond Basics

123

Introduction While there are a number of publications (e.g., Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999; Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000; Walker, 1994; Yildirim, 2000) describing and examining what occurs in teacher education technology courses or programs, only few studies look at transfer from the practical content of technology courses for teacher education to the classroom, particularly in the area of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Thus, there is a gap in the literature specific to CALL teacher education and a need for exploring the transfer of CALL coursework to the language classroom further. The study reported in this chapter attempts to address the gap and the need. It aims to examine how language teachers apply their knowledge and skills gained from CALL coursework to their teaching practice and investigate ways in which teachers continue their professional development for CALL.

CALL Teacher Training and Practice Along with the widespread use of technology, there is a great demand for language teacher training and development in the integration of CALL into learning and teaching activities (Hong, 2010; Hubbard, 2008; Luke & Britten, 2007; Slaouti & Motteram, 2006) and in the design, implementation and evaluation of CALL (Son, 2002). In the literature, the connection between CALL teacher training and in-service teachers’ use of CALL in their classrooms has been discussed in some contexts. For example, Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002) examined the impact of language teachers’ CALL course experience on their teaching and professional development. Through surveys and follow-up interviews with 20 English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) teachers, they found that teachers who used CALL activities were those teachers who had previous experience with CALL before they took a formal CALL course. They also found that a lack of time is the most common factor influencing the use of CALL activities in the classroom and colleagues are the most common resource for finding out about new CALL activities. Similarly, Ebsworth, Kim and Klein (2010) looked into the expectations and experiences of pre- and in-service language teachers in incorporating technology in their classrooms. From the results of questionnaires completed by 90 participants and interviews with 9 participants, they found that their participants came to a technologyenhanced language learning (TELL) course with different levels of TELL knowledge and goals. They also found that the pre-service teachers and inservice teachers had somewhat different expectations from the TELL

124

Chapter Six

course, particularly in the use of videos in lessons, the use of software and the evaluation of Internet resources. The participants recommended to improve the TELL course by reflecting their current teaching environments, including their target language and grade level, and pointed out that limited access to resources is a major barrier to the use of computer technology in the classroom. In a different context, Kessler (2007) investigated the relationship between CALL teacher preparation and teacher attitude toward technology and found that informal CALL preparation is more closely related to teachers’ attitudes toward technology than formal CALL preparation. Based on the results of a web-based survey completed by 108 graduates of Teachers of English to Speakers to Other Languages (TESOL) masters degree programs, he argued that the respondents’ degree programs did not prepare them effectively to use computer-based materials for teaching speaking skills and to create computer-based audio materials for instruction in particular and recommended formal language teacher preparation programs to include a CALL component, which addresses the changing needs of language teachers. In a way to add more insight into the link between CALL teacher training and classroom practice, this chapter explores the use of CALL by in-service language teachers who had previously completed a formal CALL course offered as an optional course for postgraduate students. It specifically examines how the teachers use CALL in their teaching contexts and how they continue their professional development in CALL after the CALL course.

The Study Participants Participants were those who had completed a CALL course as postgraduate students at an Australian university in the past five years. Through the CALL course, the teachers were introduced to CALL and given opportunities to understand key aspects of CALL and gained a basic knowledge of the practical use of computer technology in language instruction in terms of observation, design, implementation, evaluation and management. Among 306 teachers who were contacted and invited to participate in the study via email, a total of 77 teachers responded to the invitation and filled in a consent form. Table 1 shows demographic information on the 77 teachers. Out of the 77 teachers who completed a questionnaire employed for the study, 53 teachers participated in email interviews.

Moving beyond Basics

125

Table 1: Participant Profile (N=77) Gender Age (Mean: 40)

First language

Language currently teaching Years of teaching experience (Mean: 12)

Years of computer experience (Mean: 15)

Current place of residence

Male Female 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 English Chinese Korean Indonesian Japanese Vietnamese Other ESL/EFL French Other 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Australia Korea China Japan New Zealand Thailand Canada Indonesia Qatar Taiwan Vietnam Other

41 (53.2%) 36 (46.8%) 7 (9.1%) 14 (18.2%) 21 (27.3%) 19 (24.7%) 8 (10.4 %) 5 (6.5%) 3 (3.9%) 50 (64.9%) 5 (6.5%) 5 (6.5%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 11 (14.3%) 58 (75.3%) 3 (3.9%) 16 (20.8%) 10 (13%) 27 (35.1%) 18 (23.4%) 19 (24.7%) 1 (1.3%) 2 (2.6%) 4 (5.2%) 21 (27.3%) 21 (27.3%) 20 (26%) 9 (11.7%) 2 (2.6%) 17 (22.1%) 15 (19.5%) 11 (14.3%) 10 (13%) 3 (3.9%) 3 (3.9%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 8 (10.4%)

126 Current teaching level (multiple responses)

Chapter Six Pre-school Year 1-6 Year 7-9 Year 10-12 College/University Adult group

3 (3.9%) 16 (20.8%) 10 (13%) 11 (14.3%) 46 (59.7%) 28 (36.4%)

Data collection The teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire, which was developed on the basis of a literature review and the content of the CALL course. The questionnaire consisted of four sections (i.e., profile, learning experience, teaching experience and professional development) and contained questions that asked the teachers to identify: (1) which CALL activities they had before/during the CALL course, have had after the CALL course and are using in their current teaching situations; (2) where they learn more about CALL activities after the CALL course; and (3) what factors affect the use of CALL activities in their teaching. The results of the questionnaire are analysed and reported through statistical analyses of numerical data and qualitative analyses of textual data. The teachers were also invited to participate in a follow-up email interview respectively. The individual interview asked the questionnaire respondents to clarify, explain and supply additional information on their CALL experience. Responses to the interview are compiled and analysed to respond to the following questions: (1) Has your CALL coursework influenced your teaching practice? If yes, how? If no, why not?; (2) Has the CALL course been relevant to your career? If yes, how? If no, why not?; (3) Do you currently use CALL? If yes, how? If no, why not?; (4) Do you continue to develop your professionalism in CALL? If yes, how? If no, why not?; (5) What factors do you think affect your use of CALL?; and (6) Please make comments on your experience in/with CALL. Patterns that emerge from the interview data are grouped into categories that address the issues raised in these questions.

Results Questionnaires This section presents data collected from the seventy seven questionnaires. It addresses the teachers’ reasons for taking the CALL course, their level of expertise in CALL activities and their level of competence in using computer technologies. When the teachers were

Moving beyond Basics

127

asked why they enrolled in the CALL course, first, the most common responses were for self-development and a personal interest in CALL. As shown in Table 2, gaining competence in using computer technologies and employment opportunities were also strong motivators. Table 2: Reasons for Taking the CALL Course Reason Self-development Personal interest in CALL Competence in using computer technologies Employment opportunities Easy access to CALL materials at work Advice of others Demand from schools

Number* 70 67 50

Percentage 90.9 87 64.9

35 13

45.5 16.9

9 9

11.7 11.7

Note: *Multiple responses were allowed.

The teachers had a wide range of prior computer knowledge, abilities and experiences. As shown in Table 3, nearly all teachers had had a basic level of computer expertise before the CALL course: word processing (94.8%), communicating by email (96.1%) and using web search engines (88.3%). Many teachers also stated that they were experienced in using online dictionaries (76.6%), giving PowerPoint presentations (66.2%), text chatting (64.9%) and using databases (59.7%). However, the teachers were least experienced in reviewing web-based language learning sites (14.3%) and CALL software (9.1%). In addition, only a small number of teachers had had more advanced levels of competency and experience in computer technology, which is reflected in the low proportion of teachers who stated that they were experienced in using wikis (20.8%), developing CALL lesson plans (16.9%) or using blogs (15.6%) prior to undertaking the CALL course. As shown in Table 4, the majority of the teachers agreed that the CALL coursework has influenced their use of computers for teaching purposes (76.6%) and the CALL coursework has been relevant to their teaching career (74.1%).

Chapter Six

128

Table 3: Learning Experience CALL activity

Using Word processing programs Communicating via e-mail Text chatting Voice chatting Video conferencing Participating in online discussion groups Using Web-based bulletin boards Using language software CDs Using multimedia authoring tools Giving PowerPoint presentations Creating Web pages Creating Webbased language learning activities Using Web-based language learning activities Developing CALL lesson plans Reviewing CALL software Reviewing Webbased language learning sites Concordancing Using databases Using online dictionaries Using graphic programs Using Blogs Using Wikis Using Web search engines

Note: N=77.

Had previous experience before the CALL course 73 (94.8%)

Learnt from the CALL course for the first time

Attempted after the CALL course

Never actually experienced

No response

2 (2.6%)

1 (1.3%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.3%)

74 (96.1%)

1 (1.3%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.3%)

1 (1.3%)

50 (64.9%) 32 (41.6%) 24 (31.2%) 32 (41.6%)

11 (14.3%) 7 (9.1%) 5 (6.5%) 34 (44.2%)

8 (10.4%) 11 (14.3%) 15 (19.5%) 4 (5.2%)

7 (9.1%) 25 (32.5%) 30 (39%) 5 (6.5%)

1 (1.3%) 2 (2.6%) 3 (3.9%) 2 (2.6%)

27 (35.1%)

25 (32.5%)

8 (10.4%)

14 (18.2%)

3 (3.9%)

44 (57.1%)

15 (19.5%)

8 (10.4%)

9 (11.7%)

1 (1.3%)

26 (33.8%)

21 (27.3%)

10 (13%)

18 (23.4%)

2 (2.6%)

51 (66.2%)

1 (1.3%)

10 (13%)

13 (16.9%)

2 (2.6%)

28 (36.4%)

14 (18.2%)

12 (15.6%)

21 (27.3%)

2 (2.6%)

16 (20.8%)

20 (26%)

6 (7.8%)

33 (42.9%)

2 (2.6%)

30 (39%)

25 (32.5%)

10 (13%)

11 (14.3%)

1 (1.3%)

13 (16.9%)

34 (44.2%)

12 (15.6%)

16 (20.8%)

2 (2.6%)

7 (9.1%)

55 (71.4%)

5 (6.5%)

8 (10.4%)

2 (2.6%)

11 (14.3%)

54 (70.1%)

7 (9.1%)

3 (3.9%)

2 (2.6%)

17 (22.1%) 46 (59.7%) 59 (76.6%)

19 (24.7%) 10 (13%) 4 (5.2%)

4 (5.2%) 4 (5.2%) 9 (11.7%)

30 (39%) 13 (16.9%) 2 (2.6%)

7 (9.1%) 4 (5.2%) 3 (3.9%)

42 (54.5%)

4 (5.2%)

10 (13%)

17 (22.1%)

4 (5.2%)

12 (15.6%) 16 (20.8%) 68 (88.3%)

7 (9.1%) 4 (5.2%) 3 (3.9%)

24 (31.2%) 18 (23.4%) 2 (2.6%)

29 (37.7%) 36 (46.8%) 1 (1.3%)

5 (6.5%) 3 (3.9%) 3 (3.9%)

Moving beyond Basics

129

Table 4: CALL Coursework and Teaching The CALL coursework has influenced my use of computers for teaching purposes. The CALL coursework has been relevant to my teaching career.

Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No response

16 (20.8%)

43 (55.8%)

11 (14.3%)

4 (5.2%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (3.9%)

25 (32.5%)

32 (41.6%)

10 (13%)

4 (5.2%)

1 (1.3%)

5 (6.5%)

Note: N=77.

Table 5 shows that most teachers are using word processing programs, communicating via email, using online dictionaries and searching the web in their teaching situations. It also shows that the CALL course had a significant impact on the intended future use of CALL activities by the teachers in the language classroom. What is significant to note is the increased interest in exploring the more creative use of CALL activities following the CALL course. When questioned about their future intentions, there was a strong interest in creating web-based language learning activities (44.2%), using blogs (37.7%), creating web pages (36.4%) and using web-based bulletin boards (35.1%) in the future. Table 5: Use of CALL Activities CALL activity Using Word processing programs Communicating via E-mail Text chatting Voice chatting Video conferencing

Currently try 69 (89.6%)

Plan to try 4 (5.2%)

Do not know 2 (2.6%)

No response 2 (2.6%)

66 (85.7%)

6 (7.8%)

3 (3.9%)

2 (2.6%)

38 (49.4%) 23 (29.9%) 17 (22.1%)

18 (23.4%) 23 (29.9%) 24 (31.2%)

16 (20.8%) 27 (35.1%) 30 (39%)

5 (6.5%) 4 (5.2%) 6 (7.8%)

Chapter Six

130 Participating in online discussion groups Using Web-based bulletin boards Using language software CDs Using multimedia authoring tools Giving PowerPoint presentations Creating Web pages Creating Webbased language learning activities Using Web-based language learning activities Developing CALL lesson plans Reviewing CALL software Reviewing Webbased language learning sites Concordancing Using databases Using online dictionaries Using graphic programs Using Blogs Using Wikis Using Web search engines

43 (55.8%)

21 (27.3%)

11 (14.3%)

2 (2.6%)

29 (37.7%)

27 (35.1%)

17 (22.1%)

4 (5.2%)

43 (55.8%)

15 (19.5%)

14 (18.2%)

5 (6.5%)

28 (36.4%)

23 (29.9%)

22 (28.6%)

4 (5.2%)

53 (68.8%)

13 (16.9%)

8 (10.4%)

3 (3.9%)

33 (42.9%)

28 (36.4%)

14 (18.2%)

2 (2.6%)

23 (29.9%)

34 (44.2%)

14 (18.2%)

6 (7.8%)

50 (64.9%)

19 (24.7%)

4 (5.2%)

4 (5.2%)

35 (45.5%)

24 (31.2%)

12 (15.6%)

6 (7.8%)

26 (33.8%)

23 (29.9%)

21 (27.3%)

7 (9.1%)

38 (49.4%)

18 (23.4%)

17 (22.1%)

4 (5.2%)

17 (22.1%) 36 (46.8%) 61 (79.2%)

19 (24.7%) 16 (20.8%) 8 (10.4%)

32 (41.6%) 19 (24.7%) 5 (6.5%)

9 (11.7%) 6 (7.8%) 3 (3.9%)

35 (45.5%)

16 (20.8%)

20 (26%)

6 (7.8%)

20 (26%) 21 (27.3%) 66 (85.7%)

29 (37.7%) 22 (28.6%) 3 (3.9%)

24 (31.2%) 28 (36.4%) 4 (5.2%)

4 (5.2%) 6 (7.8%) 4 (5.2%)

Note: N=77.

The teachers’ responses to the questionnaire also provided an insight into the main reasons why they do not use CALL activities in their classrooms (see Table 6). The reasons included a lack of confidence

Moving beyond Basics

131

(76.6%), a lack of time (64.9%) and a lack of flexibility in the curriculum to incorporate CALL activities (45.5%). Table 6: Reasons for Not Using CALL Activities Reason Lack of confidence Lack of time Lack of flexibility in the curriculum Lack of support from schools Lack of facilities Lack of skills using CALL Poor quality of facilities Administrative restrictions No need for using CALL Lack of ideas using CALL Lack of knowledge about CALL Lack of personal interest Lack of student interest

Number 59 50 35

Percentage 76.6 64.9 45.5

30 29 28 26 26 17 16 13 7 5

39 37.7 36.4 33.8 33.8 22.1 20.8 16.9 9.1 6.5

The teachers were also asked about factors which affect the greater use of CALL in their teaching situations (Table 7). The primary factor cited by the teachers, which was limiting their use of CALL, was time (67.5%). The teachers felt that they did not have enough time to develop or use CALL. Other major factors, which were hindering further use of CALL, were primarily institutional barriers. The teachers stated that they needed better facilities with more access to computers (57.1%), more support from school administration (53.2%), and more flexibility with the curriculum (49.4%) so that CALL can be incorporated into language learning programs. On a personal level, the teachers expressed a need for more skills using CALL (46.8%) and more ideas for using CALL (44.2%). The teachers were also questioned about their methods of learning more about CALL after completing the CALL course. The majority of the teachers have adopted an informal approach to improving their professionalism in CALL. As highlighted in Tables 8 and 9, the most common methods cited by the teachers were the use of web sites (70.1%) and learning new ideas about CALL from colleagues (54.5%). It is interesting to note here that many teachers (49.4%) also intended to continue their professionalism in CALL by learning-by-doing (i.e., learning from their experiences by implementing CALL activities). As the teachers cite time as the lead factor limiting further use of CALL, these

132

Chapter Six

methods of improving their CALL knowledge and skills are both understandable and realistic. The low level of participation in more formal methods of professional development in CALL can be also explained by another fact that, as many teachers pointed out, there is a lack of institutional support for CALL. Table 7: Factors Affecting Greater Use of CALL Factor More time Better facilities More support from schools More flexibility in the curriculum More skills using CALL More ideas using CALL More facilities Less administrative restrictions More knowledge about CALL Great need for using CALL More confidence More student interest More personal interest

Number 52 44 41 38 36 34 33 28 26 24 18 16 15

Percentage 67.5 57.1 53.2 49.4 46.8 44.2 42.9 36.4 33.8 31.2 23.4 20.8 19.5

Table 8: Learning More about CALL Source Web sites Colleagues Journals Books Conferences CALL specialists Teacher training courses Students University tutors/lecturers/professors CALL-related associations Electronic discussion lists On-line communities Degree courses Mentors

Number 54 42 26 19 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 8 7

Percentage 70.1 54.5 33.8 24.7 22.1 19.5 18.2 16.9 15.6 14.3 13 13 10.4 9.1

Moving beyond Basics

133

Table 9: Ways of Further CALL Teacher Development Action By visiting Web sites By having conversations with colleagues By teaching students with computers By reading journals By interacting with students By attending teacher training courses By reading books By attending conferences By joining CALL-related associations By participating in on-line community activities By communicating with university lecturers By contacting CALL specialists By subscribing to electronic discussion lists By meeting with mentors By taking degree courses

Number 55 49 38 31 28 28 22 21 19 18

Percentage 71.4 63.6 49.4 40.3 36.4 36.4 28.6 27.3 24.7 23.4

13 11 11 10 6

16.9 14.3 14.3 13 7.8

Interviews A total of 53 teachers volunteered to offer more explanatory information about their level of CALL use in an individual email interview. Their interview responses provided a more detailed understanding of the level of transfer from CALL coursework to classroom practice among the individual teachers. In the presentation of the data from the interviews, the participants’ actual words are conveyed to reflect their opinions on the use of CALL in their teaching situations. Q1. Has your CALL coursework influenced your teaching practice? If yes, how? If no, why not? The teachers’ responses to this question were overall positive: 44 teachers (83%) – yes; 9 teachers (17%) – no. Many teachers commented that the CALL course provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills to evaluate and use CALL activities: Teacher 3: The course that I had taken has given me a lot of theoretical as well as practical knowledge about CALL. Teacher 12: The CALL course has positively affected my attitudes toward using computers in language classrooms; and I feel myself more confident of using technology in my classroom.

134

Chapter Six Teacher 27: It influenced the way I approach CALL classes. It gave me a basis to start from, and gave me a sense of where CALL was headed, and what the possibilities are. Teacher 31: It has definitely influenced my teaching practise in that I now consider another tool for language learning which I did not do so previously. It has also made me more critical and aware of the design of websites and the suitability of their use for any lesson I might be designing. Teacher 41: Yes, as part of the assessment was to critique language learning websites, it made me actually look at a variety of sites and made me see how much was actually available. In turn, I have been able to utilise some of these sites in classroom teaching. Teacher 44: It has greatly influenced my teaching. First of all, it has influenced my choice of electronic materials. I used to download materials from the Internet for my teaching without careful conscious thinking of the real value and reliability of these materials/websites. After completing the course, I started to select Internet materials from a more professional perspective. Teacher 47: The lessons learnt in the course have contributed enormously to equip me with the ability to evaluate CALL material for my students and for upgrading my teaching approaches.

A major influence of the CALL course on the teachers was their teaching practice. A number of teachers have gone on to experiment with CALL activities and incorporate more CALL activities into their teaching programs: Teacher 13: I have developed and taught a course on learning English on the Internet. I have also designed a website for the university that I teach at, which students use for self-study. Teacher 14: I learnt that computers and education can work together and the techniques can be very helpful to students. Teacher 19: I have tried to use CALL in the classroom in a reading activity as I have learned about the benefits of online reading resources to help ESL learners. Teacher 34: It has furthered my understanding of the importance of CMC in language learning and has motivated my exploration of the teaching of a language.

Moving beyond Basics

135

Teacher 37: I realised whilst doing the CALL course, how much potential there was for using computer activities with ESOL students. Teacher 43: Now, I am exploring ways of giving CALL a more central role in my teaching. One of the things I am working on is using CALL to develop my learners’ listening skills. Teacher 52: CALL coursework opened up new prospects for me. It gave me new options to explore. I also learned about balancing CALL and incorporating it into class work, rather than letting it sit on its own.

Those teachers who indicated that the CALL coursework did not influence their teaching practice confessed that they do not use CALL because they have issues mainly with facilities, school administration or job requirements: Teacher 5: There was just one computer. I didn’t try to use it. Teacher 6: At the moment, no because the school administration is having some problems running the IT infrastructure in the school. Teacher 16: One problem is that my university does not brief foreign teachers on how to use the electronic classroom software. Teacher 32: No, not my teaching practice at this stage. … At present there is no perceived need to do it.

Q2. Has the CALL course been relevant to your career? If yes, how? If no, why not? Most teachers (83%) felt that the CALL course was relevant and beneficial to their teaching career. The course provided both theoretical and practical knowledge of CALL, which the teachers have been able to apply in their teaching situations: Teacher 3: Yes, it absolutely has. I have been actively using CALL in my career for the past 2 years. Everything that I do in my job now is directly related to various aspects that I studied in the course. Teacher 6: I would say yes as it opens up new possibilities for teaching and learning. I now have more resources to rely on in my teaching practice and more modes of teaching my students.

136

Chapter Six Teacher 10: This course has inspired me a lot in my teaching areas. Because of this course taken, I learn to create an online program for my language teaching. Teacher 12: Yes definitely. … It is possible to teach a foreign language without using computers but I believe that language teachers need to have knowledge on how to integrate computer-based activities into their classrooms in order to facilitate their students’ L2 learning process and enhance their students’ learning. Teacher 19: I see CALL becoming an integral part of ESL teaching in general. I wouldn’t want to be left behind in my knowledge in modern approaches to ESL teaching. I think the CALL course may help me in getting another job. Teacher 26: Yes, absolutely. The most valuable experience I gained from the CALL course was learning how to create my own online interactive language exercises for students and also how to create basic web pages with interactive exercises. This in turn led me to develop a website for my business. Teacher 27: On the basis of my CALL experience in the course, I was able to apply for a CALL position at the English Language Institute at my work. Teacher 44: It is educationally and instrumentally related to my career. The utility of computer technology is now playing an increasingly important role in language teaching and learning. … The CALL course helped me have a better understanding of the use of technology in language teaching and have a better understanding of students’ interests and needs in language acquisition as well as learning. Teacher 50: The CALL course was very helpful for the development of my teaching career. It provided me with new ways of teaching a language and creative ideas of using materials and resources through the Web.

Those teachers (17%) who responded “no” to Question 2 indicated that the course had not been relevant for them either because of inadequate facilities in their workplace or a lack of opportunity to implement CALL in their teaching practice. However, they expressed a hope that they could apply the knowledge in the future: Teacher 1: Not yet. It has helped me do my work … but no progress on the job/salary front in that respect. Teacher 7: So far, I haven’t had many opportunities to implement CALL in my job, but I would like to in the future.

Moving beyond Basics

137

Teacher 15: The unit itself so far hasn’t helped me in my career but it was good knowledge. Teacher 24: Not yet, I work at a college with less than adequate facilities.

Q3. Do you currently use CALL? If yes, how? If no, why not? A significant proportion (69.8%) of the teachers said that they are currently using CALL in a variety of ways in their teaching situations. Their uses range from using CALL as a means for communication between the teacher and students, such as e-mail and blogging, as a means of undertaking task-based research by searching for information online, and as a valuable resource to encourage self-access language learning to using CALL for teaching writing: Teacher 3: Yes, I am currently offering an advanced level EAP course on an open-source course management system called Moodle. Teacher 6: I use some aspects of CALL like e-mails, web-resources for students with Internet access from home for more advanced practice. … I am also trying to create a blog site as another way of engaging my students. Teacher 7: I am currently developing some Moodle content for my oral English classes. … I teach a class in ‘Internet English’ in which students use the Internet for research on given topics and use a blog to present information found. Teacher 12: Mostly I use email exchanges and discussion boards. Teacher 16: I encourage students to do PowerPoint presentations when they have to do an individual or group presentation. Teacher 17: I use PowerPoint for my lectures as well as the Internet for realia in the classroom. I also use a collaborative website for all homework activities and the school’s ‘cyber campus’ site for announcements and communication with my students. Teacher 20: I currently use CALL in my writing classes (managed with the help of Moodle). Teacher 41: I use e-mail and web-chatting as a means of communicating with my students.

138

Chapter Six Teacher 45: I utilize a discussion board and chat function in my current courses. Further, I employ a video element, where students are taped and then they review their presentation on the web via an Internet portal. Teacher 52: I use some CALL resources in a self-access center that I run for my students. … In other classes, I use web quests a lot.

For teachers who are not using CALL, a number of reasons have been given. These include a lack of computer resources, curriculum restrictions, no requirement for CALL, and a lack of institutional support for the use of CALL: Teacher 15: I would love to but so far there hasn’t been any need for it. Teacher 21: Present teaching curriculum does not include using CALL. Teacher 22: There is no support at my school. Teacher 23: No, because my college classes don’t have computers. Teacher 32: No time in syllabus with present coursework load. Teacher 36: Our course co-ordinator does not use CALL at all.

Q4. Do you continue to develop your professionalism in CALL? If yes, how? If no, why not? Out of 53 teachers, 45 teachers (84.9%) indicated that they are continuing to gain expertise and experience in CALL after undertaking the CALL course. They have undertaken various methods of improving their CALL knowledge and skills, including reading journals, blogs, attending conferences, collaborating with colleagues and doing CALL activities with their students. Teacher 2: Yes, online websites and discussion groups. Teacher 7: I have attended conferences. … I like to read about new developments and possibilities. Teacher 10: I am trying to co-operate with co-workers who are good at computer programming to create a more friendly language learning environment. Teacher 11: I am an avid reader of educational blogs and resources regarding CALL and other methodology.

Moving beyond Basics

139

Teacher 12: I regularly read articles about how to use CALL effectively and search web-based activities and tasks which can be useful for my students. Teacher 13: I’m developing my computer skills more in order to design more interactive materials. Teacher 19: I am always willing to share information at staff meetings about good websites and activities. I also get good recommendations in return. Teacher 26: Yes, simply by viewing language learning websites and looking at their language exercises and evaluating how effective the exercises would be for our students. Teacher 39: I familiarise myself with new software programs that can be used in self-access situations. Teacher 47: By further reading CALL documents and applying my little experiences into practice. Teacher 49: I read journals and review courseware.

Time is a significant factor for many teachers who do not continue to develop their professionalism in CALL. Other reasons cited included poor facilities and a lack of information about where and how to access further information on CALL: Teacher 3: I actually do not have the time or resources to take part in CALL training courses or professional development workshops or seminars. I would very much like to, however, but I just don’t know where I can access to such resources. Teacher 8: I hope so. But, due to the lack of facilities, I am afraid that I cannot continue to develop my professionalism in CALL. Teacher 41: Not in my current position as there is not the range of facilities available to utilise CALL a lot. Teacher 44: Not really, because I am restricted by various aspects such as my weak computer skills, and time pressure in addition to the availability of equipment for teaching.

Chapter Six

140

Q5. What factors do you think affect your use of CALL? It was found that the key factor that determines the teachers’ use of CALL in the classroom is access to computers. In situations where teachers and students have access to computers both on campus and at home, teachers seem to be more easily able to incorporate CALL lessons into the curriculum. Teacher 2: Access to sufficient computers in the classroom. Teacher 8: The facility offered in my workplace. Teacher 10: No doubt, without computers or internet access students are hard to involve in my CALL program. Teacher 14: Lack of facilities. Teacher 17: Factors such as classroom resources, applications and logistics are keys. Teacher 19: Accessibility to the computer lab – can’t use it if they don’t have it. In addition, many students don’t have computers at home. I work in a lower income catchment area. I also need to update my knowledge more on how to use online or CALL materials. Teacher 20: First, having access to a computer lab (or at least a facility where learners can plug in their laptops and access the Internet). Second, having an awareness of how CALL can/should be integrated into the curriculum. Teacher 23: Workplace facilities. Teacher 34: The main factor which affects my use of CALL is the lack of facilities at my university to apply CALL and therefore the difficulty to integrate CALL activities into my existing language programs. Teacher 48: Availability (or lack of) CALL facilities at my institution.

Time for developing CALL activities and professionalism is found to be another significant factor, which can hinder the use of CALL by teachers. It is difficult for many teachers to find the time in busy curriculum to improve their skills in CALL, develop new materials and teaching plans and incorporate CALL into existing language programs: Teacher 4: Time and the direction of my career.

Moving beyond Basics

141

Teacher 9: Availability of time and management support. Teacher 24: Time, class aims and objectives, texts used and facilities. Teacher 25: Time constraints, workload and limited time per week spent in the computer lab. Teacher 32: What affects my use is the time constraint chiefly. As an organisation we have little time to make additions to courses ‘on the fly’ and would not be valuable from a pedagogical point of view. Teacher 35: Getting free time in the computer room. Teacher 43: Another important factor is time. I am not a computer wiz, so it sometimes takes longer for me to prepare materials, etc., for a CALL activity than it does for a similar non-CALL activity. However, if I think that the time investment required to prepare things with CALL has a sufficient benefit, I will make the effort to do the CALL activity. Teacher 52: Equipment, budget and time are the big 3 factors for me. One of the lessons I learned in CALL was that time on the computers has to be linked to the in-class curriculum for it to be valuable. Finding class time to make the links is quite a challenge some times.

Along with access and time constraints, technical support is another important factor which could influence the success of a CALL program. The teachers expressed frustration when faced with technical difficulties and lack of institutional support to keep computer facilities functioning: Teacher 6: Technical support is the biggest factor as I have little formal technical knowledge. Teacher 16: The lack of institutional support, the lack of a maintenance program (we have CALL labs but only 50% of the computers ever work). Teacher 42: Computers are too slow, and not well maintained, learners are unable to print off from computers and there are not enough of them for a whole class.

Support from institutions for CALL and recognition of its benefits in language learning are seen as critical to the successful implementation of CALL. In situations where there are a number of teachers teaching the same core content, there needs to be consistency and the ability for all teachers to be able to provide CALL lessons. This requires administrative

142

Chapter Six

leadership in order to introduce CALL and to provide the necessary professional development in CALL for teaching staff. Teacher 6: To use it in school, it would have to have administrative support. Teacher 7: Support from co-workers and department. Teacher 13: My computer skills, and the openness to CALL of the university that I work for. Teacher 17: The factor which overwhelmingly (other than teacher motivation) determines CALL use is the administration and its attitude/approach. Teacher 27: The minimal support for CALL approaches at the institution I work at has a significant effect.

When there is little understanding of CALL by administrators, decisions can have a detrimental effect on CALL use by teachers: Teacher 16: The president of our university, a pharmacist, decided which CALL suite of software the university would use without consulting the English Department, or apparently anybody with any knowledge of CALL. Teacher 27: At the institution I work at the uptake of CALL is slow. A few of us are interested, but we rarely get the broader support needed to initiate new programs, or even organise effective professional development sessions around CALL. Teacher 45: Primarily the difficulties I face utilizing CALL come from administrative resistance and the students themselves. Administration wants empirical data to support the implementation and cost associated with CALL.

Q6. Please make comments on your experience in/with CALL. While access to computers, time to prepare CALL materials and technical and administrative support can impact the use of CALL in language classrooms, the most significant factor influencing the use of CALL seems to be the teachers themselves. When teachers believe in the pedagogical benefits of CALL, they strive to be innovative and find ways to incorporate CALL into language learning. Other teachers who may lack confidence in computer literacy or effective CALL methodology are more

Moving beyond Basics

143

likely to cite barriers as to why they do not incorporate CALL into their teaching or have limited CALL usage. Teacher 5: I still have some kind of fear for them and this prevents me from actively using them. Teacher 17: I believe in CALL but many teachers do not. … I will continue to develop my understanding and indeed, my hope in the potential of CALL through the practical realization of its uses for everyday teachers.

Some teachers (20.8%) commented that, as society becomes more technologically advanced, it is essential that the language teaching profession should also ‘get on board’ and integrate new technologies and ideas into the language classroom: Teacher 12: I believe that it is necessary for language teachers to integrate new and advanced technologies into their syllabus in order to support their current teaching practices and provide more effective lessons. … In today’s world, technology is a valuable tool for language teachers and they need to know how to use technology in an effective way. Teacher 19: I think it is my professional duty to develop my skills through learning new teaching and learning techniques. … I see CALL becoming an integral part of ESL teaching in general. I wouldn’t want to be left behind in modern approaches to ESL teaching. Teacher 51: Although it is tough for me, I have to learn and teach myself about using CALL in my profession throughout my working life.

There is also some apprehension about using CALL and concern that it may take over regular classroom teaching: Teacher 25: I enjoy it immensely but feel quite strongly that CALL needs to be used very carefully to ensure that it does not replace up-front classroom “human” teaching. … I would not like to see CALL taking priority over classroom-based teaching with a skilled language teacher. Teacher 32: We lack the incentive to evaluate the use of CALL and implement pilot projects. I think this is partly due to our aging teachers who are not comfortable with technology and are resistant to change.

Another area of concern for the teachers is their lack of knowledge of effective CALL methodology. While they support the use of CALL in the classroom, they felt they needed more information about how to use CALL

144

Chapter Six

in their classrooms. When they encountered technical problems or had negative experiences, they were likely to give up: Teacher 49: I believe that teaching with CALL is more interesting if we know how to use it, otherwise it will just give us a headache. Teacher 50: Other teachers who are not confident in their computer skills tend to be frustrated and give up using computers in the classroom.

The teachers recognised the importance of ongoing skill development in CALL and expressed an interest in learning how to develop their own CALL resources. They also felt the need for professional development in CALL. Teacher 25: I would like to do more professional development in this field but time constraints and workload prevent this. Teacher 49: My suggestion is that since CALL is an unavoidable life phenomenon, teachers should be happy with the presence and the use of CALL, learn it and get used to using it.

Many teachers (45.3%) spoke enthusiastically about CALL and its potential in the language classroom: Teacher 3: I am truly enjoying my work in CALL. I want to continue in this area of teaching. Teacher 20: My experience with CALL has largely been positive. … I have found CALL to be highly effective in getting my students to engage more deeply in the writing process through the use of brainstorming programs and word processing software. Teacher 23: I believe CALL is the way of the future. Teacher 44: My learning experience with CALL has been very impressive and exciting. It overcame barriers of time and space, making learning very flexible and convenient, and allowing students to work at their own pace.

Another factor, which has a strong influence on the success of a CALL program, seems to be the computer literacy of students. Not all students have experience using computers and, when combined with limited second language skills, the language learning focus of the CALL lesson can be lost.

Moving beyond Basics

145

Teacher 7: It has been difficult as times giving instructions to students unfamiliar with computers, who also have varying levels of English ability. Initial classes with CALL are therefore difficult but gradually get easier and more productive. Teacher 43: Students forget passwords, or in some cases lack sufficient computer literacy to do what has been asked of them in class, etc. These can also be sources of frustration. Problems like these haven’t led me to give up on CALL, but occasionally do make me hesitate when deciding whether to use CALL in a class or not.

While many teachers are keen to integrate CALL into their language teaching programs, some teachers (13.2%) were unable to do it because of the highly structured and exam focused curriculum, which does not allow time for CALL activities: Teacher 21: Present teaching curriculum does not include using CALL. Teacher 32: The courses are highly structured and syllabus driven and need to be revised carefully to include CALL. Teacher 50: The restricted school curricula and evaluation system (testing of student progress) prevent me from the use of CALL.

In summary, there are a number of factors which have a significant impact on the transfer of CALL coursework to classroom practice. Students’ access to computers is a basic requirement, followed by the teacher’s attitudes toward CALL and their level of confidence and competence in CALL. Teachers who have successfully integrated CALL into the classroom are active in exploring innovative and effective CALL teaching methodologies in order to maximise language learning opportunities for their students. Institutional support for CALL is also important and, if it is lacking, it can limit the level of CALL use by language teachers. In order to increase the level of CALL use, many teachers have underlined the need for ongoing professional development in CALL to learn more effective methods of integrating CALL into the language classroom.

Discussion The transfer of CALL coursework to classroom practice has been varied among the teachers who participated in the study. For the majority of the teachers, computers have become an integral part of their teaching

146

Chapter Six

life in researching learning materials and tools on the Internet and preparing their own teaching materials. However, not all teachers have made the leap to utilising computers for language teaching. There are many reasons for the slow transfer from the staffroom to the classroom. The primary reasons mentioned by the teachers are the lack of time, which was similarly found in Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002), and access to computer facilities, which was similarly reported in Ebsworth, Kim and Klein (2010). Without time and facilities, it must be difficult for teachers to implement CALL lessons as a regular component of their language teaching programs. The teachers valued the skills they gained in the CALL coursework as it has opened their eyes to the potential of CALL in the classroom and helped them evaluate CALL materials effectively. For those teachers who had positive attitudes toward the use of computers, which was emphasised in Kessler (2007), the coursework has inspired them to explore innovative ways of using CALL in the classroom. This has involved moving beyond the entry level of CALL activities such as Internet research tasks, written assignment preparation and PowerPoint presentations to more creative uses of CALL such as developing online discussion forums, using webbased language learning activities and providing students in foreign language environments with more authentic language learning resources. The CALL coursework has provided the teachers with a level of understanding of the use of CALL in the classroom which has given some teachers the confidence to incorporate it in their teaching. For other teachers, there was a level of uncertainty in how to introduce CALL into their teaching context. They expressed a desire for more knowledge on how best to integrate CALL into the classroom as well as for further professional development and training for CALL. Given the changing nature of technology and its widespread use by individuals, there is a strong requirement for ongoing mentoring and discussion among language teachers on the use of CALL. It was also found that a number of teachers face difficulties using CALL in their teaching situations because their curriculum is too restrictive – the focus of the curriculum is on following the prescribed text and preparing students for language examinations. Therefore, there was little room in their teaching schedule for experimentation with CALL. Some institutions also showed a lack of awareness of the potential for CALL and consequently did not provide any support for teachers to implement CALL or to gain further knowledge on CALL. For teachers to be able to influence administrative policy, they would need a deeper understanding of effective CALL activities and methodologies. CALL

Moving beyond Basics

147

teachers’ online communities of practice might allow further sharing of ideas and activities and provide teachers with methods of developing their confidence and professionalism in CALL.

Conclusion As society becomes more technologically connected, the use of computers becomes a natural part of learning and teaching. Language learning is one area where computers can bring various benefits to learners in all skill areas. It can be expected that CALL will grow in importance in language programs further and teachers need to be able to take advantage of new technology and its application in the language classroom. The results of this study suggest that, in order for teachers to use the knowledge they receive during coursework, the content of a CALL course needs to provide a balance between CALL awareness and knowledge and guidance on effective CALL methodology and tools (e.g., Son, 2011) for teachers to develop CALL resources and activities to suit their own teaching context. By building these components into CALL coursework, the CALL course will improve teachers’ confidence and competence in the use of CALL. The study also highlights the need for ongoing support for teachers in CALL. It found out that there are two groups of teachers: those who have been able to integrate CALL in certain ways and those who have not been able to use CALL either because of a lack of access to computer facilities or their own limitations. Among them, some teachers felt somewhat isolated and did not know where to turn to or who to turn to for the selection of CALL methodology and activities. This could be addressed with the formation of a CALL teachers’ network to enable successful teachers to outline effective methods for implementing CALL and provide novice teachers with a way of asking for help and gaining practical assistance with pedagogical and technical issues. To improve classroom practice and professional development in CALL, further research is recommended to identify effective methods of integrating CALL into the language classroom and guiding teachers to be active and creative in the use of CALL. This will ensure that future CALL teacher training not only informs teachers about CALL but also meets the practical needs of language teachers.

148

Chapter Six

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Rowena Turton for her assistance with the analysis of data for the study.

References Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279-302. Ebsworth, M. E., Kim, A. J., & Klein, T. J. (2010). Projections: From a graduate TELL class to the practical world of L2 teachers. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 349-375. Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/ default.html. Ermter, P., Addision, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72. Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314. Hong, K. H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating technology. ReCALL, 22(1), 53-69. Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175-188. Johnson, M. (1999). CALL and teacher education: Issues in course design. CALL-EJ Online, 1(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/12/johnson.html. Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173-188. Luke, C. L., & Britten, J. S. (2007). The expanding role of technology in foreign language teacher education programs. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 253-267. Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373-396.

Moving beyond Basics

149

Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81-97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Son, J.-B. (2002). Computers, learners and teacher: Teamwork in the CALL classroom. English Language Teaching, 14(2), 239-252. —. (2011). Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57int/. Walker, B. (1994). EFL teachers’ attitudes about CALL. CAELL Journal, 5(3), 12-15. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.

CHAPTER SEVEN CONNECTIVIST LEARNING: REACHING STUDENTS THROUGH TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT VANCE STEVENS HIGHER COLLEGES OF TECHNOLOGY, ABU DHABI MEN’S COLLEGE / CERT / KBZAC, UAE

Abstract This chapter describes initiatives the author has taken in teacher professional development incorporating connectivist models. Participants in connected learning utilize personal learning networks to find pathways leading to collaboration around shared learning goals, using strategies that differentiate master learners from novice-learners (Warlick, 2010). When learners must adapt to jobs that have not been invented yet, teachers must help them become master learners in preparation for unanticipated future challenges. Connectivist learning enables learners to discover and apply underlying structure to their learning according to their own experience and notions of what and how they need to learn, as opposed to following a path pre-ordained by a prescriptive facilitator. Connectivist learning deals with discovering ‘why’ and then applying one’s own schemata while exercising critical skills deemed necessary for 21st century knowledge culture. Focus is not so much on training ‘how’ to do particular things, but in developing approaches to learning as might be appropriate to students’ future contexts. Teachers learning through connectivist frameworks might apply similar strategies in their teaching, thus introducing their students to networked learning methods that will help them in future endeavours. Teachers must experience networked learning in order to be able to direct the most appropriate affordances of networking to their teaching situations, thus widening the learning horizons of their students.

Connectivist Learning

151

Keywords: Massive open online course (MOOC), professional development (PD), personal learning network (PLN), social mediaassisted language learning (SMALL), connectivism.

Introduction Connectivism is one of the more interesting and relevant constructs to have emerged in recent years to help explain or clarify changes in the way we have been able to learn since the turn of the century. The term was coined by George Siemens (2004). Since then, both Siemens and Stephen Downes have been prolific in writing about the concept (e.g., Downes, 2012, in his 600-page set of essays on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge). The body of literature inspired and referenced by those two authors provides definitive coverage of the field going well beyond the scope of this chapter, whose purpose is to describe several instances of connectivist learning that the author has initiated or facilitated in recent years. However, their work underpins this chapter, and so the basic notion of connectivism, and how this notion impacts heuristics for learning, will be explained in this introduction. This chapter will go on to explain how connectivist learning must be experienced to be understood, and how teachers are finding ways to learn from one another through their networks, and in so doing positioning themselves to be able to help their students become effective connectivist learners. One thing to understand about connectivism is that it is about the process of knowledge formation, a process which itself involves participants in networks coming together to discuss and develop their ideas. Much of the discussion in the networks that revolve around the work of Siemens and Downes is directed at fine tuning what connectivism is, even what kind of thing it is, so that how we perceive the term becomes itself an example of negotiation of connectivist knowledge. In his seminal article, Siemens (2004) called connectivism a “learning theory for the digital age”. Downes (2005), however, avoids calling it a theory; for example, in his introduction to connective knowledge, he says “connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks.” Downes (2014) clarifies this position, while showing first how a number of theories are “actual learning theories”, and says, “Connectivism essentially collects these theories together into a single package as a mechanism for explaining how connections are formed in a network.” He also states that “a connectivist sees learning very differently from those who follow other theories.”

152

Chapter Seven

Duke, Harper, and Johnston (2013) further encapsulate the give-and-take as to whether or not connectivism is a theory. Whether the concept is a thesis or a theory is less important than the fact that debate over this issue is itself an illustration of what connectivism is, a process of constructing knowledge through connectivism in action. The critical reader may say that there is nothing new about arriving at knowledge or in sharing information with colleagues in formulating a theory or thesis (anyone who reads Origin of Species will be struck by the huge number of specimens that Darwin (1859) was able to acquire from colleagues around the world, birds’ feet with seeds and microorganisms borne within, for example, which provided invaluable data in helping him corroborate his own thesis which he had developed in early sailings on the Beagle). In order to appreciate what connectivism seeks to address, it is important to note certain significant ways in which the world of knowledge formation has changed since those days, and especially since the advent of Web 2.0 at about the turn of the century. In his audio introduction to the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge MOOC, Siemens (2008) points out several important differences between what we find now, as opposed to the world in which Darwin and other great thinkers and researchers found themselves before the transition from the 20th to 21st century, noting that connectivism is “obviously not” new and that learning networks are “implicit to humanity”. Through technology, however, it is now possible for anyone to participate in the creation and sharing of content in such a way that there results “a climate of abundance”. By the same token, technology has brought us an increased ability to dialog with others, which results in a complexification of opinion of every conceivable viewpoint, such as the discussion over whether connectivism is a theory or a thesis. Finally, it has become possible to simulate experiences not possible prior to the development of technology this century; for example, virtual worlds like Second Life or mashups of documentary material with Google Earth that enable the enlargement and expansion of our experiences through online technologies. Siemens’s (2008) sums up thusly: “The information world that we inhabit has become so overwhelmingly complex with such an abundance of information that the networks that have existed throughout all of humanity suddenly become increasingly prominent because we are now using those as the very means of surviving in our complex information climate.” Siemens’s (2004) notion of connectivism provides us with a framework for understanding how we learn in such a climate as it is evolving in the digital age. Given that knowledge is essentially networked

Connectivist Learning

153

and distributed, and that our experience in learning is in forming new neural, conceptual, and external networks, connectivism suggests how this occurs in complex, chaotic, and shifting spaces increasingly aided by technology. In school systems in developed nations across the world, educators are rethinking ways we approach schooling given these fundamental changes in the way that people acquire knowledge in an increasingly digital age. Warlick (2007) gave a keynote in which he said that kids derive “power” from their networks that sets them apart from others across the digital divide. He described how his children learn through their networks in ways much different from when he was young (when he went to college, he said goodbye to his high school friends; his kids never said goodbye to theirs, with whom they continue to share enriching learning experiences in always-on online spaces connected with school and play). He speaks passionately about how wrong it is to cut kids off from their networks when they are in school: “We want our children to be the students we want to teach rather than teaching the children who they are, and this is an insult to our children.” In his book Why School? Richardson (2012) discusses how educators can most appropriately cope with the abundance of connectivity and content that Siemens describes, in an era where scarcity is the norm in many brick and mortar educational settings. Richardson argues that the answer to coping with scarcity is not to try to perform in the old way better (that is, using smarter technologies to scale up re-tread methodologies), but to perform differently. Yet educators whose experience with school is rooted in an era of scarcity are poorly equipped to grasp the concept of different in a world of abundance. To paraphrase Toffler (1970), who in turn noted that he was drawing from a conversation with Gerjuoy (cited in Toffler, 1970), it is not that future illiterates will not read or write, but that they struggle with teaching themselves how to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Accordingly, Richardson articulates six steps to help teachers relearn their trade (paraphrased as follows): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Share everything (or at least something) Discover, don’t deliver, the curriculum Filter and interact with others in your personal learning network Be a master learner Do, and have students do, authentic work, for real audiences Reallocate the power to drive curriculum

“Master learner” is a term coined by Warlick (2010) and Richardson’s (2012) adopting it in his book is a tribute to their both interacting in

154

Chapter Seven

mutual overlapping connectivist networks. To elaborate on what a master learner is, Downes (2007) in his keynote presentation for the Webheads in Action Online Convergence that year characterized the roles of teachers and learners as being respectively “to model and to demonstrate” and “to practice and reflect”. Master learners could be seen as doing all of these things in an iterative manner. That is, by doing these four things as a matter or course in one’s workflow, master learners are constantly learning in order to teach, and teaching in order to learn. This characterizes how educators negotiate knowledge in a world that is connected but seen to be in flux, and is relatively chaotic compared to one in which our parents grew up, where it was often possible to learn trades entailing a stable body of knowledge that might last one’s lifetime. Our generation must now consider what teaching methods best address the likelihood of having to relearn trades many times in one’s lifetime. Fisch and McLeod (2006-2011) include this factoid in their Internet meme Shift Happens: “We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist using technologies that haven’t been invented in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.” Similarly, Thomas and Brown (2011) suggest in A New Culture of Learning that teaching a man to fish is helpful only assuming fish stocks last and that radically new techniques for catching them will not be required in his lifetime. Therefore, to bring this discussion to bear on the thesis of this chapter, having argued that learning in an era of abundance and ambiguity can best be achieved by heightening connections between learners, we will see that x learning in such a climate will be geared toward personal sensemaking more so than directed at a prescribed body of knowledge x connectivist learning is ineffable in that understanding it entails engaging hands-on with other connected learners, and x in order for teachers to impart the heuristics for such learning to students, they have to have practiced connectivist learning themselves.

Overcoming Isolation Not so long ago, teachers, while not exactly monks working alone in cloisters, were relatively isolated compared to as they are today. They were only gradually breaking out of this at the turn of the century, a time we now know we went from what Lessig (2004) has characterized as the readonly century and headlong into the read-write century, what is more

Connectivist Learning

155

commonly known as Web 2.0. In the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0, DiNucci (1999) is credited with first pointing out that “the first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear,” although Tim O’Reilly is generally credited with coining the term, from the Web 2.0 conference he convened in 2004 (and whose company almost sued Tom Rafferty in 2006 for co-opting the term they had registered as a ‘service mark’; see Forrest, 2006). O’Reilly (2005) highlights several contrasts between 21st century affordances of Web 2.0 and those characteristic of the read-only Web 1.0. To keep this in perspective, Time Magazine thought this significant enough to declare “you” person-of-the-year in 2006 thanks to ‘your’ voice emanating over Web 2.0 (Grossman, 2006). The era of abundance had just begun and educators were among the early adopters. In a plenary address, Stevens (2001) mentioned teacher burnout and how the Internet was rescuing us from that by helping us overcome our “firewalls of the mind”. The conference was one of the first of its kind to stream presenters live (an early instance of open education resources being distributed for free on the Web 2.0). The plenary was delivered in Nicosia, a city with a dividing wall, and wall in the mind was the mental state East Berliners suffered from once their wall disappeared but they found it took longer to overcome the mindset that the wall had engendered. Recollection of isolation persists, mentioned for example in Wilden’s (2013) recent presentation at the TESOL CALL-IS and IATEFL LTSIG Technology in Teaching joint online conference. Nowadays, however, as Couros (2013) points out in the title of a recent blog post, isolation has become a “choice educators make”, no longer a predicament which they can do nothing about. Students especially were isolated in the read-only century. Computerassisted language learning (CALL) had been around for some time before the Internet came into play shortly before the end of the 20th century, but back then the crucial element of real interaction with other people was largely missing in language learning, whether or not technology-based. Stevens (1992) wrote a chapter on humanism in CALL in a book in which Mohan (1992) also had a chapter on communicative CALL, a study of student-to-student face-to-face interaction while running CALL software. It was hard then to conceive how computers could be either humanistic or communicative, but now we know that perhaps their greatest affordance for CALL is that they can greatly facilitate human-to-human communication. CALL software at that time came mostly shrink-wrapped, and the first Web pages tended to be unidirectional static communicators, good ways for people to get messages out, but with no way to get messages back in.

156

Chapter Seven

Gradually wikis were developed as tools for getting feedback at URL addresses, and in a few short years the Web 2.0 emerged to usher us fully into the read-write century with its plethora of social media sites and tools allowing us to not only interact with one another but almost automate the process of finding what we needed to know quickly on the Web. Many language teaching practitioners have experienced trying to learn languages from static and contrived objects when we understood that what we needed was exposure to authentic language input. The problem was that in the read-only century, it was hard to expose students not already in a country where the target language was spoken to the dynamic interaction they needed to constantly form and test hypotheses about how that language worked. Teachers of English to speakers of other languages (ESOL) were among the most active cadre of educators who were adapting the affordances of the connected Web to the circumstances of their hitherto isolated students. Study.com (http://study.com) was one of the first Web sites for teaching languages person-to-person online. It was set up in the late 1990s by a teacher at Berkeley named David Winet who was using the tools at hand for getting students interacting with volunteer teachers and one another in a variety of online spaces. In the read-only century, Winet’s site was used mainly to advertise and hyperlink his services, and classes were convened by email, but Winet’s initiative helped us to answer one of the most important questions in e-learning of our time, the question addressed in the next section.

Why Do People Study Online? Cross (2003) entitled a chapter in his book Informal Learning “People love to learn but hate to be taught.” This is what we discovered when we started teaching people via email study groups in our Study.com classes at the end of the last century. These classes tended to last through a few rounds of introductory emails but tapered off quickly as the work envisaged by the teacher did not meet the social expectations of the students. It was these expectations that had enticed them to try out online spaces to begin with – not the learning per se, but rather social learning as conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978). Meanwhile at Study.com, Winet had connected with a company called Coterie which was experimenting with online spaces such as Active Worlds, and who ran a Palace server where they had set up a Virtual Schoolhouse for Study.com. Winet started steering students who expressed

Connectivist Learning

157

an interest in ‘3D learning’ to classes organized by teachers who were meeting students in these spaces. The author started meeting his formerly email-driven writing and grammar class at the Palace. His classes ran adjacent to another Study.com class facilitated by Maggie Doty and Michael Coghlan. Inevitably they overlapped, and eventually they merged. Their students did not seem to care what they found when they came to the Palace or what had been planned for them there. The teachers soon realized that what the students wanted was not a course with a beginning and an end but a chance to socialize and interact with native speakers and each other. In other words, the students were seeking a community, and the teachers were interested in working with the students who could help them learn how to facilitate that. The match was sustainable and grew into Writing for Webheads (http://prosites-vstevens.homestead.com/files/efi/webheads.htm).

Writing for Webheads Stevens (2004) describes this course in the context of task-based learning, where a Web site was created to make a space where students could display their writing. The Web site was read-only to students, but they had other online spaces, such as eGroup (later, Yahoo! Groups), where they could post their writing. Their work and any interesting responses were transferred to the Web site, which served as a display archive. Eventually, students started sending their photos to be posted online, and their recorded voices, and all kinds of objects that revealed their personalities, and before long we had a community of over 100 users. It became possible at that time to download a plug-in to be embedded into the Web site that would allow users to speak to one another in real time (for free). It was unique at the time and started attracting teachers to online sessions. One of these teachers was Candy Pauchnick, a wired K-12 teacher in San Diego. Through her association with Writing for Webheads, or perhaps beforehand, she connected her class with that of Yaodong Chen in Liuzhou, China, through ePals (http://www.epals.com/#!/globalcommunity/). She was invited to discuss the outcome with Kevin Honeycutt on his podcast channel Driving Questions in Education, where she said that isolation in the classroom was “dangerous” (Honeycutt & Pauchnick, 2008). The danger is more in missed opportunity than in physical harm, but it was clear at that time that many teachers worldwide were enthusiastically leaving behind the old world of isolation, and in the process liberating their students. Yaodong’s efforts at helping his students

158

Chapter Seven

escape isolation (a common problem in China) were reported in Stevens (2002). There are many interesting aspects of how Yaodong and the other participants in Webheads were engaging with one another for the social interaction which only incidentally led to language learning. One such experience was reported in Stevens and Altun (2002) where Yaodong’s class connected with Altun’s in Turkey, to the obvious delight of the students involved. Photos taken at the respective locations and a comprehensive record of the event remain online (http://prositesvstevens.homestead.com/files/efi/chat2001/wfw011031.htm). One of the participants in that event was another Writing for Webheads member from Taiwan. Sue was planning post-graduate studies in Texas, wrote us for recommendation letters, and also got us to help her arrange her mother’s visit visa to the USA (by attesting to the likelihood that her mother would return to her home country). In 2002 when the author was visiting his parents in Houston, Sue decided to drive down from nearby Bryan, and meet his family (archived here: http://prositesvstevens.homestead.com/files/efi/sue_houston.htm). One interesting aspect of the visit was when Sue related that her friends thought she was wasting her time with the Webheads community, because, they said, it was not real. Her friends were courting isolation in their wariness of online experiences whereas Sue was redefining reality. These instances are examples of how, in Writing for Webheads, the teachers were learning all the time about how to structure learning to meet social expectations. They were learning from the students who interacted with them how to construct communities that would promote language learning through greater opportunities to socialize in spaces with very low affective filters and where the target language was used throughout. This knowledge was applied in Webheads in Action, where teachers involved with Writing for Webheads branched out to teach one another experientially how to explore community building techniques in spaces where technology was being used online to promote greater awareness of how it might facilitate effective language learning.

Webheads in Action Meanwhile, at the annual conferences of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), the CALL Interest Section (CALL IS) was maintaining an Electronic Village (EV), a dedicated space on-site with computers where presenters could share and demonstrate ideas for teaching with technology. In 2001 the concept was expanded virtually into

Connectivist Learning

159

Electronic Village Online (EVO), an online space where colleagues could meet prior to each conference to train one another in workshops lasting several weeks (Hanson-Smith & Bauer-Ramazani, 2004). At that time the large number of teachers in the Writing for Webheads group was beginning to suppress the non-native English speakers, who became ever quieter as the natives grew more interactive. Realizing that Webheads needed to be two groups, one for students and the other for teachers, the author proposed a session for EVO 2002 called Webheads in Action (WiA) whereby it was intended to show teachers how to form communities online by managing the session as such a group (http://www.webheads.info/). If WiA had not been formed through these circumstances, something similar would probably have come along very soon. At the turn of the century, WiA attracted many participants ready to discuss in a distributed space how to help each other with issues around educational technology applied to language learning. The group burgeoned from a few dozen original participants to over 1000 currently in the Yahoo! Group, but there are literally countless others interacting with the participants in many overlapping networks. As with the student group, WiA participants enjoyed sending their photos to be placed on the portal page of the website (this was six months before Moodle debuted in August 2002 and started associating faces in profiles with postings; Facebook came later, in 2004). The photo montage of WiA participants was unique at that time and has served as wallpaper in at least two different artefacts captured from Second Life builds of that era, both available as creative commons images (http://callcolloqtesol09.wikispaces.com/18.+The+Future+-+Research+&+Practice and http://flickr.com/photos/94794165@N00/410359410/).

Learning via Communities of Practice and Personal Learning Networks The year after it was formed, WiA began considering itself as a community of practice, leading indirectly to several PhD dissertations, notably Johnson (2005). Influenced by the work of Downes (2005) where he characterized knowledge diffusion through groups, communities, and networks, Stevens (2009) extrapolated some of these notions to WiA, in support of the idea that communities of practice may form on the practice but they remain viable due to the community. WiA in any event remains vibrant and viable after fifteen years in ‘action’. One reason for this is that its configuration of people around the

160

Chapter Seven

world acting as nodes on a network remains an effective and enjoyable way of distributing knowledge within the network. One of the most satisfying take-aways is the knowledge gained by experiencing many means and modalities of interaction at a distance. In helping others experience connecting with participants, this knowledge becomes second nature (i.e., learned) so that the participants can better understand and develop the processes and in turn inculcate others.

The ineffable nature of connectivist learning The original WiA EVO session achieved its aims through adherence to certain principles inherent in successful community formation online. First there was an existing example in Writing for Webheads and a facilitator who was able to model and demonstrate techniques that had worked in forming and sustaining that group for the participants in the new group. The second principle is that teaching drew heavily on experience and experimentation. Learning via social media is ineffable; meaning it has to be experienced in order to be understood. It is difficult to explain how it works, like trying to explain how to ride a bicycle to someone who has never seen one. Until one has seen or experienced it, one cannot ‘know’ it, but those who experience the process, truly engage with it, become lifelong friends and colleagues, though they have most often never met in real life. Another principle is that communities, like a good party, require a critical mass to boost them into higher quanta. Many teachers, course designers, and administrators of learning management systems tend to view courses as having set beginnings and endings, with little correspondence between one course to the next (often deleting content at course portals and removing traces of past participants). This is indeed the model most of us have been educated in. We walk into a classroom where the work of all previous students has disappeared from the walls and bulletin boards and for all intents and purposes, the course is designed for us, and we are the only group that has ever taken it. There is a tendency for people who create online classes to restart them later with clean slates, to assume that the class will go better if its newcomers work only within their cohort and bond without interference from previous group members. This might work well, and relief from clutter might even be more comfortable for some moderators and participants, but something is also lost by not actively including previous group members in each new venture. The content in such a course will depend on its creator for renewal; whereas if

Connectivist Learning

161

a community forms around a course, then content tends to be refreshed dynamically. The author tries as much as possible to leverage the effects of community and network in courses the author creates. Nowadays social networks have proliferated to the extent that many of us encounter them and use them on a daily basis in several aspects of our lives. However, as in countries where mobile telephony is almost ubiquitous yet rarely exploited in education, social networking was not intuitively grasped by educators in the early days as a desirable, even necessary component, in learning. School systems throughout the world are still by and large resistant to students bringing their networks to class with them, and few teachers see the value in preserving artefacts of past students for use by new students in new iterations of their face to face or online classes. In an interview with Tony Richards and Darrel Branson of the EdTech Crew after his keynote at a conference in Melbourne, November (2012) pointed out that classrooms can and should be communities where the work of previous students serves to model and set standards for subsequent students to emulate and improve on. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that students perform better knowing that work they produce will be seen by peers, or that the audience for their work extends beyond the classroom. As November put it, “Can you imagine giving every kid a laptop and not changing the audience? But changing the device? How do you reconcile that?” It should be normal that we continue our community sites from one cohort to the next. Doing it this way might be disconcerting to some who wish to avoid clutter, but if we accept that learning is messy, if we embrace and exploit chaos and exploit chaos resolution as an opportunity for deep learning, then we tap into one of many benefits to working both individually and within a wider community. Yet another reason for the viability of WiA is that it continues to reinvent itself in a number of connectivist learning ventures. There are four in particular discussed in this chapter. The first is the Webheads in Action Online Convergences (WiAOC), a series of three free biannual online conferences that led eventually to the second venture, an ongoing seminar series called Learning2gether. The other two are EVO sessions that have carried forward in two different directions what was begun with Webheads in Action in 2002.

162

Chapter Seven

WiAOC and Learning2gether WiAOC was arguably the first online conference dedicated to language educators worldwide that was free of charge and open to anyone. It was a series of three conferences held in 2005, 2007, and 2009. Each took place over a stimulating but intensive 72 hours round the clock (Stevens, 2005). They were the epitome of connectivist learning at the time, pre-dating by a year the first K-12 Online Conference in 2006, and by two years the first of many conferences that George Siemens held for free and recorded and distributed as open resources. As exciting as the WiAOC conferences were, they were difficult to organize and manage without funding or institutional support, so in 2010, Learning2gether was conceived as a more manageable alternative to WiAOC. This is an ongoing project where presentations are organized weekly by volunteers collaborating on a wiki. They are free for all, online, recorded, and archived at http://learning2gether.net. There is also an index that gives a clear overview of all presentations so far and how to access their recordings (http://learning2gether.pbworks.com/archiveindex). Learning2gether events perpetuate the spirit and goals of WiA and of WiAOC, and are an excellent example of teachers continuing to learn from one another how to experience connectivist ways of sharing expertise in distributed knowledge spaces. It often happens that teachers present projects with their students which are examples of how they are transferring what they learn from each other online to their blended and hybrid classroom learning ecologies.

Becoming a Webhead and Multiliteracies The other two ventures involving connectivist learning and professional development were logical offshoots of Webheads’ participation in EVO after 2002. Two tracks were pursued. One was to conduct subsequent sessions similar to the original one in order to overtly train more teachers in tools for connectivist learning, and the other track was to go beyond the original session and explore connected learning at higher levels. In the first instance, some participants of the original WiA event went on to give sessions they called Becoming a Webhead, year after year for ten years. This group created a welcoming and creative environment for newcomers to online spaces and helped them become comfortable in the online community and learn through experience with the many tools the moderators recommended for teaching and learning online. The fact that

Connectivist Learning

163

participants in the movement carried it forward in a format that remained true to its roots was great vindication of the success and popularity of the community, where learning was clearly being facilitated by master-learner participants and moderators who were passionate about what they were learning from and imparting to others. However, the author took his learning journey in a different direction in an attempt to keep Webheads current with his own thinking and that of others he was following in his personal learning networks (PLNs). These were years where Facebook and Twitter were just starting to facilitate development of communities of practice, educators were learning how to augment their PLNs, and where Skype was making possible connections with people in voice and video that before would have required a longdistance phone line. Taking advantage of such tools, Lebow (2006) and Cormier (2010) were developing their Worldbridges and EdTech Talk communities, and teaching budding podcasters how to stream live audio online over the Worldbridges network (Lebow, 2006). Their recordings contributed to a huge array of podcast offerings from a worldwide network of interesting and impassioned educators. Beginning in 2004, the author was asked to develop and implement a course in Multiliteracies for paying participants in the TESOL Principles and Practices in Online Teaching curriculum, and in 2009 he adapted the course as a free EVO session. His reasons for running the course for two groups were two-fold. First, he wanted to develop it through the challenge of having to facilitate it frequently and thus keep abreast of a rapidly evolving field. The second reason was to increase the number of participants and introduce more robust network effects into the TESOL side of the course. By running the course as a community space for two groups, there was better chance of a critical mass to stimulate the TESOL participants even though there might only be half a dozen of them. With so few participants it was difficult to get them interacting with each other in ways that are not teacher-prompted. However, with previous participants in the mix, there was more participant-to-participant interaction, and everyone learns how this works as and when it works. Here, in this chapter, we can state the principles, but teachers are convinced only when they experience them in action.

MOOCs Massive open online courses (MOOCs) evolved as a way to draw participants to a course in large enough numbers that their interactions will achieve the critical mass required to make the connectivist experience

164

Chapter Seven

work. Since it is difficult to direct large numbers of people down predetermined pathways, in a MOOC, participants and facilitators must accept, and learn through resolving, some degree of chaos. One interesting aspect of Siemens’s (2011) viewpoint is the role of chaos in learning, which he says is crucial to sensemaking and wayfinding in learners. In an interview with Rheingold (2011), Siemens articulates the importance of allowing learners to encounter chaos, how making sense of chaos is crucial to their internalization of concepts meaningful to them, and how there is to his knowledge no research to suggest that linear means are better at helping learners construct knowledge over what he proposes. Siemens puts it (transcribed by the author from that interview): I’m not aware of any research actually that says linear structure produces better outcomes than more chaotic meandering structure. Our intent, based on our theories of learning is to argue that the experience of learning, making sense of that chaos, is actually the heart of the learning experience. But if an instructor makes sense of that chaos for you and gives you all the readings and sets the full path in place for you then to a degree you are eviscerating the learner’s experience because now you’ve made sense of them and all you’ve told them is ‘walk the path that I’ve formed’. When it comes to complexity I’m a great fan of letting learners hack their way through that path and getting the value of that learning experience and that sensemaking process.

Siemens feels that a ‘course’ in its traditional sense can be an inappropriate approach to learning in cases where there is so much abundance of content and ambiguity in the fluidity of knowledge required to learn what the individual needs to know. Courses work only when the knowledge set is limited and can be anticipated. That is what often happens in schools but to a lessening extent in real life. Siemens and Downes responded to the conundrum in 2008 by creating a kind of ‘course’ that would address learning this far into the read-write century (Marques, 2013). This kind of course became known as MOOC, a massive open online course (see Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_ open_online_course, and https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/home for insights into the accurate history of MOOCs). These sites note that Siemens and Downes started the first MOOC, Connectivism and Connected Knowledge, in 2008 and repeated it a year later and again in 2011. In the intervening year, Downes, Siemens, Cormier, and Kop (2010) hosted PLENK2010. As they explained in the introduction to that course (http://www.mooc.ca/how.htm) “PLENK2010 is an unusual course. It does not consist of a body of content you are supposed to remember. Rather, the

Connectivist Learning

165

learning in the course results from the activities you undertake, and will be different for each person.”

cMOOC vs. xMOOC As we have seen, the original MOOCs were steeped in the notion that learning is personalized on the connections that participants make with others they network with as they explore the course. Such courses have come to be known as ‘connectivist’ MOOCs (or cMOOCs, such as those described at http://www.connectivistmoocs.org/what-is-a-connectivistmooc/). More recently there have emerged xMOOCs, a name bestowed on them by Downes (61 minutes into “Business and MOOCs” http://youtu.be/DGaUfWkJdi4), after Ed-X, one example of a platform supporting xMOOCs (others such as Coursera are listed at Class Central: https://www.class-central.com/). Siemens (2012) explains the distinction: Our MOOC model emphasizes creation, creativity, autonomy, and social networked learning. The Coursera model emphasizes a more traditional learning approach through video presentations and short quizzes and testing. Put another way, cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication.

The distinction between cMOOC and xMOOC is important to keep in mind because though they share the same acronym, they are not at all the same thing; xMOOCs are like cMOOCs in the sense that they are massive and online, but they differ from cMOOCs in that they are constructed more like traditional courses, and also that they may not be so open. They are free, but the artefacts constructed around them may not be as freely available online as those for cMOOCs, which tend to make all aspects of the course freely available both during and after the course is run (Rodriguez, 2013). MOOCs are an instance of connectivist learning gaining in acceptance among educators as they seek to filter the abundance of information they have available to them in keeping up with their practice. Stevens (2013) suggests that in addition to the points made above MOOCs deal … not with training how to do particular things, but in working through approaches that would enable learners to learn heuristics that might be appropriate to their future contexts. Experience with MOOCs can help teachers see more clearly what these heuristics are. MOOCs enable participants to articulate and explore individual learning strategies. This differentiates master learners from those they are employed to teach. (p. 10)

166

Chapter Seven

This is why MOOCs should be experienced by educators. In a recorded podcast, Fryer (2012) stressed that teachers need to enrol in MOOCs in order to understand their affordances. It is only through experience that teachers can fully appreciate how connected learning works, and only then be in position to apply this knowledge in their practice, with their students.

MultiMOOC As the Multiliteracies course evolved, each iteration changed somewhat along with notions of what literacies were deemed most critical to survival in a highly digitized society, and in recent years the potential of learning from MOOCs has dominated how the course itself was conducted. Cormier (2010) famously delineated five steps for learning in a MOOC: orient, declare, network, cluster, and focus, and these eventually became the topics of the 5 weeks in the course. This restructuring led to the name of the EVO session being changed to MultiMOOC (http://goodbyegutenberg.pbworks.com/). This is not to say that the course itself is a MOOC (not enough participants). However, as a course that studies multiliteracies by experiencing them, it is increasingly a course that studies MOOCs. The MOOC concept has to some extent already turned on its head the notion of how we carry out and allocate resources to education. MOOCs are powered on the affordances inherent in interaction of a critical mass of participants, who need to have well developed multiliteracies skills. Filtering skills must be employed for participants to gain meaning from instructional content that cannot possibly be directed at the individual. Individuals must thus derive meaning from their experience with that material as percolated through the community of other participants, an only limited number of whom they might interact with during the course of the MOOC. Whether xMOOC or cMOOC, MOOCs provide ample opportunity for deeper, more prolonged engagement not only with niche topics, but more importantly with others interested in those niches. Tools such as Google Hangouts on Air now make it possible for anyone to simulcast an event, and many do, extending invitations to colleagues in a mushroom field of communities. It seems there is something of this nature going on every minute, and social media is working virally to spread the word of such gatherings among educators – Facebook, Google+, and Twitter are but a few social spaces with frequent announcements of online events and Hangouts. Step back to a wider perspective on this phenomenon, look around you, and what you see going on every minute is networked, connectivist

Connectivist Learning

167

learning. Open education, driven by learners connecting with other learners, is taking place around the clock, around the globe, in countless free spaces, bound only by the amount of time participants can make to engage and absorb the knowledge inherent in their networks. The possibilities this unleashes are only starting to be realized by the brick and mortar establishment (e.g., CBC The National, 2013). Not that we should quit our daytime jobs any time soon, but we should certainly rethink them. All this has had several highly significant impacts on education so far in the read-write century. I’ll list some of them: x Open has gained acceptance with connected educators (e.g., Bonk, 2009) x We are tending toward disappearance of isolation among teachers. x There is a reduction in the isolation of learners as teachers apply what they learn through social networking to facilitating collaborations and interactions among students x We are experiencing an expansion of educational opportunities for all, in particular with MOOCs x We have gone from CALL to social media-assisted language learning (SMALL) What has really changed noticeably is the exponential increase in the number of opportunities for interaction among colleagues. Teachers nowadays are continually modeling and demonstrating to one another. An increasing number are participating in a plethora of almost constant online events and workshops, free ones, often recorded, and extensively archived in open online spaces.

Conclusion The question now is to what extent this interaction among teachers finds its way back into our classrooms. Many in our networks report this happening to an increasing extent. As in the case studies noted here our classrooms will change when our practice has changed, and when it has become so second nature we do not notice it. In other words, our classrooms will change when SMALL is normalized, as has happened with CALL (Bax, 2003) and in a process delineated for technological innovations in language education in general (Bax, 2011). In adhering to the six things that Richardson (2012) says we need to do in order to relearn our practice, we might ask ourselves the following questions:

168

Chapter Seven

x What did we share today with a wider community of educators? x What have we and our students discovered about the curriculum recently? x What interactions have we had with others in our personal learning networks? x What filters do we use to help us moderate the abundance of information we must deal with constantly? x What functions of a master learner did we perform today? x What work have we assigned our students for real audiences? x Who has power to drive curriculum where we practice? Answers to these questions can tell us how likely a teacher is to be modeling multiliteracies skills with students, and to be encouraging learners to be learning in the same way he or she does. All of these actions are modeled, demonstrated, reflected on and practiced in learning with the connectivist professional development opportunities discussed here. For change to take root, our mindsets must change so that our students can be inculcated in the same ways that we are relearning how to learn. Transformation will have occurred when it is no longer meaningful to ask such questions, when everyone does these things as a matter of course.

References Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present, and future. System 31(1), 13-28. —. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 1(2), 1-15. Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. CBC The National. (2013). The MOOC. YouTube. Retrieved from http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxTw3pXCj4. Cormier, D. (2010). Success in a MOOC. YouTube. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/r8avYQ5ZqM0. Couros, G. (2013). Isolation is now a choice educators make. The Principal of change: Stories of learning and leading. Retrieved from http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/4156. Cross, J. (2003). Informal learning – The other 80% (draft). Internet Time Group. Retrieved from http://www.internettime.com/Learning/The%20 Other%2080%25.htm.

Connectivist Learning

169

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32, 221-222. Retrieved from http://darcyd.com/fragmented_future.pdf. Downes, S. (2005). An introduction to connective knowledge. Stephen’s Web. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post= 33034. —. (2007) Personal learning the Web 2.0 way. Presentation given at WiAOC 2007. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/ personal-learning-the-web-20-way. —. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. Stephen’s Web: My eBook. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf. —. (2014). Connectivism as a learning theory. Half an Hour. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.ae/2014/04/connectivism-as-learningtheory.html. Downes, S., Siemens, G., Cormier, D., & Kop, R. (2010). PLENK 2010: Personal learning environments networks and knowledge. Retrieved from http://connect.downes.ca/. Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, Special Issue, 4(13). Retrieved from https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 09/HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf. Fisch, K., & McLeod, S. (2006-2011). Shift happens. Retrieved from http://shifthappens.wikispaces.com/. Forrest, B. (2006). Controversy about our “Web 2.0” service mark. O’Reilly Radar. Retrieved from: http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/05/ controversy-about-our-web-20-s.html. Fryer, W. (2012). Podcast397: Takeaways from and Reflections on the 2012 EDUCAUSE Conference. Moving at the speed of creativity. Retrieved from http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2012/12/01/podcast 397-takeaways-from-and-reflections-on-the-2012-educause-conference/. Grossman, L. (2006). Time’s person of the year. Time Magazine, Dec. 13, 2006. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,1570810,00.html. Hanson-Smith, E., & Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2004). Professional development: The Electronic Village Online of the TESOL CALL Interest Section. TESL-EJ, 8(2), np. Retrieved from http://teslej.org/ej30/int.html.

170

Chapter Seven

Honeycutt, K., & Pauchnick, C. (2008). Epal connection – From Liuzhou, China to San Diego, USA. Driving questions in education. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Urj27gqIQ. Johnson, C. M. (2005). Establishing an online community of practice for instructors of English as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in computing technology in education from Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, USA. Lebow, J. (2006). Worldbridges: The potential of live, interactive webcasting. TESL-EJ, 10(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.teslej.org/ej37/int.pdf. Lessig, L. (2004). Freeculture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York, NY. The Penguin Press. Retrieved from http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/. Marques, J. (2013). A short history of MOOCs and distance learning. MOOC News and Reviews. Retrieved from http://moocnewsand reviews.com/a-short-history-of-moocs-and-distance-learning/. Mohan, B. (1992). Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In Pennington, M. & Stevens, V. (Eds.). Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 110-126). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. November, A. (2012). Ed Tech Crew @ ICTEV Ep 200 Interview with Alan November. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=I0EG_iwLrVw. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http:// oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. Rheingold, H. (2011). Howard Rheingold interviews George Siemens on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). YouTube. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/VMfipxhT_Co. Richardson, W. (2012). Why school? How education must change when learning and information are everywhere. Ted Conferences and Amazon Digital Services. (http://www.amazon.com/kindle/dp/B00998 J5YQ/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_eos_detail). Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5(1), 67–73. Retrieved from http://www.openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/42. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearningspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ connectivism.htm.

Connectivist Learning

171

—. (2008). What is connectivism? Connectivism and Connected Knowledge MOOC. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/media/ WhatIsConnectivism/player.html. —. (2011). Narratives of coherence: Sensemaking and wayfinding in complex information ecologies. Presentation given at University of South Africa, Pretoria, September 6, 2011. Retrieved from http://www. slideshare.net/gsiemens/sensemaking-and-wayfinding. —. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Elearnspace. http://www.elearn space.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/. Stevens, V. (1992). Humanism and CALL: A coming of age. In Pennington, M. & Stevens, V. (Eds.). Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 11-38). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. —. (2001).Implementing expectations: The firewall in the mind. Plenary address given at the IATEFL and Cyprus Teachers of English Association Conference, Implementing Call in EFL: Living up to Expectations, at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, May 5-6, 2001. Retrieved from http://vancestevens.com/papers/cyprus2001/plenary/ index.html. —. (2002). A day in the life of an online language educator. TESL-EJ 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej23/ ej23int/. —. (2004). Webheads communities: Writing tasks interleaved with synchronous online communication and web page development. In Leaver, B. & Willis, J. (Eds.).Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs (pp. 204-217). Georgetown University Press. —. (2005). Behind the scenes at the Webheads in Action Online Convergence, November 18-20, 2005: TESL-EJ, 9(3). Retrieved from. http://tesl-ej.org/ej35/int.html. —. (2009). Modeling social media in groups, communities, and networks. TESL-EJ, 13(3), 1-16. Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej51/int.pdf. —. (2013). What’s with the MOOCs? TESL-EJ, 16(4), 1-14. Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej64/int.pdf. Stevens, V., & Altun, A. (2002).The Webheads community of language learners online. In Syed, Z. (Ed.). The process of language learning: An EFL perspective (pp. 285-318). The Military Language Institute, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Retrieved from http://vancestevens.com/papers/ archive/2001mli_stevens-altun2mb.pdf. Thomas, D., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning. CreateSpace and Podium Publishing (Audible Books).

172

Chapter Seven

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warlick, D. (2007). Inventing the new boundaries. Pre-conference keynote at 2007 K-12 Online Conference. Retrieved from http://k12 onlineconference.org/?p=144. —. (2010) Are they students or are they learners? 2 Cents Worth of Seeking the Shakabuku. Retrieved from http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p =2762. Wilden, S. (2013). The role of online tools in teacher development. Presentation given Oct 12, 2013 at the TESOL CALL-IS and IATEFL LTSIG Technology in Teaching joint conference. Retrieved from http:// iatefl.adobeconnect.com/p7y3qn6nulj/.

CHAPTER EIGHT LEARNING ABOUT COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING: ONLINE TOOLS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JEONG-BAE SON UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

Abstract The study reported in this chapter investigates computer-assisted language learning (CALL) practitioners’ use of online tools and ways of developing their professionalism in the field of CALL. Participants in the study were members of an international association for CALL. They were invited to complete an online questionnaire on a voluntary basis. The questionnaire was employed to collect the participants’ demographic information and self-reported data on the use of online tools. It also asked the participants to indicate how they keep up to date with what is happening in CALL. The results of the study indicate that the participants use web search engines, communication tools and social networking sites most frequently among twelve categorised online tools while most participants consider themselves as good or excellent users of the Internet. Many participants often read journal articles or books, read email list messages or connect with others in social networks to learn about new developments in CALL. They also regularly search the web and collect information from blog posts or email list messages. Findings contribute to our understanding of CALL practitioners’ experiences with online tools and professional development activities and provide recommendations for teacher training for CALL. Keywords: Computer-assisted language learning, online professional development, Internet literacy, teacher training.

tools,

174

Chapter Eight

Introduction With the rapid development of technologies, the number of online tools for teachers to use for computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and the number of opportunities for teachers to learn about CALL have been greatly increased over the past few years. In line with this, an increased amount of attention has been given to the issue of the selection of online tools for language teaching (e.g., Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008; Garrett, 2009; Godwin-Jones, 2009, 2010; Meskill & Anthony, 2010; Son, 2011) and the implementation of autonomous professional development in CALL (e.g., Lewis, 2006; Robb, 2006; Stockwell, 2009). Coupled with the attention, there is a need to look into CALL practitioners’ experiences with the online tools and professional development activities in order to understand and improve CALL practice and offer better CALL teacher training. This chapter responds to the need and explores CALL practitioners’ use of online tools and their ways of keeping up with new developments in CALL.

Literature Review In an overview of CALL teacher education, Hubbard (2008) pointed out that sufficient CALL training is lacking in teacher preparation programs even though there is a growing interest in technology-proficient language teachers among institutional employers. He argued that the future of CALL is largely dependent on the future of language teacher education because “teachers are the pivotal players: they select the tools to support their teaching and determine what CALL applications language learners are exposed to and how learners use them” (p. 176). In other words, teachers’ knowledge and skills for the implementation of CALL are vital and more CALL training programs should be offered for teachers so that they can have ideas of how to integrate technology into language education effectively. Hubbard (2007) also asserted that “teachers have an individual responsibility for the maintenance and growth of their own CALL proficiency” (p. 280). This point brings up the question of selfdirected professional development of teachers in CALL. In a discussion on the development of professional competence, Pettis (2002) said that “commitment to professional development must be ongoing and personal” (p. 394). Thus, teachers need to improve their knowledge and instructional skills for CALL continuously and autonomously. Robb (2006) explored the importance of autonomy in professional development for CALL and emphasised the need for CALL teacher

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

175

preparation programs to ensure that teachers can be autonomous with three basic components: “a solid knowledge base”; “the confidence to attempt to use new technology”; and “an awareness of available resources” (p. 340). He also argued that post-course support (e.g., encouraging continuing education and networking) should be provided to teachers not only by CALL teacher trainers but also by language program administrators in the workplace for the successful implementation of CALL. Based on his own experience in learning to teach online, in a different study, Lewis (2006) described how he was able to develop e-teaching skills in a multimodal environment, particularly through critical reflection using a teaching journal and observation by a critical friend. He pointed out that “both an understanding of autonomy and an awareness of some of the established means of professional teacher development are necessary for focused, effective teacher learning” (p. 598) and recommended novice online teachers to keep a journal and ask an experienced colleague to observe their e-teaching and provide feedback on it. Through a review of 206 empirical research articles published in four CALL-focused journals, including the CALICO Journal, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning & Technology and ReCALL, from 2001 to 2005, Stockwell (2007) discussed the relationship between technology and pedagogy and stated that “one of the most important responsibilities for those teachers who make the decision to use technology as a part of their language learning environments is to ensure that they are familiar with the technological options available and their suitability to particular learning goals, and to then implement these technologies capitalising on their specific features” (p. 118). In another study, Stockwell (2009) suggested the following CALL self-direction strategies: “critically examine the environment”; “seek sources of information”; “keep up with technological developments”; “set and adhere to learning goals”; and “track your progress” (pp. 101-102). Through the study that looked at how four teachers of English at a Japanese university taught themselves to use CALL in their teaching situations after a 2-hour introductory seminar on CALL outlining these self-direction strategies, he reported that the teachers experienced a range of difficulties in locating resources, finding appropriate materials and getting feedback from other experienced CALL users. He recommended CALL novices working in a self-directed environment to get involved in communities of practice where they can learn from the experiences of others and to make continuous efforts to increase their knowledge and skills for the use of CALL with the self-direction strategies. Hanson-Smith (2006) and Sharp (2011) also supported the idea of teacher communities of practice, which

176

Chapter Eight

encourage the implementation of CALL. In addition, Curwood (2011) investigated the influence of learning communities on secondary English teachers’ use of digital tools through a year-long ethnographic case study, which collected data from multiple sources such as video recordings of meetings, field notes of observations, audio recordings of interviews and participants’ written reflections. She argued that features making technology-focused professional development effective include: “a sustained dialogue around teachers’ curricular goals and students’ learning outcomes; hands-on learning with digital tools; the ongoing analysis of student work; and a view of knowledge as a social construction” (p. 74). Regarding the role of online tools in teacher development, specifically, Wilden (2013) stated that, by using online tools, teachers can avoid professional isolation and enhance creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking. A variety of online tools are used not only for language education but also for language teacher professional development. A survey of two previously edited books of the Asia-Pacific Association for ComputerAssisted Language Learning (APACALL), for example, shows that online tools were employed for various purposes. The tools included computermediated communication (CMC) tools, computer-based marking systems, learning management systems, web editors, blog and wikis (see Son, 2004a, 2009). To look into the use of online tools and ways of professional development in the field of CALL further, a small-scale study was conducted with a group of CALL practitioners. The results of the study are reported in this chapter.

The Study Aims The study aimed to investigate the frequency of CALL practitioners’ use of online tools for language teaching and ways of developing their professionalism in the field of CALL. It attempted to answer the following research questions: Which online tools CALL practitioners use most? How frequently do they use the online tools? How do they keep up date with what is happening in the field of CALL? How do CALL practitioners acquire new knowledge and skills for the use of CALL?

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

177

Participants Participants were members of an international association for CALL. A total of 45 members (28 males and 17 females) completed a consent form and an online questionnaire on a voluntary basis. The range of their age was: 20-29 years – 6 members; 30-39 years – 10 members; 40-49 years – 13 members; 50-59 years – 10 members; over 59 years – 6 members. At the time of the survey, they were school teachers or university lecturers/professors: 37 participants were working at universities; 5 at technical colleges; and 3 at secondary schools. They indicated that they have been using computers for an average of 20 years (ranging from 5 to 39 years) and they have been using CALL for an average of 11 years (ranging from 1 to 35 years). They rated the level of their computer literacy as excellent (19 responses – 42%), good (16 responses – 36%) or adequate (10 responses – 22%) in order. Similarly, they considered themselves as excellent (22 responses – 49%), good (18 responses – 40%), adequate (4 responses – 9%) or poor (1 response – 2%) users of the Internet.

Data collection Data were collected through an online questionnaire using Qualtrics (online survey software). The questionnaire was employed to collect the participants’ demographic information and self-reported data on the use of online tools such as learning/content management systems; communication tools; live and virtual worlds; social networking and bookmarking tools; blogs and wikis; presentation tools; resource sharing tools; website creation tools; web exercise creation tools; web search engines; dictionaries and concordancers; and utilities (categorised by Son, 2011). It also asked the participants to indicate how they keep up to date with what is happening in CALL and how they acquire new knowledge and skills for the use of CALL. All data were anonymous and analysed on the basis of the participants’ responses to the questionnaire.

Results Table 1 shows the participants’ responses to the question of who taught them how to use the computer in the first place. Most of them indicated that they learnt about computers themselves (44%), from trainers/teachers (27%) or friends (16%). In the case of the “Other” response, the 1 respondent simply stated that he/she has grown up with the computer.

Chapter Eight

178

Table 1: Learning about Computers in the First Place Answer

Response

%

Myself

20

44%

Trainer/teacher

12

27%

Friend

7

16%

Family

3

7%

Colleague

1

2%

Book/journal

1

2%

Other

1

2%

Video

0

0%

Total

45

100%

Table 2 shows the participants’ responses to the question of who taught them what CALL is in the first place. It was found that the majority of the participants were introduced to CALL by trainers/teachers (31%), themselves (18%) or colleagues (18%). In the case of the “Other” response, the 3 respondents stated they learnt about CALL because of their job requirements. Table 2: Learning about CALL in the First Place Answer

Response

%

Trainer/teacher

14

31%

Myself

8

18%

Colleague

8

18%

Book/journal

4

9%

Website

4

9%

Other

3

7%

Conference

2

4%

Friend

2

4%

Family

0

0%

Total

45

100%

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

179

Table 3: Frequency of the Use of Online Tools for Language Teaching

#

Question

Almost everyday

3-4 times per week

1-2 times per week

1-2 times per month

2-4 times per year

Rarely

Heard about but never used

Never heard

1

Learning/Content Management Systems (e.g., Blackboard, Drupal, Joomla, Moodle, Sakai)

20

3

5

5

1

7

4

0

2

Communication tools (e.g., Gmail, Skype, Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, ooVoo, TokBox, Jabberwacky, Verbot, MyBB, phpBB, Tangler, Voxopop)

33

2

2

3

0

5

0

0

3

Live and virtual worlds (e.g., Elluminate, Livestream, OpenSimulator, ActiveWorlds, Second Life, Ustream, Wimba Classroom, WiZiQ)

2

2

6

3

7

13

11

1

4

Social networking and bookmarking sites (e.g., Delicious, Diigo, Elgg, Facebook, Grouply, MySpace, Ning, SocialGo, LinkedIn, Twitter, italki, Lang8, Livemocha)

26

7

3

1

2

4

2

0

5

Blogs and wikis (e.g., Blogger, Edmodo, Edublogs, LiveJournal, WordPress.com, PBWorks, Wikispaces, Penzu)

16

10

3

5

2

6

3

0

Chapter Eight

180

6

Presentation tools (e.g., 280 Slides, Animoto, Empresser, Prezi, SlideRocket, Zoho Show)

3

8

6

17

1

4

3

3

7

Resource sharing tools (Google Docs, TitanPad, Zoho Writer, Box.net, Dropbox, VoiceThread, Xtranormal, Flickr, Picasa, MyPodcast, PodOmatic, Glogster, Screenr, Slideshare, PhotoPeach, Dipity, OurStory, Jing, SchoolTube, TeacherTube, VideoPress, Vimeo, WatchKnow, YouTube)

19

7

9

6

0

1

2

1

8

Website creation tools (e.g., Google Sites, Jimdo, KompoZer, Mahara, Movable Type, SnapPages, Weebly, Webnode, Webs, Wix)

4

4

3

6

2

13

12

1

9

Web exercise creation tools (e.g., ContentGenerator, SMILE, ESL Video, JClic, Hot Potatoes, Quia, Lingt, Listen and Write)

1

5

4

9

5

13

6

2

10

Web search engines (e.g., Ask.com, Bing, Google, Yahoo! Search)

38

2

2

0

1

0

2

0

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

181

11

Dictionaries and concordancers (e.g., Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Online, YourDictionary.com, Compleat Lexical Tutor, Forvo, Howjsay, Memrise, Visuwords, OneLook Dictionary Search, VLC Web Concordancer)

18

7

10

3

2

4

1

0

12

Utilities (e.g., CalculateMe, CalendarFly, Doodle, ClustrMaps, Currency Converter, Dvolver Moviemaker, Google Earth, Lesson Writer, Storybird, Cacoo, Mindmeister, Mindomo, Remember the milk, SurveyMonkey, Qwiki, Voki, Time and Date, TinyURL.com, W3C Link Checker, Wallwisher, Wayback Machine, Wordle)

13

5

5

7

2

7

4

2

Note: N=45.

Table 3 shows the frequency of the participants’ use of online tools in each category in detail. Their responses indicate that most participants use communication tools and web search engines almost every day while they rarely use live and virtual worlds, website creation tools and web exercise creation tools. In response to the question of which particular tool they use most frequently, they mentioned the following tools in each category: learning/content management systems – Moodle; communication tools – Gmail; live and virtual worlds – Second Life; social networking and bookmarking tools – Facebook; blogs and wikis – Blogger; presentation tools – Prezi; resource sharing tools – YouTube; website creation tools – Google Sites; web exercise creation tools – Hot Potatoes; web search engines – Google; dictionaries and concordancers – Merriam-Webster Online; and utilities – Google Earth.

Chapter Eight

182

The participants were also asked to indicate their ways of professional development in CALL. Table 4 shows how often they use certain ways to keep up to date with the development of CALL. The results indicate that many participants read journal articles or books, check email list messages and connect with others in social networks while they rarely attend online conferences. Table 4: Ways to Keep up to Date with What is Happening in the Field of CALL 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

2-4 times a year

Yearly

Rarely

Never

Mean

1

Go to face-toface conferences

2

1

5

15

13

7

2

4.44

2

Attend online conferences

0

1

8

6

7

16

7

5.11

7

15

10

5

2

3

3

3.02

#

3

Question

Watch videos

4

Listen to audios

9

8

10

5

1

8

4

3.47

5

View presentation slides

7

19

7

4

3

4

1

2.84

6

Read professional newsletters

6

17

9

8

1

4

0

2.84

7

Read journal articles/books

8

22

11

2

0

1

1

2.36

8

Read blog posts

11

17

7

3

0

6

1

2.69

9

Read email list messages

19

12

5

2

1

6

0

2.38

10

Visit professional association’s websites

5

14

15

5

1

5

0

2.96

11

Connect with others in educational institutions

9

10

10

7

2

7

0

3.09

12

Connect with others in social networks

18

13

3

3

2

5

1

2.49

Note: N=45.

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

183

It was also found that most participants regularly search the web, study journals or books and collect information from blog posts or email list messages to acquire new knowledge and skills for the use of CALL. In contrast, they tend to attend webinars or take formal online courses very rarely (see Table 5). Table 5: Approaches of Acquiring New Knowledge and Skills for the Use of CALL 6

7

Yearly

Rarely

Never

Take an online course

5

2-4 times a year

3

Attend a webinar

4

Monthly

2

Attend a face-to-face workshop

3

Weekly

1

Question

2

Daily

#

1

Mean

1

1

7

15

10

9

2

4.49

0

3

7

5

8

15

7

5.02

0

0

1

5

4

21

14

5.93

4

Participate in an online discussion group

4

8

2

6

6

15

4

4.40

5

Ask colleagues/teachers in your own organisation

10

10

7

5

2

9

2

3.31

6

Ask colleagues/teachers in your external networks

4

12

9

8

2

10

0

3.49

7

Read newspapers/magazines

15

7

17

1

1

4

0

2.51

30

8

7

0

0

0

0

1.49

9

19

11

2

1

3

0

2.47

18

13

6

5

0

2

1

2.24

8 9 10

Search the web Study journals/books Collect information from blog posts/email list messages

Note: N=45.

184

Chapter Eight

Discussion and Conclusion CALL practitioners use a number of online tools for teaching purposes and take a range of opportunities to improve their competencies in CALL. The study found that the participants use web search engines, communication tools and social networking sites most frequently among the twelve categorised online tools while most participants consider themselves as good or excellent users of the Internet. Many participants often read journal articles or books, read email list messages or connect with others in social networks to learn about new developments in CALL. They regularly search the web, collect information from blog posts/email list messages or study journals/books to update their knowledge and skills for the use of CALL. For this particular group of participants, informal learning activities such as self-exploration and connection with social networks seem to be more important ways of learning than formal training initiatives such as taking online courses or attending webinars. These results indicate that most participants appear to be autonomous and social learners (cf. Hart, 2012). The study supports the importance of self-direction strategies and the use of online tools for teacher professional development in CALL. Although it is difficult to make any generalisations about the relationship between online tools and professional development in learning about CALL due to the small size of the survey, the results of the study suggest that CALL training programs should provide teachers with guidance on the effective implementation of CALL using online tools and focus more on supporting teachers’ personal learning strategies and social and collaborative activities for autonomous professional development in CALL. They also imply that ongoing support through teachers’ networks is needed not only for those who have limitations in the use of CALL in the classroom but also for those who have been able to integrate CALL into the classroom. For self-directed CALL education, at the same time, teachers are recommended to make efforts to participate in formal training and/or informal learning whenever possible. Given that the survey was limited only to members of one CALL association and thus the participants were experienced CALL users to some extent, the overall picture of learning about CALL by other groups may be different and less active in the use of online tools and professional development activities than the findings of the study. Large scale studies with bigger groups of CALL practitioners are recommended to get better insights into what they do online and how they constantly improve their competencies in CALL in their own contexts. The insights will contribute

Learning about Computer-Assisted Language Learning

185

to the enhancement of CALL practice and teacher professional development.

References Chapelle, A. C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Curwood, J. S. (2011). Teachers as learners: What makes technologyfocused professional development effective? English in Australia, 46(3), 68-75. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 719-740. Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Personal learning environments. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 3-9. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol13num2/emerging.pdf. —. (2010). Literacies and technologies revisited. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 2-9. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ october2010/emerging.pdf. Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301-315). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Hart, J. (2012). Learning in the social workplace: Only 14% think that company training is an essential way for them to learn in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/blog/2012/04/16/ only-12-think-that-company-training-is-an-essential-way-for-them-tolearn-in-the-workplace/. Hubbard, P. (2007). Critical issues: Professional development. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 276-292). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. —. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal 25(2), 175-188. Lewis, T. (2006). When teaching is learning: A practical account of learning to teach online. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 581-600. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pettis, J. (2002). Developing our professional competence: Some reflections. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 393-396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

186

Chapter Eight

Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Sharp, K. S. (2011). Teachers acquisition of CALL expertise. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 1(4), 1-16. Son, J.-B. (Ed.). (2004a). Computer-assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts and practices. APACALL Book Series Volume 1. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. —. (2004b). Teacher development in e-learning environments. In Son, J.B. (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts and practices (pp. 107-122). APACALL Book Series Volume 1. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. —. (Ed.). (2009). Internet-based language learning: Pedagogies and technologies. APACALL Book Series Volume 2. Raleigh, NC: Lulu. —. (2011). Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57int/. Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105-120. —. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: Teaching teachers to educate themselves. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99112. Wilden, S. (2013, October). The role of online tools in teacher development. Talk at the first joint online conference of TESOL CALL-IS and IATEFL LTSIG. Retrieved from http://iatefl.adobe connect.com/p7y3qn6nulj/.

CONTRIBUTORS Reza Dashtestani, University of Tehran, Iran Peter Gobel, Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan Makimi Kano, Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan Pei-Lun Kao, Chang Gung University, Taiwan Kean Wah Lee, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Shi Ing Ng, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Moonyoung Park, Iowa State University, USA Jeong-Bae Son, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Vance Stevens, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi Men’s College / CERT / KBZAC, UAE Choon Keong Tan, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Scott Windeatt, Newcastle University, UK

INDEX acquisition, 49, 136 activities, 7-17, 25-41, 47-62, 87-90, 123-147, 164, 173-174, 184 assessment, 2-3, 17, 65, 108, 134 attitudes, 1-17, 25-40, 47-52, 69-90, 97, 124, 133, 145-146 authentic materials, 75 blogs, 25, 36, 70, 127-130, 138, 177-181 CALL (computer-assisted language learning), 2, 22, 26, 28, 40-41, 48-49, 122-147, 155, 158, 167, 173-185 CMC (computer-mediated communication), 58, 134, 176 collaboration, 70, 109-110, 150, 167, 176 communities of practice, 147, 159, 163, 175 computer literacy, 27, 88-89, 142, 144-145, 177 computer-assisted language learning. see CALL computer-mediated communication. see CMC computers, 21-41, 127, 129, 155, 158, 177-178 concordancing, 128, 130 connectivism, 151-153, 164 culture, 21, 25-27, 30, 103-104, 117, 150, 154 design, 4-5, 27, 34, 40, 50-52, 55, 62, 65, 75, 77, 86-92, 100, 103108, 111, 114-115, 118, 123-124, 134, 139 digital literacy, 99 digital natives, 22-25, 28-29, 40, 98 digital storytelling, 97-100, 111, 113

digital technology, 21-22, 28, 38-39, 98 EAP (English for academic purposes), 69, 71, 74-92, 137 electronic literacy, 69-71 English for academic purposes. see EAP evaluation, 6, 69, 77, 104-105, 107108, 122-124, 145 feedback, 1-8, 59-60, 66, 71, 76, 108, 117, 156, 175 grammar, 58, 100, 157 hardware, 99, 102 ICT (information and communication technology), 2129, 38-40, 71-99, 109-110 information and communication technology. see ICT instruction, 71, 74-75, 86, 91, 100, 102, 104, 118, 124 interaction, 17, 54, 56, 71, 155-156, 158, 160, 163, 166-167 Internet, 22-29, 39, 47, 54-56, 5864, 70-71, 75-76, 85, 87, 89-91, 111, 113, 124, 134, 137-138, 140, 146, 154-155, 173, 177-184 language learners, 1-4, 47-49, 174 language learning, 2-6, 11, 13, 16, 22, 41, 47-52, 56-57, 61, 86-87, 106, 122-123, 127-131, 134, 137, 139, 141-147, 151, 155, 158-159, 167, 173-176 learning strategies, 2-3, 6, 11-13, 165, 184 learning styles, 3, 21, 25-26, 100 listening, 4-6, 8-16, 36, 47-65, 106, 112-114, 135 MALL (mobile-assisted language learning), 49-65, 87

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Learners, Teachers and Tools massive open online course. see MOOC mobile phones, 25, 27, 31, 35, 49, 87 mobile-assisted language learning. see MALL MOOC (massive open online course), 151-152, 163-166 needs analysis, 3, 47-52, 63, 65, 86, 92 networks, 40, 110, 150-154, 159, 161, 163, 167-168, 173, 182-184 online tools, 70, 90-91, 173-184 pedagogy, 39, 49-50, 98-106, 111, 115-118, 175 perceptions, 7, 11-12, 16, 48-53, 5657, 69-70, 73, 75, 86-87, 91-92, 116 professional development, 99, 115, 122-126, 132, 139, 142-147, 150-151, 162, 168, 173-176, 182-185 reading, 12-13, 15, 36-37, 40, 49, 51-65, 72-89, 106, 113, 133-134, 138-139, 164 self-study, 1-2, 5-6, 15, 17, 21, 41, 134 software, 2, 6, 8-10, 13, 16, 29, 3435, 40, 57, 99, 102, 109-113, 124, 127-128, 130, 135, 139, 142, 144, 155, 177

189

speaking, 6-11, 16, 47-63, 106, 112113, 124 task-based language teaching. see TBLT tasks, 3-4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 27, 47-65, 87-89, 110, 139, 146 TBLT (task-based language teaching), 47-50, 62-63 teacher education, 97, 122-123, 174 teacher training, 27, 123-124, 132133, 147, 173-174 teaching methods, 154 teaching practice, 122-123, 126, 133-136, 143 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. see TPCK TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge), 97-104, 108-114, 117-118 vocabulary, 13, 49, 54-59, 62-65, 74-75, 79-80, 84, 86 web search engines, 127-128, 130, 173, 177, 180-181 websites, 25, 29, 34-35, 75, 91, 134, 138-139 Wikipedia, 39, 69-92, 155, 164 wikis, 70-71, 73, 91, 127-128, 130, 156, 159, 176-177, 179, 181 writing, 36-37, 39, 41, 51-52, 54-56, 59-60, 62-65, 70-73, 79, 84, 8889, 101, 106, 113, 137, 144, 151, 157-160