Technophilia or Technophobia - Complete MA Dissertation - Full 144 page Version

Technophilia or Technophobia: Exploring Teacher

Autonomy in Learning ICT and Web Tools for the

English Language Teaching Classroom

Philip Longwell

1163612

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of MA in English Language Teaching (with a

Specialism in Multimedia)

September 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are a number of individuals that I would like to thank for their advice, guidance and

practical assistance in preparing this dissertation. Firstly, I need to acknowledge the

incredible amount of inspiration and influence that my personal tutor and dissertation

supervisor, Russell Stannard, had on this work. On many occasions he reassured me that I

was capable of great things, but he also pushed me constantly to aim high. Throughout

the dissertation process his suggestions and criticisms were never far from my mind. It,

therefore, made the whole process tough at times, but ultimately rewarding. In addition, he

allowed me to use his Teacher Training Videos website newsletter to advertise my research.

Secondly, I wish to thank Teresa Mackinnon at Warwick Language School for considerable

help in getting me set up with Blackboard Collaborate and granting me access to a room so

that I could conduct my interviews, even if on five occasions, I had to ‘revert to Skype’.

Thirdly, I thank David Dodgson, a fellow MA student and teacher of young learners in

Turkey, who was one of the founding members of my Personal Learning Network which

grew from nothing at the start of 2012. I could name several others people from my PLN,

some of whom became my focus group for this research project, but it would be too many

to mention. It was certainly as a result of my newly found PLN that I managed to generate a

lot of interest in my research and obtain so many responses in such a short space of time.

Fourthly, I would like to thank a good friend of mine, Mark Warnes, an experienced

researcher at Anglia Ruskin University, who gave me guidance on several occasions.

Penultimately, I would like to thank Gavin Dudeney for introducing and discussing the

residents-visitors paradigm with me and for sharing his work on ‘digital literacies’ with Nicky

Hockly and Mark Pegrum. Finally, I would like to give general thanks to my fellow MA

students on the MA ELT Warwick Facebook group and the feedback received in essays from

several tutors in the Centre for Applied Linguistics, most notably Steve Mann, Keith Richards

and Richard Smith, whose own definition of teacher-learner autonomy features here.

PL - September 2012

Technophilia or Technophobia: I/D: 1163612Exploring Teacher Autonomy in Learning ICT Tools for the ELT classroom.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

LIST OF FIGURES ii

CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 – Introduction / Purpose of Study 1

1.2 – Professional Development in ICT 1

1.3 – Computer-Assisted Language Learning 3

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 – Previous Studies 7

2.2 – Teacher-Learner Autonomy 10

2.3 – Paradigm 1 – Technophilia-Technophobia 13

2.4 – Paradigm 2 – ‘Digital Natives’ vs ‘Digital Immigrants’ 14

2.5 – Paradigm 3 – ‘Digital Residents’ vs ‘Digital Visitors’ 16

CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 – Research Questions 18

3.2 – Methodology 19

3.3 – Survey Questionnaire Design 20

3.4 – Sampling Procedure 21

CHAPTER FOUR – SURVEY FINDINGS

4.1 – Demographics 23

4.2 – Experience and Employment and Training 26

4.3 – Relationship with Technology 29

4.4 – Taxonomy of Current Practice 30

4.5 – Autonomy and Barriers 35

4.6 – Assessing Effectiveness of Tools 38

4.7 – Main Points 39


CHAPTER FIVE – INTERVIEWS

5.1 – Methodology 40

5.2 – Interview Findings 42

5.3 – Relationship With Technology 42

5.4 – ICT/Web Tool Usage 44

5.5 – Barriers 46

5.6 – Institutional Support or Training 48

5.7 – Autonomous Behaviour 50

5.8 – Discussion 52

CHAPTER SIX – CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH

6.1 – Conclusion 54

6.2 – Further Research 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY 56

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Survey Questionnaire with ‘Covering Letter’

Appendix B – Survey Results

Appendix C – Email Template – Information re: Interviews

Appendix D - Interview Guide

Appendix E – Sections of Transcribed Interview Data

i

ABSTRACT

The learning of Information Communication Technology (ICT) and web tools within

English Language Teaching (ELT) has not been researched as widely as the use of

technology in general education. In addition, the concept of teacher-learner autonomy

has rarely been used in relation to the extent to which language teachers are self-directed

and take responsibility for their own learning in this area. This dissertation uses this

theoretical perspective as well as paradigms which typify an individual’s relationship with

technology. Taxonomy of current practices was first generated through a widely

advertised survey questionnaire, for which 106 responses were received. From this

emerged a picture of the kinds of technology and types of web tools that are currently

being used and why. Findings suggested that self-directed learning was fairly widespread

and that training was not expected by employees. The amount of autonomous behaviour

and responsibility that language teachers take for learning ICT tools was further explored

by a series of 14 interviews with teachers in very different contexts. This included the

perspective of teacher-trainers who painted a slightly different picture of the amount of

training which takes place in institutions. What emerges will be of interest to language

teachers wishing to find out how they compare with others in this area and those possibly

seeking ways to create more autonomy for themselves in the workplace.

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

(Q indicates the related question from the survey)

1. Which category below includes your age? (Q2) 23

2. Country of teaching (Q3) 24

3. First (or native) language (Q4) 25

4. How many years have you been teaching English as a Foreign Language (Q5) 26

5. How often do you receive support in your professional development in the area of

technology and ICT? – Detail (Q16) 27


technology and ICT? – Full (Q16) 27

7. Who should provide training in relation to ICT and web tools? (Q17) 28

8. Would you describe yourself as either a ‘Technophile’ or a ‘Technophobe’ or are you

somewhere in between? (Q7) 29

9. What are you currently doing in respect of professional development in ICT and

technology? (Q8) 30

10. How often does the following technology get used in your teaching (Q9) 31

11. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools? (Q10) 32

12. (as above) continued

13. How do you learn about (discover) new ICT/Web Tools? (Q11) 33

14. Cross-tabulation of ‘self-discovery’ (Q11) with current professional development

activities (Q8) 34

15. How important are or would be the following when selecting an ICT/Web Tool? (Q12) 35

16. How autonomous are you? How frequently do you the following (Q14) 36

17. What are the barriers to learning about and then implementing ICT/Web Tools in

respect of your teaching practice (Q15) 36

18. Correlation between ‘reliability’ (Q15) and ‘technophobia’ (Q7) 37


1

CHAPTER ONE - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STUDY

In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) there are many professionals who are actively

learning about new ICT (Information Communication Technology) and online web tools.

There are numerous ways that they are discovering, learning about and integrating these

technologies and tools into their teaching practice. Conversely there are other

professionals who are not as pro-active, but would be very interested to learn of the

benefits and the practical ways of developing in this area. This paper examines current

teachers’ attitudes and practices, therefore, with the purpose of being helpful to those

currently being left behind and those who feel the pressure of needing to incorporate ICT

knowledge and skills into their teaching. What kind of support or training is received? What

do they know about the latest online tools and to what extent are those tools used? How

do teachers learn how to use them? Do teachers have an instinctive, positive relationship

with technology or are they sceptical at first? These are some of the questions this study

will investigate, seeking answers which could be of benefit to others. It begins with a

discussion of the wider issue of professional development and a brief account of computer

technology in language learning. The paper discusses previous research, three paradigms

which typify people’s relationship with technology and uses definitions of teacher-learner

autonomy to underpin the research questions.

1.2 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ICT

The learning of new technologies can be seen as just one area of an English as a foreign

language (EFL) teachers’ professional development (PD) and any existing teachers’

continuous (or continuing) professional development (CPD). While these terms seem

interchangeable and there is some ambiguity in what the definition of each is, there are

distinctions. The term ‘Professional Development’ suggests acquiring new knowledge and

skills, or to change role or position. It can also mean ‘staying abreast of [the] evolving field’

(Bailey, Curtis and Nunan, 2007: 7). Although an EFL teacher’s physical teaching

environment may not change, the outside world does. It is ‘career orientated and has a

narrower, more instrumental and utilitarian remit’ (Mann, 2005: 104). Pre-service teachers


2

entering the ELT arena may have skills and knowledge lacking amongst in-service teachers.

This is where continuous professional development comes in, at the institutional level (ibid),

which for many professionals means ‘training in order to keep them[selves] up-to-date’

(Friedman and Phillips, 2004). This allows those professionals already established to

increase their income, accept roles with greater prestige or to provide greater employment

security:

‘CPD promises to deliver strategies of learning that will be of benefit to individuals,foster personal development, and produce professionals who are flexible, self-reflective and empowered to take control of their own learning.’ (ibid: 362-3)

The personal benefits, often promoted under the banner of ‘lifelong learning’, however,

may conflict somewhat with an institutional requirement to train professionals to fulfil

specific work roles (ibid: 363).

One of the core themes of teacher development is the comparison between bottom-up,

individual or group lead process and top-down professional development programmes

(Mann, 2005: 105). There is an important difference here, as I have begun to suggest above,

in terms of the kind of professional development which begins with the individual, in this

paper, the English language teacher, and the kind which emanates from above. The latter

can be seen in research carried out where top-down enforcement has taken place. For

example, a government identified and defined a framework of ICT competencies for

expected outcomes in primary school students in Belgium (Tondeur, van Braak and Valcke,

2007: 962), a joint European Commission/Greek ministry of education launched a project to

enable teacher communities to integrate new ICT practices (Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007:

153) and a ministry of education introduced national reform to bring in ICT use into tertiary

education in southern China (Hu and McGrath, 2011). Quite often, government regulations

or policies change to reflect growing ICT use in wider society. Similarly, educational

institutions often bring in policies or strategies which require implementation of greater use

of Information Communication Technology among its practicing teachers or lecturers (ibid).

These are not limited, of course, to English language teaching and are often strategies which

can affect the whole of an institution or level of schooling.


3

Information Communication Technology (ICT) is far more than just a secondary school

subject. It is something that can be integrated into most subjects at any level, depending on

how it is used. One relevant framework for this study is to what extent teachers have

found themselves increasing their knowledge of ICT from more autonomous self-directed

learning or to what extent have they waited for, possibly because they expect it from,

externally driven training, either by the institution they work for or by an external training

agency. Institutions reacting to government policy or initiatives may well be a key top-

down motivational force for teachers taking up new technologies in their practice, which

begs the question of ‘what expectations are there by institutions for their teachers to adopt

these?’ Does CPD in the area of ICT awareness, knowledge and implementation come from

external pushes, as and when the need arises? Do language teaching professionals actively

seek to empower themselves separately from top-down pressure or do these happen ‘in

concert’? Many more established ‘professionals’, it must be clearly stated, do not seek to

take steps in this area and according to a recent snapshot selection of current practicing EFL

teachers’ opinionsi, they stubbornly refuse to take part until they know what are they

getting out of it, are they getting paid for it and checking whether they are contractually

obliged (Wade, 2012). There is also the issue, therefore, that some professionals simply do

not or will not use technology and/or ICT tools in their practice, commonly for sound

reasons.

1.3 COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

The use of computer technology within language learning has, like the use of ICT in general

education, been in existence for decades. The Internet has, more recently, played a

pervasive role in institutionalised and non-institutionalised language learning (Benson, 2007:

26) and a vast literature exists which emphasizes opportunities for learner autonomy within

CALL and how technologies have been developed with self-study in mind (ibid).

CALL can be broken down into several periods: ‘behaviourist CALL’ (1960s-1970s),

‘communicative CALL’ (1980s), ‘integrative CALL’ (1990s-). Beatty (2010) outlines some

examples of Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and so on. These began in the late

1950s, with machine translations (ibid: 18-21), through linear simulations (ibid: 21-25), the


4

introduction of microcomputers, videodisc and CD-ROM formats in the 1970s, initiatives

such as ‘Macario’, a videodisc program for learning Spanish (sic, ibid: 27), ‘Interactive

Digame’ and the Athena Language-Learning Project, ‘ALLP’ in the 1980s (ibid: 29). One

particular software program called Eliza was an example of a computer being used to

simulate human intelligence (Beatty, 2010: 32).

Another way to look at the development of CALL is how technology has influenced the

method used. The ‘grammar-translation’ method relied on blackboard and chalk, still used

today in many ELT contexts. The blackboard was replaced by the overhead projector, which

is still commonly used, requiring the teacher to skilfully position the device in the classroom

for maximum readability. Early computer software drew on ‘drill and practice’ grammar

exercises and ‘linear simulations’, as we saw above. The audio-tape was the perfect

medium for the audio-lingual method, most popular in the 1970s and 1980s, and still

available – now as CDs or downloadable mp3s. Self-study aids, such as offered by Berlitzii,

remain widely available for the individual learners wishing to ‘pick up’ a language, often in a

short space of time.

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is another term used for the delivery of lessons.

Skill requirements in CMC are greater than for the typical classroom-bound instructor. This

has been examined, amongst others, by Hampel and Sticker (2005) who presented a

‘pyramid of skills’ needed for online tutors. The challenges of delivering online courses are

different from face-to-face settings. ‘Listing the skills required would not do justice to the

complexity of the training and development needed [although] a pyramid, from the most

general skills forming a fairly broad based to an apex of individual and personal styles’ can

be generated (ibid).

The delivery of online language courses has received much interest (ibid: 313). The initial

focus was on asynchronous text-based mediated interaction, (Warschauer, 1997; Kelm, in

ibid) but more recently the focus has been on online conferencing systems (Kern, in ibid;

Sykes, in Levy 2009; Mullen, Appel and Shanklin, 2009), which enables synchronous tuition

and distance learning to take place. An example would be Voice-over Internet Protocol

(VOIP) technologies, such as Skype.


5

Other developments, from a cognitive perspective, include text-reconstruction software,

featuring scrambled texts, and concordancing software, where users look at collocations

and the behaviour of particular words (Warschauer and Meskill, 2000: 2). In addition, there

is multimedia simulation software, allowing learners to explore simulated environments,

such as those created in Second Life. Collaborative learning and constructivist ‘negotiation

of meaning’ is a more recent trend. Technologies which support a cognitive approach to

language learning are those which allow maximum exposure to language in meaningful

context (ibid, 2000). Here it is ‘assumed that knowledge is an objective interpretation of

ideas and that such interpretations are best developed through the learner discovering and

struggling with ideas’ (Beatty, 2010: 105). One inquiry-based tool which has been used by

language teachers is the WebQuest. This initiative took a constructivist approach to learning

and an integrative approach to CALL. One empirical study found that WebQuests were an

effective way to use technology with students and ‘an excellent educational innovation

when used correctly’ (Perkins and McKnight, 2005).

More recent innovations include wikis and ‘walled gardens’ (Pegrum, 2009: 20) in the form

of password-protected, collaborative, virtual learning environments (VLE). The former

represents forums suited to honing communicative and intercultural literacies (Pegrum,

2009: 42), which most obviously turns collective intelligence into a structural principle (ibid:

30) and are inherently incomplete:

A wiki is a social constructivism in motion: collaboratively constructed, constantlyadded to and modified, and always provisional. The collective intelligence whichemerges from contributors’ cooperative efforts is never fixed but constantlyevolving. (ibid: 33)

The unrestricted authorship has meant a shift from expert-generated taxonomies to

individually-created folksonomies (Beatty, 2010: 41), which are underpinned by organic

indexing processes (Pegrum, 2009: 29).

An Internet-enhanced object-oriented multiple-user domain (MOO), meanwhile, serves as a

tool to select and enhance Internet resources (Schwienhorst, 1999), while at the same time,

expanding the possibilities of the traditional classroom. One such popular innovation in this

area is Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE), which is a free


6

source e-learning software platform. The implementation of MOODLE superseded the

successful use of language management systems (LMS) such as WebCT, a VLE system sold to

institutions and now owned by Blackboard, who recently developed the video conferencing

software, ‘Collaborate’, which can be used by language teachers for sharing and training

purposes, or for facilitating interviews, as this paper will show later.

The brief examples shown above are used to illustrate that there is nothing particularly new

in the existence of computer-assisted language learning, or the more appropriate

description of technology-assisted language learning (TALL). What might be newer is the

requirement on language teachers operating in certain contexts to learn how to use

institutionally bought technologies. Do language teachers feel pressure to learn these and,

consequently, what expectations do they have of their institutions? Or are teachers,

themselves, now leading the institutions, discovering and learning new tools for

themselves? This needs investigating, as autonomous behaviour in this area may well be

greater than believed.


7

CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES

Before investigating the area of ICT integration into ELT, I will discuss some of the previous

empirical research in the field, followed by a discussion of the theoretical construct of

teacher-learner autonomy, which underpins this new investigation.

There is not much literature on the uptake of ICT or web tools by English language teachers

or how they go about learning them, which is a gap needing investigation. There is,

however, a lot of research into the uptake of ICT in more general education (Mumtaz, 2000),

while this adoption can be traced back to the early 1970s (Levy in Hu and McGrath, 2011:

42). Romeo and Walker (2002) summarised two perspectives. The first, influenced by

behaviourist learning theories, focuses on the computer as a mechanism by which to deliver

information. In this ‘instructionist pedagogy’ the main focus is on the delivery of materials

in which information can be more effectively transmitted by teachers and understood by

learners. The second, influenced by constructivism, focuses on the use of computers as a

system to enhance teaching and learning. (Hu and McGrath, 2011: 43).

Mumtaz’ (2000) provided an extensive, international overview of the literature at that point

which highlighted a number of factors involved in the take up of ICT in schools. It separated

factors which discouraged the uptake of technology from those that encouraged its

integration. A lack of experience, specialist staff support and training, computer availability

and a lack of time to successfully integrate technology into the curriculum were highlighted

(ibid: 320). In addition, many teachers saw technology as a challenging force and only

relevant for teachers of computer science or ICT (ibid). Robertson et al (1996, in ibid),

particularly, dwelt on resistance to organisation change, outside intervention and issues of

time management (ibid: 320-321). Several articles, however, highlighted factors which

encouraged teachers to use technology. Examples included ‘making the lessons more

interesting, more motivating for the pupils’ (Cox, Preston and Cox, 1999 in ibid: 323), ‘gains

in learning and using computers for their own teacher development’ (Sheingold & Hadley

1990 in ibid: 324) and ‘if the software matched the teacher’s pedagogy, they used it’ (Veen,

1993 in ibid: 323). Constructivist pedagogy, in which learners make sense of new concepts


8

through use of their own knowledge experiences, was also highlighted. Becker & Riel (2000,

in ibid: 324) found that teachers regularly involved in ‘professional interactions and activities

beyond their classroom’ were more likely to have ‘teaching philosophies compatible with

constructivist learning theory.’

The benefits of ICT use in language education have been discussed previously, in one

qualitative study (Chambers & Bax, 2006), in terms of its potential to involve learners in a

variety of activities and support learners’ autonomous learning. In addition, a central aim for

CALL practitioners has been to strive for ‘normalisation’, where teachers and learners reap

its full benefits:

When computers … are used every day by language students and teachers as anintegral part of every lesson … they will be completely integrated into all otheraspects of classroom life, alongside coursebooks, teachers and notepads. They willgo almost unnoticed. (Bax, in Chambers and Bax, 2006: 465-466)

A sense of ‘normalisation’ is thus when technology is not used to amaze or engage students

and is not treated with ‘exaggerated respect’, but becomes a ‘normal’ part of everyday

teaching. This is the difference, probably, between ‘computer-assisted language learning’

and fully integrated teaching with technology.

ICT use is not without problems as it requires certain skill levels for both students and

teachers to operate technology and integrate materials successfully (McGrath in McGrath

and Hu, 2011: 43). A key study is one which questioned EFL teachers’ attitudes towards the

adoption of ICT in the wider context of a college English reform programme, in Southern

China. Hu and McGrath (2011) examined whether teachers were ‘ready’ to integrate ICT in

light of their CPD training or lack thereof. Despite the perception that the researchers

already suspected the teachers involved were ‘not ready’ to integrate ICT fully, the findings

did indicate that limited ICT skills and pedagogic reasons for using ICT were obstacles.

Despite having generally positive views, enthusiasm ‘waned in the light of inadequate

support and CPD opportunities’ (ibid: 47). A strong connection is made in this research

towards the autonomy shown by the teachers in learning about ICT tools for themselves.

The article makes many references to ‘deep rooted’, traditional teacher-centred pedagogy.

The apparent failure at the institutional level to respond to top-down demands to integrate


9

ICT usage, because of, for example, a lack of funding or inadequate training may not apply

everywhere. The findings showed that teachers had ‘little knowledge of autonomy’ (ibid:

52). Without teachers being autonomous in their own learning of new technology; they

couldn’t possibly expect students to become autonomous learners themselves. To what

extent teacher autonomy plays a role in ICT learning and their own training is worthy of

investigation. In addition, how does CPD in ICT actually happen – is it institution-lead

through compulsory CPD programmes or does it come down to autonomous teachers

learning ICT for themselves – or a combination?

One area which has been investigated by many previous researchers are the beliefs and

attitudes of both pre-service (Teo, Chai, Hung and Lee, 2008, Hismanoglu, 2012) and in-

service language teachers (Mumtaz, 2000; Albrini 2004; Tondeur et al, 2007; Li and Walsh,

2010; Hismanoglu; 2012, Sağlam and Sert, 2012) of ICT adoption or implementation.

Personal factors, such as gender, teaching experience and the perception of English as a

foreign language compared with other subjects affected some studies (Mumtaz, 2000;

Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007) as is the extent to whether the teachers studied receive

sufficient training and support to make this increased deployment of technology come to

fruition (for example, Mumtaz, 2000; Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston and

Wideman, 2002; Hampel and Stickler, 2005; Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007; Hu and McGrath,

2011; Hismanoglu, 2012). Others (for example, Zhong and Shen, 2002) have looked at the

changes that have taken place in technologically integrated classroom practice.

Most of the selected studies selected above focus on a particular language-learning context.

Albrini (2004), for example, examined high school EFL teachers’ attitudes in Syrian education

and explored the relationship between their attitudes and factors thought to be influencing

them. This included a perception of their computer competence and the cultural relevance

of going against traditional styles of instruction. Personal characteristics (gender, age,

income, experience etc) were built into the design. A strong correlation between teachers’

attitudes towards ICT in education and their perceptions of their computer attributes were

found. A strong reference is made to Rogers’ ‘Innovation Decision Process’ (1995), which

states that ‘people’s attitudes toward a new technology are a key element in its diffusion …

An innovation’s diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages: Knowledge,


10

Persuasion, Decision, Implementation and Confirmation’ (Rogers in Albrini, 2004: 375). The

conscious learner, therefore, goes through a process which either rejects the innovation

(stage 3) or continues to adapt it, use it and re-use for its own purpose (stages 4 and 5). This

has a direct relevance to how teachers might choose a piece of technology or an ICT tool,

which I will return to when I discuss a teachers’ relationship with technology.

For now, I wish to move onto the concept of teacher-learner autonomy, which has been

already mentioned. This is relevant to this new research in light of the proliferation of web

and ICT tools and how teachers go about learning them.

2.2 TEACHER-LEARNER AUTONOMY

Teacher autonomy or more correctly, teacher-learner autonomy, has been be defined as

‘the ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in

co-operation with others’ (Smith, 2003:1). In an analogous relationship to learner

autonomy, it has also been defined as ‘the capacity, freedom, and/or responsibility to make

choices concerning one’s own teaching’ (Aoki, in Benson, 2007: 31). Little (1995) rightly

asserts that learner autonomy is nothing new. Genuinely successful learners have always

been autonomous but it is important to pursue ‘learner autonomy as an explicit goal, to

help more learners to succeed’ (ibid: 175). Little (1991) establishes ‘a capacity for

detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action’ (ibid: 4) on the part

of the learner. This capacity is displayed in the way that the learner ‘transfers what has

been learned to wider contexts’ (ibid).

There is a strong link between definitions of learner autonomy and the expectations to

foster this amongst students and a teacher’s own willingness to be autonomous themselves.

Much of the literature treats teacher autonomy as a professional attribute, involving a

capacity for self-directed professional development (Benson, 2007: 30). More recently, the

emphasis has been on ‘freedom from constraint’ and the teachers’ efforts to promote

autonomy amongst their learners in constraining settings, often outside of their control

(ibid: 30). In their extended, working definition of teacher autonomy, Barfield at al (2001),

emphasised the contextually based relationship between teaching, learners and institutions.

Teacher autonomy is closely linked to confronting constraints, being collaborative with


11

other teachers and negotiating with the institution. This development and characteristics of

the individual teacher:

‘…is driven by a need for personal and professional improvement, so that anautonomous teacher may seek out opportunities … to develop further. Teacherautonomy is a socially constructed process, where teacher support and developmentgroups can act as teacher-learner pools of diverse knowledge, experience, equalpower and autonomous learning.’ (Barfield et al, The ‘Shizuoka’ Definition, 2001)

Smith (2003) outlines some theoretical dimensions of teacher autonomy. Prior definitions,

he argues, have ‘tended to advocate one aspect to the exclusion of others, from teacher

autonomy as a generalised ‘right to freedom from control’ to teachers’ capacity to engage in

self-directed teaching to teachers’ autonomy as learners’ (Smith, 2003: 1, emphasis in

original). McGrath’s (2000) attempt to identify different dimensions proves a noteworthy

exception, as does the Shizuoka definition already mentioned. McGrath’s separation of

teacher autonomy as (1) self-directed action or development and (2) as freedom from

control by others influenced Smith who extracted a further meaning. ‘Action’ and

‘development’ is not necessarily the same thing. In addition, a further similar distinction is

required between capacity for and/or willingness to engage in self-direction and actual self-

directed behaviour (Smith, 2003: 4). In this definition involving distinctive parts, there are

three dimensions in relation to ‘professional action’ and three in relation to professional

development:

In relation to professional action:A: Self-directed profession action (= ‘Self-directed teaching’)B: Capacity for self-directed professional action. (= ‘Teacher autonomy (I)’)C: Freedom from control over professional action. (=’Teacher autonomy (II)’)In relation to professional development:D: Self-directed professional development. (= ‘Self-directed teacher-learning’)E: Capacity for self-directed professional development. (=’Teacher-learner autonomy (I)’)F: Freedom from control over professional development. (= ‘Teacher-learner autonomy (II)’)

(Smith, ‘Dimensions of teacher autonomy’, 2003: 4)

While some (e.g. Aoki, 2000; McGrath 2000 in Smith, 2003) have emphasised the

importance of a capacity for the self-directed teacher (B, above) others (e.g. Benson, 2000;

Lamb, 2000 in Smith, 2003) have stressed the importance of freedom from control over

their teaching (C, above). In respect of A-C the autonomous behaviour shown is not limited


12

to one aspect of practice. Smith is critical of a limitation in using ‘teacher autonomy’ as a

loose synonym for the ‘capacity to promote learner autonomy’. This kind of capacity, he

says, is ‘not exactly the same thing as any, or all of the dimensions identified’ (2008: 85). He

later states, however, that it ‘does seem possible to propose certain general precepts’ for

this promotion (ibid: 86). Direct lecturing over the benefits of learner autonomy might be

insufficient, but actual practical experiences can be particularly powerful. Preparing

teachers for the development of their own autonomy can be difficult. It might be

appropriate for educators, including institutions, to focus directly on developing a

willingness and capacity for self-directed teacher-learning. How to do this is, according to

Smith (ibid: 87) not something frequently discussed in the literature. Nor, would I argue, is

an account of self-employed, freelance ELT professionals’ necessity to be autonomous

learners, which I will account for in my own research.

These different dimensions of teacher autonomy were useful for this new investigation, in

respect of separating the potential for action and actuality of something happening in

practice. It can also be the separation of the capacity of teachers, based on their perceived

‘relationship’ with technology, to learn about new tools, and their willingness to do so, given

that relationship and other contextual factors.

In this paper, the autonomous behaviour shown by teachers to learn about using ICT tools

can be seen as that which is carried out for the purpose of actual teaching practice

(professional action) and for future employment, training and other opportunities

(professional development). Definitions of teacher autonomy and teacher learner-

autonomy have not previously been used to frame discussions of teachers learning about

technology or web tools. There are a number of studies which evaluate more specific tools,

such as screen casting (e.g Gromik, 2007; Wales and Roberton, 2008; Grandon Gill, 2007)

but this rarely focuses on English language teaching. Often the research is conducted in

other areas, most notably by or for librarians (Jill Markgraf, 2006; Price, 2010).

Teacher autonomy covers a wide range of potential characteristics, as we have seen; more

than just a set of skills, technical or otherwise. Although it has been closely linked to the

idea of fostering learner autonomy, no explicit connection has been made between the


13

teacher’s own capacity, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other, in respect of learning

about ICT tools. I am investigating how autonomous teachers are as learners of these tools

and to what extent these are self-directed professional actions.

By ‘using’ the tools, this covers both the ability to effectively use the tool in lesson

preparation, the deliverance of the lesson or to facilitate its operation by the student

learners. It can also extend to using a tool reflectively or, for example, managing feedback.

It is worth pointing out that the general distinction of ‘freedom from control’ in practice can

be evidenced in more than two ways. That is, in terms of the opportunity to use technology

and ICT tools in professional practice and the necessary use of technology as imposed by an

institution which has spent resources installing such technology.

I will now proceed to explore the dimension of teacher-learner autonomy that focuses on

firstly, the capacity and secondly, the willingness to be autonomous when it comes to

learning about technology and ICT tools. In doing so, I will look at three different paradigms,

‘typologies’, that have been proposed. It is worth bearing in mind that a teacher’s ability to

be autonomous when it comes to learning new technologies or tools can be affected by the

relative freedoms they have in choosing to use it. One assumption on my part is that where

there is freedom from constraint, the teacher will show more autonomy but where there is

an imposed requirement, the teacher may feel less inclined to research the tool themselves

and, instead, wait for institutional training or support.

2.3 PARADIGM 1: TECHNOPHILIA-TECHNOPHOBIA

One particular dimension on the attitudes of EFL and prospective EFL teachers is their

perception of a relationship with technology. A person who is considered a ‘technophobe’

dislikes, is wary of or has some fear of using technology. Conversely, a ‘technophile’ is

someone with a love, passion or enjoyment of discovering and/or using new technology.

These contrasting perceptions are not limited to simply a ‘fear’ or ‘love’ and are usually far

more complex than these extremes. Furthermore, a person’s own attitudes might be

different from their personal belief in the benefits of technology rather than a simple

resistance to it. The research question of whether language teachers were perceived to be


14

technophobic was explored by a Canadian study (Lam, 2000) and appears to be the only

study which proposes this contention from the outset. This study aimed to test whether

fear was an underlying factor behind decisions regarding the use of technology.

Furthermore, it posed the related question of what other factors lead some L2 teachers to

choose not to use technology in their teaching practice. This relatively small-scale study,

featuring ten participants, indicated that the reasons for not using technology lay more in

the lack of pedagogical benefits they saw rather than an outright fear. One implication was

that it felt it necessary to convince them of the benefits of using it in the classroom (ibid,

411). It concluded that there was negativity attached to teachers considered to be

‘technophobic’, quite possibly by an overly ‘technophilic’ institution. As long as teachers

feel alienated from technology they will not see the benefits. Furthermore,

…understanding what factors influence teachers’ decisions on using technology is animportant step in ensuring that institutions are not wasting already limited funds onequipment that no one uses. (ibid, 412)

The idea of a creating a typology of people’s relationship with technology is not new,

although as technology develops, the actual devices or tools used as part of research into

that relationship changes too. It also appears common in literature on this topic to create a

typology (e.g. Tondeur et al, 2007), where there are two polar extremes or ‘dichotomy’,

such as above. Alternative terminology on this particular continuum could be describing

users as ‘tech-comfy’ or ‘tech-savvy’ (Dudeney, 2011). The latter ‘relationship’ is often

inappropriately attributed to younger users of technology, which will now be discussed.

2.4 PARADIGM 2: ‘DIGITAL NATIVES’ vs ‘DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’

Another widely held distinction is that there is a whole generation of ‘digital natives’

(Prensky, 2001), often called the ‘net generation’ (Tapscott, 1998; Oblinger and Oblinger in

Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008), ‘millenials’ or ‘gen Y’ (Pegrum, 2009: 55). Learners of a

certain age are portrayed as having spent their whole lives immersed in technology

(Prensky, 2001: 1). By the sheer volume of their interaction in this ‘ubiquitous environment’

(ibid), they possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies

which, in turn, informs their learning preferences. A clear distinction is made between this

generation born, for example, between 1977 and 1997 (Tapscott, 1998) and those who are


15

older, not born in the ‘digital age’, the so-called ‘digital immigrants’. Despite this, the latter

generation, have become fascinated by and adopted many of the newer technologies. Their

foreign ‘accent’, which translates as having ‘one foot in the past’ (Prensky, 2001: 2),

however, never disappears entirely.

Whilst the existence of an ‘accent’ might be argued to feature in a whole generation of

‘immigrants’, it is often characterised by anecdotal evidence and appeals to commonly held

beliefs (Bennett et al, 2008: 777). It is argued that there is little empirical evidence to the

claims that this arbitrary divide exists. By not empirically backing up this contention,

Prensky’s words only sought to create an academic version of a moral panic. The analogy to

Cohen’s (1972) notion of ‘moral panic’ is helpful, because of the similarity to ‘a youth

subculture, portrayed as embodying a threat to societal values and norms,’ (Bennett et al,

2008: 782). Prensky (2001) tried to expose this generational gap, warning of students who

had changed radically, no longer the people [the US] education system was designed to

teach and that digital immigrants instructors spoke an outdated language (ibid: 1-2).

While newer technologies may still be frequently portrayed as playgrounds for younger

generations, it does not necessarily follow that children are the authorities. It is true that

many young people are ‘driven to connect with their peers online as a result of increasingly

heavily scheduled and protected lives’ (Dudeney, Hockly and Pegrum, 2012: 8). It does not

follow, however, that the emergent technologies, including the newer generation of

dynamic web tools, which focus on communication, sharing and collaboration, thus turning

ordinary web users from passive consumers of information into active contributors to a

shared culture, have only been taken up by a younger generation. Empirical studies show

that the notion of a homogenous, digitally able generation is a myth (ibid), while simple

terms like ‘net generation’ can blind us to a more complex reality (Pegrum, 2009: 56).

In educational settings, teachers might find themselves having to be pro-active when

learning new technologies for the classroom, as a top-down requirement. Similarly, they

might take the lead on investigating web tools because they are part of a wider network of

professionals, which students are not. Finally, many language teachers currently practicing


16

are very open to creative possibilities of technology. They do not have a pre-digital mindset,

often knowing as much as, if not more than, their students.

2.5 PARADIGM 3: ‘DIGITAL RESIDENTS’ vs ‘DIGITAL VISITORS’

A more recent paradigm, or continuum, has been proposed (White, 2008; White and Le

Cornu, 2011) which seems to more accurately define two contrasting but not polar opposite

users of online technology, who differ in the approach they take.

A ‘visitor’ goes online, presented metaphorically as a garden shed, and selects a particular

‘tool’ to carry out a task. It might not be ideal but it ‘does the job’. As long as progress is

made, the ‘visitor’ is content, with the tool ‘being replaced’ in the shed. Visitors are goal-

orientated and unlikely to have a social persona online as they might be wary of their digital

identity being known. They try to leave without creating a trace.

A ‘resident’, on the other hand, pictures the Web as a meeting place for exchanges of all

manner of ideas, opinions and activities. A significant proportion of their actual lives are

conducted online. For residents, the Web is a place to express opinions, a place in which

relationships can be formed and extended. They are nebulous, visible and communal, but

not necessarily collaborative. The web is a ‘social space’, where a resident ‘enjoys that sense

of ambient social presence … of other people in social media platforms’ but still retains a

strong sense of autonomy (White, 2008iii).

The construction of a web ‘tool’ as something which is purposefully selected is very useful,

in the same way that a piece of technology can be consciously chosen to do a job.

Incidentally, none of the numerous Web 2.0 tools, which will feature in the taxonomy of

tools described later in this paper, did not exist when Prensky offered his original,

dichotomous typology.

Many ‘visitors’ will limit their online activity for good reason. It can be a fairly conscious

decision not to engage for ‘fear’ of wasting time, being ‘exposed’ or being sucked into

something which causes anxiety and frustration. Being a cautious and selective ‘visitor’

means a person is no less technically adept at using a tool effectively than the ‘resident’. In

fact, they may be better skilled at selection, based on pedagogic principles.


17

Whilst the Visitors-Residents paradigm initially appears to represent a more fluid and

engaging way to frame this new research, it focuses more on online behaviour and still may

not accurately reflect the complexities of users engaging with technology today. It is also

not yet established in the minds of potential respondents. The technophile-technophobe

paradigm is, I would argue, more familiar and was, therefore, chosen as a starting point for

this investigation. Despite reservations over how accurately it can describe a person’s

relationship with technology, it benefits from not being age-based or dependent on online

activity. It also allows respondents to self-describe their relationship, based on their

comparative perception, which can be explored during the interviews.


18

CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

I have so far discussed Continuous Professional Development, Computer-assisted Language

Learning, some previous research into ICT use in education and by language teachers in

particular, dimensions of teacher autonomy and paradigms used to describe a person’s

relationship with technology. The research questions below were formulated ahead of this

new exploratory investigation into this area, with an attempt to connect the different

dimensions of teacher autonomy with the behaviour of currently practicing EFL teachers.

The perception of an EFL teacher’s view of technology was an interesting starting point and I

wanted to discover whether this affected autonomous behaviour and whether this changed

over time. This led to some initial research questions shown here:

How do teachers discover ICT/web tools, what are they using and why?

How frequent is teachers’ use of ICT/web tools in practice?

Are they getting enough support to integrate these tools?

What are the expectations of institutions in training teachers in this area?

How autonomous are teachers in learning these tools for themselves and is this

based on their relationship with technology?

What are the barriers to implementing ICT/web tools into teaching?

These are explored in the research, as taxonomy of what EFL teachers are doing was

developed. One presupposition was that they are either not getting enough support or that

there is a mismatch between institutional demand to increase ICT skills and a lack of

training. I also ventured that there were many self-employed and freelance teachers and

teacher trainers who, by their circumstances, are, by necessity, more likely to be

autonomous when it comes to their development in this area. It was important, however,

to see what came out of the data.


19

3.2 METHODOLOGY

Having set up my research questions, I will describe the process of research, including

reasons for this area of investigation and methodological approach.

I chose a ‘mixed methods’ approach to collect the data. On the one hand, I wanted to

collect taxonomy of what language teachers are currently doing, and where they are doing it

- a snapshot of the extent to which ICT and web tools were being engaged with. On the

other hand, I wanted to dig beneath the surface to find the reasons behind using these

tools, and especially of their relationship with technology. How do teachers learn these

tools for themselves and to what extent do they rely on others, more experienced in the

field? When finding out attitudes towards the use of technology, I suspected that many

teachers perceived their relationship with technology in a certain way. This second part

connects with the paradigms which I covered earlier.

The particular variant of mixed methods approach I used can be abbreviated to ‘QUAN ->

qual’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 170). This typology is reserved for a questionnaire survey which is

followed by an interview or retrospection, with dominance on the former method (ibid 169).

Research begins with a reasonably large amount of data collection in a short space of time,

using a questionnaire survey. The answers received are substantially dependent on the

questions asked. This is followed up with a hand-picked selection of qualitative interviews

with semi-structured questions, based on the responses to the open questions from the

survey. Those interviewed have already taken part in the survey. Hence, the capitalisation

of ‘QUAN’ and the lower-case, ‘qual’, because the subsequent qualitative component is

there to ‘remedy the potential weakness’ of the respondents’ engagement with the

questions as being shallow and unable to show the exact nature of the any observed

relationship (ibid: 170-171). An alternative to this method would be ‘QUAN+QUAL’

‘concurrent design’ method, in which equally weighted pieces of quantitative and

qualitative data are carried out, albeit separately from each other. As my interviewees also

participated in the questionnaire survey, they form a sequential secondary component of

the overall data collection. I felt it was important to do this because, in isolation,

questionnaires:


20

inherently involve a somewhat superficial and relatively brief engagement with thetopic on the part of the respondent. Therefore, no matter how creatively weformulate the items, they are unlikely to yield the kind of rich and sensitivedescription of events and participant perspectives that qualitative interpretationsare grounded in. (Dörnyei, 2007: 105)

3.3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

For the survey questionnaire design, a combination of closed, demographic, ‘Likert scale’,

multi-item (matrix) scale and open-ended questions were used. In trying to establish

current practice, it was important to provide some suggestions for each question, but to

also allow respondents to state, in their own words, what they are doing, as supplementary

or additional information. Examples of this were questions 8 and 9, which account for some

options, but allowed for an open response to cover additional or alternative answers.

The survey underwent a process of several stages of piloting. Firstly, the survey was

advertised on an ICT in ELT blog, which already existediv, amongst current practicing

professionals, with a request to take part, It was circulated amongst members of the IATEFL

and #ELTchat Facebook groups and via followers on Twitter. A webinar was set up using the

WiZIQ platformv, providing a link to the class on the blog post. The aim was to ask some of

the preliminary research questions and to explore some definitions, including those of

‘technophobia’ and ‘technophilia’, with an aim to construct a questionnaire. Seven

teachers participated, including two who responded directly with comments on the blog.

Five others came via the aforementioned social networking sites and already formed part of

a growing Personal Learning Network (PLN), which had been building since the start of the

year. These seven willing participants, each one a currently practicing language teacher,

formed the ‘focus group’, of which two members complete their feedback by email.

The question wording was designed following that first webinar. The design underwent a

number of changes. Initially, ten questions were thought to be sufficient. I consulted a

friend, an experienced researcher, who noted a complete absence of demographic

questions, such as those on age and gender. It was also suggested that ten questions might

not be enough, a crucial point which was affirmed by my supervisor later. By this time,


21

however, a second webinar had taken place, thirteen days after the first. This webinar was

specifically to discuss the wording of the questionnaire, which at that point had only nine

questions. There were four participants, which included one new teacher who had found

the blog entry and wanted to take part. The four others, who were originally involved in the

focus group but couldn’t make the second session, submitted their feedback by email. A

working link to the draft survey was provided, so that they could go through each question

of the nine questions and suggest a possible 10th. All of this feed into a radically revised,

twenty question survey, which now included demographics and an option to take part in

follow-up interviews. This was subsequently ‘road-tested’ by two of the group, one of whom

suggested what subsequently became an optional question on measuring effectiveness of

an ICT tool. The final version, with ‘covering letter’ is included in Appendix A.

3.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

At this point, I will discuss the sampling procedure. From the outset, this study did not aim

to focus on one teaching context or location. The aim was to collect broad opinions from

EFL teachers around the world, without necessarily making generalised claims. Non-

probability sampling was used, as this consists of ‘a number of strategies that try to achieve

a trade-off, that is, a reasonably representative sample using resources that are within the

means of the ordinary researcher (Dörnyei, 2007: 97). In addition, a form of convenience

(with purposive) sampling was used. An important criterion here is the convenience of the

researcher, who is able to easily access members of the target population, using social

networks. In addition, it is somewhat purposive, because the request for participants

included a requirement that the person be working in the field of ELT as a teacher, teacher-

trainer, recently engaged as a teacher or about to start as one. Although the qualification

was narrowed at first, it was kept wide enough to catch potential candidates who had some

valid opinions on this.

Two ‘collector points’ were set up in Survey Monkey. The first consisted of accessing my

own Personal Learning Network (PLN), mentioned earlier, via the same sources used to

establish the focus group. They were given one uniform resource locator (URL) to complete

the survey. The second consisted of people signed up to the Teacher Training Videos (TTV)


22

websitevi newsletter. This group were given a different locator to complete the survey. It

is likely that some received both requests, but there can be confidence that nobody

completed the survey more than once, as was requested, due to identifiable Internet

Protocol addresses. A minimum of 50 and ideally 100 responses were sought, which was

easily achieved.

It is important to stipulate the manner of the sampling technique employed here. Any

survey about people’s behaviour with technology and experience of ICT tools would ideally

triangulate data collected by an online survey against that taken from a physical

questionnaire followed by face-to-face interviews from a contrasting source. A more

accurate current picture might be obtained by surveying people who otherwise do not

readily engage with online activities. So despite taking a ‘mixed’ approach, there is no

triangulation in the strictest sense (ibid: 165). An acknowledgement of the somewhat

inevitable problem of ‘self-selection’ (ibid: 100-101) is also required. By giving participants

freedom to choose, the resulting sample can be dissimilar to the ideal target population. A

reasonably representative sample was, nonetheless, obtained, given that the majority of

participants would have, at least, the basic skills of IT competence to complete the survey.

In addition, there was no deliberate attempt to target ‘technophobes’ or those less engaged

in the topic. A question which bluntly asks how ‘technophobic’ someone feels could be

taken as a somewhat irrelevant question given an online survey. It remained a starting

point, nonetheless, for investigating attitudes towards the issue, which could be tested later

during interviews. As stated earlier, this is more familiar terminology. A relationship with

technology can be more fluid than that, with the use of some technologies managed better

than others. The relationship can also change over time.


23

CHAPTER FOUR - SURVEY FINDINGS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS

107 responses were received in a 14 day period, with 68 from the general collector and 39

from the TTV collector. One response from the latter was discounted due to incomplete

information from a duplicated IP address. Effectively this resulted in 106 full responses,

who all completed the main 18 questions to reach the final page, while 23 added further

comments (question 19) and 46 left their contact address (question 20) to be informed of

the results of the survey and/or for a follow-up interview. The full findings are shown in

Appendix B, minus the contact details.

Of the first two demographic questions, 72 (67.9%) were female, 34 (32.1%) were male,

with a broad range of ages being represented. 40 (37.7%) of the respondents came from the

30-39 age bracket – see figure 3. One respondent was 60 or over and no-one was under 21.

Figure 1

Of the second two demographic questions, a total of 54 different countries and 26 different

first (or native) languages were represented. For this survey, ‘country’ was defined as

where the respondent ‘currently teaches or has recently taught’, while ‘first (or native)

language’ could include two answers if that person considered themselves bilingual. Both of

these open questions required a self-defined answer, rather than ticking from several

options.


24

Figure 2

10

8

7

7

4

4

4

33

3333222

22

22

2

2

2

22

2

11 1

11

1

1 11

1

1 1

11

11

1 1

11

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

Country of teaching

UK (10) Turkey (8) Greece (7)

Spain (7) Argentina (4) China (4)

Japan (4) Australia (3) England (3)

Germany (3) Mexico (3) none/yet to teach (3)

Portugal (3) Canada (2) France (2)

Indonesia (2) Ireland (2) Italy (2)

Oman (2) Qatar (2) Romania (2)

South Korea (2) Thailand (2) Ukraine (2)

Venezuela (2) Vietnam (2) Armenia

Belgium Cameroon Channel Islands

Chile Croatia Ethiopia

India Iran Latvia

Libya Middle East Mynamar

Nepal Netherlands Poland

Republic of Macedonia Russia Saudi Arabia

Scotland Slovakia Sweden

Switzerland Syria Tanzania

Uruguay USA Virtual/Online with LEWWP


25

Figure 3

49

12

6

6

4

22

2

2

22

2

1

11

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

First (or native)language

English (49) Spanish (12)

Greek (6) Turkish (6)

Russian (4) Arabic (2)

German (2) Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) (2)

Italian (2) Polish (2)

Portuguese (2) Slovak (2)

Amharic Burmese

Croatian Greek/English (bilingual)

Lamnso Macedonian

Mandarin Chinese Nepali

Persian Pogoro

Romanian Spanish/Catalan (bilingual)

Swiss German Telugu

Ukranian


26

The most represented countries were the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece – see figure

2. Five respondents stated that they taught in more than country and these are counted as

separate entries (total 116). Some appeared to associate themselves with teaching in one

country (for example, eight years in Iran) but are currently teaching in another (Sweden).

One respondent, based in the USA, stated that she has set up a virtual ‘Ning’-built website

and, subsequently, teaches people from around the world. English was, perhaps not

surprisingly, the most common native language stated, with 49 stating this, followed by

Spanish (12) – see figure 3.

Figure 4

4.2 EXPERIENCE, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

On the question of experience, 98 responded, with 35 stating they had 11-20 years in the

area of ELT. 23 claimed more than 20 years’ experience – see figure 4. Eight skipped the

question, which, must be assumed, included three who had previously stated (in Q3) they

were yet to teach. The vast majority of respondents (70) stated they were employed, with

two part-time and two more employed as ‘volunteers’. This left 32 as ‘not employed’ - 11

self-employed, 9 as ‘freelance’, 8 as ‘student/not employed’ and 4 ‘other’. The latter


27

questions (Q16, Q17) on support and training are directly related to this. The survey found

little support by employers or institutions. 50% of those who responded said their

employer/institution has never or on just one occasion provided support and/or training,

while 62.6% responded similarly on the issue of the employer or institution paying for

training – figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 6


28

The full data – figure 6 – suggests a reasonable amount of teachers not receiving much PD

training in this area, whereas a higher proportion seem to say they are frequently (36%) or

always (28.1%) self-taught in this area. On the face of it, those kinds of results would

appear to correlate, but this required some cross-tabulation with ‘employment status’. An

expected high proportion of the ‘not employed’ group (32), outlined above, selected N/A for

those questions relating to what their employer does. Some of those, however, answered

‘never’, possibly referring to a time when they have been employed. Although answers

from the ‘not employed’ group have generally fallen into these two responses, different

interpretations of the question have arisen. So what initially appears to be a reasonable

finding reveals possible misunderstanding about the question and, therefore, required

further clarification during the interview stage.

Q17 asked opinion on three statements relating to where training should come. It revealed

both a strong desire for employer or institutions to provide and responsibility being taken by

the teacher. Of those that answered the question (92) opinion seems that training should

be a joint responsibility – see figure 7. The remainder (14), possibly containing many from

the ‘not employed’ group, may have decided the question was not relevant, although some

may still have selected the second option, given the lack of alternatives for them. By cross-

tabulating, we found half of those described as ‘self-employed’ or ‘freelance’ chose N/A

here. Again this needs further unpacking during interviews, as it may not have been entirely

clear how to answer the question.

Figure 7


29

4.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

Before I discuss the taxonomy section of the survey, I will briefly show the results of Q7 –

figure 8 - which asked respondents to place themselves on the dichotomous technophobic-

technophilic paradigm. I have already mentioned that ticking a single box does not

accurately describe someone’s relationship with technology. Furthermore, asking this

question during an online survey can misrepresent the reality. Nonetheless, eight teachers

placed themselves at the technophobic end. Not surprisingly, a high proportion (73) placed

themselves at the technophilic end, suggesting a positive experience towards the questions

which followed. More interesting is how teachers describe themselves in relation to

technology. Feedback during the pilot study had already suggested terms like ‘tech-aware’

and ‘tech-user’ at the lower end, with ‘tech-aficionado’ and ‘tech-savvy’ at the higher end.

The term ‘enthusiastic amateur’ was additionally suggested, along with a sense of using

technology when needed, appropriate for activities. For others, it is less about ‘fear’, more

about the benefits of using the technology, which we return to in Q12. The interviews

would provide an opportunity to uncover a more fluid relationship and whether this had

changed over time.

Figure 8


30

4.4 TAXONOMY OF CURRENT PRACTICE

Now I will discuss the critical section (Q8-Q12) of the survey, which is essentially the

taxonomy of what English language teachers are currently doing in the area of ICT. Each of

these questions offered some likely options, but also the opportunity to comment further

with specific, individual responses.

Q8 was concerned with the original broader area of (continuous) professional development.

In the introduction, I wondered about the extent to which teachers have found themselves

increasing their knowledge through autonomous self-directed learning. A starting point is to

ask teachers what they currently do in the area of PD. Here, respondents were invited to

tick all that applied. ‘Following/reading blogs’ (76.8%) was the most popular response,

followed by ‘engaging with an online community’ (69.5%) – figure 9. Actually ‘writing a blog’

(41.1%) was lower down the list. More ambiguous general reading (68.4%) and voluntary

self-study (63.2%) were more popular, as is the more specific activity of attending

conferences (61.1%). A wide variety of additional methods were employed. These included

taking an MA, delivering peer training in e-learning, using Edudemic on iPad, watching

YouTube tutorials and taking part in webinars. A small number declared they currently did

nothing or that they were just starting out, while 11 skipped the question entirely, which

suggests they did none of those listed.

Figure 9


31

Q9 focused on the frequency of technology, the ‘hardware’, used in teaching. It was

deliberately worded in the passive so that use by students could be included. In addition, it

included use outside of the classroom. Results indicated a stronger use of more

conventional networked computers and laptops over tablets – figure 10. An overhead

projector, or beamer, was mentioned by some in the comments section, as was some kind

of audio or voice recording equipment, such as a Dictaphone. Some stated that none of

these applied, while 8 skipped the question entirely.

Figure 10

Q10 focused on the use of web tools, or ‘software’, broadly grouped by type. Respondents

were asked to select the frequency they used 15 types of tool, for which some examples

were given. The results – figures 11/12 – provide a snapshot of how frequent these tools

were currently being used. Some of these, such as materials creation tools, are more

obviously geared towards ELT, while others are not specifically designed for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the question did not stipulate the use in teaching, as did Q9, but this was

noted and later clarified during the interview stage.


32

Figure 11

Figure 12


33

Given the vast amount of web tools now in existence, it was unsurprising that many

respondents wanted to share specific names of tools, offering links and recommendations.

Glogster, Screen Chomp (for iPad), VoiceThread, Voki, Headmagnet, FlashcardsDb,

Fotobabble, Mailvu, Dropbox, Evernote and Lyrics Trainer were just some of those

mentioned. See Appendix B for the full list.

Q11 asked how teachers discovered ICT or web tools. This straightforward, optional

question revealed the highest proportion of respondents (79) stating this was through ‘self-

discovery’ – figure 13. This suggests complete independence, but I would suggest an

overlap exists with other methods, such as searching for certain terms on the internet,

following a blog, or discovering a tool at a conference. Certainly the crossover with Q8,

about professional development activities, exists. Indeed, a brief cross-tabulation between

these two questions – figure 14 - shows very high response rates between those engaged in

numerous activities for PD and those who claim to ‘self-discover’.

Figure 13


34

Figure 14

The factors behind choosing a tool were asked in Q12 and later explored during the

interviews. Does the web ‘visitor’ purposefully have a pedagogical aim and looks for a tool

that does the job or do they ‘discover’ the tool and then adapt the lesson accordingly? It is,

perhaps, not surprising that most teachers consider the importance of a tool to be easy to

access, easy to use and ideally free – figure 15. In addition, it needs to be relevant,

engaging, motivating and justified. Opinion is strong across all of these and it can be difficult

to argue against that. It was far less important for the institution to have a subscription.

Although many tools are basically free, there are often paid-for versions which do more,

such as increased integration. One respondent commented that it was important for

students to be able to embed content on other sites. Another, who was subsequently

interviewed, proposed that it should be ‘andragogically justified’, an previously unfamiliar

term to describe a theory of adult learning, coined by Knowles (cited in Hartree, 1984: 204)

in contrast to a more child-based pedagogy, ‘the art or science of teaching children’

(emphasis in ibid).

Many of the above questions shown required further unpacking to remedy the potential

weaknesses shown in the significant, but often misleading data obtained. That is where

follow-up interviews can be more explicit in their meaning towards, for example, factors

behind choosing and using a web tool. I will move onto the interview data shortly, but not

before summarising the responses to two key questions set out earlier. How autonomous

are teachers in learning about tools, as opposed to merely discovering them, and what are

the barriers to implementation?


35

Figure 15

4.5 AUTONOMY AND BARRIERS

Earlier I discussed overlapping definitions of teacher autonomy, which highlighted the

development of appropriate skills and attitudes, the capacity to make choices and the

support offered by teacher-learner pools of diverse knowledge. I also detailed the

theoretical dimensions which separated ‘action’ from ‘development’. I would like to use

these constructs to frame my discussion of the responses to Q14 and Q15. These questions

move the respondents on from their autonomous behaviour in respect of general

professional development, such as going to conferences, to the more specific learning

required to effectively use an ICT or Web tool. A person’s capacity and/or willingness to

engage in self-directed behaviour might be based on their ‘relationship’ with technology, or

how they perceive their ability to learn the tool. But this capacity can also be seen in terms

of an ability to put theory (learning of the tools) into action (integration). This, in turn, can

be compromised by barriers which limit this. Just as McGrath and Smith (ibid) separated

those factors which an autonomous teacher has control of from those which are outside of


36

their control, so too can we separate out factors which show good intention to learn and

implement these tools, from those which prevent it happening in reality.

Figure 16

Figure 17


37

Q14 asked how frequently teachers engage in autonomous behaviour, such as learning a

tool on their own. What is their reliance on others? This effectively begins to explore their

capacity and/or willingness to learn the tool. The results – figure 16 – suggest a high level of

autonomous behaviour. Most striking is that 80 (86.9%) teachers of those who answered

said that they learn by using and practicing, suggesting that confidence comes with being

self-taught. Almost as likely, 72 (78.3%) said they would try a tool out and only resort to

help if needed. 40 (43.5%) respondents claimed they frequently teach themselves

everything they need to know. Occasionally they would rely on others to show them what

to do but overall, according to the data, this appears to be a fairly resourceful and

autonomous set of teachers. One teacher highlighted their attitude:

Most often I have a go and if it's not intuitive and easy to work out, or I want ideason how to use then I Google it and will usually find a YouTube video or blog withloads of great advice. (Appendix B)

Q15 effectively asked what kinds of barriers exist in moving the teacher from learning about

the tool (professional development) to using the tool in reality (professional action) – figure

17. ‘Financial costs’ - 60 (65.2%) – was the biggest barrier, with 54 of those stating it was

important or very important for tools to be free (cross-tabulation with Q12). ‘Reliability’

also featured highly – 55 (59.8%), and there is some expected correlation with the question

on ‘technophobia’ – figure 18 – although not completely conclusive.

Figure 18


38

‘Lack of training’ – 37 (40.2%) and ‘time consumption’ – 44 (47.8%) appeared lower down

than expected initially, but we have already established this group as fairly resourceful.

Institutional resistance - 40 (43.5%) could encompass all situations where stricter controls

on how things are taught apply, or difficulties in getting permission to install software on

institutional machines, as some commented. While 14 skipped the question and/or wrote

‘none at all’ in the comments, others took the opportunity to highlight their personal

barriers. One stated that while it is not time consuming, per se, to learn these tools, they

don’t have enough time to devote ‘to fully discovering, assessing and incorporating the tech

into the lessons.’ Another described physical discomfort associated with constant use of the

computer, with ergonomic issues being ‘an elephant in the living room’. Health issues are

often overlooked, and one respondent wanted to rectify this omission. In addition:

Another elephant in the living room with ICT is the problem of deteriorating qualityof concentration that many of us have been experiencing as we become more adeptand frequent ICT users in every aspect of our lives. (Appendix B: 36)

4.6 ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF TOOLS

Before concluding this section, I will briefly deal with the main points from the open Q13 on

how teachers would assess the success or effectiveness of a particular tool. This question

immediately followed one about what factors are involved when selecting a tool to use.

This was referred to as many teachers responded with examples of why they used certain

tools. Simple, manual coding of the answers revealed a significant judgement lay in

students’ engagement, interest, their opinions and feedback. If they responded well, then it

is effective. However, many of these went on to state that learning outcomes, proficiency in

performance and demonstrated use of the target language were equally markers for

success. For some, ease of use and the ability to integrate the tool into lessons, rather than

to become the focus of it, were additional important, as shown in the extracted comment:

Whether it serves the purpose ... it needs to be relatively easy to integrate into mylesson, and at the moment I am not completely changing the way I teach toincorporate technology - for instance, I am not "flipping" classrooms. (Appendix B:33)


39

The amount of time and effort involved were lesser but notable remarks, while some merely

commented that as long as the tool got used, inside and outside of the classroom, this was a

positive measure. Provided some pedagogical value can be proven or an actual increase in

student engagement or learning takes place, then teachers appear to make contextual

decisions regarding their use and choice of tool.

4.7 MAIN POINTS

I will now identify the main points from the survey which formed the basis for the

remainder of the investigation. To what extent have teachers found themselves increasing

their knowledge of ICT and web tools through autonomous self-directed learning? The

findings suggest this is happening quite a lot. To what extent do they wait for externally-

driven training to be given when needed? The suggestion is that this does not happen

much. Not only did the findings point to there being little support by institutions but an

overwhelming majority, (82.2%) of those who expressed an opinion, felt they should take

responsibility for their own training in this area. Although a high proportion (75.2%) also felt

that while the institution should provide training, this does not mean they expect it. The

amount of responsibility that teachers take for actually learning these tools, therefore,

became a focal point for the interviews.

The most common constraining factors from the survey were reliability (59.8%) and the

financial cost involved (65.2%). A high number of respondents ticked several factors as well

as adding their own reasons. The barriers which impact upon the teacher learning and

implementing these tools for themselves, therefore, also needed further investigation.

Finally, respondents’ ‘relationship with technology’ and ‘autonomous behaviour’ needed

further exploration. Finding out how both of these more personal factors have changed

over time could provide some benefit to others and offer practical ways of developing in this

area.


40

CHAPTER FIVE - INTERVIEWS

5.1 METHODOLOGY

For the follow-up interview stage, I drew upon the pool of survey respondents that had left

contact details. 45 out of 106 respondents were subsequently contacted, by group email

(Appendix C), for further participation. Fourteen individuals, based in thirteen different

countries, eventually signed up for a single online session, where they chose the date and

time, via a simple Wikivii, effectively confirming consent and to maximise involvement.

Conducting an online interview comes with potential technical barriers and need for the

participants to help troubleshoot problems so it was fortunate, perhaps, to have reasonably

technically-minded interviewees. A member of Warwick Language Centreviii provided

assistance by offering the use of a privately maintained room in Blackboard Collaborate 12ix,

a VLE previously mentioned on page 5, and forwarding the recordings.

The questions were piloted beforehand with one member of my survey focus group. This

one-off pilot did bring out some technical issues, such as ‘dropouts’, avoiding echo and

maximising the number of speakers. These issues were highlighted in further emails to the

interviewees. In addition, before recording, a few minutes were spent checking the

connection. On five occasions, however, unsolvable issues prevented access to the room or

a clear connection. Skype (version 5.10.0.116) together with a VOIP recorder plug-inx was,

subsequently, used instead.

In preparation for the interviews, individual survey responses were printed off and a semi-

structured Interview framework with content questions was devised – see Appendix D. The

interviewees were encouraged to elaborate on their survey responses. This approach is

suitable for cases when there is already a good understanding of the phenomenon and

there is a wish to develop deeper responses to those questions engaged with already

(Dörnyei, 2007: 136). Furthermore, interviewees were encouraged to tell their story, with

the questions intended to frame but also to allow elaboration upon this.

Fourteen interviewsxi were conducted during a one week period. The intention was initially

to transcribe and to code all the data, which is good practice for any researcher, by taking a


41

rigorous, objective approach. It soon became clear this was simply not realistic or even

appropriate. Even transcriptions which disregard the meticulous, finer points of

conversation analysis can take several times as long as the original interview length to

complete. A key aspect of the QUAN->qual approach, as stated in the methodology section,

is that interviews are used to remedy the potential weakness of the respondents’

engagements with the questionnaire. The purpose here was not to carry out completely

separate interviews on the topic or to inductively generate data, as in ‘grounded theory’

approach. The aim was to ‘add flesh to the bones’, a term used in the interviews, of what

had already been claimed. In addition, prompts, probes (ibid: 138) and reflective remarks

were used to clarify their responses, as well as the use of questions which challenged the

respondents’ survey answers, as they were invited to justify their selections. Opportunities

were also given to ask questions or answer related questions which were not actually asked.

In order to code, a significant amount of pre-coding would have to be acknowledged, given

the content questions. Pre-coding also takes place in the transcription selection of most but

not all of the responses. The coding which has been applied here is, therefore, a simpler

transcription of each interview, where the essence of all the responses have been grouped

approximately by five content questions taken from the interview guide, but allowing for

some additional, relevant information to be included:

Relationship with Technology

ICT/Web Tools Usage

Barriers

Institutional Support and Training

Autonomous Behaviour


42

5.2 INTERVIEW FINDINGS

In presenting the interview findings, 14 interviewees are referred to by their anonymised

initials. Two sections of the transcribed data, along with demographic information,

transcription notes, collector points and medium used can be found in Appendix E.

Demographics are interesting but less important here as this was not a direct comparison of

age, sex and nationality etc. There is difficulty in analysing results across such wildly

different teaching contexts and it would be nigh-on impossible to make generalisations from

the data. The general is ‘only interesting when it takes the form of concrete connections to

other contexts, findings, experience and so on’ (Richards, 2003: 265).

5.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

Having reminded each interviewee of where they placed themselves on the technophobe-

technophile continuum, each one was invited to describe more fully their relationship with

technology. Collectively, there was an over-representation at the technophile end, but this

perception represented their current relationship and what emerged from the data were

stories of changing perceptions and engagement with learning ICT, predominately outside of

work. In three examples, claiming to be a technophile was unambiguous because of

lifetime experience or a perception of being born into it:

Basically, I am bit of a nerd. I used to spend hours writing up computer programs. [Atuniversity] we used a lot of computer technology to run simulating software … thewhole computer thing is pretty straightforward for me ... I’m using really high-endsoftware. (UV)

I was a computer programmer … then website developer when the Internet firstcame about. I did my first online course before that ... when we had somethingcalled ARNET … I don’t have any fear of anything with technology. (YZ)

I’ve grown up with the Internet and with digital life and digital identity. I spend aridiculous amount of time on the computer. I’m very comfortable with [it]. (KL)

Others were more cautious, concerned about technology taking over, for example:

I don’t just naturally love computers, but I’m not afraid, either … in the future itwon’t be a fancy alternative, just the norm, so I decided it was necessary to learn, toget comfortable … the term digital immigrant resonates with me … my relationship[is] transitional, experimental. (AA)


43

I love technology, but don’t like going to extreme … like spending the whole day infront of the computer … I use it half for my professional needs, half for myprofessional development. (CD)

I hope to lean towards the technophile end … I’m very eager to try out new things[but] I’m not a real technical genius. (ST)

The most interesting finding was a number of interviewees who described their journey

from one part of the continuum to another or how they had integrated their increasing

knowledge into their teaching. For example:

I have always been fond of technology. In 2004 I did a Webheads In Action course.To that point I did use technology in my life, but not for teaching ... I discoveredthere were so many things you could do … that could make teaching and learningmore fun, interesting and effective. That’s where my journey … started and I thinkI’ve come a long way. (WX)

My movement into ICT is something … germinated from some seeds planted hereand there. Given that progression and an inclination to try and get away frominefficient teaching approaches. I think that is the process, by which, a teacher candevelop into ICT. (IJ)

One respondent explicitly claimed to originally be a ‘digital immigrant’ who claimed that

first-hand experiences, in South Korea, and finding mentors had helped her:

It was a big turning point. I haven’t always been a technophile, absolutely not … formy own fear factor, I’ve always been a curious person. I was terribly phobic for yearsand the continuum goes back and forth still, but confidence [has grown], especiallysince the last several months. (GH)

Approximately half of the interviewees were introduced at some point to ‘resident-visitor’

paradigm. Most of those, who expressed an opinion on this, placed themselves closer to

‘visitor’, at least in terms of ‘strategically choosing tools’ (AA), although this seemed to be

changing, as confidence grew in using online forums for professional development:

I have both social and professional online identities, with my Diploma blog … and Ispend a lot of time reading ELT blogs and even commenting. Perhaps my digitalresidency isn’t fully established simply because I’m a fairly new arrival. (AA)

I am becoming a bit more relaxed about my online presence. In the beginning, Iwasn’t so relaxed … I was a little bit intimidated by some of the other participants[on] websites. I’m way over that now. (BB)


44

5.4 ICT/WEB TOOL USAGE

During the interviews there was an opportunity to clarify answers given for survey Q10 as

the question had not asked whether use of tools was specifically for teaching purpose or

more general use. Teachers had interpreted the question in different ways. Some assumed

it was in relation to teaching because the previous question had been. Others took it more

generally, with one explaining:

It’s definitely an [extension] of my personal life. … I’ve realised a lot of the potentialthat connected learning, and connected professional development can offer, so I’vebeen integrating it more and more into my teaching. (KL)

Three main areas emerged of where certain types of tools were used. Social networking

tools, for example, were limited to personal use and accessed for professional development.

Materials creation and screen casting tools were used in teaching, but mostly for

preparation and feedback. Finally, there are those, such as creative, integrative and

presentation tools, used in the classroom with or exclusively by the students. This was

outlined by one interviewee as follows:

For myself, I use almost everything [on the list] but I do not necessarily useeverything in class. That’s the difference. I use Jing a lot, but I don’t use Jing in theclassroom. So there are effectiveness of tools for my daily life as a teacher and what Ithen actually transfer to students. (WX)

Many interviewees were also asked for frequently used tools. MOODLE was mentioned the

most. This was clearly due to Learning Management Systems (LMS) being introduced at the

institutional level. For some, this was the starting point in terms of integrating online tools

and sharing information securely with students. It remains a favourite for some (MN, YZ)

while others have used alternative LMS, such as Ganttproject (UV), Engrade and Edmodo

(OP). Collaborative wikis and blogs also proved popular.

Reasons for selecting tools were influenced strongly by options given on survey Q12. For

students the tool had to be simple, easy to use, intuitive (CD), ‘plug and play’ (OP) and free

to access. Many teachers, having discovered a tool, allowed themselves a certain time to

learn the tool before either using or rejecting – stage three of the ‘innovation, decision,

process’ model, referred to earlier. Often this depended on whether it can be

pedagogically justified. Some tools may be perceived as time-fillers, but, when asked,


45

teachers frequently claimed justification is essential. Tools which enable brainstorming

ideas, e.g. Wordle, Freemind, and ones which encourage creativity, for example, Pixton,

were also mentioned. One teacher queried whether she would know if a tool was

motivating, but agreed that engagement could be judged (YZ).

When it came to the order of discovery and implementation, there was no clear preferred

method. However, the majority seemed to wait for recommendations rather than

purposefully searching, as one interviewee stated:

First I learn about this tool, somewhere on the internet … then I see how and whichpoint I can use this tool in the classroom, for which purposes or activity. I usuallyread about it, maybe watch some tutorial and I see whether I personally like this toolor not and is it easy for me to use it? If yes, then I try to think how can incorporatethis tool into my lesson. (CD, sic)

For teacher-trainers the process was slightly different:

I do tend to wait until somebody points the tool out to me and think I could see areally good use for that one and then squeeze it into the classroom when I need it.From a teacher-training point of view, I do tend to do it the other way round,though. I wonder if there is a tool out there that will help my students or mytrainees benefit from it ... but for my own teaching, it’s the other way round. (BB)

A lot of it comes from my need and demand – if I need to do a certain thing and Idon’t have the immediate tool … at my fingertips, I go onto sourceforge or somesoftware website. (UV)

If the tool proved to be effective then it could be used again. In response to how

effectiveness can be measured, some stated it was a ‘trial and error’ process. The strongest

responses, in passion, if not in number, were in terms of students being able to demonstrate

the target language, with one declaring it to be pointless otherwise (ST).

Whilst the majority of interviewees saw the potential for tools, not everyone was

enthusiastic and tools were dismissed by one respondent as ‘frivolous’, before elaborating:

I think a person has to be really sold on the benefits … web tools inherently are easilydismissible [compared to a course book]. … by their nature, [they] in their virtualityare ephemeral. Jing? Well, you can make a video and send them to students, but it’skind of narrow. I want a multipurpose or general set which brings them all together.(IJ)


46

This freelance teacher later expressed how preparation and delivery had changed with

Smart notebook software:

I’m no longer sitting in front of a blank sheet of paper, wondering what to do. Now Ihave a series of slides to fill in and things are … slicker, more efficient … I’ve got arecord of what was done. … Given those characteristics or features I find someendless benefits. (IJ)

Having that ability to have everything in one place is attractive for any teacher wishing to

appear organised. As an example of someone who moves from context to context, on a

yearly basis, portability is essential. With so many tablet devices now, this is becoming the

future in ELT, as is the trend to ‘bring your own device’ (GH).

5.5 BARRIERS

The financial cost involved was the highest polling barrier in the survey. This was affirmed

by a number of interviewees. A significant proportion of web tools are free to use, at least

in their basic version. While the perception by institutions that purchasing technology to

enable use of these tools was prohibitive, many interviewees revealed they either used free

tools where the opportunity and hardware existed or bought their own technology for their

classrooms:

You would have to go and buy more tools [for MOODLE] and if nobody else asks forthese tools … my university will not get [these] additional tools. I got my own iPadbecause my university won’t pay for it. (MN)

I buy a lot of licences and tools myself, because that is the only way I can justify [tothe institution] the amazing things I’m doing with it. (YZ)

One interviewee, however, went to great lengths to explain how he had overcome cost

barriers by directly emailing several software owners:

Some of the companies have granted me professional licences … because I amteacher from Ukraine and I need them and my salary is peanuts [so] they let me useprofessional versions for half a year. … You can see an email from the creator ofThingLink, Finland, granting me educational account free of charge. (OP)

Reliability, which also scored high on the survey, was also reaffirmed, although tellingly the

fear of technology breaking down was projected onto non confident work colleagues by

some, describing it as ‘the last nail in the coffin’ (BB). Guaranteed access was also raised,


47

especially in Nepal, where there are frequent power cuts (QR) or in China, where a lot of

useful sites are blocked and proxy servers are not encouraged at the institution (UV). In

addition, state government networks can also restrict access, even to sites like Blogger, if

someone gets offended (YZ).

Time constraints were singled out, as well as specific issues concerning online instruction:

Every tool takes a lot of learning and adapting and experimenting and that takes a lotof time. It’s much easier to go with what you already know. (AA)

Definitely my list of priorities is too long. I can prioritise and I do, but time.Connection speeds is another large challenge. … Infrastructures of connectionaccess. … With so many devices used now … I get feedback that things don’t workwith this device or browser. (GH)

More specific contextual problems arose. Non homogenous classes were mentioned (EF,

ST, YZ) as a factor associated with low-level learners. One interviewee spoke of the

disadvantage caused by easily distracted students and a liberal school policy in Sweden,

while another mentioned the problems of a self-described ‘developing’ country:

Because all the students have laptops, all of them are connected to the internet andsometimes they use games, and they check Facebook or they went to YouTube …[the school is] not allowed to force [the students] not [to use] music ... the studentssaid that they were allowed to do that, while I am teaching. (EF)

In the context of Nepal, there is more than one hundred students inside theclassroom. Another barrier is multilingual classroom, multilingual background. Theydon’t have much English knowledge, and we have problem of different mothertongues. (QR)

Many barriers, most notably that of institutional resistance and the lack of teachers seeking

to be autonomous learners, are arguably ‘underlain by a lack of political will’ (IJ). Thus:

when an organisation wants ICT or web tools used, they will make them available,they will train staff and create an ethos in which these things operate … therefore,the barriers which are left will be the teachers’ own proclivities or disinclination toengage. (IJ)


48

5.6 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT OR TRAINING

So what experiences do teachers have of institutional support? There were many detailed

examples of an organisation making technology available, as above, and there being some

expectation for training. One particular case involved the introduction of MOODLE, pre-

loaded with ‘a bunch of stuff’, with teachers told to ‘figure it out’, but no specific training

given (ST). In that unionised environment resistance from the teachers not prepared to

invest their own time in learning the tool, scuppered this innovation before it got going.

Another institution, part of state government, had very good conditions. Managers had

fought hard for allocation of PD. Support was widely given, but some teachers chose not to

spend time learning technology, training was turned down. Teachers can stubbornly resist

development unless they see a direct benefit for themselves. As one interviewee explained:

There was someone who said [they had] been teaching for 20 years and there isnothing else [she] could learn … I said to my manager, well I hope you took her PDmoney and time off her. (YZ)

Some regional training was found (UV), or funding for online courses (OP) and more so with

established providers, such as The British Council (IJ), but generally any PD in this area came

from colleagues, encouraged by institutions as part of a contractual obligation (AA, BB, IJ).

General support and encouragement for innovative teaching using existing technology was

found. Commonly, however, there was no training given and many had grown to not expect

it either. There were many examples of self-directed teacher-learners bringing new ideas

and trying them out for themselves or sharing with colleagues. The institutions generally

hired them on this basis and used them to give training sessions when needed. For one

young teacher, about to start work at an institution in the Netherlands:

I’m not expecting to be given anything. I’m expecting that I will have to either figureit out myself or ask people who have been there longer … I would hope it would beotherwise. Especially as there is now a trend to try and incorporate more ICT ineducation … and director of studies are quite interested by that ... they really wantto push for that, but they don’t know what to do with it. So I’m seeing [myemployment] as being very self-directed. (KL)

The interviewees consistently explained they had received no training and quite often found

their institution offering only ‘basic training’ (BB, EF, MN, OP, UV) or ‘not buying into’ the


49

idea (GH), often because non-government institutions are run as profit-driven businesses

(ST) or are reluctant to offer full-time contracts (AA, WX). Locations where teachers have

two or three part-time jobs make it difficult to coordinate professional development (WX).

As many of the teachers interviewed are also teacher-trainers (BB, GH, WX, YZ), they

demonstrated many of the skills required by their trainees, but expressed that both

managers and teachers often showed that ‘lack of political will’. As one teacher-trainer

explained:

I think the institution should be providing training. I think if you bury your head inthe sand and get to the point that you think it’s not important then you are going tolose customers in the end, because people are so confident around technology that Ithink teachers need to have that as well. (BB)

Those that possessed significant skill sets either become hired as trainers or end up doingtraining:

This normally happens if someone has a useful skill set that person then becomesthe person as the expert in those skills. So if I was a technophobe and my seniorteacher was a technophile he would have a more dominant role when it comes totraining on the IT side. (UV)

Being shown by an ‘expert’ on how to do something, however, is not always helpful. There

was a barrier for one teacher-learner, wary of synchronous tuition, if the gap between the

teacher’s and learner’s knowledge is so great that it is off-putting (MN). This can be

avoided, however, with asynchronous learning sites offering numerous screenshots of how

to do something. In addition, teacher training sites, which use screen casting technology,

can fill a gap because of the step-by-step process where no assumption of knowledge is

made beyond basic ability to operate the device being used to access the tool.

The amount of responsibility that teachers actually take for their own training appeared

very high amongst most of the interviewees, which reflected survey Q17 opinion on

whether they should. The willingness to take responsibility was self-evident in at least two

young professionals (KL, MN) but for many became some kind of realisation, for example:

I used to expect to have that training or the institution set some standards orexpectations. Over time, I have realised that that is never happening, so if I want touse this it is up to me … I used to be dependent on them to make those initiativemoves, but now I’ve decided to take it upon myself. (ST)


50

A number of interviewees (BB, CD, OP, MN, WX, YZ) expressed how they had proven

themselves over time. Not only can they be trusted, left alone to teach or, as one put it,

‘not to break anything in the lab’ (WX), their very actions have effectively earned their

relative freedoms. Their professional development may have indirectly, therefore, impacted

upon their professional action. But to what extent do teachers have a capacity from the

outset, how did they learn to be autonomous and have they had to become more so?

5.7 AUTONOMOUS BEHAVIOUR

For some respondents, that part of autonomous behaviour concerned with self-reliance is

rooted in personality. Independence, impatience, curiosity and restlessness were some

characteristics mentioned by those (AA, CD, WX) who thought they have always been that

way. Impatience is also connected to ‘a drive to avoid stagnating … teaching the same

materials the same way every year would be terribly boring’ (AA).

For others, it was something they had acquired, as one director of studies explained:

I think that is something that I have been taught, through my education. I don’t thinkit’s something I just acquired when I came to China. I think I’ve had it for a long time,maybe as part of my university education where a lot of [work is done] on your ownand if you don’t have an immediate solution you go and find it. (UV)

The idea that is could actually be taught is questionable, although many felt it could

certainly be learned, given leading by example and showing good practice (e.g. AA, MN, GH).

For many, being self-reliant and not waiting for others to show the way was something

learned from experience, something which developed over time. When it came to learning

web tools, many seemed to take the initiative and try them first. Most learned by practicing

or experimenting with it, before looking for a tutorial or further help, as a few teacher-

learners commented:

I just try them out, learning by doing. I don’t like people showing me how to dothings. (MN)

I try it myself first. Trial and error, see what are the possibilities. If I get stuck, then Iresort to trying to find somebody who has already used it – a tutorial, a blog post oranything. (WX)


51

If there is something which is really frustrating me, I’ll go search for a tutorial or theFAQs. For example, with Edmodo, I had no idea and I just kind of let’s see whathappens, and I just figured it out, but I realise that takes more time. Trial and errortakes more time. It’s a bit more passive but I would still regard it as autonomousbecause it’s in my free time. (KL)

Being resourceful is often taken to be an example of autonomous behaviour in action.

Teaching situations with limited resources have forever made resourcefulness a necessity.

This is ‘a big draw when it comes to technology’ (AA). A lot of teachers work in places where

they don’t have good access (AA), such as the Nepalese teacher, who claimed to manage all

technological problems by himself as he didn’t care much for ‘the chalk and talk method’

used by others (QR). Whilst being resourceful was something that many of the interviews

demonstrated about themselves, some expressed dismay (BB, OP, QR) at colleagues for a

lack of resourcefulness. One teacher explained how she modelled her methods to others

when it came to problem solving, by showing that, initially, ‘she didn’t know either and

learned how to do it’ (YZ). Except her colleagues assumed she knew everything anyway and

an impression remained that it was easy for her. So she switched to modelling others’

autonomous efforts instead.

That part of teacher autonomy concerned with self-directed learning came across from the

majority of the interviewees, who gave examples backed up with their belief that this had

significantly helped them in their career. Unsurprisingly, this was truer for the self-

employed, freelance teachers, such as those engaged primarily in one-to-one and online

tuition. This was suspected at the beginning of this investigation. For the most part, their

relative ‘freedom from control’ dictates that they should take full responsibility for their

learning and training. This does not mean that they are actively seeking training, but they

are making autonomous choices in that regard. As one freelance teacher explained:

I don’t find the tools myself as primary sources. I wait for others to tell me, but notmy colleagues [but] people on online forums or people on social networks. In mycommunity of people, I’d be the first, but I don’t actively search. It’s not a highpriority for me to read and curate the information. (KL)

Another freelance teacher, who solely teaches online, expressed the benefits of having a

sense of community, a shared experience through social platforms. She also expressed how

this social environment affected learning tools for conducting her online classes:


52

What I love with the world getting more and more social online is that we don’t haveto do all the work. If it’s a social platform and open then … other people help otherpeople. … For me, it makes strong learning experiences because it’s relevant. Whenyou have relevance in your learning, that’s what creates autonomy and independentlearning. (GH)

These social benefits of having a PLN or tapping into other kinds of support network were

widely mentioned and this was a concrete connection of opinion. In terms of behaviour, ‘if

[use of PLNs] parallels mine and it actually moves away from me, that’s very good because

people develop at their own time and speed’ (BB), offered one teacher-trainer. There can,

indeed, be a very positive attitude to be found on blogs and amongst certain online groups

who like to share good experiences. Establishing and maintaining a PLN did appear to be

most beneficial way of developing teachers’ interest, understanding and incorporation of

ICT and web tools into their teaching.

Despite some evidence from those teacher-trainers in relatively larger organisations, the

majority view was that sufficient training could not be relied upon. In addition, taking

responsibility for one’s own learning was not just an ideal but more of a necessity if the

teacher had any interest in professional development at all. An employer, by and large,

cannot be relied upon to provide the same level of enthusiasm which can be generated by

peers, even if they are teaching in different contexts. As one teacher said, ‘I’ve got friends

to help me, it’s not the official way of doing it, but it is my own interest that motivates me’

(MN). Even for teacher-trainers most of their role was tailored to increase a teacher’s

autonomous behaviour. As one teacher-trainer concluded, ‘teachers who are no longer

learners are doing their students a disservice’ (BB).

5.8 DISCUSSION

In discussing the interview findings, I refer back to the theoretical construct of teacher-

learner autonomy and the main points from the survey. Those aspects of learning ICT and

web tools which take place as part of professional development are those related to self-

directed teacher learning and teacher-learner autonomy. As Smith (2003) notes, it might be

possible for institutions to focus on developing the willingness and capacity for self-directed

teacher learning, but the evidence was that this is only partially happening, at least from the

teachers’ perspective.


53

Those employed as teacher-trainers did demonstrate that web tools were being promoted

to their teachers and quite often informal training was given. They also gave some

examples of trying to foster more autonomous behaviour. The teachers who were

interviewed, however, painted a less positive picture in this regard and if they were

fortunate to have dedicated training, it was not being acknowledged. The different

perspective on actual training between those who were solely teaching and those

predominately employed as trainers was an interesting, emerging feature.

The extent that teachers were self-directing their learning was high and many took

substantial responsibility for learning tools. The survey had suggested that whilst the belief

was that training should be given, teachers did not wait for this to happen. The interviewees

partially backed this perception, as many teachers felt a frustration with having to do their

own self-directed learning in their own time. While those that did invest substantial time

being autonomous learners were rewarded by the amount of autonomy they created for

themselves at work, for many that lack of political will was very much in evidence.

Although some described a lack of access to reliable technology, most reported an above

sufficient capacity and a strong freedom from control to learn about and integrate web tools

in their practice. This was certainly truer of freelance teachers, although they were not the

only ones to have shifted their autonomous behaviour. For the most part, teachers reported

support, if not training, by institutions, and were mostly free to teach how they wanted to.

Clearly some barriers impacted upon professional action. Time, cost and reliability were

common factors which impinged upon both learning and implementing tools. The extent to

which they impinged varied, of course, from person to person, with each context bringing its

own particular constraints. Barriers discussed had to be taken into account when

considering the pay-off for the investment made. Quite often there was a conscious

decision on the part of the teacher not to integrate a particular tool for practical reasons, or

that the pedagogic value was not great enough to warrant the investment.


54

CHAPTER SIX – CONCLUSION

6.1 CONCLUSION

In coming to a conclusion we need to remember that the purpose of the interviews was not

to collect separate data, removed from the survey. The two were inextricably linked.

Drawing a conclusion from the whole data set, as already indicated, would be very difficult

because of the varied contexts, employment statuses and experiences of the interviewees

who took part. Any connections claimed, therefore, are less concrete than would be hoped

for because of these wildly different variables. Part of the original purpose of the study was

the potential help that could be offered to those who feel the pressure of needing to

integrate ICT into their teaching. By maximising potential responses, too broad a picture

may have been obtained. In addition, although some focus was attempted during the

interview stage it may not have been sufficiently specific enough to extrapolate meaningful

results. Finally, the issue of an individual’s relationship with technology was, perhaps, not a

conclusive way to measure whether the learning of tools was an autonomous process, even

if it was a reasonable assumption to make at the outset.

Nonetheless, taxonomy of current practice was obtained of a body of teachers and teacher-

trainers, albeit at the more technophilic end of the paradigm and more autonomous end of

that spectrum. As teacher-learners, plenty of data was obtained to suggest that there is a

keen interest of developing and of taking responsibility for own learning in this area.

Conversely, some stories from teacher-trainers implied that this keenness is not so common

and that a lack of political will pervades a minority of teachers’ attitudes and practices. The

teachers interviewed may have under represented the amount of training they receive at

the institutional level, although many wanted to express their extra-curricular activities. For

those in freelance roles or transitory employment, a high level of self-directed learning

probably is not only necessary but was probably accurately portrayed.

There is some value for teacher-trainers here in the way that more autonomous

professional development in this area can take place. Institutions should encourage self-

directed teacher learning where possible; it is in their own interest to do this. In respect of

learning about higher end ICT tools such as LMS, the responsibility appears to lie with the


55

institution. In respect of more general web tools, the responsibility, however, does appear

to lie mostly with individual teachers and their own pedagogic aims. Although teacher-

trainers are in a position to guide teachers and demonstrate benefits, learning how to use

and integrate certain tools by themselves appears to be the most effective.

6.2 FURTHER RESEARCH

There is already enough data collected here to make further inroads into this area of

investigation. If this was to be streamlined further more concrete suggestions for teacher-

learners may emerge. That focus would ideally be solely on the specific, developmental,

autonomous practices of teachers rather than providing the contextual reasons for this or

the barriers to action. It might further explore the transition towards a capacity to self-

direct one’s learning as a teacher. Or it could be solely about the specific way those

teachers learn ICT tools.

iThis is from a #ELTchat summary dated 2 May 2012 - http://eltchat.com/2012/05/06/introducing-cpd-to-

dinosaurs-eltchat-summary-02052012/ and also posted on a blog by Andrea Wade - http://worldteacher-andrea.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/introducing-cpd-to-dinosaurs-eltchat.htmlii

http://www.berlitz.ch/en/learning_a_language/berlitz_online/eberlitz_self_study/iii

A video by David White presenting this idea is available at:http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2009/10/14/visitors-residents-the-video/iv

http://teacherphilisictinelt.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ict-in-elt-ma-dissertation-1.htmlv

http://www.wiziq.com/online-class/870707-what-ict-tools-do-efl-teachers-use-and-how-did-you-learn-themvi

http://www.teachertrainingvideos.com/. The newsletter is sent out monthly to a list of over 9,000 emailaddresses. My request was included in the June 2012 edition.vii

http://teacherphilisurvey.wikispaces.com/viii

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/languagecentre/ix

http://www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/overview.aspxx

http://voipcallrecording.com/xi

Each of the interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes, which began after the audio wizard had been set upand a good connection established. A couple ran onto around 45 minutes but this allowed for extendeddiscussions and questions to me about my research.

Main body word count: 16,533 – 118 (notes) = 16,415


56

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrini, A. 2004. ‘Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies:the case of Syrian EFL teachers’. Computers and Education. 47: 373-398.

Aoki, N. 2000. Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom and responsibility. Paperpresented at 2000 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language CentreConference. In Smith, R. 2003.

Bailey, K., Curtis, A. and Nunan, D. 2001. Pursuing professional development: the self assource. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Barfield, A., Ashwell, T., Carroll, M., Collins, K., Cowie, N., Critchley, E., Head, M.,Obermeier, A and Robertson, M.C. 2001. ‘Exploring and Defining Teacher Autonomy: ACollaborative Discussion’. In Developing Autonomy, Proceedings of the College andUniversity Educators’ 2001 Conference, Shizuoka. The Japan Association for LanguageTeaching. Available at:http://www.encounters.jp/mike/professional/publications/tchauto.html. Accessed 2 May2012.

Bax, S. 2003. ‘CALL – Past, present and future’. System 31/1: 13-28.

Beatty, K. 2011. Teaching and Researching Computer-assisted Language Learning (2nd

edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Becker, H.J and Riel, M. 2000. Teacher Professional Engagement and Constuctivist-

compatible Computer Use. Centre for Research on Information Technology and

Organisations, University of California, Irvine.

Bennett, S., Maton, K and Kervin, L. 2008. ‘The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review ofthe evidence’. British Journal of Education Technology. 39/5: 775-786.

Benson, P. 2000. Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath andT. Lamb (eds.) Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions. London: Longman.111-117.

Benson, P. 2007. ‘Autonomy in language teaching and learning – State-of-the-art article’.Language Teaching 40:21-40.

Chambers , A and Bax, S. 2006. Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34/4:465-479.

Cox, M., Preston, C and Cox, K. 1999. ‘What Factors Support or Prevent Teachers fromUsing ICT in their Classrooms?’ Paper presented at the British Educational ResearchAssociation Annual Conference, University of Sussex, Brighton, November.

Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


57

Dudeney, G., 2011. ‘No place in class for digital illiteracies’. The Guardian. 6 December.Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/06/teaching-digital-literacy.Accessed 15 July 2012.

Dudeney, G., Hockly, N and Pegrum, M. 2012. ‘Digital Literacies’. Unpublished manuscript.

Friedman, A and Phillips, M. 2004. ‘Continuing professional development: Developing avision’. Journal of Education and Work. 17/3: 361-376.

Grandon Gill, T. ‘Quick and Dirty Multimedia’. Decision Sciences Journal of InnovativeEducation. Available at: http://grandon.com/publications/Gill-2007-QuickAndDirty.pdf.Accessed 17 March 2012.

Granger, C.A., Morbey, M.L., Lotherington, R.D., Owston and Wideman, H.H. 2002.

‘Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT’. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning. Vol 18: 480-488.

Gromik, N. 2007. ‘Video tutorials: Camtasia in the ELT classroom.’ The JALT CALL Journal,2007, 3/1-2: 132-140.

Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. 2005. ‘New Skills for New Classrooms: Training tutors to teachlanguages online.’ Computer Assisted Language Learning 18/4: 311-326.

Hartree, A. 1984. ‘Malcolm Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy: A Critique’. International Journalof Lifelong Learning Education. 3/3: 203-120.

Hismanoglu, M. 2012. ‘The impact of a curricular innovation of prospective EFL teachersattitudes towards ICT integration into language instruction’. International Journal ofInstruction. 5/1: 183-202.

Hismanoglu, M. 2012. ‘Prospective EFL Teachers' Perceptions of ICT Integration: A Study ofDistance Higher Education in Turkey’. Educational Technology & Society. 15/1: 185–196.

Hu, Z. 2009. ‘EFL Teacher Development in the Context of ICT Use in Chinese HigherEducation’. Available at:http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_edu/pdfs/pgr_pdfs/Hu.pdf. Accessed 18 June2012.

Hu, Z and McGrath, I. 2011. ‘Innovation in higher education in China: are teachers ready tointegrate ICT in English Language Teaching?’ Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Vol 20/1:41-59.

Jimoyiannis, Athanassios and Vassilis Komis. 2007. ‘Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT ineducation: implications of a teacher preparation programme’. Teacher Development. Vol11/2: 149-173.


58

Kelm, O. 1996. ‘The application of computer networking in foreign language education:Focusing on principles of second language acquisition’ in Warschauer, M. (ed.)Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii Symposium: 19-29: Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii.

Kern, R. 1995. ‘Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects onquantity and characteristics of language production.’ The Modern Language Journal. 79/4:457-476.

Lam, Y. 2000. ‘Technophilia vs. Technophobia: A Preliminary Look at Why Second-LanguageTeachers Do or Do Not Use Technology In Their Classrooms’. The Canadian modernlanguage review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes. Vol 56/3: 389-420.

Lamb, T. 2000. Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urbancontext. In Sinclar, B., McGrath, I and Lamb T (eds.) Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy:Future directions. London: Longman. 118-127.

Lamb, T., and Reinders, H. (eds) 2007. Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realitiesand Responses. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.

Levy M. 1997. CALL: context and conceptualisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levy M. 2009. ‘Technologies in Use for Second Language Learning’. The Modern LanguageJournal. 93: 769-782.

Li, L and Walsh, S. 2011. ‘Technology uptake in Chinese EFL classes’. Language TeachingResearch. 15/1: 99-125.

Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy 1: definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. 1995. ‘Learning as Dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacherautonomy.’ System 23: 175–181.

Mann, S. 2005. ‘The language teacher’s development: State-of-the-Art Article’. LanguageTeaching. 38: 103-118.

Markgraf, J. 2006. ‘From Learning Communities to Learning Objects.’ Journal of LibraryAdministration. 45/3-4: 559-559.

McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher Autonomy. In Sinclair B,. McGrath, I and Lamb, T (eds). LearnerAutonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Longman.

Mumtaz, S. 2000. ‘Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communicationstechnology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for TeacherEducation. 9/3: 319-342.

Mullen, T., Appel, C and Shanklin, T. 2009. ‘Skype-based tandem language learning and web2.0’ in Thomas M. (Ed). Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning.101-118. Hershey, PA: Igi Global.


59

Oblinger, D and Oblinger, J. 2005. ‘Is it age or IT? First steps towards understanding the netgeneration’ in Oblinger, D and Oblinger, J. (Eds). Educating the Net generation: 2.1-2.20.Available at: http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation. Accessed 5 July 2012.

Pegrum, M. 2009. From Blogs to Bombs: The Future of Digital Technologies in Education.Crawley, WA: UWA Publishing.

Perkins, R. and McKnight, M. 2005. ‘Teachers’ Attitudes Toward WebQuests as a Method ofTeaching’. Computers in the Schools. 22/1-2: 123-133.

Prensky, M. 2001. ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’. On The Horizon 9/5. MCB UniversityPress. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ypgvf. Accessed 5 July 2012.

Price, J.B. 2010. ‘Screencasting on a Shoestring: Using Jing.’ The Reference Librarian. 51/3:237-244.

Richards, K. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T. & Lambrechts, G. 1996. ‘Pupils,Teachers and Palmtop Computers’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12: 194-204.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Romeo, G. and Walker, I. 2002. ‘Activity theory to investigate the implementation of ICTE’.Education and Information Technologies. 7: 323-332.

Sağlam, A.L.G. and Sert, S. 2012. ‘Perceptions of In-Service Teachers Regarding TechnologyIntegrated English Language Teaching’. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 3/3: 1-13. Available at: http://www.tojqi.net/articles/TOJQI_3_3/TOJQI_3_3_Article_1.pdf.Accessed 28 July 2012.

Schwienhorst, K. 1999. ‘Teacher autonomy in multiple-user domains: supporting languageteaching in collaborative virtual environments’. Journal of Information Technology forTeacher Education. 8/2: 199-214.

Sheingold, K. & Hadley, M. 1990. Accomplished Teachers: integrating computersinto classroom practice. New York: Centre for Technology in Education.

Smith, R.C. 2003. ‘Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy’ in Symposium forLanguage Teacher Educators: Papers from three IALS symposia (CD-Rom), J Gollin, GFerguson and H Trappes-Loman (Eds.) Edinburgh. IALS. University of Edinburgh. Alsoavailable at: www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher-autonomy.pdf Accessed 7 May 2012.

Smith, R.C. and Erdoğan, S. 2008. ‘Teacher-Learner Autonomy’ in Lamb, T., and Reinders, H.(eds). Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities and Responses. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 83-102.

Sparks, D. 2002. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful staff development for teachers andprincipals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Available at:


60

http://www.learningforward.org/news/sparksbook/sparksbook.pdf. Accessed: 17 June2012.

Sykes, J. 2005. ‘Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and writtenchat.’ CALICO Journal. 22: 399-431.

Tapscott, D. 1998. Growing up digital: the rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Teo, T., Chai, C.S., Hung, D and Lee, C.B. 2008. ‘Beliefs about teaching and uses oftechnology amongst pre-service teachers’. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 36/2:163-174.

Tonduer, J., van Braak, J and Valcke, M. 2007. ‘Curricula and the use of ICT in education:Two worlds apart?’ British Journal of Educational Technology. 38/6: 962-976

Tort-Moloney, D. 1997 Teacher Autonomy: a Vygotskian theoretical framework. CLCSOccasional Paper No. 48. Dublin: Trinity College, CLCS.

Veen, W. 1993. ‘How Teachers Use Computers in Instructional Practice: four casestudies in a Dutch secondary school’. Computers and Education, 21(1/2): 1-8.

Wade, A. 2012. Summary of #ELTchat ‘Introducing CPD to Dinosaurs’. Available at:http://eltchat.com/2012/05/06/introducing-cpd-to-dinosaurs-eltchat-summary-02052012/.Accessed 6 May 2012.

Wales, T and Robertson, P. 2008. Captivating Open University students with onlineliterature search tutorials created using screen capture software. Program. 42/4: 365–381.

Warschauer, M, 1997. ‘Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice’.The Modern Language Journal. 81/4: 470-481.

Warschauer, M. 2002. ‘A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education.’TESOL Quarterly. 36/3: 453-474.

Warschauer, M and Meskill, C. 2000. ‘Technology and second language learning’ inRosenthal, J. (Ed.) Handbook of undergraduate second language education. 303-318.Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at:http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/tslt.html. Accessed 12 June 2012.

White, D. 2008. ‘Not ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ but ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’. TALL blog.Available at: http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2008/07/23/not-native-i mmigrants-but-visitors-residents/. Accessed 13 June 2012.

White, D and Le Cornu, A. 2011. Visitors and Residents: A new typology for onlineengagement. First Monday. 16/9. Available at:http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049.Accessed 13 June 2012.


61

Ying Xue Zhong and Hui Zhong Shen. 2002. ‘Where is the technology-induced pedagogy?Snapshots from two multimedia EFL classrooms’. British Journal of Educational Technology.33/1: 39-52.

Tools used for advertising and carrying out data collection:

Blackboard Collaborate 12 -http://www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/overview.aspx

Blogger – http://teacherphilisictinelt.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype - http://www.skype.com/

Survey Monkey - http://www.surveymonkey.com/

Teacher Training Videos - http://www.teachertrainingvideos.com/

Twitter - https://twitter.com/teacherphili

WiZIQ - www.wiziq.com

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT

Welcome. My name is Phil Longwell. I am a student at the University of Warwick, UK. You are being invited to take part in a research study for my dissertation in MA ELT (ICT & Multimedia). The title of the research paper is: 'Technophilia or Technophobia: Exploring teacher autonomy in learning ICT tools for the ELT classroom.' The title of this survey is: 'Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT' You should only complete the survey if you have been recently teaching, are currently teaching or will be teaching English as a Foreign Language in the near future. By EFL, this includes other definitions and variations on this, such as English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Please do not complete if you have NO experience at all of teaching EFL. I am researching general teachers. The survey consists of 20 mixed type questions, with optional comment boxes. Most questions require an answer. Some of these are optional. It should take approx. 2025 minutes to complete. The data will be collected only as part of my research for an MA dissertation as indicated above. Quotes from openended questions may be used anonomously. The data will be collected and stored online but will only be available to the researcher. It is advised to complete the survey in one sitting. There is an option to return to previous questions on previous pages in the survey, but once the survey has been completed or exited the respondent will not be able to reenter the survey. However, a new one can be completed and more than one response can be made from the same device (e.g. laptop). Unfortunately no payment can be made for participation in the survey. If you find this interesting and would like to participate further with my study, such as taking part in a followup interview, please leave your contact details on the final page. At the end of the survey you will be able to look at all the results so far. Please do not complete for a second time as this will affect the results. If you are happy to continue please click next:

'Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT'

APPENDIX A

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX A


1. What is your gender?

2. Which category below includes your age?

3. In which country do you currently teach or have you recently taught? If you have yet to teach English as a second or foreign language please state 'none'.

4. What is your first (or native) language?

General Information

*

*

*

55

66

*55

66

Female

nmlkj

Male

nmlkj

20 or younger

nmlkj

2129

nmlkj

3039

nmlkj

4049

nmlkj

5059

nmlkj

60 or older

nmlkj

APPENDIX A


5. How many years have you been teaching English as a second/foreign language or worked in the area of English language teaching ?

6. What is your current employment status? Choose the answer which best suits you.

7. Would you describe yourself as either a 'Technophile' (having a strong love for technology) or a 'Technophobe' (having a fear or dislike of technology), or are you somewhere in between these? Choose one answer only or selfdescribe yourself in the box.

More specific questions

*

*

*

1 (Technophobe) 2 3 4 5 (Technophile)

What is your relationship with technology?

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

none at all

nmlkj

less than 1 year

nmlkj

13 years

nmlkj

45 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

1120 years

nmlkj

more than 20 years

nmlkj

Employed

nmlkj

Selfemployed

nmlkj

Freelance

nmlkj

Fulltime Student/Not Employed

nmlkj

Other please selfdescribe

Or describe yourself in relation to using technology:

APPENDIX A

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT8. What are you currently doing in respect of professional development in ICT and technology? If other, please specify below. Tick all those that apply. If nothing, please state 'nothing'. (optional)

9. How often does the following technology get used in your teaching (this includes during the class, for preparation or for feedback? *

Never On one occasion Sometimes Frequently Always (Every day)

Networked Computer nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Laptop or nonnetworked Computer


iPad (or other tablet) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Smart Phone nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Smart Board nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Interactive Whiteboard nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Video/Camera equipment nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

EPodium (multifunctional networked computer)


Attending a facetoface course

gfedc

Taking a online course

gfedc

Following bloggers/reading blogs

gfedc

Writing own blog

gfedc

Engaging with an online community

gfedc

Attending conferences

gfedc

Voluntary selfstudy

gfedc

Reading general sources

gfedc

Other method please specify

Other Technology or additional comments please specify type and state frequency

55

66

APPENDIX A

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT10. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools?

Please specify names/websites if possible in the box below. If you use none at all, please state 'none' in the box below.

*

Never On one occasion Sometimes Frequently Always (every day)

Materials creation Tools (eg Wordle, Quizlet, Hot Potatoes)


Voice Recording Tools (eg Vocaroo, Voxopop)


Audio Editing Tools (eg Audacity)


Podcasting Tools (eg Podomatic)


Presentation Tools (eg Slideshare, Present Me)


Social Networking Tools (eg Twitter)


Webinar Tools (eg Adobe Connect, WiZIQ)


Photo/Image/Slideshow Sites (eg Flickr, Bubblr)


Video sharing Sites (eg YouTube, Vimeo, TED)


Screencapture software (eg Jing)


Screencasting software (eg ScreenR)


Online bookmarking/notetaking (eg Evernote)


Creative tools for students (eg GoAnimate)


Integration tools (eg Edmodo, Wikis)


Tools for autonomous learners (eg English Central)


Other ICT/Web Tools please specify type or name and state frequency

55

66

APPENDIX A

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT11. How do you learn about (discover) new ICT/Web Tools? Tick all those that apply to you. (optional)

12. How important are or would be the following when selecting a ICT/Web Tool? If you have no opinion on this, please state 'no opinion' in the box below.*

Not important at all Not important No opinion/Not sure Important Very important

Engaging nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Motivating nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Easy to use (for you) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Easy to use (by students) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Free nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Institution has subscription to it


Easy to access nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Relevant to language skills


Pedagogically justified nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Selfdiscovery

gfedc

Colleague recommendation

gfedc

Institutional recommendation

gfedc

From a printed publication

gfedc

From a blog which you follow

gfedc

Online community/group

gfedc

Online course

gfedc

Newsletter

gfedc

Facetoface Conferences

gfedc

Virtual Conferences

gfedc

Website (via an RSS Feed)

gfedc

Via Twitter (or other socialnetwork tool)

gfedc

Other please specify

55

66

Other reason please specify and state importance

55

66

APPENDIX A

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT13. How do you or would you assess the success or effectiveness of a particular ICT/Web Tool? (optional)

55

66

APPENDIX A


14. How autonomous are you? How frequently do you do the following in respect of learning about ICT/Web Tools?

15. What are the barriers to learning about and then implementing ICT/Web Tools in respect of your teaching practice. Tick all that apply for you. If 'none at all' please state so in the box.

Further and final questions

*Never Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Every time

I rely on others to show me what to do


I try to learn about first then ask for help if needed


I use a teacher training video site


I like to investigate what they do by myself


I teach myself everything I need to know


I learn by using and practising with it


I fully learn about a tool and then teach it to others


*

Other method or comment?

55

66

Personal dislike

gfedc

Institutional resistance

gfedc

Reliability (tech breaking down)

gfedc

No relevance to language skills

gfedc

Time consuming to learn them

gfedc

Not worth investment (in time/effort)

gfedc

Lack of training/support

gfedc

Financial cost involved (purchasing/maintaining)

gfedc

Not enough pedagogical value

gfedc

Lack of technology available

gfedc

Other reason please specify

55

66

APPENDIX A

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICTTaxonomy of English Language Teachers' use of ICT16. How often do you receive support in your professional development in the area of

technology and ICT? If N/A (eg you are selfemployed, freelance) please tick N/A.

17. What is your opinion on the following in relation to technology and ICT? If N/A (eg you are selfemployed, freelance) please tick N/A.

18. Do you receive any other kinds of support, training or professional development in the area of technology/ICT. If 'yes' please specify from where? (optional)

*N/A Never On one occasion Sometimes Frequently Always (Every day)

My employer/instutition provides support and/or training

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

My employer/instutition pays for training


My employer/instutition encourages PD but doesn't offer training


My employer/institution offers PD but not in this area


My employer/instutition offers no PD at all in this area


I have received support and/or training in past and now train others


I am selftaught on everything in this area


I am not employed but I still receive training or support


*N/A Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree

My employer/institution should provide training


I should take responsibility myself for training


There should be an equal amount of external training and selftraining


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

If 'yes' please specify:

APPENDIX A


You have completed the main survey and I am very grateful for your participation.

19. Do you have any other comments about this survey that you would like to include? (optional)

20. If you would like to participate further in this study, such as taking part in an online interview (webinar) about the topic, or would be interested in the findings, please leave your contact details below, such as an email address. (optional) You can contact me on [email protected].

Thank you!

55

66

55

66

APPENDIX A

1 of 43

Taxonomy of English Language Teachers' use

of ICT

1. What is your gender?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Female 67.9% 72

Male 32.1% 34

answered question 106

skipped question 0

2. Which category below includes your age?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

20 or younger 0.0% 0

21-29 14.2% 15

30-39 37.7% 40

40-49 28.3% 30

50-59 18.9% 20

60 or older 0.9% 1


skipped question 0

APPENDIX B

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX B - NOTE: BLANK PAGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED

2 of 43

3. In which country do you currently teach or have you recently taught? If you have yet to

teach English as a second or foreign language please state 'none'.

Response

Count

106


skipped question 0

4. What is your first (or native) language?

Response

Count

106


skipped question 0

5. How many years have you been teaching English as a second/foreign language or

worked in the area of English language teaching ?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

none at all 0.0% 0

less than 1 year 2.0% 2

1-3 years 10.2% 10

4-5 years 10.2% 10

6-10 years 18.4% 18

11-20 years 35.7% 35

more than 20 years 23.5% 23


skipped question 8

APPENDIX B

3 of 43

6. What is your current employment status? Choose the answer which best suits you.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Employed 71.4% 70

Self-employed 11.2% 11

Freelance 9.2% 9

Full-time Student/Not Employed 8.2% 8

Other - please self-describe

7


skipped question 8

7. Would you describe yourself as either a 'Technophile' (having a strong love for

technology) or a 'Technophobe' (having a fear or dislike of technology), or are you

somewhere in between these? Choose one answer only or self-describe yourself in the

box.

1

(Technophobe)2 3 4

5

(Technophile)

Response

Count

What is your relationship with

technology?3.1% (3) 5.1% (5)

17.3%

(17)

34.7%

(34)39.8% (39) 98

Or describe yourself in relation to using technology:

8


skipped question 8

APPENDIX B

4 of 43

8. What are you currently doing in respect of professional development in ICT and

technology? If other, please specify below. Tick all those that apply. If nothing, please

state 'nothing'. (optional)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Attending a face-to-face course 14.7% 14

Taking a online course 32.6% 31

Following bloggers/reading

blogs76.8% 73

Writing own blog 41.1% 39

Engaging with an online community 69.5% 66

Attending conferences 61.1% 58

Voluntary self-study 63.2% 60

Reading general sources 68.4% 65

Other method - please specify

20


skipped question 11

APPENDIX B

5 of 43

9. How often does the following technology get used in your teaching (this includes

during the class, for preparation or for feedback?

NeverOn one

occasionSometimes Frequently

Always

(Every

day)

Response

Count

Networked Computer 10.5% (10) 0.0% (0) 17.9% (17) 29.5% (28) 42.1% (40) 95

Laptop or non-networked Computer 8.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 23.2% (22) 25.3% (24) 43.2% (41) 95

iPad (or other tablet) 61.5% (59) 9.4% (9) 11.5% (11) 7.3% (7) 10.4% (10) 96

Smart Phone 48.9% (46) 5.3% (5) 23.4% (22) 12.8% (12) 9.6% (9) 94

Smart Board 68.0% (66) 2.1% (2) 10.3% (10) 11.3% (11) 8.2% (8) 97

Interactive Whiteboard 42.1% (40) 5.3% (5) 24.2% (23) 17.9% (17) 10.5% (10) 95

Video/Camera equipment 21.9% (21) 9.4% (9) 43.8% (42) 21.9% (21) 3.1% (3) 96

E-Podium (multifunctional

networked computer)81.5% (75) 6.5% (6) 7.6% (7) 3.3% (3) 1.1% (1) 92

Other Technology or additional comments - please specify type and state frequency

15


skipped question 8

APPENDIX B

6 of 43

10. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools? Please

specify names/websites if possible in the box below. If you use none at all, please state

'none' in the box below.

NeverOn one


Always

(every

day)

Response

Count

Materials creation Tools (eg Wordle,

Quizlet, Hot Potatoes)16.5% (15) 12.1% (11) 31.9% (29) 36.3% (33) 3.3% (3) 91

Voice Recording Tools (eg Vocaroo,

Voxopop)33.3% (30) 13.3% (12) 22.2% (20) 26.7% (24) 4.4% (4) 90

Audio Editing Tools (eg Audacity) 30.0% (27) 15.6% (14) 27.8% (25) 25.6% (23) 1.1% (1) 90

Podcasting Tools (eg Pod-o-matic) 55.6% (50) 11.1% (10) 21.1% (19) 10.0% (9) 2.2% (2) 90

Presentation Tools (eg Slideshare,

Present Me)19.1% (18) 4.3% (4) 34.0% (32) 35.1% (33) 7.4% (7) 94

Social Networking Tools (eg Twitter) 19.4% (18) 6.5% (6) 16.1% (15) 23.7% (22) 34.4% (32) 93

Webinar Tools (eg Adobe Connect,

WiZIQ)32.2% (29) 10.0% (9) 31.1% (28) 23.3% (21) 3.3% (3) 90

Photo/Image/Slideshow Sites (eg

Flickr, Bubblr)19.6% (18) 14.1% (13) 25.0% (23) 31.5% (29) 9.8% (9) 92

Video sharing Sites (eg YouTube,

Vimeo, TED)6.5% (6) 3.2% (3) 16.1% (15) 57.0% (53) 17.2% (16) 93

Screencapture software (eg Jing) 32.2% (29) 11.1% (10) 24.4% (22) 27.8% (25) 4.4% (4) 90

Screencasting software (eg

ScreenR)66.7% (60) 6.7% (6) 13.3% (12) 11.1% (10) 2.2% (2) 90

Online bookmarking/notetaking (eg

Evernote)33.3% (29) 8.0% (7) 21.8% (19) 23.0% (20) 13.8% (12) 87

Creative tools for students (eg

GoAnimate)47.8% (43) 11.1% (10) 20.0% (18) 21.1% (19) 0.0% (0) 90

Integration tools (eg Edmodo,

Wikis)29.0% (27) 10.8% (10) 20.4% (19) 21.5% (20) 18.3% (17) 93

Tools for autonomous learners (eg

English Central)47.8% (43) 6.7% (6) 27.8% (25) 13.3% (12) 4.4% (4) 90

Other ICT/Web Tools - please specify type or name and state frequency

25

answered question 98APPENDIX B

7 of 43

skipped question 8

11. How do you learn about (discover) new ICT/Web Tools? Tick all those that apply to

you. (optional)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Self-discovery 82.3% 79

Colleague recommendation 67.7% 65

Institutional recommendation 20.8% 20

From a printed publication 18.8% 18

From a blog which you follow 67.7% 65

Online community/group 70.8% 68

Online course 30.2% 29

Newsletter 45.8% 44

Face-to-face Conferences 31.3% 30

Virtual Conferences 42.7% 41

Website (via an RSS Feed) 37.5% 36

Via Twitter (or other social-network

tool)59.4% 57

Other - please specify

6


skipped question 10

APPENDIX B

8 of 43

12. How important are or would be the following when selecting a ICT/Web Tool? If you

have no opinion on this, please state 'no opinion' in the box below.

Not

important

at all

Not

important

No

opinion/Not

sure

ImportantVery

important

Response

Count

Engaging 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3.2% (3) 53.7% (51) 43.2% (41) 95

Motivating 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.1% (2) 48.4% (46) 49.5% (47) 95

Easy to use (for you) 0.0% (0) 8.3% (8) 4.2% (4) 37.5% (36) 50.0% (48) 96

Easy to use (by students) 0.0% (0) 1.0% (1) 1.0% (1) 33.3% (32) 64.6% (62) 96

Free 0.0% (0) 3.1% (3) 9.4% (9) 28.1% (27) 59.4% (57) 96

Institution has subscription to it 15.1% (14) 12.9% (12) 25.8% (24) 28.0% (26) 18.3% (17) 93

Easy to access 0.0% (0) 1.0% (1) 1.0% (1) 40.2% (39) 57.7% (56) 97

Relevant to language skills 0.0% (0) 1.0% (1) 4.2% (4) 32.3% (31) 62.5% (60) 96

Pedagogically justified 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8.5% (8) 35.1% (33) 56.4% (53) 94

Other reason - please specify and state importance

5


skipped question 8

13. How do you or would you assess the success or effectiveness of a particular

ICT/Web Tool? (optional)

Response

Count

47


skipped question 59

APPENDIX B

9 of 43

14. How autonomous are you? How frequently do you do the following in respect of

learning about ICT/Web Tools?

Never Occasionally Sometimes FrequentlyEvery

time

Response

Count

I rely on others to show me what to

do21.1% (19) 40.0% (36) 24.4% (22) 13.3% (12) 1.1% (1) 90

I try to learn about first then ask

for help if needed3.3% (3) 5.4% (5) 13.0% (12) 42.4% (39)

35.9%

(33)92

I use a teacher training video site 20.9% (19) 14.3% (13) 35.2% (32) 23.1% (21) 6.6% (6) 91

I like to investigate what they do

by myself1.1% (1) 5.4% (5) 18.5% (17) 40.2% (37)

34.8%

(32)92

I teach myself everything I need to

know3.3% (3) 16.3% (15) 22.8% (21) 43.5% (40)

14.1%

(13)92

I learn by using and practising with

it0.0% (0) 2.2% (2) 10.9% (10) 48.9% (45)

38.0%

(35)92

I fully learn about a tool and then

teach it to others9.8% (9) 9.8% (9) 23.9% (22) 31.5% (29)

25.0%

(23)92

Other method or comment?

9


skipped question 14

APPENDIX B

10 of 43

15. What are the barriers to learning about and then implementing ICT/Web Tools in

respect of your teaching practice. Tick all that apply for you. If 'none at all' please state

so in the box.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Personal dislike 26.1% 24

Institutional resistance 43.5% 40

Reliability (tech breaking down) 59.8% 55

No relevance to language skills 39.1% 36

Time consuming to learn them 47.8% 44

Not worth investment (in

time/effort)27.2% 25

Lack of training/support 40.2% 37

Financial cost involved

(purchasing/maintaining)65.2% 60

Not enough pedagogical value 31.5% 29

Lack of technology available 45.7% 42

Other reason - please specify

11


skipped question 14

APPENDIX B

11 of 43


technology and ICT? If N/A (eg you are self-employed, freelance) please tick N/A.

N/A NeverOn one


Always

(Every

day)

Response

Count

My employer/instutition provides

support and/or training

15.6%

(14)28.9%

(26)

21.1%

(19)20.0% (18) 12.2% (11)

2.2%

(2)90

My employer/instutition pays for

training

18.7%

(17)51.6%

(47)

11.0%

(10)12.1% (11) 4.4% (4)

2.2%

(2)91

My employer/instutition encourages

PD but doesn't offer training

27.3%

(24)28.4%

(25)8.0% (7) 19.3% (17) 12.5% (11)

4.5%

(4)88

My employer/institution offers PD

but not in this area

29.1%

(25)31.4%

(27)

11.6%

(10)15.1% (13) 10.5% (9)

2.3%

(2)86

My employer/instutition offers no

PD at all in this area42.4%

(36)

32.9%

(28)7.1% (6) 5.9% (5) 4.7% (4)

7.1%

(6)85

I have received support and/or

training in past and now train others

20.2%

(18)32.6%

(29)

12.4%

(11)16.9% (15) 13.5% (12)

4.5%

(4)89

I am self-taught on everything in

this area

9.0%

(8)

5.6%

(5)6.7% (6) 14.6% (13) 36.0% (32)

28.1%

(25)89

I am not employed but I still

receive training or support78.6%

(66)

10.7%

(9)1.2% (1) 3.6% (3) 2.4% (2)

3.6%

(3)84


skipped question 14

APPENDIX B

12 of 43

17. What is your opinion on the following in relation to technology and ICT? If N/A (eg you

are self-employed, freelance) please tick N/A.

N/AStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Not

sureAgree

Strongly

agree

Response

Count

My employer/institution should

provide training

16.9%

(15)0.0% (0) 1.1% (1) 6.7% (6)

40.4%

(36)

34.8%

(31)89

I should take responsibility myself

for training

11.1%

(10)0.0% (0) 3.3% (3) 3.3% (3)

51.1%

(46)

31.1%

(28)90

There should be an equal amount of

external training and self-training

13.2%

(12)1.1% (1) 6.6% (6)

12.1%

(11)37.4%

(34)

29.7%

(27)91


skipped question 14

18. Do you receive any other kinds of support, training or professional development in

the area of technology/ICT. If 'yes' please specify from where? (optional)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 20.9% 18

No 79.1% 68

If 'yes' please specify:

17


skipped question 20

19. Do you have any other comments about this survey that you would like to include?

(optional)

Response

Count

23


skipped question 83

APPENDIX B

13 of 43

20. If you would like to participate further in this study, such as taking part in an online

interview (webinar) about the topic, or would be interested in the findings, please leave

your contact details below, such as an email address. (optional) You can contact me on

[email protected].

Response

Count

46


skipped question 60

APPENDIX B

15 of 43

Page 2, Q3. In which country do you currently teach or have you recently taught? If you have yet to teachEnglish as a second or foreign language please state 'none'.

1 Turkey Jul 7, 2012 6:54 AM

2 Turkey Jul 6, 2012 10:17 AM

3 Turkey Jul 6, 2012 6:30 AM

4 Turkey Jul 6, 2012 6:22 AM

5 Turkey Jul 6, 2012 6:02 AM

6 China Jul 6, 2012 4:16 AM

7 Ethiopia Jul 5, 2012 3:32 PM

8 Middle East Jul 4, 2012 7:58 PM

9 Cameroon Jul 3, 2012 3:50 PM

10 Oman Jul 3, 2012 10:17 AM

11 Australia Jul 3, 2012 6:50 AM

12 Scotland Jul 2, 2012 7:11 PM

13 UK Jul 2, 2012 6:24 PM

14 Japan Jul 1, 2012 6:56 AM

15 Argentina Jun 29, 2012 10:36 PM

16 Portugal Jun 28, 2012 10:46 AM

17 Tanzania Jun 28, 2012 8:03 AM

18 Greece Jun 28, 2012 7:16 AM

19 England Jun 28, 2012 7:12 AM

20 Chile in Southamerica Jun 28, 2012 6:14 AM

21 Greece Jun 28, 2012 5:45 AM

22 Australia Jun 28, 2012 3:42 AM

23 argentina Jun 28, 2012 1:42 AM

24 UK Jun 27, 2012 9:16 PM

25 Republic of Macedonia Jun 27, 2012 8:11 PM

26 none Jun 27, 2012 6:02 PM

27 Argentina Jun 27, 2012 4:26 PM

28 Ukraine Jun 27, 2012 4:08 PM

29 Mexico Jun 27, 2012 3:57 PM

APPENDIX B

16 of 43


30 India, Libya Jun 27, 2012 3:55 PM

31 Ireland Jun 27, 2012 3:29 PM

32 Italy Jun 27, 2012 3:27 PM

33 England Jun 27, 2012 3:20 PM

34 At present, I am teaching English here in Yangon, Myanmar. Jun 27, 2012 2:14 PM

35 México Jun 27, 2012 1:16 PM

36 Poland Jun 27, 2012 12:43 PM

37 Indonesia and Thailand. Jun 27, 2012 12:08 PM

38 Ireland Jun 27, 2012 11:23 AM

39 Croatia Jun 27, 2012 11:08 AM

40 China Jun 27, 2012 10:58 AM

41 Argentinia Jun 27, 2012 10:43 AM

42 Japan Jun 27, 2012 10:41 AM

43 Germany Jun 27, 2012 10:29 AM

44 Vietnam Jun 27, 2012 9:59 AM

45 UK Jun 27, 2012 9:39 AM

46 Spain Jun 27, 2012 9:24 AM

47 Belgium Jun 27, 2012 9:21 AM

48 Qatar Jun 27, 2012 9:17 AM

49 UK Jun 27, 2012 9:11 AM

50 Italy Jun 27, 2012 9:05 AM

51 Oman Jun 27, 2012 9:00 AM

52 Switzerland Jun 27, 2012 8:57 AM

53 Japan Jun 27, 2012 8:42 AM

54 I have taught English as a foreign language for 8 years in Iran. and now insweden I am teaching English (as a second language) and Swedish.

Jun 27, 2012 8:42 AM

55 Turkey Jun 26, 2012 9:41 PM

56 Netherlands Jun 26, 2012 9:30 PM

57 UK Jun 26, 2012 9:04 PM

58 France Jun 26, 2012 3:37 PM

APPENDIX B

17 of 43


59 Indonesia Jun 26, 2012 2:10 PM

60 Spain Jun 26, 2012 12:32 PM

61 Portugal Jun 26, 2012 9:11 AM

62 Spain Jun 26, 2012 8:38 AM

63 UK Jun 25, 2012 8:18 PM

64 Russia Jun 25, 2012 2:42 PM

65 Slovakia Jun 25, 2012 1:55 PM

66 Thailand, China Jun 25, 2012 11:49 AM

67 Spain Jun 25, 2012 9:13 AM

68 USA, South Korea, virtual (online: LEWWP: Learn English With a WorldwidePerspective)

Jun 24, 2012 11:35 PM

69 mx Jun 24, 2012 9:46 PM

70 Portugal and Spain Jun 24, 2012 9:22 PM

71 Greece/Uk Jun 24, 2012 8:32 PM

72 Greece- none. Jun 24, 2012 7:48 PM

73 Greece Jun 24, 2012 6:55 PM

74 Venezuela Jun 24, 2012 6:49 PM

75 none Jun 24, 2012 6:48 PM

76 Greece Jun 24, 2012 6:43 PM

77 Uruguay Jun 24, 2012 6:42 PM

78 Greece Jun 24, 2012 6:37 PM

79 Latvia Jun 24, 2012 4:29 PM

80 South Korea Jun 24, 2012 3:20 PM

81 United Kingdom Jun 24, 2012 3:17 PM

82 Venezuela Jun 24, 2012 3:15 PM

83 Turkey Jun 24, 2012 2:16 PM

84 Romania Jun 24, 2012 12:53 PM

85 Germany Jun 24, 2012 11:52 AM

86 German Jun 24, 2012 11:07 AM

87 England Japan Saudi Arabia Jun 24, 2012 11:02 AM

APPENDIX B

18 of 43


88 Syria Jun 24, 2012 10:41 AM

89 Greece Jun 24, 2012 9:28 AM

90 Australia Jun 24, 2012 8:23 AM

91 Uk Jun 23, 2012 5:17 PM

92 Canada Jun 23, 2012 4:29 PM

93 Qatar Jun 23, 2012 3:57 PM

94 China Jun 23, 2012 3:47 PM

95 Canada Jun 23, 2012 3:37 PM

96 Channel islands Jun 23, 2012 2:30 PM

97 France Jun 23, 2012 1:23 PM

98 Nepal Jun 23, 2012 12:58 PM

99 UK Jun 23, 2012 12:13 PM

100 Romania Jun 23, 2012 11:12 AM

101 Currently I teach in Armenia, before this I taught in Kazakhstan Jun 23, 2012 8:46 AM

102 Spain Jun 23, 2012 8:43 AM

103 Spain Jun 23, 2012 8:20 AM

104 Vietnam Jun 23, 2012 8:13 AM

105 Ukraine Jun 22, 2012 9:58 PM

106 Turkey Jun 22, 2012 6:36 PM

APPENDIX B

20 of 43

Page 2, Q4. What is your first (or native) language?

1 English Jul 7, 2012 6:54 AM


3 Turkish Jul 6, 2012 6:30 AM




7 Amharic Jul 5, 2012 3:32 PM

8 English Jul 4, 2012 7:58 PM

9 Lamnso Jul 3, 2012 3:50 PM

10 Arabic Jul 3, 2012 10:17 AM





15 Spanish Jun 29, 2012 10:36 PM

16 Portuguese Jun 28, 2012 10:46 AM

17 Pogoro Jun 28, 2012 8:03 AM

18 Bilingual: Greek, English Jun 28, 2012 7:16 AM

19 English Jun 28, 2012 7:12 AM

20 Spanish Jun 28, 2012 6:14 AM

21 Greek Jun 28, 2012 5:45 AM

22 English Jun 28, 2012 3:42 AM

23 spanish Jun 28, 2012 1:42 AM

24 English Jun 27, 2012 9:16 PM

25 Macedonian Jun 27, 2012 8:11 PM

26 Turkish Jun 27, 2012 6:02 PM

27 Spanish Jun 27, 2012 4:26 PM

28 Russian Jun 27, 2012 4:08 PM

29 Spanish Jun 27, 2012 3:57 PM

30 Telugu Jun 27, 2012 3:55 PM

APPENDIX B

21 of 43


31 English Jun 27, 2012 3:29 PM

32 Italian Jun 27, 2012 3:27 PM

33 English Jun 27, 2012 3:20 PM

34 Burmese Jun 27, 2012 2:14 PM

35 Spanish Jun 27, 2012 1:16 PM

36 Polish Jun 27, 2012 12:43 PM

37 Indonesian Jun 27, 2012 12:08 PM

38 Enlgish Jun 27, 2012 11:23 AM

39 Croatian Jun 27, 2012 11:08 AM

40 English Jun 27, 2012 10:58 AM

41 Spanish Jun 27, 2012 10:43 AM

42 English Jun 27, 2012 10:41 AM

43 German Jun 27, 2012 10:29 AM

44 English Jun 27, 2012 9:59 AM

45 English Jun 27, 2012 9:39 AM

46 Spanish / Catalan Jun 27, 2012 9:24 AM

47 English Jun 27, 2012 9:21 AM

48 English Jun 27, 2012 9:17 AM

49 English Jun 27, 2012 9:11 AM

50 Italian Jun 27, 2012 9:05 AM

51 English Jun 27, 2012 9:00 AM

52 Swiss German Jun 27, 2012 8:57 AM

53 English Jun 27, 2012 8:42 AM

54 Persian Jun 27, 2012 8:42 AM

55 Turkish Jun 26, 2012 9:41 PM

56 English Jun 26, 2012 9:30 PM

57 English Jun 26, 2012 9:04 PM

58 English Jun 26, 2012 3:37 PM

59 The Bahasa Indonesia Jun 26, 2012 2:10 PM

60 English Jun 26, 2012 12:32 PM

APPENDIX B

22 of 43


61 English Jun 26, 2012 9:11 AM

62 English Jun 26, 2012 8:38 AM

63 English Jun 25, 2012 8:18 PM

64 Russian Jun 25, 2012 2:42 PM

65 Slovak Jun 25, 2012 1:55 PM

66 English Jun 25, 2012 11:49 AM

67 English Jun 25, 2012 9:13 AM

68 English Jun 24, 2012 11:35 PM

69 sp Jun 24, 2012 9:46 PM

70 Portuguese Jun 24, 2012 9:22 PM

71 English Jun 24, 2012 8:32 PM

72 Greek Jun 24, 2012 7:48 PM

73 Greek Jun 24, 2012 6:55 PM

74 Spanish Jun 24, 2012 6:49 PM

75 Slovak Jun 24, 2012 6:48 PM

76 Greek Jun 24, 2012 6:43 PM

77 Spanish Jun 24, 2012 6:42 PM

78 Greek Jun 24, 2012 6:37 PM

79 Russian Jun 24, 2012 4:29 PM

80 English Jun 24, 2012 3:20 PM

81 English Jun 24, 2012 3:17 PM

82 Spanish Jun 24, 2012 3:15 PM

83 Turkish Jun 24, 2012 2:16 PM

84 English Jun 24, 2012 12:53 PM

85 German Jun 24, 2012 11:52 AM

86 English Jun 24, 2012 11:07 AM

87 English Jun 24, 2012 11:02 AM

88 Arabic Jun 24, 2012 10:41 AM

89 Greek Jun 24, 2012 9:28 AM

90 English Jun 24, 2012 8:23 AM

APPENDIX B

23 of 43


91 English Jun 23, 2012 5:17 PM

92 English Jun 23, 2012 4:29 PM

93 English Jun 23, 2012 3:57 PM

94 Mandarin Chinese Jun 23, 2012 3:47 PM

95 English Jun 23, 2012 3:37 PM

96 English Jun 23, 2012 2:30 PM

97 English Jun 23, 2012 1:23 PM

98 Nepali Jun 23, 2012 12:58 PM

99 Polish Jun 23, 2012 12:13 PM

100 Romanian Jun 23, 2012 11:12 AM

101 Russian Jun 23, 2012 8:46 AM

102 Spanish Jun 23, 2012 8:43 AM

103 English Jun 23, 2012 8:20 AM

104 English Jun 23, 2012 8:13 AM

105 Ukrainian Jun 22, 2012 9:58 PM

106 English Jun 22, 2012 6:36 PM

Page 3, Q6. What is your current employment status? Choose the answer which best suits you.

1 Creating a Common Initiative Group for language training andcommunication

Jul 3, 2012 3:59 PM

2 Volunteer Teacher Jul 2, 2012 7:19 PM

3 + self-employed also Jun 28, 2012 7:18 AM

4 I am on a special leave to do my PhD, I am state employed Jun 27, 2012 9:11 AM

5 volunteer teacher Jun 27, 2012 8:54 AM

6 own a school Jun 24, 2012 9:55 PM

7 Part-time employed + freelance Jun 23, 2012 8:28 AM

APPENDIX B

24 of 43

Page 3, Q7. Would you describe yourself as either a 'Technophile' (having a strong love for technology) or a'Technophobe' (having a fear or dislike of technology), or are you somewhere in between these? Choose oneanswer only or self-describe yourself in the box.

1 trying to catch up with it :)- balance is my key word. Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 This all comes due to my study now. Jul 5, 2012 3:38 PM

3 Like variety- don't like it when things go wrong! Jul 2, 2012 6:28 PM

4 Most education technology is over-complicated Jun 27, 2012 11:40 AM

5 Enthusiastic Amateur Jun 26, 2012 9:17 AM

6 like using it for appropriate activities Jun 25, 2012 2:02 PM

7 No real fear of tech but I I tend not to use it much because I don't typicallysee the benefit on a daily basis

Jun 24, 2012 3:28 PM

8 I benefit a lot from using it as a learner and enthusiastically use it selectivelyas a teacher. However, I hate sitting at the computer for long stretches dueto stiff necks and shoulders.

Jun 24, 2012 11:20 AM

APPENDIX B

26 of 43

Page 3, Q8. What are you currently doing in respect of professional development in ICT and technology? Ifother, please specify below. Tick all those that apply. If nothing, please state 'nothing'. (optional)

1 giving online courses- e-moderating Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 Edudemic on iPad - Get it! Jul 1, 2012 7:03 AM

3 Delivering peer training in ILT/e-learning Jun 27, 2012 9:23 PM

4 Try to stay current by subscribing and following a lot of interesting blogs Jun 27, 2012 4:19 PM

5 I have also participated in the design of modules of an online teacherdevelopment course

Jun 27, 2012 4:05 PM

6 Writing my own ICT Wiki for Italian Modern Language Teachers Jun 27, 2012 3:33 PM

7 Watching tutorials on Youtube. Jun 27, 2012 11:40 AM

8 Taking part in virtual seminars Jun 27, 2012 10:49 AM

9 attending webinars Jun 27, 2012 10:36 AM

10 curation Jun 27, 2012 9:22 AM

11 developing use of SmartNotebook tools - integrating them with my collectionof digital materials

Jun 27, 2012 9:07 AM

12 I am not doing anything related to ICT at the moment Jun 24, 2012 9:33 PM

13 I recently started to checking out and attend webinars Jun 24, 2012 7:00 PM

14 Have recently completed an online course. Jun 24, 2012 3:20 PM

15 I'm completing assignments for the M.A. Technology-Assisted LangaugeLearning course at Norwich Institute for Language Education.

Jun 24, 2012 11:20 AM

16 Teaching others (yes, I count this as my PD too as I learn lots doing that!) Jun 24, 2012 8:28 AM

17 in the phase of being interested in knowing more about using ICT in ELTclassroom

Jun 23, 2012 4:00 PM

18 Studying MA Ed Tech and TESOL at U of Manchester Jun 23, 2012 3:43 PM

19 Taking part in webinars Jun 23, 2012 8:57 AM

20 Studying for an MA Jun 22, 2012 6:48 PM

APPENDIX B

27 of 43

Page 3, Q9. How often does the following technology get used in your teaching (this includes during theclass, for preparation or for feedback?

1 OHP, yes it is technology:) Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 Projector or Beamer Frequently Jun 29, 2012 10:41 PM

3 We use Overhead projector Jun 28, 2012 8:09 AM

4 Currently no WiFi installed in the institution which limits the use of laptos andipads

Jun 28, 2012 3:56 AM

5 Voice recording equipment (eg dictophone) Jun 27, 2012 11:40 AM

6 Use depends on availability - I would use Smartboard or IWB every day if Ihad access to it (as I did in my last job in FE) but HE makes less use of this.

Jun 27, 2012 9:43 AM

7 N/A Jun 27, 2012 9:17 AM

8 voice recorder is v useful & I sometimes use one Jun 27, 2012 9:07 AM

9 what is E- Podium ! Jun 26, 2012 8:43 AM

10 Not sure what the difference is between a Smart Board and an IWB... Jun 25, 2012 8:24 PM

11 beamer + laptop for presentations (both given by me and my students),language lab - 5times in a 12-week semester

Jun 25, 2012 2:02 PM

12 Students sometimes use ipads in class but this is not a requirement Jun 24, 2012 3:28 PM

13 I have used video a lot in the classroom. We used the smartboard and e-podium a lot last year at KSU. I used google docs and moodle in every f2fclass at a local university last semester. It's difficult to state frequency, as Ihave had a different job in a different country for the past 5 years, so what Ihave done frequently in the past in one job, I havn't necessarily done in otherjobs.

Jun 24, 2012 11:20 AM

14 Audio equipment Jun 23, 2012 12:19 PM

15 I have also used an MP3 player as a voice recorder Jun 22, 2012 6:48 PM

APPENDIX B

29 of 43

Page 3, Q10. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools? Please specifynames/websites if possible in the box below. If you use none at all, please state 'none' in the box below.

1 Glogster, sometimes Movie makers, sometimes Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 Games maker - www.zondle.com Jul 6, 2012 4:24 AM

3 Screen Chomp app on iPad allows it operate as a whiteboard. You failed toask about overhead projection- couple that with an iPad and there are a lotof apps that I use to run a class. For example, using iPad screen capturesmakes Flickr redundant.

Jul 1, 2012 7:03 AM

4 LMS Moodle. Content delivery Jun 28, 2012 6:20 AM

5 Moodle - everyday Teamspeak - frequently Jun 28, 2012 3:56 AM

6 VoiceThread, HelloSlide, Glogster, Showdocument, Smore, Popplet, dotSub,Voki, Voxopop, Tripline, Headmagnet, Grokit Answers.

Jun 27, 2012 4:19 PM

7 I regularly manage and update my students' wikispaces to give them kind ofe-learning activities: http://amaldi-english-corner.wikispaces.comhttp://galliefl.wikispaces.com http://nattaefl.wikispaces.com

Jun 27, 2012 3:33 PM

8 Voicethread - sometimes Weebly for Education - frequently Jun 27, 2012 3:26 PM

9 none Jun 27, 2012 11:40 AM

10 Audacity, Jing, Snaggit, YouTube, FlashcardsDb, Edublogs, Audioboo,Wordle, Make Beliefs Comix, Fotobabble

Jun 27, 2012 10:49 AM

11 Moodle frequently Jun 27, 2012 10:36 AM

12 Blackboard Jun 27, 2012 10:01 AM

13 WebCT - frequently. Nicenet for link sharing - every day Jun 27, 2012 9:43 AM

14 Since using a smartboard software in a job I have "converted" to teachingusing the software, given its advantages; I now use the software for mostlessons.

Jun 27, 2012 9:07 AM

15 LyricsTrainer - frequently, as homework assignments. Jun 26, 2012 9:36 PM

16 pbworks Jing (still screencasting awa screen capture) twitter posterous diigoscoop.it BC BBC google docs (students make forms for reading comp)voxopop

Jun 26, 2012 3:45 PM

17 Primary Pad - sometimes Jun 26, 2012 9:17 AM

18 didn't know all these tools existed ! Jun 26, 2012 8:43 AM

19 My own Ning site: http://englishworldwide.ning.com Jun 24, 2012 11:44 PM

20 Facebook - always Moodle - always Jun 24, 2012 4:39 PM

21 I used moodle for a face-to-face course, mainly to store materials, collectstudent writing and give feedback. I also used google docs a lot in class forcollaborative writing in the same course.

Jun 24, 2012 11:20 AM

22 I think most I use fit into one of the categories above. Jun 24, 2012 8:28 AM

APPENDIX B

30 of 43

Page 3, Q10. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools? Please specifynames/websites if possible in the box below. If you use none at all, please state 'none' in the box below.

23 Mailvu Sometimes Jun 23, 2012 1:32 PM

24 Tools used most often - Vocaroo, Twitter, Edmodo, Evernote, YouTube,Flickr

Jun 23, 2012 8:20 AM

25 Dropbox for file-hosting (frequently); Voicethread for storytelling(sometimes); Kidblog for student blogging (frequently)

Jun 22, 2012 6:48 PM

Page 3, Q11. How do you learn about (discover) new ICT/Web Tools? Tick all those that apply to you.(optional)

1 Scoop It Jun 27, 2012 3:26 PM

2 curation site Jun 27, 2012 9:22 AM

3 ie Russell Stannard's newsletter Jun 27, 2012 9:07 AM

4 from learners' recommendations! Jun 24, 2012 11:44 PM

5 I do not make efforts to learn about new technology. Jun 24, 2012 9:33 PM

6 Facebook Jun 24, 2012 7:51 PM

Page 3, Q12. How important are or would be the following when selecting a ICT/Web Tool? If you have noopinion on this, please state 'no opinion' in the box below.

1 suitable to the lesson aims Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 No or little personal information required for sign up Jun 27, 2012 10:49 AM

3 andragogically justified (smile) = very important, but this is subjective to adegree. [motivating = very subjective as well] "you can't please everyone allof the time, but you can try to please some of the people some of the time"

Jun 24, 2012 11:44 PM

4 I wish the ICT/Web tool is used for language learning, not just for the sake ofusing techonology itself. So whenever a certain tool is used, it should bejustified: is it really necessary to use it?

Jun 23, 2012 4:00 PM

5 Option to embed on another website - important; Privacy (for my students) -very important

Jun 22, 2012 6:48 PM

APPENDIX B

32 of 43

Page 3, Q13. How do you or would you assess the success or effectiveness of a particular ICT/Web Tool? (optional)

1 I use my teacher/trainer judgement. Is it worth it pedogocially? the time I andthey will spend on it, is it useful?

Jul 6, 2012 6:09 AM

2 Speed to results time is short. Jul 6, 2012 4:24 AM

3 students' feedback Jul 5, 2012 3:38 PM

4 How much it helps with learning outcomes; how the students respond to it; ifother teachers want to use it too

Jul 3, 2012 6:56 AM

5 That the amount of time and effort involved is worth it in terms ofpedagogical usefulness and benefit.

Jul 2, 2012 6:28 PM

6 Students' engagement and effective results Jun 29, 2012 10:41 PM

7 If it's easy to use for me and if students like it. Jun 28, 2012 10:51 AM

8 It makes teaching interesting and active Jun 28, 2012 8:09 AM

9 If the students are engaged and motivated enough to use it as a tool forimprovement on a frequent basis.

Jun 28, 2012 3:56 AM

10 Regularly, this would be carried out when reflecting on success of thelesson.

Jun 27, 2012 9:23 PM

11 If students have learnt how to use it, and keep using a web tool, so it is asuccess.

Jun 27, 2012 4:19 PM

12 Considering basically how easy it is to use, and pedagogic criteria. Jun 27, 2012 4:05 PM

13 If it was successful in allowing the learners to achieve a learning outcomeand a bnus if it also helped develop their IT skills simultaneously.

Jun 27, 2012 3:26 PM

14 Student interest and course value Jun 27, 2012 11:02 AM

15 When teachers and students like using it and have fun Jun 27, 2012 10:36 AM

16 Student feedback and self-reflection Jun 27, 2012 10:01 AM

17 Student feeedback and ease of use Jun 27, 2012 9:43 AM

18 It depends on the activity and objetctive that I have in that moment. Jun 27, 2012 9:29 AM

19 By how successfully I can integrate it into an activity without it becomingabout the tech and switching the focus or time away from the learningobjective.

Jun 27, 2012 9:29 AM

20 As per 'very important' above. Jun 27, 2012 9:22 AM

21 Student's response Student's frequency of use Student's proficiency inperformance

Jun 27, 2012 9:11 AM

22 a tool is useful / successful to the extent that it allows me to do better what Iused to do eg with SmartNotebook I find I can go faster & have more impactthan without it.

Jun 27, 2012 9:07 AM

23 tool can not be the focus of the lesson - students use the tool in their 'free' Jun 27, 2012 9:03 AM

APPENDIX B

33 of 43


time as well.

24 Student feedback, my experience. Jun 27, 2012 8:49 AM

25 Whether it serves the purpose, to guide students in their learning. A lot of theassessment is from students' opinions. I also find that it needs to berelatively easy to integrate into my lesson, and at the moment I am notcompletely changing the way I teach to incorporate technology - for instance,I am not "flipping" classrooms.

Jun 26, 2012 9:36 PM

26 If the students use it (do the activity proposed) Jun 26, 2012 3:45 PM

27 If it provides a more effective way of achieving the lesson aims than notusing the tool. So, does it help the learners do something quicker andbetter?

Jun 26, 2012 9:17 AM

28 Twitter, blog, LinkedIn, and/or other professional networked PLNconnections' comments... *I usually explore and if my first impressions arestrong, will google to see if Nik Peachey or Webheads or other names Iknow/respect have written about it, provided tutorials, examples. Often Iexperiment, save to diigo, save to Portaportalguest.portaportal.com/englishworldwide

Jun 24, 2012 11:44 PM

29 excellent Jun 24, 2012 9:55 PM

30 I have never used ICT technology apart from showing some Youtube videosto my students as well as some videos on DVDs. Therefore, I cannot reallyspeak from my experience of using a particular ICT/Web Tool. However, Iwould say if the students are engaged in the activity using ICT I wouldconsider it as being successful.

Jun 24, 2012 9:33 PM

31 by the motivation and response of ss Jun 24, 2012 8:37 PM

32 Pedagogical and useful related to language skills. Jun 24, 2012 7:51 PM

33 By Ss or peer feedback Jun 24, 2012 7:00 PM

34 it brings an educational benefit to the lesson. It doesn't exist merely becauseit exists but integrates into a lesson/course.

Jun 24, 2012 1:00 PM

35 view learning results of students, observation of the learning process Jun 24, 2012 12:02 PM

36 Do the students find it engaging and useful? Does it do something we can'tdo without it? Does it promote language learning? Is it flexible--i.e. canstudents change/adapt it, and does it offer students more roles than justpassive consumer?

Jun 24, 2012 11:20 AM

37 By how well it met my expecations as shown in question 12 Jun 24, 2012 8:28 AM

38 easy to get access to /navigate/use, free/cheap, useful Jun 23, 2012 4:00 PM

39 If students enjoy it, and have demonstrated use of target language Jun 23, 2012 3:43 PM

40 The amount of use it gets outside the classroom Jun 23, 2012 2:34 PM

41 I try to use it in my teaching and depending on student-response I woulddecide if it's an effective tool for me.

Jun 23, 2012 1:32 PM

APPENDIX B

34 of 43


42 It depends on my professional practice.I feel pleasure as well as motivated tokiss the ICT world.

Jun 23, 2012 1:32 PM

43 If I cannot imagine my life without that means it has to be good :-) Jun 23, 2012 12:19 PM

44 If students learn from using it and/or enjoy using it, then I could say that thetool is useful for me and my learners.

Jun 23, 2012 8:57 AM

45 Ease of use, student feedback and results. Jun 23, 2012 8:20 AM

46 I would say that such tools as Pixton, Wordle, YouTube, Jing, Wallwisherproved really effective in my one-to-one and group classes. They motivatestudents and make learning fun. And while having fun, students are stilllearning "serious" stuff. Besides, they see that their teacher keeps up withthe modern world.

Jun 22, 2012 10:04 PM

47 Student reaction is the main thing for me. If they have a positive reaction toit, then engagement and motivation are easier to achieve and the learninggoals are more easily reached. I also look for all students to be involved -some lessons with video and voice-recording have really encouraged my shystudents to open up, something that would have been more difficult withouttech tools.

Jun 22, 2012 6:48 PM

APPENDIX B

35 of 43

Page 4, Q14. How autonomous are you? How frequently do you do the following in respect of learning aboutICT/Web Tools?

1 learn watching tutorials in youtube Jun 28, 2012 6:26 AM

2 Budgets are often not available for ICT so self-development is mostfrequently done on an individual and independent basis

Jun 28, 2012 4:01 AM

3 This year I set up a free blended course for Italian Modern Foreign LanguageTeachers (http://lendbg.wikispaces.com) who belong to LEND, a nationalassociation for Language Teachers (www.lend.it)

Jun 27, 2012 3:39 PM

4 Most often I have a go and if it's not intuitive and easy to work out, or I wantideas on how to use then I Google it and will usually find a YouTube video orblog with loads of great advice.,

Jun 27, 2012 3:30 PM

5 Watch, do, share is my motto! Jun 27, 2012 9:45 AM

6 *fully learn ??? Is that possible :) Jun 24, 2012 11:48 PM

7 I teach it to others once I get to grips with it. Jun 24, 2012 7:54 PM

8 I don't consider myself a very autonomous learner when it comes to ICT,although I'm gradually getting better because I think learner autonomy isimportant and interesting and ideally would like to foster it in my ownclassrooms.

Jun 24, 2012 11:33 AM

9 Blog posts written by other teachers about how they have used the tool inclass (practical examples) are also useful

Jun 22, 2012 6:51 PM

APPENDIX B

36 of 43

Page 4, Q15. What are the barriers to learning about and then implementing ICT/Web Tools in respect of yourteaching practice. Tick all that apply for you. If 'none at all' please state so in the box.

1 If software has to be downloaded - permissions are required from IT whichtakes time.

Jul 3, 2012 7:00 AM

2 'none at all' Jun 28, 2012 6:26 AM

3 none at all Jun 27, 2012 4:08 PM

4 None at all Jun 27, 2012 3:39 PM

5 none Jun 27, 2012 12:52 PM

6 *perception* of not enough pedagogical value by uninformed teachers andadministrators

Jun 27, 2012 10:07 AM

7 Time - not that it's time consuming to learn them, just that I don't haveenough time in the day to devote to fully discovering, assessing andincorporating the tech into the lessons. At least, not all the time!

Jun 26, 2012 9:21 AM

8 *not enough andragogical value :) Jun 24, 2012 11:48 PM

9 My organisation's corporate network doesn't allow me to use unapprovedsoftware on its system.

Jun 24, 2012 1:03 PM

10 Physical discomfort associated with using the computer: too many hourshunched over my tiny netbook. Seriously! I think the ergonomic issues arethe elephant in the living room. Yes there are remedies for these but I can'tafford (or don't prioritize the expense) of getting the equipment necessary tomake it ergonomically more sustainable to spend more time on thecomputer. Not to mention eyestrain. But actually I think it is important to turnoff the computer every day and go outside, get exercise, focus on otherthings. I think another elephant in the living room with ICT is the problem ofdeteriorating quality of concentration that many of us have beenexperiencing as we become more adept and frequent ICT users in everyaspect of our lives. Maybe this is just a stage that we pass through and learnto remedy--I hope!

Jun 24, 2012 11:33 AM

11 Those I've ticked above are reasons why I might not learn or implement aparticular tool.

Jun 24, 2012 8:35 AM

APPENDIX B

37 of 43

Page 4, Q18. Do you receive any other kinds of support, training or professional development in the area oftechnology/ICT. If 'yes' please specify from where? (optional)

1 Inst,itutional, personal effort, PLN Jul 6, 2012 6:12 AM

2 Blogs/Online communities/Social Networks Jul 6, 2012 4:27 AM

3 DELTA Cambridge Jun 28, 2012 7:23 AM

4 Full support by my immediate boss. Jun 27, 2012 4:22 PM

5 eTwinning portal Jun 27, 2012 11:17 AM

6 online teacher ddvelopment webinars Jun 27, 2012 10:40 AM

7 Italian Ministry of Education Jun 27, 2012 9:15 AM

8 webinars organized by American Embassy and British Council Jun 26, 2012 9:48 PM

9 http://evosessions.pbworks.com, other free MOOCs and opportunities,supportive husband who encourages TESOL attendance, Twitter!

Jun 24, 2012 11:48 PM

10 aplanet and wikikis Jun 24, 2012 8:40 PM

11 Self- sponsoring Jun 24, 2012 7:54 PM

12 I belong to a professional association of english language teachers in myregion. I pay a yearly fee. The association was organized indepentently byteachers themselves and offers training workshops throughout the year.

Jun 24, 2012 11:33 AM

13 I'll follow some classmates' blog to learn more about it. thanks to them! Jun 23, 2012 4:09 PM

14 Eltchat Jun 23, 2012 2:37 PM

15 PLN Jun 23, 2012 12:24 PM

16 Council of Education Jun 23, 2012 8:49 AM

17 from Internet, and I am also going to CELTA course in September. I paid thecourse fee and accommodation expenses all by myself.

Jun 22, 2012 10:07 PM

APPENDIX B

39 of 43

Page 5, Q19. Do you have any other comments about this survey that you would like to include? (optional)

1 good to topic to investigate:) Jul 6, 2012 6:12 AM

2 It's a great survey. Thanks for it. I look forward to seeing the results of it.Good luck in your Masters.

Jul 6, 2012 4:29 AM

3 the context in the developeing world is signficantly different. Jul 5, 2012 3:43 PM

4 It would have been interesting to see a question about OS platforms andhow Universities like mine set up CALL systems without consulting teacherswho actually use the equipment.

Jul 1, 2012 7:11 AM

5 In most of the third world countries, there are still some problems on thedevelopment of ICT in language teaching and learning. There is thequestion of power which is partly available and technology accessibility topeople and schools in up country areas.

Jun 28, 2012 8:17 AM

6 No Jun 27, 2012 4:23 PM

7 n/a Jun 27, 2012 12:14 PM

8 Questions not always clear when to use 'N/A', Jun 27, 2012 9:46 AM

9 Some ofthe questions were difficult to understand and some were repetitive,however, I encourage you to do the dissertation that I consider interesting.

Jun 27, 2012 9:33 AM

10 Question 16 is difficult to answer accurately because of the way thestatements are phrased in relation to the options available.

Jun 26, 2012 9:22 AM

11 Interesting survey, when I read the tools available I was surprised how little Iactually know.. I had considered myself quite knowledgeable about use oftechnology for teaching !

Jun 26, 2012 8:49 AM

12 For 10 years I worked with an Adult Learning Center where prof. dev. wassupported = if you presented, your way was paid (most years). I havehelped coordinate regional and state conferences (Virginia), attended andpresented at TESOL annual conferences, several other state conferences,and many other opportunities. It was much easier when there wasinstitutional support. It is not impossible now, but more limited.

Jun 24, 2012 11:51 PM

13 nope Jun 24, 2012 10:00 PM

14 No, none. Jun 24, 2012 7:54 PM

15 Sometimes it's not wether you're a technophobe or the opposite, but the factthat there's more to it. For instance, badly equipped classrooms, or timeconstrictions. The students play a mayor role too. In my country there's alsothe need for more teacher development programs that help us to integrateour subject matter with tecnology and not merely use it to do the same oldthings in new ways just because it's there.

Jun 24, 2012 7:24 PM

16 Yes, the disregard of self-employed teachers' engagement in ITC on theirown is rather disheartening, very exclusive, although it's clear that the lastquestions were about support. Still some variants for self-employed/freelance teachers could be added to listen to all opinions, notonly to the opinions of those who work in institutions...

Jun 24, 2012 4:46 PM

17 I was a bit confused on the final page where I was asked to talk about"always" or "never" for what seemed to be questions of opinion (rather than

Jun 24, 2012 3:34 PM

APPENDIX B

40 of 43

Page 5, Q19. Do you have any other comments about this survey that you would like to include? (optional)

frequency). In any case, it was an enjoyable and interesting survey.

18 Please see a post I wrote recently responding to Scott Thornbury's postentitled T is for Technology. My blog is passthediploma.edublogs.org

Jun 24, 2012 11:35 AM

19 Would love to see waht my colleagues think - some are completetehnophobes - will forward to them.

Jun 24, 2012 8:36 AM

20 There are a lot of things I would like to try with students, but with onecomputer per classroom, and an offsite computer lab, it just seems such ahassle to coordinate everything. It seems we are in a bind because theinstitutions want teachers to integrate ICT, but cannot provide the machineryor training to make it happen. Frustrating!

Jun 23, 2012 3:50 PM

21 Basically the survey that you are carrying out is really challenging. One thingthat you have to analyze the data collected very carefully otherwise you haveto face some problems I am sure your dissertation will be very effective.Bestof Luck

Jun 23, 2012 1:49 PM

22 I think that at least in our country everything depends on a teacher, on theirenthusiasm to use ICT. I have always been the one who initiated using newtechnologies in class, and held trainings for other teachers. But I mostly haveone-to-one classes, so I am free to choose whichever technology I like. Andmy students are happy with that.

Jun 22, 2012 10:11 PM

23 Technology, like many other 'issues' in ELT, seems to divide opinion and bemisused. In my current situation, many teachers either see it as pointless oruse it without considering learning aims and/or suitability. Training is simplynot frequent enough and the school seems unwilling to invest in both thenecessary training and in upgrading/maintaining equipment. I'm trying tochange things but it's a slow process!

Jun 22, 2012 6:54 PM

APPENDIX B

Email Template sent out on Friday 20 July:

Hello xxxxxxxx.

You have kindly offered to take part in a follow-up interview on xxxxxx.xx.July.

The interview should take no more than 30 minutes, which should be enough time

to explore deeper questions in relation to the survey which you have

already completed. You are one of 14 teachers to take part in interviews this week.

I will send you the link to the interview room around 30 minutes before the start time,

so you need be ready to access your emails beforehand. The reason for not sending

this now is that the room is used by other people so I need to keep to the time slot

chosen and allocated, which is:

xxxx GMT (xxxx BST).

Please make sure you know the correct time where you are.

I will have a print-out of your survey answers before and during the interviews,

as I may wish to follow-up on some of the comments made on those. Rest

assured these comments and those given in the interview will remain anonymous

if quoted in the dissertation, as per the draft findings write-up*, which you are

welcome to look at, if you have time, before the interview, although this is not

obligatory. I will record the sessions in order to transcribe later.

You do not have to enable your web camera during the interview, but it would

be nice if I could see you. The main thing is to record the audio and anything

else that might get shared on the collaborative screen.

I look forward to conducting the interview on xxxxxxx.

- Phil

*Survey Findings here: http://teacherphilisictinelt.blogspot.co.uk/

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX C

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW GUIDE

Ice-breaker questions to give the interviewee confidence in answering the remainder.

Establish identity, location and some other background or demographic questions. This

might vary and you could invite person to say a little about themselves or their work.

Story allow interviewee opportunity to tell their story and how they have come to be where

they are now in relation to the topic.

Content Questions:

1) In Q7 I used the terms ‘technophobe’ and ‘technophile’. I noticed that you

selected _X_ on the scale, but I wonder if this accurately describes your ‘relationship’

to technology use. How ‘fluid’ is your relationship?

2) In Q10 the survey asked how often you use various ICT/Web Tools. You stated the

following (read back responses from list) – can I ask whether you answered this

question in relation to using them in your teaching or, more generally? What are

your favourite tools to use?

3) If employed - How often do you receive support in your professional development

in the area of technology and ICT? What do you receive from your institution? What

other things do you do outside of work? If self-employed/freelance – How often do

you receive support or training in your professional development in the area of

technology and ICT? How much responsibility do you take for your own learning?

APPENDIX D

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX D

4) Could you tell me more about the barriers to using these tools which you selected

and which of these are the most common?

5) Where does your autonomous behaviour in relation to this topic come from?

Have you had to become more autonomous in learning about certain technologies

and ICT tools? What do you think you teach others about autonomous behaviour?

Probes: Includes clarification questions and reflective paraphrasing.

Take certain words from answers given, such as ‘freedom’, and ask them to explain what

they mean by that? Pick up on tips, advice and experiences that each interviewee gives that

add value to the data and for the research project as a whole. Be prepared to follow-up

interesting responses. Follow their story if possible.

Closing Questions: Give interviewee a chance to add anything or what they had wished they

had been asked? Send a follow-up email thanking them again and inviting them to make any

comments, if they wish.

Thank you!

APPENDIX D

TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW DATA

Note: The transcriptions below are substantial chunks of the recorded interviews. In each

section, almost all of what was said by the interviewee was included. Each initial question

was based on the interview content questions, with answers being subsequently grouped,

no matter where it came during the interview. Specific prompts, variations or further

questions from the interviewer are shown in (italics). Some paraphrasing is employed or

words [added], in order to retain the essence of what was said. However, it largely shows

word-for-word transcription, exactly as it was spoken, complete with grammatical mistakes

or alternative spellings (eg, program, programme). In some parts, too much repetition or an

excessive number of examples have been removed.

The interviews are numbered, with anonymised initials for each person as shown below.

Gen (General) / TTV (Teacher Training Videos) indicates the collector point, while BC

(Blackboard) /Sk (Skype) indicates the medium through which the interview was conducted.

1. AA. 40 year old American woman, living in Berlin. Been in EFL since 2005. Recently

taught in Saudi Arabia. Career change for her and now autonomous in developing in

this area. Now freelance. Gen. BC.

2. BB Employed woman in her 50s, working and living in the Channel Islands, teaching

at a British Council language school, predominately adults and occasionally

teenagers. Experienced teacher and teacher-trainer. Regular contributor to

#ELTchat. Gen. BC.

3. CD. Ukranian female in her 20s, working as a project manager for a Canadian

company, with three years’ experience. Doing a Celta course in Poland before

starting a new role as coordinator of a language school. Is a freelance translator.

Also teaches Business English. Gen. BC.

4. EF. Iranian female in her 30s, who spent 8 years teaching in her home country,

before starting a Language and Culture in Europe master’s degree in Sweden and has

volunteered in a private language school for one year, teaching both English and

Swedish, where students had laptops in class. TTV. BC.

5. GH. Experienced American female, in her 50s, with experience in South Korea. She is

self-employed, running her own Ning site, delivering various online classes. Begun

with Moodle several years ago. 10 years at an Adult Learning centre where CPD was

supported. She has also helped coordinate regional and Virginia state conferences

and presented at numerous TESOL conferences. Gen. Sk.

6. IJ. 47 year-old freelance male teacher with more than 20 years’ experience in the

middle of short term contracts, most recently in the Middle East. Just finished in

Oman, and previously been in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (with British Council).

Currently doing pre-sessional work in UK, before taking up a post in Slovakia. TTV. Sk.

APPENDIX E

TEACHER PHILI

Text Box

APPENDIX E

7. KL. A 21 year-old female Belgian/American living in The Netherlands, having

experienced the Middle East and Northern Africa. Currently a freelance 1-1 EFL

teacher before doing a Masters in International Development. Self-described ‘digital

native’. TTV. BC.

8. MN. An experienced, bilingual Swiss/German female in her 50s. Teacher/educator in

Berne, Switzerland, preparing pre-service primary school English teachers. Over 20

years in EFL. Full-time employed. TTV. BC.

9. OP. Ukranian male in 50s, ‘senior lecturer’ at Donetsk National Technical University,

teaching mostly Business English/Economic IBA students. A former

interpreter/translator and an international officer. A big user of Learning

Management Systems. Participant shared his screen to demonstrate his ICT use.

TTV. BC.

10. QR. 24 year-old male, Nepalese Masters student, with limited English ability, who

claimed to have never spoken to a ‘native speaker’ before. 4-5 years’ experience in

TEFL in secondary schools and another (unclear) institution, in Kathmandu. Faces a

number of barriers, not least of all large class sizes and a lack of electricity. Gen. Sk.

11. ST. Canadian female in her 30s, who has just been laid off, after 2 years, from a

university program in Toronto, teaching low level adults. Working on own

educational technology masters. Limited access to technology previously, but now

on a short contract at University of Toronto, where she is using smart boards for the

first time. Gen. Sk.

12. UV. An Irish male in his 30s. A male Director of Studies with English First in

Hangzhou, China. Full-time employed. Previously a software engineer, with a degree

in maths and masters in computational science. TTV. BC.

13. WX. An Argentine female from Buenos Aires, with a prominent online presence, such

as through blogging. More than 20 years’ experience. Still teaches and coordinates

at secondary school, but has shifted to teacher training/professional development.

Travels around South America for Pearson as series course book consultant. Gen. Sk.

14. YZ. A 51 year-old Australian female. EFL teacher since 2004. Previously a computer

programmer, website developer, information architect. Volunteered to teach

migrants, which lead to working with new arrival migrants and refugees at a

vocational institute in Canberra. Involved in professional development and training

teachers with technology. Gen. BC.

APPENDIX E

RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

1) In Q7 I used the terms ‘technophobe’ and ‘technophile’. I noticed that you selected_X_ on the scale, but I wonder if this accurately describes your ‘relationship’ totechnology use. How ‘fluid’ is your relationship?

1. Maybe it was discomfort with the words ‘technophobe’, ‘technophile’. So, I don’t love it, just becauseit’s technology. I don’t just naturally love computers, but I’m not afraid of it, either. So I’m not atechnophobe. If anything, I’ve been afraid not to try it, not to use it. If anything I’ve been afraid not totry it and not to use it, thinking that in the future it won’t be a new thing, it won’t be a fancyalternative, it’ll just be the norm, so I decided it was necessary to learn, to get comfortable with it. ButI still feel a bit old-fashioned. The term ‘digital immigrant’ resonates with me, although I’m critical ofthat dichotomy, between digital native, digital immigrant, so it’s not always easy. I’m not really sogreat at experimenting with it. I would like to have a sensible relationship with using technology forteaching. Not to use it for its own sake, but just to decide that there are these useful tools andresources, and decide the best way to use them. So I describe my relation with it as alwaystransitional, experimental right now.

2. I use technology a lot in my own professional development. I like to use things like webinars. I belongto quite a number of online sites, things like #ELTchat, like to take a great interest in things like that.But at the same time, it’s very difficult to embrace the same ideas, so getting it into the school is a bitharder. The only time I use technology [that is not for face-to-face with students) is if I am doingSkype interviews for the teacher training programme. Most of time I use technology in the classroomas an additional tool. (during question on autonomy, asking if she was aware of the residents-visitorparadigm) Yeah, I don’t know. I never really thought about it. I suppose I am becoming a bit morerelaxed about my online presence, and I do belong to a substantial number of sites. Even things likewriting the summary for #ELT gives you more of a presence, because if you then google your nameyou come up in 6 million different places, so I suppose you’ve got to be relaxed about that, or youwould just go in and lurk, I suppose. (suggesting that she has adapted to what some people see as abarrier) For sure, definitely. In the beginning, I wasn’t so relaxed about it, but also I was a little bitintimidated by some of the other participants in some of the websites. I’m way over that now, I’mquite happy to treat everybody as equals because we all learn from each other. (asking if an onlinepresence can be too much) I think it depends on how much naval-gazing there is in the blog, I think ifthey are interesting and creating thought-provoking scenarious then I can’t see a problem with it,really.

3. I think I knew the terms. The etymology is quite clear, you know, ‘philia’ and ‘phobia’. I lovetechnology to a great extent but, on the other hand, I don’t like going to extreme into technology, likebeing held up in social media or spending the whole day in front of the computer. In terms of Englishteaching, I am always trying to strike the right balance, between the traditional teaching and usingcutting edge technologies. (asking if she was aware of the residents-visitor paradigm) No, well I think Iam somewhere I am still a visitor not a resident. (asking if her relationship is more fluid in general) Ithink that I spend, due to the settings I can spend most of my time in front of the computer, buttalking about my personal needs, I use it quite.. I rely on the Internet to obtain most part of theinformation, for communication, to communicate with my friends, acquaintances, in social media, aswell. I follow lots of different blogs online, Google reader. So I think I use it like half for myprofessional needs, for my professional development, as well, not only in English teaching, but alsofor my role as translator and for my current job. And the other part I use it for my personal needs. Forexample, for communication, for learning some interesting information and so on. (asking if she hasher own blog) I don’t have a blog myself, cause I’m afraid that I won’t have something interesting toput on it, but I will start having a blog in October when I start my job at the language school. And theother thing is I’m currently also designing my own website, which is devoted to an intensive Englishcourse for software developers, and I think I will have some sort of blog there and I will updateinformation on that website.

APPENDIX E

4. I really like technology in the class and I think it helps teachers to have lots of facilities in the class,especially when they want to teach second language, and especially in the teachers have the studentsfrom different cultures with different language so we can help a lot. But alternatively, when I was inIran, because we didn’t have Internet in the class, I couldn’t use technology a lot, but we had somevideo and shared some kind of video clips and something like that. We prepared some Power Pointwith our laptop, but we didn’t have Internet. (asking if it was more for presentation) yeah, yeah.(respondent didn’t really engage with the question on a personal level).

5. (Have you always been a technophile?) Absolutely not! Experience certainly helps, finding mentors,definitely help. When I taught in Korea I was the only Moodle user working in the lab in Korea whereall the instructions were in a language I did not know well. Yet it was magic, for those were some ofmy favourite memories of bringing students, learners not only learning a language but who had neverused a mouse or computer before. We were laughing at some of them [being] more comfortablethan I was. It was one of my big turning points. It doesn’t matter how much I know of the technology,it’s the attitude. And I know that, but seeing it from learners helped me and still helps me, both inguiding people and in not losing it. (on being a digital immigrant?) I am not a digital immigrant. No,wait I am forgetting my terminology. Haha. (explains more about the definition) Well [the Korean kids]were born into it. In Korea, technology is way ahead of what I see in the US. It’s so persuasive andahead. There wasn’t the fear factor that I run into a lot. But for my own fear factor, I’ve always beena curious person and I’ve always been aware. I read bulletin boards and I’m aware of new things. Iwas curious from the get-go, but I was terribly phobic for years and the continuum goes back andforth still, but confidence, especially since the last several months, trying to handle it all. I can’t losemy cool, so I am much higher now on the comfort end. (reflects accurately on what she says). (Later,during question on autonomy, mentions ‘andragogy’ as stated in survey response) Definitely orientedto that [that different approach between teaching adults learners and children]. There is a differencebetween teaching a child, and I have done both online and offline, and teaching an adult. The dignityissues are so strong and if you teach them pedagogically you often take their dignity aware and makethem feel like a tiny child. Adults should be both [taught differently because they learn differently).It is becoming a challenge in pedagogy recently, because to me the basic premise is you value whatthey know and an adult learning English knows a lot more on some relevant levels of life than what achild usually knows. But today it is a challenge because children know so much technologically.Maybe we will have a new word soon that applies to all. But my strong view is that I teach adults anddon’t like to think like a child.

6. I’ve got an iPad, for example. That feeds into ticking a 4. As regards my attitudes towards IT, youmean. I read a book by Bill Gates once, called, I think, ‘The Road Ahead’. This was about 5 or maybe10 years ago and set out his predictions and he was anticipating the kind of technology we have nowand what we can see coming now. He said his advice was to use it, learn about it, use it and he sawthat society was changing and that the nature of work was changing. This has borne out by myexperience. Now, for example, all my teaching work really, there is nothing of any significance that’snot in my computer. So the computer is collecting my experience. Given the ever-increasingimportance in IT that respect and the convergence of work and important information in thecomputer, in the Cloud, with backups. The point is that I have a survival interest in making sure thatmy systems work, which sounds a bit rich after last night. But I was able to recover from it, I didn’tjust panic and say ‘Oh, my God’, ruined. I did a system restore and I’m back to normal now. So that’smy interest in as much as I need it. It’s part of communication as well. I can travel and not feel out oftouch. (prompting from inference that he wasn’t always like this) Yes… but it’s two things: one is 15-20, certainly 30 years ago the technology just wasn’t there. When I was a teenager it was a big thingto see a cassette player and a radio in the one unit. There was a time when computers were coming inand I would hear the words ‘word-processing’ or ‘database’ and had no idea what that meant. Then Itook a course, a PGCE, and was forced to submit work word-processed. I became curious andexplored. I think I’m one of those who had a natural inclination but I saw the applications and whatyou could do, which fitted with my personality. Just recently things have gone into the cloud, thingshave become very mobile. There has been a splitting off of ‘laptop’ and ‘tablets’. Laptops are places,I’m finding, where you elaborate data into information and you work more intensively. Tablets are forabsorbing media, really, and lightweight communication. I now use the laptop a bit less and have the

APPENDIX E

tablet for reading books, papers, some skyping, email. The laptop is for essays and collecting heavydata.

7. I think the starting point is that relative to your sample and most teachers. I’m quite young, I’m 21,going on 22, so I’ve grown up with the internet so I’ve grown up with the Internet, and with digital lifeand digital identity. So that’s a big part of it. I was educated with computers and in my personal lifeand work I spend a ridiculous amount of time on the computer as well. I’m very comfortable withtechnology and I use it for a little of different things, but the reason that I didn’t take 5 is because I amvery acutely aware that I do not know. I don’t know any programming. My knowledge and use is a bitmore than your average Joe and I really try to keep up with new developments, new ideas, web 2.0and the social aspect of technology. I’m using it a lot to learn. For me, I live in a small city in theNetherlands which is the media city. For me, the Internet is also a way to stay in contact with otherpeople and similar to me, and to learn from others that I wouldn’t have the opportunity to if I waslooking for just physical people. (reflecting and picking up idea of being ‘native’ and checkingawareness of ‘residents-visitors’) No, I wasn’t aware but it sounds interesting. I guess I would describemy partner, who works in ICT, is a 5.

8. (asking if she has developed into being a technophile) I happily ticked no.5. I still lap it up. I amfortunate that I can use an Interactive White Board for teaching, I am the only one who has one at ourinstitute. I’ve spent quite a lot of money buying the latest gadgets. So, Im still happy about that andvery interested in how technology can facilitate teaching. I don’t want to replace teaching. I don’twant to replace teaching but would come become easier for my students basically. (asking whatdrives this need to use tech) I just lots of advantages. I’ve been using a computer for I don’t know howmany years. I couldn’t teach anymore with Internet. I spend quite a lot of time sitting at mycomputer.

9. Before embarking on the career of university teacher, I worked as an interpreter/translator in thecapital of the country. I was also an international officer in many international bodies. When I came toDonetsk University, at first I didn’t use any web applications, so it was 5 or 6 years ago. Out of theblue, I started to fall in love with all these web applications which can help you to get your pointacross. (goes on to talk about and demonstrate specific applications)

10. I am strongly in favour of the term, ‘technophile’. Why? Because I feel pleasure and benefitted in usein the ICT in my real class. These students, when I use these kind of ICT tools, these students feelcomfort, pleasure inside the classroom, and I also be motivated to teach them. I can see my ideasfreely and from the beginning I was really most interested using the ICT Tools. What I got from thisidea, the knowledge, what I did, this is my self-knowledge. No people provided me [with] the ideas touse ICT, so I strongly in favour of these tools. I am a ‘technophile’. (asking how widely available istechnology in Nepal) Oh, just 25% [of teachers] use technology inside the classroom. Just 25, notmore. (what kind of technology?) These days, laptop is a bit deeper, and teachers are using laptopright these days. (asking if they have IWB) Sometimes I use. (checking if uses more than otherteachers) No teachers use such ICT tools. I am the first one in that institution and I feel pleasure.

11. I said 4 because I hope to lean towards the ‘technophile’ end of things. I don’t consider myself‘technophobic’. I’m very eager to try out new things and try and get my students experienced with alot of different things. I really want to do that but also don’t know a lot and I’m just learning stuffmyself. I’m not a real technical genius. I can’t write genius. I can’t write code or anything like that. ButI try to use as much as I can figure out myself and I’m not afraid to try, but I need the time to domore. I’m not fully developed into ‘technophile’ yet but I hope to get there. (asking if this haschanged in last 10 years) Oh, yeah, massively. When I started working at York [institution in Toronto]2 years ago I didn’t use any technology, ever. The reason is because I’ve never had the opportunity.The last schools I worked in, and I’ve been teaching for 13 years and the last schools I worked in didn’thave any technology. No computers, No TVs, maybe a CD player. I worked in one school that didn’teven have electricity in the classrooms. I’ve never worked in schools that have had any kind ofprovision for technology at all. At York, there was a computer lab, which we could sign out. But Inever really bothered to do that. Finally, they put one computer in each classroom. But I was on 2

APPENDIX E

months contracts so each time I get a new classroom, so computer access not always there. Workingin low-level low priority programs, I tend to get those classrooms without. Not always easy to haveaccess, therefore. (clarifies practical issues) It’s not really practical. Sometimes it’s a projector on awhite screen or on TV display. A student at a time could come and use it, I suppose, but while I mightuse it as a teaching aid, it’s not really for the students. It’s too difficult with class of 16 students andone computer. It’s hard to get them to do anything with it (reflects on technology to presentinformation only, not collaborative etc). I find that really frustrating, because my whole classroomstyle is very interactive and collaborative. It almost seems that the computer intrudes on that. I’drather not use it than break up having the students working together. (later introduces and explainsconcept of ‘residents-visitors’ paradigm) I think that my life and my teaching life are somewhatdifferent and they are not really in sync yet. So, in my life I would say I’m a resident and I am certainlyonline most free hours of every day. I think I have somewhat of an online presence. However, ithasn’t always translated into classroom, because I have not always had the opportunities. That issomething very new to me. I think I’m maybe caught in the middle there. I suppose in my teaching, Isnatch and grab things, the visitor kind of thing. I am still figuring out what works and what doesn’twork.

12. Basically I am bit of a nerd. I had a ZX Spectrum 48K when I was a young teenager. I used to spendhours writing up computer programs and running them to see how they would work. My degree atuniversity was maths and we used a lot of computer technology to run stimulating software. I did amasters in computational science. So that was a huge lot of using technology in using old systems likeUNIX, VMS and even supercomputers. From a technological point of view, the whole computer thingis pretty straightforward for me. Throughout my university education I’ve been digging myself into aniche. I’m using really high-end software, high-end technology. So I took a step back before I becamea software engineer and learned about basic computer hardware, and studying operating systems,which I didn’t know about before. So that is really good knowledge for me now.

13. (Does a love of technology describe your relationship? Has it always been that way?) Well, it hasalways been that way. I have always been very fond of technology. Wow, I don’t know how far back, Ithink it was about 2004 that I did a ‘Webheads In Action’ course. To that point I did use technology inmy life, but not for teaching. That’s when I discovered there were so many things you could do withtechnology that could make teaching and learning more fun, interesting and effective. That’s wheremy journey with educational technology started and I think I’ve come a long way. I also do a lot ofinformation research and blog about it. I just love exploring new possibilities. (acknowledgesblogging activity, conference attendance, engagement with online communities and voluntary self-directed learning – then asks if technology used is sufficient for her purposes?) Exactly.

14. My background is that I was a computer programmer and did that for about five years and thenwebsite developer when the Internet first came about, when it was first called the Internet. I did myfirst online course before that, when we had something in Australia called ARNET (Academic ResearchNetwork). I’m very comfortable with it. I probably wouldn’t say I have a strong love for technology,but as a tool and a way of doing things.. I have a strong love for my iPad and my iPhone, so I guessthat’s where I sort of. If the tool allows me to do things that I want to do and connects me withpeople round the world, I can say yes, I do love it. I don’t have any fear of anything with technology. Ioften dislike it though when it doesn’t work (picking up on that reliability) Yes, I often say that in mynext job I want to work somewhere without electricity, but it’s not a fear or dislike of technologyitself, it’s just the problems it can cause. One of the reasons I am most interested in what you aredoing is because I’m very conflicted when it comes to trying work out how to help the people whoreally dislike it. I can help the people who have a fear of it, but I’m really struggling with [those thathate it].

APPENDIX E

ICT/WEB TOOLS USAGE

2) In Q10 the survey asked how often you use various ICT/Web Tools. You stated thefollowing (read back responses from list) – can I ask whether you answered thisquestion in relation to using them in your teaching or, more generally? Could youtell me more about the tools you use and why you use them? How do you measureeffectiveness?

1. (Asked to clarify if Q was answered in relation to teaching or more general use) Part of mydifficulty answering the question was that I’ve had very vastly different jobs in the past fouryears, and now I work freelance and that’s even more transitional. I can’t say that I use anythingreally consistently, but most recently I’ve used PowerPoint a lot at my job at a technical universityin Berlin. That’s a job I’ve only this past semester, March to May. I used a Moodle at that job forthe time as a teacher. But I used it more as a way to access, a way to make material available tothe students for them to access and to give them a very consistent home base for the course.But since it was an in-person course it wasn’t used to its fullest potential with the interactiveforum. So a lot of PowerPoint, what else? Materials creation? Well, over the years I’ve used a lotof crossword puzzle makers. I liked using them because you can use your customised list ofwords, for revision. I only used JING once. I’ve used some screen capture to give … only once ortwice, really. I think a lot of the things I’ve used, I’ve used a few times to experiment with them insome specific situations. But I haven’t always come back to them, like JING. What else? GoogleDocs is something I used a lot at the technical university in the spring. I really like it forcollaborative writing and to be able to see the student’s revisions and for them to share easilywith each other and with me. Yet, I used videos, just to show videos to get students to talk aboutthem. Get them to write, based on a video.(asking if she agreed with perception that she is a ‘visitor’ and purposefully selected a tool). Yes, Ithink so. I like that approach. I do think it is better to let good pedagogy drive your selection ofand use of tools rather than just using tools because they are there.

2. I answered the question in relation to my teaching. Yes, generally I might use some of them morethan I would in the classroom. But I think I’m always developing and learning about new tools. Iknow that you are working with Russell and quite often he sends out newsletters with things thatI want to try out. I find a way to squeeze them into the classroom somehow or other.(responding to prompt about process or the order of trying out new tools) I do tend to wait untilsomebody points the tool out to me and think oh I could see a really good use for that one andthen squeeze it into the classroom when I need it. From a teacher-training point of view, I dotend to do it the other way round, though. I think while I’ve got a need to do a particular thing, Iwonder if there is a tool out there that will help my students or my trainees benefit from it thatway, but for my own teaching it’s the other way round really. (on prompt relating to using onlinebookmarking and note-taking tools) I tend to use Google Bookmarks for things for like onlinebookmarking and very often and those are the things that I can see a use for in the classroom.Yes, it’s not just favouriting things I want to read later. (asking for a favourite tool) I like EnglishCentral, with my students, but I find that it’s changing a little bit, but it’s quite a good tool. Thenwith my business students I use a website called Quintessential, which is a culture website. Wedo a lot of work with that one. (prompt about whether those tools encourage autonomouslearning) Yes, absolutely, most of the ICT use is something that can be done outside of theclassroom. Sometimes they need the knowledge or need to know about the sites and they alsoneed a little bit of help getting round them in class, so they can they be autonomous outside ofclass.

3. Two of my all-time favourite [tools] are Wordle and Pixton.com. I use them in different settings,for different levels and classes, and these two tools are always work right. Pixton is a very handytool if I want, for example, to correct some grammar points. I can display the comments, likedialogue and the students have to fill in the gaps in the dialogue, like making the correct form of

APPENDIX E

a comparative, or placing the articles in the correct place. Or for correcting vocabulary, they haveto choose the correct word from the gaps in the dialogue, and also it is when to use someexercises for different communication functions. (shared link). Why I like this tool is that it is veryintuitive to use, very easy to use, maybe 5-10 minutes to create a comic. Students really love it. Iteach only adults, whatever age they equally like this tool. (on choosing a tool for what purpose)Mostly, it is the first way round. First I learn about this tool, somewhere on the internet or blog.Then I see how and which point I can use this tool in the classroom. For which purpose, for whichactivity. (on how to decide to use or not) Well, usually I learn about the new tool in some blog.Then I read about it and maybe watch some tutorial and I see whether I personally like this toolor not and is it easy for me to use it? If yes, then I try to think how can incorporate this tool intomy lesson, and then I try it out, get the feedback and see if it’s good to continue using this tool inthe future. (asking how is tool assessed for effectiveness) First of all, I see whether the use of thistool was justified in class, whether it served the purpose. For example, the Wordle. It’s veryunobtrusive, it’s a good way to stimulate the discussion, doesn’t take much time and it serves thepurpose. Because some other tools they do not serve the purpose. They are too long or theyinvolve many technical issues. For me, the main criteria is that this tool serves the teachingpurpose and doesn’t take much time. Then I see the feedback - whether they feel interested,whether they feel motivated. They also often ask. When I first used JING, I used it to recordfeedback about a student’s essay. Then I asked the student whether they liked this idea or to useit in the future and he told me that yes he was satisfied, because it was something very new forhim, and he found this kind of feedback very useful. That is the basis, this the argument for meusing this tool in the future. (prompt asking how she uses Wordle) I use it brainstorm a topic orto stimulate a discussion about what we will discuss during the course of the next two lessons. Iselect the key words from an article or topic, created a Wordle and then projected it… [as aprediction task]. The second use was to revise the vocabulary. (prompt asking how she used JING)I used it for two purposes. The first one is the student submitted an essay in a .doc format. Iopened the file on my computer, then I was capturing the screen. I was making some correctionsin the essay and marking them in a different colour, then explaining with my words all the time.Then I just recorded this and sent it to the student. The second option was a difficult text in theFinancial Times. I decided to explain the most difficult vocabulary items from the text. So I justopened it, highlighted these items, explained them and then sent it to the students’ emails, whichthey told me this was really useful. (asking how long she has used JING) I just used on these twooccasions. I learned this tool by myself, and when I mastered it by myself I used it on these twooccasions, having watched some tutorials. (asking where she found out about JING) I found outabout it from your [the interviewer’s] blog (typed link of Teacher Training Videos site to whichasked you found the tutorials via my blog) Yes.

4. (description of technology use, given without prompt during introduction) The school that I wasworking there, in the previous year, is [name] high school in Sweden, from level 6, 7, 8 and 9. Itwas one of the schools in Sweden that is connected to the Internet and students have laptop inthe class and interactive board. They have some facilities in the class. The school was divided intwo parts, one for Swedish students that have laptops and another department which is for theimmigrants and they are the beginning level of Swedish, they also have laptops but they are notallowed to take them home. (clarifying the institution pays for the laptops) Yes. The give teacherthe laptop, too, but because I am volunteer teacher I can’t take it home, just while I work inschool. (clarifying that institution encouraged this and other technology use) They haveoverhead, video projector. It’s completely kind of modern school. (continuing with furtherprompt) For the student that they were beginners because they didn’t know Swedish, Internetwas very useful for them. We used Google Translate, because sometimes they cannotunderstand, we typed text and they understand in their languages. We used Google Translate alot in the class. (asked later about favourite tool, she again mentioned) Google Translate. It mademy teaching easier because of handling students from different countries and I didn’t know theirlanguages. Some of them from the Asian countries, there English was not at a good level. Theycouldn’t speak English or Swedish, so GT helped a lot. Some of them from Hungary, Congo, andsome speak Arabic, because they are from Libya. (asking if she speaks Arabic). No, I speakPersian. (other tools?) The Power Point that I made by myself which I connect to my laptop and Iuse the video projector to show them. (asking how she decides what to use and what comes first,

APPENDIX E

continue to mention the important of GT). I was advised I could use this one, and then I applied itin class and it worked, and I thought it’s good. And sometimes I use Google images and I talkedafterwards and some images I show them, I tried to… [unclear]. (asking if she had restrictions inhow Internet used) No, we didn’t have any kind of restriction, it depends on the teacher. (inIran?) We didn’t have so restrictions, but the Internet is not so available, we didn’t have thefacilities to have the wireless Internet in our school. We [just] used video and CDs and somePower Points.. [pre-prepared material]. (asking about how she discovers web tools) For threeyears I have been looking for different kinds of teaching methods and I read in some BritishCouncil teaching and Cambridge through some webinars because some of them was aboutRussell’s webinar. Through the Internet I got this information. (Teacher Training Video site?)Yeah, yeah and also one of his techniques, I think it was last January, about using how to correctstudents homework by using JING. From that time I have used it, I have it on my laptop and Iused it. From this year only, I think before spring. I think Russell had a kind of webinar, I think, inspring.

5. (Recognising a high frequency of many tools from survey, but asks for favourites) Photopeach isone of my favourites, it’s fun and easy to use and it engages learners. Audioboo offer mp3recording and playlists. Skype, I suppose, as a tool. The world would be lost without Skype, myincome realise on it. (on there being no geographical limit to her business) Not at all and if youclick on the clustrmaps you can see where all of the visitors and members are. Clustrmaps,though, is a wonderful tool. (further question about choice of tools and judging effectiveness)Great question and I’m typing that it is probably my strongest challenge. A tool for its purposebut my audience is too broad and this is a real challenge for me. Assessing how it works is by theusage and effective usage that it gets by the members or learners I’m working with. Whether it isbeing used to help learning. Not just how I’m using it but how are members and learnersresponding and interacting with it as well. They won’t do it if it’s not easy enough.

6. (Referring to Q10 where most tools he had never used) I followed through Stannard’s newsletterof various web tools that he thought were useful or important for language teaching. Some ofthem, I didn’t have the opportunity because I didn’t have the classes. Others I had the classes butI didn’t have the ICT. So, others I had not heard of. Others again, I probably looked at briefly afterreading the newsletter and thought, ‘no, it doesn’t do it for me’. Some of them seem frivolous.Of course, they’ve got value in some applications, but I think a person has to be really sold on thebenefits. They have to have an interest in that particular application. They have to have theappropriate opportunity or context to use them, and the time. Quite a few things have to cometogether. Others are very simple web tools – cueprompter, for example. Very easy. Again, youneed an Internet connection and a bunch of students who need to do that. I’ve no doubt my eyeswould be opened if I had some training course on that sort of thing. Additionally, there is a lot ofnoise in the environment these days. Web Tools inherently are easily dismissible, whereas acourse book is there, the programme director has prescribed it. So, unfortunately by theirnature, web tools in their virtuality are ephemeral. (summarising and linking to Q12 responses onimportance in selecting a tool and checking this) I think so, and also if you could come up with apalette that would sit on a laptop where it’s got a set of web tools, the links that you could clickthrough so you could always have them present instead of having to think ‘is there a web toolfor…’ In Smart notebook software, which I’ve got, I know the functions of it, I know what it canand can’t do, those functions are always there. Web Tools, however, are distributed andscattered, and I have to remember them. That’s another factor. (summarises that respondentneeds to have an app always accessible on the front page of a device and not to have to gosearching) I think that is a good characterisation. It occurs to me I could have a series ofshortcuts to these different things, but I think the benefits need to be sold to me more of specificapps, tools. They have this ‘specificity’ about them. Smart notebook is a general workhorse, theteleprompter has one function, and JING, well, you can make a video and send them to students,but it’s kind of narrow. I want a multipurpose or general set or something which brings them alltogether. … Can you work with a developer and make yourself a fortune by bringing out aprogram which is called ‘web tools’ and is sold to language teachers?

APPENDIX E

7. I’m doing private tutoring and I will be teaching on a teacher-training programme soon. (asking ifuse of tools was in relation to teaching) It’s definitely an extent to my personal life, especially inthe past 2 months, I’ve realised a lot of the potential that connected learning, and connectedprofessional development can offer, so I’ve been integrating it more and more into my teaching.I’ve been making very conscious effort to use the opportunities that are offered to me by thesetools, for teaching. (asking for favourite tools either in preparation or with students) I find thetwo are quite separate in terms of for students or for myself. With my students it is still basic,let’s try a few things out and see what happens. I’ve been using ‘Vocaroo’. I’ve also been usinglots of online emails which I would kind of like to move to a collaborative blog with my students.Lyrics trainer, too, I’ve used if you want to do something in your free time. And a lot of podcasts,actually. (clarifying this is for students to use in their own time) Right! I find that it’s quite usefulto provide them with a lot of options should they want to practice to see what they can do. Bygiving them a wider variety of options I increase the likelihood that something works for them.(asking how to measure effectiveness) First of all, by the reception. If they don’t like, they’re notgoing to use it and they are not going to learn through using it. So it needs to be easy andaccepted by them. Second, is the reliability? It needs to dependable; I need to access it when Iwant to. And the easiest for me, especially for marking, and assessing.

8. The MOODLE learning platform is my favourite one, if that counts. I already mentioned that Irecently started with Blackboard. I’m not too keen on Blackboard yet, but maybe it’s because Idon’t know it too well. Are you aware of MOODLE? The tools that [MOODLE] offers, I can includeHot Potatoes and do quizzes and crosswords. (asking if maintains own Moodle site) Well, at theUniversity has it, which they have had for three years, I think. Not that long. I was in an onlinecourse before I started my job at University and there we had used the platform. Then Iapproached somebody at our institute and asked them about it, and I was the first one to startusing the platform. I kept asking, asking for the finances. (goes to Q4 on institutions) (laterreturning to asking for favourite tools) I use Audacity, Articulate, which I use to record PowerPoint presentations. (asking if students use them) Not yet. The PPPs have started. Six years agothere were no students coming with PP but now they have a module called ICT, which they haveto attend. So has made a big change in how they come or what they come with for PPP. Withrecording, I have had problems in the past because I have asked them to record and upload ontothe MOODLE platform that we’re using and some students are not able to do that. So [instead]they have to send by email. If they don’t already know how to do it, I’m not paid to train them inthe technology. I’m teach English, that’s my job. It’s not only a matter of being paid, it’s my timefor my content, for the competencies that I want to work with.

9. (sharing his screen throughout) I started with ‘Engrade’, it is a Learning Management System.Then I changed to Edmodo - you can see EMS 11A which is abbreviation for InternationalEconomic Relations, so this group was admitted to the university last year. (intervieweedemonstrates this by sharing his screen, navigating the system and showing the group users).Slowly but surely I started to use a lot of web applications, some of them, you see, VoiceThread,here they are. Then if you take a look at my wikis, I have a few wikis (again, demonstrates this)which I use as e-portfolios (shows actual students’ folders). This is my first glog (shows Glogsterexample) which I created about the Royal Wedding, on 29 April. Then we use Wallwisher. Herewe have Poplet – it’s my favourite group, Nickleback, and I created Poplet about it. Then we havegames, Zondle, and finally it is ThingLink LLC, if you click, you see advice on passing yourinterviews successfully and so on. That is my last creation. Then we have Symbaloo, and a lot ofother applications. … So it’s very interesting, an animated road map [for the royal wedding].(asked if he learned these tool by himself). Usually I try to operate on two principles re webapplications. They must be, not should be, free and ‘plug and play’, so easy to use. (showsstudents’ creation) Look, first she created an animated cartoon, on GoAnimate for schools. Thetopic was … going to a restaurant. Here we dub English videos into Russian. If I click you can see itis for my translation practice. … Here is a glog about holidays, which I don’t like at all, butstudents created. Here is a cartoon about financial plan. Now we have very interestingapplication, it is called Themeefy. If I click you see it is a kind of book, you can start reading it(demonstrates this) created by student. So, coming back to your question. Nobody told meanything. I just do it on my own. I receive a lot of emails from different bloggers, from different

APPENDIX E

educational sites and I tried to just, if something is interesting, for example, HelloSlide is veryinteresting because we can upload Power Point presentations. And ‘Robot’ will speak decentBritish English, telling what you type. Well, nobody teaches me anything. As for help, I amthankful to some companies. For example, XtraNormal, because when I write a letter and askthem to give me some free points, because I am from Ukraine and my salary is not that big. Theyask for verification of my educational email, and they let me do some things for free. I am verygrateful to a lot of companies for letting me try my hand with their applications for free. (askinghow to assess a tool’s effectiveness) Sometimes, I do it by trial and error. I read a lot of feedbackon various blogs and sites, and if it is a buzz(?), for instance, VoiceThread is a cool application. Ilove it. I try to just play with this application. At the moment I am playing with Wiki, with theirweb create. If it is easy to use, because I must be the first to use. Then I explain to students, and Iencourage them to use it. That’s all. Usually, I rely on word-of-mouth advertising after readinglots of information. (asking if other teachers use tools as extensively) No, no. I remember when Iwas at start of my career at this university, one of my colleagues she is in the Sultanate of Oman,she teaches there. She returned from a business trip and made a wonderful presentations aboutHot Potatoes and other web applications. It was my first introduction to [these]. Since that time,practically nobody of my colleagues has started doing similar things. I explained to a couple ofthem about Engrade. If I just show you Edmodo, one of the members of this group is mycolleague. I included her especially to show her how to use this application. My colleagues donot do that. My boss uses Yahoo! Groups and webs.com. She is a little bit more advanced thanmy colleagues but on the whole, no, they do not do that. (later, during discussion onautonomous behaviour, interviewee was challenged over the pedagogic value of using so manytools and whether they were learning English more effectively) Let me tell you that I am not allthat democratic. I stick with one simple truth. If you come here, to university, you have to work.English is an invaluable practical skill, I mean speaking English well. So there will be nokindergarten stuff. You come here and I press you, press you all the time, because people usuallywork better under pressure. By being 24 hours available and making you understand I can controlevery step of yours. If you didn’t do my exercise, I will punish you, there is no ‘but’ about it.Because you are a student this is not secondary school. Most of them do not want me to shareall these things with their parents, they hide information deliberately. I am very strict. Those whowant to learn, they do learn. If they don’t want they just ‘face the music’.

10. (acknowledges a high degree of frequency for ICT tools and asks for favourite kinds in teaching)Basically, I use blog, wiki, ‘Facebook group’ and YouTube video, following those of JeremyHarmer, David Nunan, Rob Ellis. (clarifies if latter is used for personal learning) Those are theprominent personalities that we to study in second language use, which is one of the course(which suggests he didn’t quite understand the question). Up ‘til now I am unable to talk withthose people. Asking if he keeps his own blog) Yes, I have my own personal blog, which I use toshare my knowledge with these students. The literal term of ‘blog’, that is a personal website,but not working as a personal for me. I use that blog to share my knowledge with students, and Ishare some articles if they enquire. (for material sharing?) yeah, I provide them the materials andthe activities conducted by my colleagues also. I would like to share and they feel pleasure tovisit those materials. When they come inside the classroom, they talk to me and say we are veryhappy. Those materials are really very effective. So we are in favour of you. (getting impressionthat he is presenting a glossy, rose-tinted view of what is going on). (asking what technology theyuse) Laptops, basically. Mostly the people who is study here in capital city they have the strongeconomic background and they can afford any kind of facility they require. (asking if they dowork outside of class) Inside they can involve in wiki, their own wiki which they can edit if theylike. (..so not answering question). (questioning what decides selection of tool and which wayround) Basically I am influenced by one of my professor in Hawaii. He taught me these ideas. Healso taught me to use those materials. Those ICT tools in real classroom teaching. (probingreasons as answers not at all clear) It is not easy to use. It is really challenging. In Nepal, thereare lots of barriers in this context. (leads onto discussing barriers).

11. (started by asking what she looks for in a tool) It has to be really easy to figure out. I teach verylow-levels who have very limited understanding. If I can’t demonstrate it clearly.. we have anoffsite computer lab which we have to sign out, so what happens is when I teach, and I need

APPENDIX E

them to do something in the lab, I have to teach it first in the classroom and give it to them onhandouts which can be taken to the lab. Anything I use has to be so simple. Our lab also doesnot have a teaching computer in it. What I am looking for is things that are very simple and thatallows for pair-work because I do need them to interact. So, is it simple enough and can they dosomething together in pairs? For example, a grammar quiz where they click boxes is not veryinteractive, but maybe there are things which they can build things online, for example, I wouldget them to build a room together and move furniture around in the room and then describewhere it is, together. (asking if she answered Q10 in terms of teaching or more general use) Ithink I was really thinking of in my teaching, as I recall. At the same time, I was kind of looking atit from two sides. I was looking at it from what do I use myself as a teacher and a lot of thatcomes into presentation, and I was thinking about what I get my students to use, which are notalways the same things. (clarifies that constraints dictates she uses more for preparation and lesswith students, before asking about the ‘flip side’ where the students can work with a tool awayfrom the classroom -> barriers)(later asks about Q13 on survey which asks about effectivenessand whether she agreed with students enjoying it and demonstrating use of target language) Yes,absolutely. I don’t think there is any point in using tools unless there is some sort of languagepractice coming out of it. They have to actually use something in a realistic way that they wouldin everyday life. (interviewee describes ‘building a room’ exercise using prepositions of place andadjectives). If [students using the target language] is not happening, with whatever tool, then Idon’t see the point. I won’t use technology if I can’t see how it’s helping their language. I thinkthat tool was actually a game for kids, and it is called something like ‘gamesforgirls.com’ which isa stupid name. (later, under ‘autonomy’ asked about how tools are learned before mentioning..)Glogster, is something I figured out totally for myself. I asked my students to make posters usingGlogster. But I spend a couple of hours myself before I brought it in to show my students. So,that is basically how I do everything.

12. (refers to own survey responses to answer this question) A use a lot of the tools regularly toshowcase certain things to teachers. Voice-recording tools – not so much in the classroom but Iwould use them a lot for myself. Audio-editing tools, I actually use Audacity, and lots of otherones on my laptop. Lots of video editing tools, as well. I use VLT media player. I use Audicityquite a lot. I use GCompris http://gcompris.net/-en- which is a suite of educational games. I useFreemind for brainstorming things, for training with teachers. I use Jolicloud -http://www.jolicloud.com/ - which is a different operating system. I use Ganttproject -http://www.ganttproject.biz/ - project management systems. A suite of games called Child’s Play.I also base a lot of my classroom things around the Chrome browser, as there’s lots of add-ins. Iuse Camstudio - http://camstudio.org/ quite a bit to capture videos. Another video editor isAvidemux - http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/. I use Picasa quite a lot and another one calledMinisebran - http://www.wartoft.nu/software/minisebran/ . (asks about process involved)Usually, either I stumble upon something via lots of emails I receive or lots of groups or RSS feedsthat I have subscribed to and I just get the bombardment of information. A lot of it comes fromneed, my need and demand - if I need to do a certain thing and I don’t have the immediate toolto do it at my fingertips. I go onto sourceforge - http://sourceforge.net/ - or some softwarewebsite. I usually try to find freeware or open source software. I download it and 2 or 3 othersuitable options, figure out which one I think is the best and easiest for me to use really quick andI start using that one. (reflects numerous inputs and slightly different process from others infinding a tool after ‘need’ has been established) I noticed online bookmarking tools – well I call itthat – but it’s actually called ‘Scoop’ – http://www.scoop.it/ - I use this quite a lot at themoment, (points out this is a ‘curating’ tool) so if I ever need high-quality, reliable directions forany field, I usually go there first.

13. (mentions that one blog has been looked at which shows knowledge of a huge number of tools,and asks for favourites and why) Ok, one of my favourites is VoiceThread, because it’s very easyto use. It’s very versatile. You can do your own presentations for students. You can have aslideshow prepared and then have students add audio or comments, or they can do their own.I’ve found many different ways of using that. Another tool is tools like Pixton and Zimmertwins. Ido digital storytelling and I love the possibilities that those tools offer students in terms ofexpressing their creativity and I’ve had great results. (how do you decide or select which tools to

APPENDIX E

use) Well, I think it goes both ways. On one side, I usually find out about a new tool or I discovera new tool myself. I explore it, I see what it looks like, if it is easy to use and what are thepedagogical values I can have with using that tool. I think that is the most important thingbecause, in the end, it is not the tool itself but whether the activity you are presenting has apedagogical value. The tool has to enhance that. Usually it has to be easy to use for the students.If the tool is too complicated or takes me very long to teach students how to use, then it’s maybenot worth it. (clarifies emphasis on the students’ use and effective learning) For myself, I usealmost everything but I do not necessarily use everything in my class. That’s the difference. I useJING a lot, but I don’t use JING in the classroom. So there are effectiveness of tools for my dailylife as a teacher and what I then actually transfer to students. (summarises 3 ways to use –private life, for teaching and for students). (probes for tools that students use outside of class,using the word ‘connecting’) The thing is I only have access to the computer lab once a weekwhich means we cannot do all the work there. 95% of my students have Internet access in theirhouses. Usually, whatever we do in class, they continue to work with most of those tools athome.

14. (asking how the question was answered) I did look for that distinction when I answered all of thequestions, to see if whether you meant in my teaching or generally. It didn’t mention, ‘how oftendo you use’, and it didn’t mention teaching. So I answered that generally. I certainly wouldn’t usethat much [frequency ticked] every day for work. (reflects on frequencies ticked, before askingfor favourites used for/in teaching) Mmmm, [thinks hard] Evernote http://evernote.com/ wouldprobably be one I use daily, for teaching, but more for preparing lessons, more for my lessonplanning. I take photos of what I’ve written on the board before I scrub it off. So I save thingsthere, save a record of what I’m doing. It suits me to [use] that. There are no other group oftools there I would use every day. But things like voice-recording, not necessarily recording myvoice, but we’ve got our own commercial product called WIMBAhttp://www.wimba.com/solutions/higher-education/wimba_classroom_for_higher_education/that sits within MOODLE at my college and we’ve got all the WIMBA voice tools. Blackboard ownthem now. So I use them a lot with my students to record. You haven’t got the LearningManagement System there, but I do use that daily – MOODLE. It’s what we use and it enablesme to have forums for my students, put resources up, links or actual documents, audio, widgetslike dictionaries, text-to-speech type things. I use it all the time, mostly to provide activities andresources for students. (interviewee refers to list) Webinar tools, I used to use all the time when Iwas doing distance teaching at the same college, but we don’t have that program anymore. But Idid use it. Screencapture is something I use occasionally but not for teaching. Probably creativestudents and material creation tools occasionally. (asks about reasons behind choosing tool andwhether she agrees with her responses). On motivating, did I say no opinion or not important?(confirms ‘no opinion’) Ok, that would probably be because I wouldn’t know if something ismotivating for students. Things that are engaging and motivation really varies in the classes I’vegot. I recently had a 71 year-old student who had never used a computer before, but was veryengaged once I got her using one. I’ve got another student close to that age who I’ve taughtbefore. I can’t remember her aversion to technology but I’m told she’ll wander off and my aim isto make sure she doesn’t. Whereas I’ve got other students who have got iPads in the classroomsand looking up anything I’m talking about. (reflects that she has very mixed students) Yeah, wedo have a program for international students and they are generally more homogenous, in their20s, and more comfortable with technology. For the migrant students it’s a real mix. (asks howshe manages this mix in relation to tool use) I guess my preference is to give them an awful lot ofstuff using technology that I think would be of benefit to them, things that are pedagogicallyjustified. Because of the different levels of comfort and skill, I don’t do that. A lot of them arealso working or studying on another course … so everything I give students, unless we do it inclass or computer lab, is an extension activities. If you want to do more, if you have Internetaccess [then take advantage if you want to]. I do have to temper my enthusiasm for using someof these things that I think would be really useful and helpful.

APPENDIX E

BARRIERS

3) Could you tell me more about the barriers to using these tools which you selectedand which of these are the most common?

1. (asking for clarification on health issues) I haven’t read the book, but there is a book out called ‘TheTeacher’s Voice’ and it talks about the physical dangers of overusing and not caring for our voices.And part of the problem with technology is ergonomic problems with posture, so if you consistentlyhave bad posture you may end up damaging your voice and, gosh, can you imagine being a teacherwithout a voice? So, there are problematic, dangers that you have to really take care of theergonomic issues and using a mouse. Well, I try to do yoga but I always have a stiff neck and stiffshoulders and pains, so I don’t know, part of that might be age, but I think it’s something that peopleshould talk about more. (asking about other barriers?) Well, personally it’s just time constraints.Every tool takes a lot of learning and adapting and experimenting and that takes a lot of time. It’salways much easier to go with what you already know. But teaching contexts – at one of my schoolsthat I teach at, it’s just a private language school for adults and I teach Business English classes. I canthink of a lot of interesting things to do in the classroom with technology but we don’t have anytechnology in the classroom. So I can’t even hook up my computer to a projector, so that’s a verytechnology free situation. So, it’s just the constraints of teaching context.

2. I think the first barrier is that many teachers have no training in using any of these tools and theyare afraid of them One of the things is that they don’t want to look stupid in front of their students.The minute that something goes wrong, that’s the last nail in the coffin. They basically say, well lookyou can’t even be guaranteed that they are going to work, so why should I bother. I tend to have aplan B, so it doesn’t really worry me too much if I can’t get YouTube to work. I’ve probablydownloaded it in preparation, but it takes a long time to get teachers who are not that way inclined orcomfortable with technology. The other thing is the hardware itself. There are days when the internetis down and there is not a lot you can do about it. Or the TV in the room isn’t working. Or someonehas borrowed the cable. There is always something. You just have to live with it, I think. (referring toissue of technology breaking down) From my point of view, I mean, I’ve got my own laptop which Isometimes use. I’ve got an iPad. I know how to tether my iPad to my phone. I can find workaroundswhen I need to. My colleagues are just not confident enough to do things like that. (and incomparison to colleagues that she is more equipped to deal with technical issues) absolutely, but I amalso starting to become the person that my colleagues come to when they’ve got a problem. So, I’mchanging my role as well, because I want them to be more comfortable. (asking if this has changed) Iam the teacher trainer after all. A lot of the young teachers have been trained by me to use thetechnology I know while doing the training course. From the very beginning, I am sending theminformation on JING or CAMTASIA or whatever right at the beginning, so we use technology right theway through a training course. And they don’t really have any problems. It’s my main schoolcolleagues who are now looking to me for help. That is a new role.

3. (asked if barriers chosen on the survey – personal dislike, no relevance to language skills, not worthtime invested, lack of technology available –she would still agree with or if she wanted to addanything?) Well, I think that is the complete list of barriers which I can think about. That’s it.

4. (trying to uncover whether she has a natural interest in technology, mentions a potential barrier) AsI told you, I think […] technology in the class and I think if a teacher has technology in the class it helpshim or her to have lots of facilities and to teach to the students in a very lovely manner, butmeanwhile they should pay attention, [as] the Internet it has some disadvantages. In that school,because all of the students have laptops, all of them can connected to the internet and sometimesthey use games, and they check Facebook or went to the YouTube, but although we have thesedisadvantages of the technology, but I think that [it] helps teachers to have more facilities to presenttheir lessons and the class will be very amazing. (clarifying the distraction of low-level students havingconstant access to Internet) It is one disadvantage, but it depends on the teachers, of course. In thatschool they were not allowed to force them not using music while they were teaching. The studentssaid that they were allowed to do that, while I am teaching. I think that is a disadvantage but itdepends to the teachers. (summarised the onus on the teachers to control internet use during class).

APPENDIX E

5. Time. Hahaha. Definitely my list of priorities is too long. I can prioritise and I do, but time.Connection speeds is another large challenge. Access around the world is obviously not the same.Infrastructures of connection access. Also, more recently, a new challenge that is wanting to useGoogle Analytics better so I can see how other people are seeing the site. There are so many devicesused now – BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) is changing things. I get feedback that things don’t workon this device or this browser.

6. (reading from survey responses) Institutional resistance, time consuming, lack of training/support,lack of technology available. You could argue that all of these are underlain by a lack of political will.It’s about the people behind these things. -> see more comments under ‘institutional training’section.

7. (following on, asking if ‘reliability’ is the biggest barrier) No. Honestly, I would say the biggestbarrier is ‘price’. I used exclusively free tools. (reminds respondent of survey answers – e.g. free easyto use tools by her and students) They tend to go hand in hand, to be honest.

8. There are barriers. If I can go back to MOODLE. My institute’s got its own platform but we don’thave all the … the forum, the quizzes etc. You would have to go and buy more tools to use and ifnobody else asks for these tools, if I am the only one then my university will not get this additionaltools. (highlighting financial costs ticked on survey and if there is not enough demand they won’tbother) That’s right. (paid yourself for tools for own teaching?) Oh yep! I got my own iPad because myuniversity won’t pay for it. They pay for your computer or laptop. But nothing else. So, if I want to usean iPad and I also a bought a […] whiteboard some years ago but I was paid back by my employer. Ican’t wait, you know. I couldn’t wait for iPad, I’ve got the first one. A birthday is coming up so I mightget 3 or 2. It’s just that you can connect it to the data projector etc.

9. (following on from institutional support and clarifying that financial cost is major barrier) Once mystudents [offered to pay] for a professional licence and I said, no, because it might have financial[problems] and I don’t want any trouble. (clarifies main point of cost barrier – reply shown under‘barriers’). I have to save wonderful presentations from VoiceThread (demonstrates on screen),because it is free version. If I want to create first one, I have to delete one of them. So I [am able to]keep them, because I promised the company to write a report, an article and present it at aninternational conference. Some of the companies have granted me professional licences … because Iam teacher from Ukraine and I need them and my salary is peanuts. I am thankful to them, or they letme use professional versions for half a year. (so clarifies that he never pays but manages to persuadecompanies to give him professional versions) Yes, of course. If am successful [with my cartoonpresentation] at the Republican level, I will try to mention all these companies for their help, to sayThank You. (asking for names of specific companies) Showdocuments.com is a very nice applicationand you can see that I have professional subscription plan. It is very useful and I use it every time. It issimilar to what we are using now [Blackboard] (demonstrates that he has full version with allfunctions). You can also see (shows actual Gmail account on screen) an email from the creator ofThingLink, Finland, granting me an educational account free of charge. (goes on to demonstrate thathe has full access). (later, during a supplementary question about his students’ responses) On thewhole, well, there is an extra feature on Edmodo called ‘Polls’. Once I asked my students if I am rightmaking [them] use a lot of web applications. 70% said yes. Once I asked them if it was OK to ask[them] to pay or to collect money to buy a professional licence, it was 50-50, but at that time I knewthat I’d better not. But on the whole, some of them are not so enthusiastic because once, let me tellyou. A few years ago a group of students write to me when I created a Google site for their site,deliberately, accidentally on purpose – they could, they were able, but they lied to me and I believed[them]. So they sabotaged my efforts. So I have had even bad experiences. But, I would say 80% dowhat I want them to do. Another problem, if I am good, let’s say, at creating Glogsters, some of themtry to concentrate on Glogsters only, and I have a mission not just to limit you to one site.

10. The first barrier is lack of experts is the thing. The second one is lack of training package. The nextone is lack of basic knowledge to the learners. I mean, learners should have the basic knowledge ofusing those tools. (confirms same as survey answers) Next one is it is really expensive. I think youhave heard that Nepal is a developing country and it is really difficult. (reflects on the context andsuggests tools need to be free) and the next barrier is the problem of ‘loadssedding’ – have you ever

APPENDIX E

heard this term? (asks to repeat a few times as unfamiliar term) – problem with power cuts, problemof electricity. (understands as unreliable power supply). We have power cut 18 hours in a day. It is notpossible to have all the time, so one of the most [biggest] problems, which we called ‘loadssedding’(this term, actually spelt ‘load-shedding’ is a local term which needed looking up – see article here -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12229752) (confirms that this is the only person tomention power issue). Next barrier is large class size. In the context of Nepal, there is more than onehundred students inside the classroom. (confirms this is also the first person to mention this problem,and probes whether this requires more collaborative or autonomous learning) Oh they have to becollaborative with the teacher, if teaching is possible. May I say another barrier is multilingualclassroom, multilingual backgrounds. They don’t have much English knowledge, so really very difficultto use [English language] technology inside the classroom. We have to face problem of differentmother tongues.

11. (following on from use of tools and getting students to use tools outside the classroom) I still haven’tinvestigated that. I’m a little nervous about that, because I can’t guarantee that all students will haveequal access outside the classroom. I don’t have a way of knowing who has got access to what.Because I was working primarily with Saudi students, I’ve had some cases where some of the womenare not allowed or have never used a computer themselves: ‘My husband does that’. Our students,because they are coming from far away, sometimes they haven’t brought their machinery with themor they don’t have a printer, or they are living in a homestay which only has dial-up instead of cable.(there are other barriers and the frustrations associated in other parts for 12 – such as time consumingissue and lack of training – see under ‘institutions’)

12. (listed survey answers – institutional resistance, reliability, time, lack of training, cost – and ask whichwas most important) One of the things here is that we work within a closed network, because EF is aprivate school. So out network is closed down, which means you have to log in with a secureusername/password. Plus, if you want to install any additional hardware, like microphone softwareor video software, we have to send an IT request, so it’s a long process to get things to happen. Thatcan restrict me from pushing it out onto teachers, so I experiment a lot first myself on my laptop. Anyones I find I allow teachers to use. So that’s one of the resistance factors due to the parent company.Reliability – one of the things about China is that a lot of very useful sites are blocked, because of thefirewall. Instead of downloading and installing different software I try to find an online applicationthat will do the same thing. (acknowledges workarounds but asks about proxy servers) Of course, yes.From a personal point of view, I use them for my personal use, but not from an institutional point ofview (reflects that he probably can’t be seen to be getting round the great firewall). In the school, wejust leave it as it is and try to get round it.

13. (following on from ICT tools access) Internet access and the availability of having that is essential. Forthose without access at home, they can request further access at school, when we are not in class.(asks for actual barriers in the classroom) The first barrier is actually the school’s policy on who canaccess the computers, because there is only one room, which is usually used by the IT teachers.There is only one free day. I’ve been there a long time and earned the benefit of using the lab onFridays, but the rest of the teachers can’t. The only thing that other teachers can use is projector,installed in a different room, but there is only one bookable for the whole school. Another isteachers’ knowledge of ICT and what to do with it. Not many teachers are ICT literate. That’s abarrier. School is not offering training, so it’s mostly self-discovery.

14. (having previously mentioned non-homogenous classes and students who dislike technology, asksabout contextual barriers) I hear about ‘barriers’ from others 24/7. The ones I ticked (Q15) areinstitutional resistance. The reason is our network is within a state government network and theydon’t seem to understand education. Often things we can’t do, like using Skype at work. I can useBlackboard, at work, fortunately. They change something or they suddenly deny us use of something.I had a blog with one of my classes on blogger, but suddenly I couldn’t access it, because someoneaccessed something that had something offensive to the government network. They banned accessto all of that, even teachers who were using it for teaching. I suppose that would happen in anyeducational institution but it’s a constant battle, for me, against the policies they make, because ofthe government part of it. If we were an autonomous institution, as far as our computer systems go,

APPENDIX E

it would be anything goes. They might put up barriers when something goes wrong, but not forexperimental stuff. No relevance to language skills, I hope, speaks for itself. Although I’m pretty goodat playing around just to see if I can find relevance. In my other teaching, I actually [train] teachers ofother areas, from hairdressing to forensic science, so it’s [experimental]. So something used forfashion design might be useful for language teaching. Not worth investment in time/effort alsospeaks for itself. ‘Second Life’, for example, I keep going back to, keep trying to use, thinking theremust be something here. I’ve done an online conference within SL, but to me, it’s not worth it. Icertainly couldn’t imagine ever getting a group of my students in there. Financial cost involved – I buya lot of licences and tools myself, because that is the only way I can justify [to institution] the amazingthings I’m doing with it. That is a barrier why I might not do some things. (reflects on top-downbarriers -> leading to institution question)

APPENDIX E

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND TRAINING

4) If employed - How often do you receive support in your professional developmentin the area of technology and ICT? What do you receive from your institution? Whatother things do you do outside of work? If self-employed/freelance – How often doyou receive support or training in your professional development in the area oftechnology and ICT? How much responsibility do you take for your own learning?

1. (continuing to talk about barriers) A lack of training offered through institutions, although sometimesI’m really grateful for that, because I tend to resent, well coming from King Saud University where youhad to sit through awful trainings all the time, and they would observe you and tick the boxes – didyou use technology? Therefore, did you teach well? (asking about her freelance position) So far, I’vereceived none at all. In Berlin, it’s typical most teachers you meet do work freelance becauseemployers don’t want to give contracts because that would cost them more money, so most of us arefreelance. I’ve just a professional association called ELTAB (Brandenburg) and this association seeks tofill the gap and does offer a lot of professional development but, so far, not in the area of technology.But technical university, we had a conference for English for Academic Purposes in the spring. Oneprofessor, who is doing a masters in corpus linguistics, gave a short workshop but he wasn’t showingus how to do it. But at that university, our head of languages has offered each of us the opportunityto give paid professional development workshops. So I could offer to lead one, or any others. Butgenerally I don’t get any support or training to use technology in the classroom.

2. (continuing to talk about ICT tools) I think probably because the course, although they support me inmy use of ICT in the classroom they are not terribly up on anything and it tends to be me who has tofind the sites and the equipment myself, although once I’ve done it they’re quite happy to share in it.(answering a reflection that she seemed autonomous in choosing what she wanted to use, there beingno restrictions) none at all, no. (asking later about how much support in this area from the institution)That’s a hard one to answer. The school decided that would have some kind of training, but actually Iended up doing the training. So, the help I get is less than the help I’m giving. But at least the will togive everybody some kind of help and development is there. It was me who was providing the help, ifyou like. (on prompt as to whether teachers shouldn’t wait for the institution and, instead, offertraining) No, I don’t think so. I think the institution should be providing training. I think if you buryyour head in the sand and get to the point that you think it’s not important then you are going to losecustomers in the end, because people are so confident around technology that teachers I think needto have that as well. You can stand up and say I’d quite like to have a bit more training but I really dothink that there should be more from employer as well. I’m delighted that my employer does dosomething, because it sounds like some other schools don’t have that at all, but it’s still not enough.

3. (asked to what extent she has received professional development by employer or if she had voluntarilydone this. Where does it come from?) Basically, I graduated from my major at the university wasEnglish Language and Literature. I did some training in the methodology, but when I started teachingby myself, I found I realised this was not enough. Then I started my own development self-learning. Ithink the interest for the ICT comes from within myself, because I am really interested in technology.My husband is a software developer. Most of my friends are into IT. That’s when I wondered, howabout if I use some technology in my teaching. I started with YouTube videos. I started by teaching agroup of librarians. I started to bring my laptop, to do some interactive exercises on the laptop, and Iwatched some online lessons or videos in class. Then I started googling information for Internetinformation, specifically which web tools I could use. I found lots of different blogs and websites andread about trying to develop in my own classroom. I didn’t receive any professional training in thisrespect. I created the presentation and held this in my language school and the title was ‘Web 2.0Tools in ELT’ and I can also share my presentation with you (shared link to Prezi). I just wanted toshow the teachers what tools I am used. Soon I am going to Krakow in Poland to do a Celta course. Inthis respect, this is my self-education and my own enthusiasm of trying out something new inteaching.

APPENDIX E

4. (asking what kind of training in Iran/Sweden?) In Iran we had some training but it was not the latestto do with Internet or web tools, no I didn’t have any kind of training. Here, in Sweden, just in theclass before I wanted to start my job I have a kind of presentation with one of the teachers, sheexplained to me how should I use this tools. But I didn’t have a kind of official training for web tools.(clarifying that she only received general guidance and what was expected) Yeah, yeah. (asking if shefeels a pressure or expectation from the institution to use the technology effectively) I don’t think so itis pressure for me, because when they introduce that this is the situation and you are supposed touse these things. Then because I was really eager to using these kinds of things I, myself, encouragedmyself to use [them] and by using [them] my teaching will be very amazing for the students. So I don’tthink that it’s a kind of pressure for me. I think that when I come from teaching in my home country,[that I have] developed. I have a kind of revolution in my teaching, because I have more facilities,using web tools and technology. It’s really amazing.

5. I was definitely supported for several years at an Adult Learning Center where professionaldevelopment was supported. When I was with that institution there was a full rated K12 schoolsystem but we were the outcasts and couldn’t get them to use Moodle. They now do, but I could notthen. I wanted, felt the need to get our learners of them using technology. Administration was notbuying in. So I firmly believe there has to be support from the top or its bang your head against thewall time. Finally, my manager said you’ve outgrown us, we’re not ready for you. She’s still my bestreference, but that was 6 years ago and they are just catching up. So I have since gone nuts on mine,though English Café, loved what they were doing and then they closed [shut down] on us. (later infree discussion, respondent want to add the following) One comment I will add … I am no longeraffiliated with a Virginia based institution. I am no longer welcome to participate in Virginia learningexperiences. I can pay and attend a conference but I cannot take state training. They’ve called me andasked me to teach but I cannot participate unless I pay full fees, because I’m not a valued Virginiaeducator. That’s wrong. That needs to change.

6. When an organisation wants ICT or web tools used, they will make them available, they will trainstaff, they will create an ethos in which these things operate and are used. At Newcastle, for example,the management are keen to go as paperless as possible, which is quite a long way. They pushconsistently the use of Blackboard and ICT tools. Therefore, the barriers which are left will be theteachers own proclivities or disinclination to engage. Those are the two main issues. Those cancel outinto it being a human issue. Do people want to? Whether they want to or not depends on manythings, but that’s the underlying point. The barrier is people’s feelings. Barriers have to do withpeople. If it’s on the management side, people are not supplying the equipment or training. If it’s onthe teachers’ side, then it’s because the teachers are not interested sufficiently.

7. (firstly clarifies the interviewee’s employment position – currently 1-1 freelance but soon to beemployed) Correct. (asks about training/support expectations from an employer) I am not expectingmuch. I’m not expecting to be trained. I’m not expecting to be given anything. I’m expecting that I willhave to either figure it out myself, which is highly likely or ask people who have been there longerthan I, and try to borrow some of their time, to do that. I would hope it would otherwise. Especially asthere is now a trend to try and incorporate more ICT in education and director of studies are quiteinterested by that and they really want to push for that, but they don’t know what to do with it. SoI’m seeing [my future employment] as being very self-directed. (asking if teachers like her can take alead) Yeah, I’m expecting that to be the case for me. I know, because I have also done a bit ofresearch on ICT in education. I would hope that it’s not like that but I do think it will be. I think thereis a very strong possibility for teachers to take the lead and I think that they will have to, butunfortunately teachers don’t always have that much time to do that. (asking about awareness ofteachers not prepared to be autonomous and self-directed, not wishing to over-represent fullyautonomous teachers) Yes, absolutely. For example, I will be teaching on an English teacher-trainingcourse [soon]. What this means is that, now in the Netherlands, there is a push for bilingualeducation. As you can imagine, there are strong proponents and strong opponents. What thismeans is that for teachers in primary and secondary education who had not been hired to teachbilingually, are now being told that they have to teach in English and how to run their classroom.Even if they have been teaching for forty years. I think that has been quite a barrier to this sense ofautonomy and motivation for development, because they are being forced to go through professionaldevelopment. Both [with the medium of instruction] and with technology. (picking up on the

APPENDIX E

enforcement and the increase of technology use in the classroom, and the possible resistance of moreexperienced teachers) I’m not sure. My feeling is that there is a lot of money has been invested ingetting laptops for schools and getting computers. But it’s putting technology at the centre ofeducation as opposed to the actual teaching. (exploring the idea of there being a gap betweenexpectation of teachers from institutions when technology is introduced and a lack of training). Myanswer has to be in two parts. One is that I cannot totally answer because I’m not working in aninstitution at the moment. But I can let you know in a month or so. The other side is, yes, I wouldexpect training. That is what is logical and I would expect it, but realistically I’m not expecting it. Doyou see the difference there? I think it’s right that we should be given training but I think they won’tgo about it properly. (reflecting that interviewee already setting themselves up for this gap) Right,and normally I’m not like that in life but my professional life, I am. Then I’m not waiting for anythingto be given to me.

8. (asking to what extent do institutions provide training when they bring in new technology/tools) Thisis a lot of my very sore, haha, points at my university. There is basically no training, especially for thenew things. I am doing an e-portfolio, an online course for Mahara. Here I get training, but I find outby accident that it takes place. There are only two from our institute taking part. My university paysfor it, that’s not a problem. But usually like the IWB there is no training. There was a demo session.My boss liked it, so haha, we bought it, well, he ordered it, but we had no training whatsoever.(referring to answers from survey Q16) Well, I’ve got friends who help me along but this is not officialway of doing it. It is my own interest that motivates me to find out more. (asking if she feelsfrustration in the gap in training support) Well, I would say it is my own expectations that I want touse it. My boss is not too keen on all these, urrr-huh, technologies. He hasn’t even got a mobilephone, so he is not too interested or supportive enough. (checking if where requirement to usetechnology is more explicit because it has been paid for that training is more expected) Exactly! Sure,we should be properly trained to use that new technology. (and if that is the case in otherinstitutions?) Hmmm, not easy. There are places where they offer support and training etc but I amnot too familiar with other universities in Switzerland. Not too many of my colleagues are thatinterested in technology. (asking if she is the one pushing?) I’m pushy, yes. No, no, this is what myboss thinks.

9. (asking about what expectation from the employer to use technology/tools, do they encourage orleave employee alone) There has been a lot in the Internet about democracy in the classroom and soon. Well, I like to breathe down my students’ necks. By introducing lots of web applications, first ofall, I am showing them that I am the same level regarding computer technology. They come to myclassroom equipped with tablets, smartphones and so on. But when I ask them to use theseapplications, lots of them are at a loss, they don’t know how to go about it. Usually they only use twobuttons on their smartphones – the red one and the green one. They are shocked. At the start of theschool year I explain [that] my mission is not only to teach you English, that is enjoyable and veryrewarding, but to show you that there are oceans of interesting web applications which you can usenot just for studying foreign language. You can use in your future careers. As for encouragement,right now it is all the buzz. To have such things in your arsenal, I mean, if there is a conference or youwant to make an impression on some conference delegation, I am here … to show how good we areusing technology. I’m not familiar with other departments, maybe they do something but I am notsure. So, I have all the encouragement .... and we will try to register some [work] with the ministry ofEducation. I’m getting help from native speakers in forums. Encouragement, yes, ‘pat on my back!’I’m not getting any money for that. (clarifies that, at no point, institution doesn’t train or supportdirectly) Sometimes, last year, again on the recommendation by my head of department, I attendedan online course organised by British Council, Ukraine. It was called ‘e-moderators essentials’. Ishowed the participants lots of educational applications because they knew nothing about this. Butthat was last year. Since then, there has been no collaboration with the BC. I am just trying to answerdo they provide any support. No, actually, that’s why my applications must be free (see continuationunder ‘barriers’).

APPENDIX E

10. (asks if employer supports the interviewee) This is only by my self-knowledge. No people provide methe ideas to use these technologies, inside and outside of the classroom. In the beginning, I wasunable to use, even a mouse. Later, right now, I am able to bring the ICT world inside the classroom.So it is my pleasure. (reflects he has had no encouragement) Yeah, myself. And the use oftechnology … (lost connection) … this is my self-exploration, and self-inspiration and reflectiveunderstanding. Because of these things I am able to bring it inside the classroom. (repeats himself afew times).

11. (following on from question on ‘relationship’, someone on the ‘technophile’ end who is frustrated by apractical lack of technology and nature of class and a possible lack of support/training) I’ve starteddoing my masters in ed tech and everything I’ve learned I kind of have to fight for myself. There has

been no training in any of my institutions. I wouldn’t say that they are resistant to it. They wantteachers to bring in what they know but they are not doing anything to help you learn more. So, it’sup to you to figure it out yourself. (shares experiences from other interviews on the issue of somesupport, but lack of training) Yeah, that’s why it was interesting to see myself against others. Whenyou work where it’s all up to you to figure it out yourself, it tends to be very isolating. You feel like youare working in a vacuum where you don’t know if anyone else is going through this, because you arenot connected with anyone else. Even within the same school, you don’t know if other teachers aredoing this or not, we just don’t discuss it. You feel like you are working against the stream, againstthe wind. (later, asking more specifically about what support and/or training has the interviewee everreceived from an employer in this area) No.. [hesitates, thinks] I don’t believe so. About seven yearsago, I had one employer try to introduce MOODLE into our classrooms, but they didn’t know what itwas or how to use it either. They kind of plunked it in front of us and said ‘here is a thing we wantyou to use called MOODLE and here’s a bunch of stuff that we’ve loaded onto it. There you go, use it.And that was the end of MOODLE. Nobody ever used it. (laughs) No, I can’t say I’ve ever had anytraining. I’ve had to figure it all out myself. I think they don’t really know anything about it either.They were business people, not teachers. They just wanna make a buck, really. (reflects oninstitutions wasting their money on ideas which aren’t followed through with proper training).(explores whether hypothesis of where an institution has implemented new technology that teacherssit back and expect training) Yeah, I think you are right on the money, there. At the current job, thatis kind of the way they look at it. They have given us these computers … and they want us to useMOODLE and they have made us aware of that. We are supposed to be incorporating it into ourclassrooms. But has been nothing on how to do it. You are expected to figure that out for yourself –go home and play with it. A lot of people are resistant because (a) I’m not paid to figure this out, it’s aunionised environment and if you are not paying me, I’m not doing it. (b) I don’t know where to start.I’ve always done it my way and I don’t know where to start learning about it. [Furthermore] I don’thave time, I think I do a lot of work outside of my classes that [already] I’m not paid for. They tend tocome at it a bit backward, especially when it comes top-down, you know, you have to do this butwe’re not going to help you. (reflects on this common theme with other respondents).

12. So basically we have not so much institutional resistance but sometimes with new products and newthings we are expected to use we are given a basic PPT training package, and that’s all. So this comesfrom individual managers in each school and maybe talented, technological teachers, who help sharetheir experience and knowledge, and help train others. (reflects on this) Something that happens alot is that there is a sharing of best practices. It seems to be a big thing this year, I don’t knowwhether it is just in Asia or China or just EF, there seems to be a lot of encouragement of certainindividuals at certain schools, in a certain region, sharing their best practices with other schools.Groups of people with talent in certain areas are encouraged to share these practices, which I think isa good thing. (makes assumption that EF, being large organisation, has cross-training) Yeah. There isregional training quite a lot every year, sometimes people will be sent to Shanghai or Beijing. Or else[there are] visits to individual schools, giving specialised training, as each school is very highlyindividualised as well. (suggests as DOS his role and his background is greater than most and anexpectation for him to do training) Yeah, very much so. This normally happens if someone has auseful skill set that person then becomes the person as the expert in those skills. So if I was atechnophobe and my senior teacher was a technophile he would have a more dominant role when itcomes to training on the IT side. (what happens to a new teacher with little skills) As part of myrecruitment process I will ask teachers for certain IT skills. If someone has no IT skills, it’s not aproblem; they will get some induction training, which includes showing best practice in weekly

APPENDIX E

training. People learn and people need to realise it’s a school where technology is coming to theforefront. Expectations [of the teacher] will be pretty high.

13. (Following on from other teachers’ barriers to ICT, does she inspire them?) No, I mostly share with[the other teachers] what I do. I’ve run a few training sessions with my English teachers on my owntime. (Following on from other teachers’ barriers to ICT, does she inspire them?) No, I mostly sharewith [the other teachers] what I do. I’ve run a few training sessions with my English teachers on myown time, haha. About using technology. So that some of them are really enthusiastic but as theycannot access the lab at school, it is very difficult for them to plan things. They can assign some ofthese things as homework, but not during school time. (asks question about provision of trainingfrom institution) There is no provision, whatsoever. The only reason I can use it is because I haveproved that I have enough knowledge to be in charge of the lab without breaking anything. Theschool has never offered any training. (asking about support and if she has freedom) Exactly, that iswhat is happening. They know I’m innovative and they are interested in what I can offer, so theywant to take advantage of that. (and by ‘taking advantage’ that presumably means offering teacher-training) I hope so. In fact I am writing a proposal for a professional training option now, not justEnglish teachers, but all subjects in ICT. So I’m hoping they will say yes. (later, asks if institutionshould provide training) I do. I do think it should. The problem in my country (Argentina) teachers arenot full-time, they have two or three jobs. They run from one school to another. It’s very difficult tohave all the teachers from one school present at the same time. So, any professional developmentoffered by the school is very difficult to schedule that or those who are willing to come on a Saturdayand those who won’t (so clarifies that those prepared to give up their free time only would getbenefits).

14. (worded question as ‘what does the institution do in terms of support or training for the teachers’instead of what does she receive personally) Not enough. To put it in context, it’s a public institutionand part of state government. I think we’ve very good conditions and in terms of Australian teachers,we have very good conditions – you probably haven’t heard that very often. Part of our enterpriseagreement, our workplace conditions that we fought strong and hard for is allocation of professionaldevelopment hours and money. Now it’s not much compared to general public service, but we do getthat. It doesn’t have to within technology and ICT. I probably spend half and half on developing myskills in technology, language teaching and dealing with issues with groups of new migrants coming in.Each teacher gets to choose what they spend their PD money on. We’ve got fabulous tools, such asInteractive Whiteboards and a wonderful suite of tools for our LMS. We have a whole area which justhelps teachers with technology. Half of my hours for four years was just to help people in my facultywith technology. So the support is there, but on the ground, giving teachers time to access thatsupport isn’t there. I get really frustrated because they roll out these new things and say you’ve gotto use them, but it’s only people like me who spend every waking moment playing with this stuff,trying to learn it. only the technophiles will take advantage of it. I planned a whole series ofworkshops over a long period time, it was over a whole semester, two hours per week. I put an awfullot of my time into that and I managed to get time from teachers to do this. Some of it had to comefrom their own PD and then the teachers stopped coming. I don’t think it was about [my teaching,but there priorities changed and time restricted their attendance]. I would like to work out how toget through to these teachers [who are more resistant]. That frustrates me. There is the support, Idon’t think there is enough support ‘in time’ and that teachers could have an awful lot of PD intechnology if they chose to. They say we don’t have time, but they don’t chose to spend the timethey do have learning technology. (reflects that in this interviewee’s context, teachers are makingchoices when support is there not to take it up – leading to autonomous behaviour, or lack of it).

APPENDIX E

AUTONOMOUS BEHAVIOUR

5) Where does your autonomous behaviour in relation to this topic come from?Have you had to become more autonomous in learning about certain technologiesand ICT tools?

6) What do you think you teach others about autonomous behaviour?

1. Probably my [autonomous behaviour] is rooted in personality. I tend to be self-reliant andindependent. So, it’s about a sense of impatience, so I don’t want to wait for somebody else. Ifsomething is interesting or useful I’d like to just go ahead and find out about it for myself, but it’s alsoa drive to avoid stagnating. If I had to teach in the same way every year with the same materials, itwould be terribly boring. So learning to use technology offers more resources, more variety, it offers adiversity, the kind that you can’t always get with just books and a whiteboard. (on being asked if shehas had to become more autonomous) Paul and I started doing our TESOL diploma in Sarajevo, 2-3years ago. Because there are very limited resources there we just had the internet to find books andresources to do our research, so for that we had to be really autonomous. Yeah, I think that’s a bigdraw, when it comes to technology. A lot of teachers live in places where they don’t have goodphysical) resources so the internet offers them a lot. [In terms of teaching others] maybe it justaspects of personality – strong reliance, strong independence, not having to wait for somebody elseto lead or to offer training. I think teachers just observing each other is really helpful and reallyimportant, and not judging each other. Autonomy is definitely important for learning, and it is anarea of interest of mine, but I wouldn’t want to make the mistake of judging other teachers.

2. (asking if she has had to become more autonomous) Yes, absolutely. I go out to conferences and amquite interested in seeing the IATEFL LT SIG, looking at that and following up the links, from thewebsite, the newsletters, from things that people put out on Twitter, just to see if there is anythinguseful in them. Yeah. (asking what a teacher-trainer can ‘teach’ others about AB) I think I do have arole to play in actually giving the people the tools to develop for themselves. One of the first thingsthat I make sure my trainees have is some kind of Professional Learning Network that they can buildon and develop from and if it parallels mine and if it actually moves away from me that’s also verygood because people develop at their own time and own speed. It’s not a bad thing at all. I do have asignificant role, certainly when they are trainee teachers in helping that along at the beginning. Ithink teachers who are no longer learners are doing their students a disservice. I think teachersshould be learners. What you are actually learning doesn’t really matter, and if it’s not your thing togo online and find out about online things you can still be a learner and you take that enthusiasm intothe classroom with you. (refers to CPD to Dinosaurs #ELTchat) We have a meeting every Monday. Ido one website, and I do a 5-min website. We look at it, what you could do with it. I then do a screencapture and laminate the page so that any of the real dinosaurs will recognise it when they open it up– and on the back a list of things that you could use it for in classrooms and just one website a weekseems to suddenly, it’s a bit like the water-torture – you know, one drop at a time, and it’s beginningto pay off.

3. (having reminded interviewee of items chosen on survey) I think it is just about my kind of personality.I try to be an independent, autonomous person. I don’t usually rely on other people. I try to rely onmyself in everything. This is the most confident way. In this respect I prefer to be the pioneer. Forexample, the presentation [referred to above], I could of course, wait, until go to some other event.But I decided to organise such an event myself. I think I will continue not to wait, to be the guide.Mostly I rely on the Internet and the blogs, in this respect. And I want to make some change in thelocal community of teachers and I have lots of ideas we can change it, how to move the process.. andhow we can bring the modern world into the traditional classroom. (what can she teach others?) Ican just show the way, give the information about being more autonomous. I can give some tips forpeople who are willing to use these tips.

APPENDIX E

4. (asking how she learns the tools) Such as JING, I download some video recording from [TTV] site.Because he explained it clearly, so I followed that kind of video recording, so from [that point of view]I teach myself. (asking about autonomous behaviour) Mmm, [silence, couldn’t answer] (furtherprompt using survey answers suggesting very autonomous person) I can’t say it’s my autonomousbehaviour, but I don’t know how to answer that question. (yet another prompt trying to find out howshe really feels about autonomous behaviour, but interviewee didn’t really understand and lots ofbackground noise cut in). By coming here [Sweden] I think I got this idea. (advice for others?) I, as ateacher, should want to have these facilities. Then If I want to have these kind of skills … but first Ineed to feel that I want something, then I can find a way by searching the Internet. A person like mewho wants to learn about these tools it’s not so enough information and training on the Internet.[very unclear what she really meant].

5. (‘A guide on the side’ suggests you are a keen advocate for learner autonomy) Yes, and all of thebuzzwords that go with it -> Critical thinking skills -> Independent Learning Style -> Knowing yourstyle and preferences. But what I love with the world getting more and more social online is that wedon’t have to do all the work. If it’s a social platform, not limited to a tiny classroom. It’s social, open.Other people help other people. The backchannel on whatever they want it to be. [The importanceof] encouraging that, making that totally OK, even if […] not spot on if you can help by save me timeby helping someone else. Help them, show them how to do things. (How does translate into you asteacher having learner autonomy using these tools and technologies ) For me, it makes for stronglearning experiences because it’s relevant. When you have relevance in your learning and that’s whatcreates autonomy and independent learning. You know what you want, you find it, you work with it.The strongest challenge from both peers and learners is – is this really learning? Is this a place where Ican truly improve my English? Can I get professional, business, academic? Yes. It’s most often if I givea lot away for free or if people take the chance and pay for classes. Not being able to offer acredential is a drawback. There is lots of talk about badges and different credentialing systems. I’mtrying to be part of that. She typed the following quote ‘My autonomy then is the secret of mysuccess = minimal support from institution (not ready yet) institutional change comes TOOOOO slow!’

6. I’m now converted to smart notebook software because it has taking teaching organisation,preparation and delivery to a new level. Somehow it has changed things qualitatively. I’m no longersitting in front of a blank sheet of paper, wondering what to do. Now I have a series of slides to fill inand things are a lot slicker, more efficient in the classroom and I’ve got a record of what was done, ornot done. Given those characteristics or features I find some endless benefits. I’ve moved since Saudi,I’d say. It started when I met smart boards through the British Council, where training was given,because BC wants to improve and maintain its position in the market place, through a state school inthe UK. In particular, I saw one teacher using smart boards extremely efficiently. Given the students’age, they seem to absorb very fast. Since experiencing these sorts or things and getting somesoftware free [from former employer] I started to realise my movement into ICT is something that hasbeen germinated from some seeds planted here and there. Given that progression and an inclinationto try and get away from inefficient teaching approaches, I think that is the process, by which, ateacher can develop into ICT. They have to be given opportunities to see what the benefits are. I feelthat I could do workshops for teachers on the way that smart notebook can be used. There arevarious aspects of ICT that I could tell people about but it is characteristic of where ICT is in TEFL,there hasn’t really been sort out by employers or other teachers. I’m certainly more IT literate thansome, also a generational thing and at 47 my peers and seniors are often woefully unaware of,whereas the ‘digital natives’ of your generation and younger are often way ahead. (confides thatinterviewer is only 6 years younger, questions using that term and brings in ‘residents and visitors’)Yeah, interesting concept and I misjudged the age differential and I would be interested in seeing thatarticle. I would say [the immigrants/natives dichotomy) is a very visual and divisive. A native has theluxury of being born into it. There is importance of not losing the essence of the teacher-studentrelationship which is something very human and timeless which the frailties and contingencies of netlife can’t really support very well. The essence of teaching remains the relationship between people,even if tools can enhance this and save time when it comes to presenting and connecting, but interms of the essence, the look, the touch and the voice, the kinaesthetic, if you like, there’s no realsubstitute for that.

APPENDIX E

7. (asking what kind of person she is on discovering tools) I would say that I don’t find the tools myself,as primary sources. I wait for others to tell me about them, but not my colleagues, more people ononline forums or people on social networking sites. Or blogs. In my community of physical people, I’dbe the first, but I don’t actively search. It’s not that high a priority that I can read and curate theinformation. (reflecting that a lot of people already doing the job of curating) Yes, curating, I guess, isa buzzword these days. (asking if her existing approach in 1-1 to encourage learner-autonomyimpacts on her teacher-learner autonomy, and what is the precise process of learning how to usethese tools) Yeah, generally by trial and error. If there is something which is really frustrating me, I’llgo search for a tutorial or the FAQs. For example, with Edmodo, I had no idea and I just kind of let’ssee what happens, and I just figured it out, but I realise that takes more time. Trial and error takesmore time. It’s a bit more passive but I would still regard it as autonomous because it’s in my freetime. (challenging whether it is passive) It’s more passive than it could be. Maybe it’s that mystandards can be quite high. In the sense that I’m collecting a very broad range of information. I’mnot going in with a goal in mind [when learning these tools].

8. (Am I right surmising that when you get a tool, you teach yourself?) Basically, yes. I bought the iPadand a friend knew about a short introduction to it, so I was able to go there and spend 3 hourspracticing a bit. Err, basically most things I just try them out, learning by doing. It depends.. but Idon’t like people showing me how to do things. My husband is very good with Excel, for example, andhe goes ‘click, click, click’ and I still don’t know how to do it. (asking if she agrees that experts teachinghow to use something to beginners isn’t always effective and can be a barrier) I do agree with that,except if you can all sit at your own computer and just repeat what the, hmm, professional showedyou how to do it. Now with screenshots and things like that, it’s easy and you know what? RussellStannard with his videos are fantastic. I usually try to attend his sessions at IATEFL and have asubscription for [the magazine] English Teaching Professional. So, I always try out the kit that he putsdown there. So, that’s great. And I go back to my employer, to people who are data processingspecialists and I tell them, or rather I ask them if they happen to know this program and I show themone or two videos. (what can you teach others about autonomous behaviour?) I can try and facilitateit, but actually teaching? (acknowledges it is probably something you can’t teach). Giving them agood example, is what comes to my mind.

9. (acknowledging interviewee has demonstrate already autonomy but asking if this has always been hisway) Well, I think it developed with time. When I came to [this] university I would say I was cautious,because it was a new environment. Lots of ladies around and you have to be very careful. Slowly butsurely, now I am very autonomous. Everybody knows about my activities and lots of people, when Istart to show them, are just baffled at first [believing that] I tried to cheat them and tried to imposesometimes. But I am very autonomous [now]. Nobody stops me, everybody listens to me. Again,whenever there is a chance everybody tries to show how good we are by using all these webapplications, even in my single case. (what can you teach others?) If you find your niche, it’s veryimportant. Most of my colleagues are, … I would say, great teachers, with their own techniques, who Itry to emulate. Some of them are quite good at vocabulary, developing speaking skills, but they do ittraditionally. They use scissor-work, they just use scissors to cut out something interesting, they useprojectors for presentations. In their own way, they are trying. I wouldn’t say they are ‘stick-in-the-muds’! I think if they used more web applications it would be better. Sometimes I don’t understandthe reason why. Maybe they think [I just] use these applications for no [extra] payment, just forenthusiasm, that’s all. But it’s my opinion only.

10. (follow on from lack of training.. asks how he educates himself) Oh, from online resources, differentblogs and following tutorials. Next one, in the beginning I used to follow [books]. Basically there isone of my professor, in Hawaii called Michael Long, have you heard of him?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Long_%28academic%29). (moving onto taking fullresponsibility for own learning and if institution provide a barrier) I myself have to manage theproblems. Why? Because I am a teacher of this ‘post-modern’ era. (asking if he has freedom tochoose ) Psychologically, I didn’t face any problems. Other teachers, the more traditional ones, whoare unable to use ICT, I would like to call them ‘traditional’ – they basically use the ‘chalk and talk’method. Sometimes, they criticise me, but I don’t care for [them]. (Does he influence/inspire others?)Oh they are calling me to sort out … (unclear answer).

APPENDIX E

11. (on learning a tool for yourself, how do you go about this?) I usually sit down and figure it out myself.I spend a lot of time online, on my computer after work. Sometimes I find them on blogs orsometimes I might just find a tool as I am surfing the Internet and looking at different sites, such asgames sites or comedy sites. I might find something which I can use and I will just pay with it for acouple of hours and see how it works. My goal is always to find something easy enough for mystudents. So, if I can figure it out by myself in an hour then [it qualifies]. (mentions Glogster – see Q2)(Is it important to have command of the tool before introducing to students?) For sure. Because withmy level they don’t have that autonomy to go and figure it out for themselves. If I don’t show them,step-by-step they’re not going to do it. It helps things to be visual, too. Anything more complicated,Excel, for example, I don’t think I could do because I don’t have enough familiarity myself. (later,being asked about autonomous behaviour) I think I used to expect to have that to have that trainingor the institution set some standards or set expectations. Over time, I have realised that that is neverhappening, so if I want to use this it is up to me. So my perception of what I have to do has changedover time. It’s because I saw myself as in a world where there was technologies everywhere andevery day I am seeing this battle against cell phones and the stuff that is buzzing in my classroom.And nobody is acknowledging it. So I figured out that if I don’t do it, my institutions are never goingto do it. So, I [used to be] dependent on them to make those initiative moves, but now I’ve decided totake it upon myself.

12. Basically if I feel comfortable within the realm with whatever the technology is, for example,Blackboard Collaborate, I find quite easy to navigate my way around it, because I used to designsoftware with menus. So experimenting with menus isn’t a problem. If it’s completely alien to methen I will seek help, in forms of videos or just asking someone directly here. Maybe I will just goonline to other groups or forums who can give me directions. (suggests that he is pretty resourceful) Iwould quite agree. My sort of motto is – dive in, don’t be afraid, jump in. (asks if he has become moreautonomous or if it has always been a personality trait) [thinks long and hard about Q] I think that issomething that I have been taught, through my education. I don’t think it’s something I just acquiredwhen I came to China. I think I’ve had it for a long time, maybe as part of my university educationwhere a lot of it is that you work on your own and if you don’t have an immediate solution you go andfind it. [In Mathematics] you have to work through a lot of things yourself, individually, so it might berelated to that. That’s just my hunch. (reflects that interviewee really considered this beforeanswering). (Finally asks if autonomy is something that can be taught) Ah, autonomous behaviour?Hmm, it’s something I’d like to think can be acquired. I think it’s a skill. … In our organisation at themoment, they are rolling out a new product for training and I’m completely against it, because it goesbeyond what I think. I think learning should be done is lots of different ways. One, you sit and receiveinformation by a person who is lecturing or teaching or whatever they’re doing. Another one is, is itsynchronous or asynchronous learning or training? Where you are given a task and your job is to goaway and find the solution to complete that task. I do believe everyone is capable of doing the sameand it’s just a skill you need to learn or acquire.

13. (suggests autonomy – freedom - has been given but that has somehow been created by her, ‘winningpeople over, it seems) Yeah, that is a true picture. Exactly. It means I have spent lots of my freetime, haha, doing informal professional development. And it’s paid off. I mean I’m really happy aboutit. I do not regret a single minute spent on that. (asks how she learns about how to use a tool) Well, Iconsider myself an explorer. I try it myself first. Trial and error, see what are the possibilities. If I getstuck, then I resort to trying to find somebody who has already used it – a tutorial, a blog post oranything. Well, you know, Russell’s TTVs are great. So there is always someone else who can give youa hand, but it is usually yourself exploring. (have you always been autonomous?) I think it’ssomething I always had in me. I’m restless. (suggests she is too impatient to wait giving an example)(seeks confirmation that certain types of personalities win through) I think so, it is directly related tomy character. Again, you get better at it. The more you do it. The more you know how to do it. I thinkit does improve with time [and that confidence to use certain things] (can she teach others aboutautonomy?) I think the exploration does not hurt. You have to be confident enough to see somethingnew and to get on with it. See if it fits your teaching style. The biggest barriers in teachers is fear ofbreaking the computer, doing something wrong, or waiting for someone to tell them the truth about

APPENDIX E

technology. The best thing is to go out and explore as there are so many things you can find outsomething on their own.

14. (reflects that interviewee has already demonstrated her autonomous behaviour, so focuses on herconcern of getting training to those ‘technophobic’ teachers, and my concern to get through to ‘thosewho didn’t do the survey or sign up for the interview’) I guess that’s one of the things I try to do. I tryto model that behaviour. I’m always telling teachers how I learned to do things. I came to therealisation that anyone supporting teachers has this ‘A-ha’ moment where someone asks you aquestion and I don’t know, so I just copy and paste their question into Google or another searchengine. Suddenly I thought why am I doing their Google searches for them. So I started modellingthat, [telling them] where I found [the answer]. It’s also a self-preservation thing because peoplethought I knew everything. I said, I don’t know everything, it is all on the Internet. This is how I learnthis, this is how I do this. There is still an impression amongst other teachers that it’s ‘oh, it’s easy foryou’. And I’ve worked out that me modelling particular things probably isn’t the best. The way I try todo it now is when I’ve helped someone else do something, then I say, ‘Wow, let’s have a look atwhat’s Elizabeth’s done’, and they say ‘oh, no, you did it all.’ I say, ‘But it was your idea, I just helpedyou put that into practice.’ I guess that I’m trying to get them more autonomous by showing themthat I don’t know either, this is how I learned how to do it. So teaching them about that. I’ve done afew PD sessions on networking through Twitter, or learning how to do these things. I don’t know howto do it, really. You can lead a teacher to autonomy, but you can’t make them drink from it! I justdon’t know. They all just keep coming back to me. I love it when someone says ‘Oh, I was about toask you this, but I remembered what you told me before and I worked it out myself.’ To me, that’s areal breakthrough. I don’t want to be the support person, the one who helps them learn this stuffforever. I would much prefer to work in a place where everyone learned this way, and I just think thatmy passion, for sharing stuff in Twitter, and all the stuff I share in a faculty community site … they justsoak it up, they think it’s fabulous. But nobody shares anything back with me! Haha! Sometimes Ithink they’re just lazy or that I overwhelm them. It may just be about technology. When I was talkingabout PD, there are teachers, and we don’t have many of them fortunately, who struggle to use theirPD time/money, they just don’t think they need to develop. They have been teaching for a long timeand we do have a very, very old workforce. (picks up this point about ‘introducing CPD to dinosaurs’ –the #ELTchat mentioned in the introduction on PD) (interviewee talks about her view on the olderteachers who refuse to do any PD) I don’t have the answer and I was worried about what I said in[that chat]. Some of the older teachers, the ones over 60 and we’ve got teachers in their 70s working[here]. We don’t have many younger ones. Everyone thinks I’m younger [than 51] just because I’mso comfortable with technology, but that’s because I’ve been using it for forever. There is someone,in particular, about my age, who said ‘I’ve been teaching for 20 years, there’s nothing else I can learn.’And I said to my manager, well I hope you took her professional development money and time offher. I report directly to our faculty director … and quite often I’ve just sat there and said, ‘Look, canwe just leave them behind?’ It’s just out of frustration. It is quite obvious … but we’ve got a lot ofteachers who were casual teachers for a long, long time, desperate to have contracts or permanency.There’s one in, in particular, I don’t know how she managed to get a permanent job because she’s ourbiggest technophobe, and she teachers one of the ones who teaches the younger students who wantto use technology. She doesn’t go to PD sessions, she doesn’t want to learn, she wants someone elseto do it all for her and it’s people like that that I just say, ‘Let’s just leave them behind’.

APPENDIX E

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES / QUESTIONS:

1 (follow-up emailed comments)Thanks for mentioning the digital visitors/residents concept. I was curious, so I found this video of apresentation by Dave S. White on the TALL blog.

Just to briefly clarify my answer to your question 7: I seem to combine qualities of digital visitor andresident: I have both social and professional online identities, with my Diploma blog, my diplomaresources wiki, facebook, etc, and I spend a lot of time reading ELT blogs and even commenting.Perhaps my 'digital residency' isn't fully established simply because I'm a fairly new arrival (onlybought my first laptop 3 years ago), and I'm still developing. On the other hand, I agree with the ideaof choosing and using tools strategically as a teacher, rather than wanting to use nothing but digitaltools. One surprising thing I discovered about my 20-23 year old German students was that withregard to the moodle platforms they use with most of their courses, though they may have welldeveloped social network residency, they are not always interested in developing their digitalresidency in the area of education. Many of them have much more conservative expectations aboutwhat education should look and feel like. I hope that helps. One thing I'm currently experimentingwith is a research wiki, and this link is to my own private research wiki for my MATALL course. CalNewport, a computer scientist has blogged about research wikis.

5 (On recognising that this interviewee was the only one apparently doing the majority of teachingonline, a question was asked about the skills needed over and above the average teacher in aclassroom setting, given the research by Hampel and Stickler).

It is hard for me to identify and there are a lot of discussions going on now on Twitter and LinkedInetc about that and as more institutions go to hybrid, blended learning and realising how manydifferent things that approach can mean. I guess I don’t always know how to label wholly at a loss forwords what the skills are. The strongest that almost everyone means is flexibility. Loving what youdo. Many of the same things that in my mind make a strong educator anywhere. The other thing Iwould strongly say is it needs to be, and this is my point of view, ‘a guide on the side, not a sage onthe stage’. A facilitator, not a lecturer. The strongest thing is you have to be a facilitator. Whenever Iparticipate in online experiences, if it’s a sage on the stage I’m out of there. So I think my successcomes from a sense of community. I think that is important in any online or offline environment.

9. (during free chat at the end) I use my camera a lot just to film what is going on in my classroom and I am

planning to upload all this material on my [upcoming] blog. If this of interest to you, I will drop you aline, because I am quite open or secret about that. (challenging if it was OK to publish students’personal information or work online, publically available) You know, I try to promote/provoke themall the time. Sometimes I come to them and put my head on their shoulder, and say, ‘is it OK if Iencourage you in this way?’ or ‘will you file a complaint?’ because what I do in my classroom mightsurprise what takes place in USA or Great Britain. Well, I think that some people in these [mentioned]countries just overdo it a little bit. I know that I am the teacher and they are the students. As forpersonal information, I think I am very ‘autonomous’ [think he meant to say ‘ethical’] and I will have aword with my bosses and, if there is nothing wrong, I will be open [I will publish this material] to thewhole world. Here is a link to a cartoon I created after completing the British Council Ukraine “e-moderators essentials” online course: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11444964/starz-movieThis company has given me enough free points to create fifteen cartoons after receiving my letter. Atthe moment I am working on the cartoons.

13 I would like to stress that social networking has been a life changer in my life. I was very fond oftechnology, but starting to use Twitter and getting to know teachers all over the world and sharing ona daily basis (acknowledges good quote). That really changed my attitude towards education andteaching, so that would be something that no teacher should be missing.

APPENDIX E

Technophilia or Technophobia - Complete MA Dissertation - Full 144 page Version

Documents

Transcript of Technophilia or Technophobia - Complete MA Dissertation - Full 144 page Version