On-Site Technology Use in Language Classrooms through the Eyes of the Pre-service Teachers: A qualitative study

Abstract

In foreign language (FL) learning, albeit technology is widely used it is still discussed what language teachers experience when they are using existing technologies for effective language learning practices. For technology-enhanced language classrooms, the first step would be to determine the needs and possible challenges of technology integration into actual classroom mediums. With this motive, this study aims to investigate the on-site classroom practices of technology use for language teaching through the eyes of the pre-service teachers (PSTs) at a practicum school context. A total of 22 PSTs was required to observe and reflect on the teaching practices of cooperating teachers (CTs) at a high school related to the integration of technology in FL teaching. Data were collected qualitatively via reflection reports and semi-structured interviews along with observation and field notes on technology use, current practices in implementing technology in classes, and PSTs’ own views about technology use with specific examples. The results yielded that PSTs reflected often on the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) as accessible technology in the school context. However, they underlined the ineffective use of these devices and CTs’ lack of awareness in implementing technology for enriching learning opportunities. The findings indicate fruitful implications for language teachers and teacher educators to integrate technology into language teacher education (LTE) and language classrooms.

Keywords

• language teacher education,
• IWB,
• technology integration,
• educational technology

References

1. Aşık, A., Köse, S., Yangın Ekşi, G., Seferoğlu, G., Pereira, R., & Ekiert, M. (2019). ICT integration in English language teacher education: Insights from Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-24.
2. Aydın, B. (2017). Three birds with a stone: Technology integration in language education with reverse mentoring model. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 6(2), 177-190.
3. Aydın, S. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching and learning: The case of Turkey. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 214–233. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.654495.
4. Al-Jarrah, J. M., Talafhah, R. H., & Al-Jarrah, T. M. (2019). ESL Teacher Perceptions of using educational mobile applications to develop the language skills of ESL elementary school students. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(1), 65-86.
5. Akbulut, Y., Odabasi, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2011). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding the integration of information and communication technologies in Turkish education faculties. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3), 175-184.
6. Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 48-61.
7. Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: the effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 1(2), 1-15.
8. Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2013). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. In Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (Eds), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. (pp.1-26). London: Routledge, pp. 1-26.

9. Bettsworth, B. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to teach grammar in the MFL classroom: A learner's perspective. In Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 216-224). IGI Global.
10. Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: The students’ perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393–417.
11. Chaklikova, A., & Karabayeva, K. (2015). Prospective language teachers' perspectives on the use of technology in the foreign language classroom: survey of attitudes towards the practical implications and outcomes of lessons incorporating technology. In Proceedings of The Multidisciplinary Academic Conference (pp. 1-9).
12. Couros, G. (2015). The Innovator’s Mindset: Empower Learning, Unleash Talent, and Lead a Culture of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting.
13. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
14. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1553–1568.
15. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research. ReCALL, 23(3), 252–270.
16. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2016). Interactive whiteboards and language learning. In F. Farr and L. Murray (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 307-321). London: Routledge.
17. Cutrim Schmid, E., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.) Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 197-215). USA: IGI Global.
18. Cutrim Schmid, E. & van Hazebrouck, S. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard as a digital hub. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht, 4, 12–15.
19. Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (Eds) (2014). Teaching Languages with Technology: Communicative Approaches to Interactive Whiteboard Use: A Resource Book for Teacher Development, UK: Bloomsbury.
20. Çoklar, A. N., & Tercan, İ. (2014). Akıllı tahta kullanan öğretmenlerin akıllı tahta kullanımına yönelik görüşleri. Elementary Education Online, 13(1). 48-61.
21. Dalton, B. (2012). Multimodal composition and the common core standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333–339.
22. Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N., (2016). Literacies, Technology and Language Teaching. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 115-126). UK: Routledge.
23. Egbert, J., & Thomas, M. (2001). The new frontier: A case study in applying instructional design for distance teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 391–405.
24. Fang, Y. S., & Lee, L. S. (2018). Interactive Electronic Whiteboards Impacts on Language Learning Performance. International Conference on Education and Cognition, Behavior, Neuroscience (ICECBN2018)
25. Farr, F. & Murray, L., (2016). Introduction: Language Learning and Technology. In F. Farr and L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 1-6). London: Routledge.
26. Gill, L., Dalgarno, B., & Carlson, L. (2015). How does pre-service teacher preparedness to use ICTs for learning and teaching develop through their degree program? Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(1), 36.
27. Godwin-Jones, R. (2015). Emerging technologies the evolving roles of language teachers: trained coders, local researchers, global citizens. Learning and Technology, 19(1), 10-22.
28. Gray, C. (2010). Meeting teachers’ real needs: New tools in the secondary modern foreign languages classroom. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Wds), Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (pp.69-85), Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.
29. Gwet, K. L. 2014. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement among Raters. Gaithersburg MD: Advanced Analytics.
30. Han, T., & Okatan, S. (2016). High School Students' Attitudes and Experiences in EFL Classrooms Equipped with Interactive Whiteboards. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 13, 148-165.
31. Hanson-Smith, E. (2016). Teacher Education and Technology. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 210-222). UK: Routledge.
32. Healey, D., (2016). Language Learning and Technology: Past, Present and Future. In F. Farr and L. Murray (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 9-23). UK: Routledge.
33. Healey, D., Hegelheimer, V., Hubbard, P., Iannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2008). TESOL technology standards framework. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
34. Hockly, N. (2013). Interactive whiteboards. ELT Journal, 67(3), 354–358.
35. Hsu, L. (2016). Examining EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and the adoption of mobile-assisted language learning: a partial least square approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1287-1297.
36. Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175-188.
37. Hur, J. W., & Suh, S. (2012). Making learning active with interactive whiteboards, podcasts, and digital storytelling in ELL classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 29(4), 320-338.
38. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312-333.
39. Ibouhouten, T. (2018). High School Teachers' Struggles with Integrating Mobile Devices into Curriculum Lesson Plans at the Planning Stage: A Case Study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
40. Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P.R. (2020). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 116-127.
41. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011-K12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
42. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332-343.
43. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241.
44. Kessler, G., (2016). Technology Standards for Language Teacher Preparation. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 57-70). UK: Routledge.
45. Kessler, G., & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language teacher education and technology. In C. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 278–292). Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford.
46. Lee, G. J. (2019). Examining the impact of MALL integration on ESL and EFL teachers and students. Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University.
47. Leong, P., Joseph, S. R., & Boulay, R. (2010). Applying constant comparative and discourse analyses to virtual worlds research. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 3(1), 3-26.
48. Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL teachers’ technology use in China: Patterns and perceptions. RELC Journal, 42(69), 69-85. doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390783
49. Lozano, A. A. & Izquierdo, J. (2019). The Use of Technology in Second Language Education: Some Considerations to Overcome the Digital Divide. Emerging Trends in Education, 2(3), 52-70.
50. Mei, B., Brown, G. T. L, & Timothy, T. (2018). Toward an Understanding of Preservice English as a Foreign Language Teachers' Acceptance of Computer-Assisted Language Learning 2.0 in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 74-104.
51. Merç, A. (2015). Using technology in the classroom: A study with Turkish pre-service EFL teachers. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 229-240.
52. Meyer, B. (2015). Learning through telepresence with iPads: placing schools in local/global communities. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(4), 270-284.
53. MoNE. (2012). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı FATİH Projesi. Retrieved from: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr.
54. Navaridas, F., Santiago, R., & Tourón, J. (2013). Opinions from teachers in the Fresno area of Central California regarding the influence of mobile technology on their students’ learning. RELIEVE, 19(2), 1-18.
55. Öz, H. (2014). Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(3), 156-177.
56. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. NCB University Press. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20 20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
57. Ryan, T., & Joong, P. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the nature and impact of large-scale reforms. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 38, 1-21.
58. Smith, J. A. 2008. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage Publications.
59. Son, J. B. (2018). Teacher development in technology-enhanced language teaching. Springer International Publishing.
60. Stanley, G. (2014). Using the IWB to support gamification in order to enhance writing fluency in the secondary language classroom. In E. Cutrim Schmid & S. Whyte (Eds), Teaching Languages with Technology: Communicative Approaches to Interactive Whiteboard Use: A Resource Book for Teacher Development (pp.146-181). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
61. Tawney, J. W., and D. L. Gast. 1(984). Single Subject Research in Special Education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Co.
62. Tezci, E. (2011). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 483-499.
63. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009 .
64. Van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354-375.
65. Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL, 23(3), 271–293.
66. Whyte, S. (2015) Implementing and Researching Technological Innovation in Language Teaching: The Case of Interactive Whiteboards for EFL in French Schools, London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
67. Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Alexander, J. (2014). Researching interactive whiteboard (IWB) use from primary school to university settings across Europe: an analytical framework for foreign language teaching. University of Wales Journal of Education, 17(1), 30-52.
68. Whyte, S. & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with interactive technologies in classroom CALL: Towards a developmental framework. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40(1), 1–26.
69. Weerakanto, P. (2019). Digital Literacies of English Language Teachers and Students and Their Perceptions of Technology-Enhanced Language Learning and Teaching in Thailand. USA: University of Arizona.
70. Winke, P. & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students' computer access and literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482 – 509.
71. Yáñez, L., & Coyle, Y. (2011). Children’s perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal, 65(4), 446-457. doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq069
72. Yang, S. C. & Huang, Y. (2008). A study of high school English teachers’ behavior, concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1085–1103.
73. Yavuz-Konokman, G., Yanpar-Yelken, T., Sancar-Tokmak, H. (2013). An investigation of primary school pre-service teachers’ perception on their Tpack in terms of a variety factors: Mersin university case. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 21(2), 665-684.
74. Yılmaz, M. (2007) Instructional technology in training primary school teacher. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 27(1), 155-167.