Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies and
Education
15 Credits, Second Cycle
The Effects of Digital Tools on EFL/ESL
Learners’ Vocabulary Acquisition/Learning
Effekterna av Digitala Verktyg på EFL/ESL Elevers Ordförrådsinlärning
Julia Ström
Emelie Fröjd
Master of Arts in Primary Education: Examiner: Shaun Nolan
School Years 1-3, 240 credits Supervisor: Chrysogonus Siddha School Years 4-6, 240 credits Malilang
English Studies and Education 2021-03-28
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our supervisor Chrys, for supporting and putting up with us and our never ending questions. We would of course also like to thank our participants, without whom this text would have ended after the literature review.
Abstract
As a result of the increase of digitalisation in today’s society, the Swedish school system requires a certain degree of digital competence amongst teachers, affecting the foundation of how their teaching practice is structured. Therefore, this study aims to investigate to what extent Swedish EFL/ESL teachers in the primary years incorporate digital tools in their teaching practice, and more specifically how – and why – they are used to facilitate learners’ vocabulary acquisition/learning. In this qualitative study, five Swedish EFL/ESL teachers in the primary years participated. The five participants work at five different schools, in three different municipalities. The empirical data was collected through semi-structured interviews. The results of these indicate that vocabulary drills, generally given as homework, are the primary method of teaching English vocabulary to the EFL/ESL learners, requiring them to learn consciously and intentionally. Moreover, the results imply that a variation of tasks and teaching tools, as well as a frequency in exposure of content, is necessary for beneficial vocabulary acquisition/learning. Further, it is evident that digital tools have a profitable effect on learners’ motivation and consequently their learning. Finally, it is clear that what matters when incorporating digital tools is how they are used, rather than that they are used.
Key words: ESL/EFL, digital tools, non-digital tools, vocabulary drills, vocabulary acquisition,
vocabulary learning, motivation, conscious and subconscious learning, intentional and incidental learning.
Individual contributions
We hereby certify that all parts of this essay reflect the equal participation of both signatories below:
The parts we refer to are as follows: ● Planning
● Research question selection
● Article searches and decisions pertaining to the outline of the essay ● Data gathering
● Presentation of findings, discussion, and conclusion Authenticated by:
Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Research Questions 8
3. Literature Review 9
3.1 Digital tools 9
3.1.1 Previous research on teaching using digital tools 9
3.2 Vocabulary acquisition/learning 10
3.2.1 Relevant research on EFL/ESL vocabulary acquisition/learning 11
3.3 The Swedish Curriculum 12
4. Method 14
4.1 The participants 14
4.1.1 The selection process 15
4.2 Data gathering process 16
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews 17
4.3 Procedure 18
4.4 Analysis of collected data 18
4.5 Ethical considerations 19
5. Results 20
5.1 Digital tools in Swedish EFL/ESL classrooms 20
5.1.1 Hardware 20
5.1.2 Software Applications 21
5.2 The incorporation of digital tools to facilitatelearners’ vocabulary
acquisition/learning 22
5.2.1 Motivation and digital tools 25
5.3 The incorporation of non-digital tools to facilitatelearners’ vocabulary
acquisition/learning 28
5.4 Vocabulary drills 30
6. Discussion 34
6.1 How digital tools are used to facilitate learners’ vocabulary acquisition/learning 34 6.2 How the vocabulary teaching practices are motivated 36
7. Conclusion 41
References 43
Appendices 46
Appendix A: Consent Form for participating teachers, including information about
the degree project 46
Appendix B: Questionnaire for semi-structured interviews with teachers in the
1. Introduction
In our experience, the increase of digitalisation has clearly affected teaching practices. Teaching practices have evolved from mainly using non-digital teaching materials to now frequently being structured around digital teaching materials. Nowadays, most pupils have access to digital tools to some degree, both privately and in school – a fundamental change which has not been without controversy. Willermark (2018) described how the increase of digitalisation has affected Swedish society and thereby changed our vision of what learning is and how it should be structured. Digital tools have become more accepted, and far more ingrained in the Swedish educational system. Salavati (2016) highlighted that the increase of digital technologies in teachers’ everyday practises contributes to complexity and limited functionality among teaching practices. Thus, the increase of digitalisation requires that digital perspectives, tools, and knowledge have more prominent positions in the Swedish educational system (Skolverket, 2017a). The Swedish government wants to take advantage of the opportunities digitalisation offers, to such an extent that they have set the goal for Sweden to be the most successful in utilising said opportunities (Skolverket, 2018b). Therefore, in 2017, Skolverket (2019) implemented a national digital strategy for the educational system, which included the goal of using the opportunities digitalisation offers, in order to promote equality as well as pupils’ digital competence and knowledge development.
In 2007-2008 there was a prominent advancement in the digitalisation of the Swedish school system (Skolverket, 2018b). This was partly on account of schools becoming able to offer each pupil a digital device, and partly as a result of internet access becoming more stable (Skolverket, 2018b). In connection with this, which further affected the school being more digitalised, digital learning platforms became more accessible and projectors and interactive whiteboards came to be used in more classrooms (Skolverket, 2018b). Consequently, more and more teachers began to structure their teaching practice around digital tools, and Willermark (2018) noted an uncertainty among teachers as a result which could be grounded in the expectation of teachers' digital competence and requirements from the digitalisation; a digital competence not all teachers may have possessed (not now, and certainly not at the time). According to Skolverket (2017), the digitalisation and advancing technology offer opportunities to use new tools and methods in teaching. Due to this advancement, and the aforementioned digital strategy, a new form of digital competence is required of teachers who are expected to be savvy enough to choose suitable and
profitable digital material to use in their classrooms (Skolverket, 2019; Willermark, 2018), as well as possess the competence of navigating a digital world (Skolverket, 2018b).
The digitalisation of the school system makes it possible for teachers to structure their teaching practice differently, as it offers both the opportunities and the challenges of teaching with digital tools (Skolverket, 2018b; Salavati, 2016). Riksdagen (n.d) discussed the benefits of using digital tools in one’s teaching practice, including an increase in pupils’ motivation and the pupils being more engaged and interested during lessons. However, the authors point out that it is not the actual use of the digital tools which creates the positive effects, but the circumstances of their use. That is to say, that the pedagogical aspects of including digital tools are what determines the learning outcomes and attitudes towards the learning amongst the pupils. For example, Skolverket (2018b) explained how digital tools can enable presentations and lectures to better illustrate the content since pictures and videos can be included. Moreover, the authors brought light how incorporating digital tools into one's teaching practice can be beneficial for formative assessment. The authors argued that when using digital tools instead of non-digital tools, teachers have easier access to what the pupils are currently working with through shared documents and such, whereby the teachers can give the pupils feedback and support throughout the creation process without the pupils having to discontinue their work by handing it in for feedback.
Furthermore, Skolverket (2018b) discussed possible advantages and disadvantages with the pupils working independently with digital tools. Allowing the pupils to work in such a way can result in each pupil’s learning depending on their level and progress, while it at the same time creates an opportunity for the pupils to have more influence over their own learning (Skolverket, 2018b). This means that the digital tool becomes the provider of information, while the teacher supports the pupils’ individual needs in their independent work. That is to say that the teacher’s role has gone from being the provider of information to a more supervising role, while the pupils work independently (Skolverket, 2018b). However, the degree of which the teacher can support their pupils determines whether such a teaching method will be beneficial for the pupils’ learning process or not. If the teacher can provide the support needed to each individual pupil, the method is usually profitable. On the contrary, if the teacher cannot offer the required support, but instead leaves pupils to work independently for extended periods of time, potentially with unclear assignments or on an unsuitable level for the pupils, the teaching method will more likely be unfavourable. Additionally, a teaching method of that sort might affect
low-performing pupils negatively as a consequence of low-performing pupils often requiring more support when working independently than high-performing pupils do (Skolverket, 2018b). Riksdagen (n.d) discussed how the usage of digital tools can be problematic and distracting when pupils do not know how to progress in their work. Riksdagen (n.d) explained that due to social media, games, and websites not intended to be visited during the lesson being easily accessible, a new form of classroom discipline and structure is necessary when incorporating digital tools. Therefore, it is crucial that teachers create suitable assignments and give the necessary support when teaching using digital tools and structuring the lessons to contain independent work by the pupils (Skolverket, 2018b).
We found only a very limited amount of research covering the effects of using digital tools in teaching EFL/ESL in the primary years that had been conducted in the Swedish school system. It is important to know how teachers experience teaching using digital tools since digitalisation is continuing to increase and more is required of the teachers’ digital competence (Skolverket, 2019), as well as how digitalisation is a continuous part of the curriculum (Skolverket, 2018a). Furthermore, it can be problematic if there is a lack of research on teachers’ experiences with teaching using digital tools, as it will not be clear whether there is, or to what extent, a need for continued education concerning digital competence amongst teachers in EFL/ESL classrooms. Furthermore, not providing teachers with the digital education needed could negatively impact pupils’ English vocabulary acquisition (Çelik & Aytin, 2014), as it could limit the teaching opportunities in the English classroom and thereby limit the pupils’ potential learning outcomes. Therefore, we thought it would be important to collect such data. Not only in an attempt to bring light to possible restrictions in the Swedish school system, but also in order to open the way to new advancements in teaching in a digital world.
2. Research Questions
Our aim is to investigate to what extent Swedish EFL/ESL teachers in the primary years incorporate digital tools in their teaching practice and the effect this has on the learners’ vocabulary acquisition/learning. We aim to get an understanding of the reasons for what material they use, how they use it, and why. Therefore our research question and sub-questions are as follows:
● How do Swedish ESL/EFL teachers in the primary years use digital tools to facilitate learners’ vocabulary acquisition/learning?
○ What digital tools do these teachers use to facilitate the learners’ vocabulary acquisition/learning?
3. Literature Review
In the following section, the key concepts of this study will be described. These include: digital tools, vocabulary acquisition/learning, previous research of these concepts, as well as the English syllabus in, and digital aspects of, the Swedish curriculum.
3.1 Digital tools
The concept can be divided into two definitions, one of which is the hardware digital tool that implicates a device such as a computer, tablet, or mobile phone. The other definition is the
software digital tool which indicates the software applications or, more specifically, the teaching
material used, such as gleerupsportal.se, kimstudies.com and widgitonline.com. In this study, digital tools will refer to both hardware and software applications in combination, unless otherwise stated. Incidentally, in this study, the concept of non-digital tools refers to all teaching material used, which is not related to digital tools, such as worksheets, writing on paper and oral communication.
3.1.1 Previous research on teaching using digital tools
Several studies have concluded that the usage of digital tools in an EFL/ESL classroom is beneficial for the pupils’ English language learning (e.g., Çelik & Aytin, 2014; Mudra, 2020). According to the results of the study conducted by Çelik and Aytin (2014), the pupils’ long-term retention was improved by the implementation of digital tools in the EFL/ESL classroom. Moreover, both Çelik and Aytin (2014) and Mudra (2020) pointed out how the participating teachers noted digital tools to be a favourable teaching material, since they found their pupils to be more motivated when using digital tools rather than non-digital ones. Additionally, the wide range of online teaching material contributed to teachers finding digital tools beneficial in their teaching practice (Çelik & Aytin, 2014).
Furthermore, numerous studies have concluded digital learning to be beneficial for pupils’ vocabulary acquisition/learning (e.g., Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018; Yip & Kwan, 2006). The motivational aspect is repeatedly concluded to be the decisive factor as to wherefore results using digital tools surpass non-digital ones. (e.g., Yip & Kwan, 2006; Yunus et al., 2013; Salavati &
Salehi, 2016; Wichadee & Pattanapichet 2018). In their study, Yip and Kwan (2006) investigated the effects of learning vocabulary digitally or through activity-based lessons. From their results, Yip and Kwan (2006) concluded that it was more beneficial to learn vocabulary digitally, as it was perceived as more engaging and motivating and therefore entailed higher results. Moreover, in a study conducted by Wichadee and Pattanapichet (2018) in which digital games’ impact on pupils’ learning and motivation was investigated, similar results to Yip and Kwans’ (2006) study were found.
However, in the study of Çelik and Aytin (2014), it was clear that even though digital tools could have a positive effect on pupils’ learning, the participating teachers’ limited ability to supervise the pupils’ usage of the digital tools had a negative effect on the classroom management. Furthermore, the teachers expressed a need to control the pupils’ usage of the digital tools in order for them to be beneficial in the EFL/ESL classroom, since the pupils’ attention would switch easily when having access to the internet and thereby affecting their learning. Moreover, a concern that was brought up in Çelik and Aytin’s (2014) study was how the positive effects digital tools can have on pupils’ learning might be negated if teachers lack the competence to use them effectively. This was found to be problematic, seeing as the participating teachers felt obligated to use digital tools in their EFL/ESL teaching practice, due to the increase of digitalisation in society and schools.
3.2 Vocabulary acquisition/learning
To be able to communicate successfully, several language teachers confirm that vocabulary is the centre of language (Barcroft, 2016) and that the root of acquiring language is vocabulary learning (Alghamdi, 2019). According to Barcroft (2016) and Pavičić Takač (2008) vocabulary can be seen as an individual’s lexicon of all words they have acquired. Though, according to Schmitt (2000), those words are not acquired instantly but rather over time from different sources. Alghamdi (2019) explained that to maximize pupils’ capacity of learning new words, teachers should incorporate different activities and exercises in their teaching practice. Ellis (2002) argued that a frequency of content “[...] is a necessary component of theories of language acquisition and processing” (p. 178). Furthermore, Krashen (1982) discussed the difference between language acquisition, a subconscious learning process where “[...] language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication. The result of language acquisition, acquired competence, is also
subconscious” (p.10), and language learning refers to the “[...] conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them” (p. 10), and how the two occur simultaneously when learning a second language.
Further, Barcroft (2016) and Schmitt (2000) explained that there are two different ways of learning vocabulary: Incidentally and intentionally. According to both authors, incidental vocabulary learning occurs when one does not intend to learn new vocabulary but still does, for example when the focus lies on actually using the language when, for instance, reading or conversing. Further, intentional vocabulary is described as the opposite, where one studies words in an intentional manner and consciously learns them, for example when studying for a test (Barcroft, 2016; Schmitt, 2000). Karami and Bowles (2019) concluded that incidental vocabulary learning is more beneficial than intentional vocabulary learning, but that the most proficient way of learning is through a combination of both. This is emphasized by Kang (2015), who explained that combining the two learning methods is the most beneficial for vocabulary learning and developing one’s language proficiency. This is due to intentional vocabulary learning, though supporting the learner to master new words, not assisting learners in developing language abilities (Kang, 2015; Ponniah, 2011). Rather, the incidental learning, which provides the context, is a necessary part of obtaining the understanding of how to use the mastered words (Kang, 2015; Ponniah, 2011).
Moreover, Helgesen (2003) and Bailey (2003) argued that there are four different language skills – speaking, writing, listening and reading – which can be divided into two different categories: productive skills and receptive skills. As explained by Helgesen (2003) and Bailey (2003), productive skills include speaking and writing, whilst receptive skills refer to listening and reading. According to Helgesen (2003), while productive skills demand the producer to produce output based on previous knowledge, receptive skills require the receptor to understand input wherefore receptive information can be understood on a higher level than what can be produced.
3.2.1 Relevant research on EFL/ESL vocabulary acquisition/learning
A study conducted by Tahmasbi and Farvardin (2017) examined the effects different task types have on EFL learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. The study’s results suggested that tasks with a higher involvement load resulted in EFL learners recalling and
retaining the target words to a higher degree. Additionally, the results show that all output tasks (paragraph writing, sentence writing, translation, fill in the blank, and combining) outperformed the control group, implying that output tasks are more effective in enhancing learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Further, the results showed that the paragraph writing and sentence writing were superior to the other tasks, which signifies that written tasks are more beneficial when learning vocabulary. Furthermore, similar results were revealed in a study by Alavinia and Rahimi (2019) who also aimed to investigate tasks’ impact on English learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. The study’s results showed that all groups who had been assigned a vocabulary learning task (writing, definition, fill in the blank, and combining) performed better than the control group, although the group with the writing task performed significantly better than all other groups (Alavinia & Rahimi, 2019). Therefore, the authors concluded that writing tasks are beneficial in EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition process.
3.3 The Swedish Curriculum
In the Swedish syllabus for English, the following is stated in the aim:
Teaching of English should aim at helping the pupils to develop knowledge of the English language and of the areas and contexts where English is used, and also pupils’ confidence in their ability to use the language in different situations and for different purposes.
Through teaching, pupils should be given the opportunity to develop all-round communicative skills. These skills involve understanding spoken and written English, being able to formulate one’s thinking and interact with others in the spoken and written language, and the ability to adapt use of language to different situations, purposes and recipients. Communication skills also cover confidence in using the language and the ability to use different strategies to support communication and solve problems when language skills by themselves are not sufficient. (Skolverket, 2018a, p. 34)
Furthermore, in the knowledge requirements for grade E at the end of year 6, Skolverket (2018a) states that “[i]n oral and written production of different kinds, pupils can express themselves simply and understandably in phrases and sentences” (p. 38), as well as “[i]n oral and written interaction, pupils can express themselves simply and understandably in words, phrases and sentences” (p.38). However, vocabulary acquisition/learning is never specifically mentioned in neither aim nor knowledge requirements previously mentioned.
Furthermore, in the commentary material to the syllabus in English (Skolverket, 2017b), the ability to communicate in spoken and written English was discussed. So was the ability to adapt the language to different situations, where the focus of the pupils’ progress should be on their ability to express themselves more clearly and with a more varied vocabulary. Further, according to Skolverket (2012) there are several reasons to focus teaching practises towards vocabulary learning, since it is of great importance that pupils have a varied and expanded vocabulary knowledge. If teachers generally give vocabulary drills as homework where the pupils translate the words from Swedish to English and vice versa but are not given the opportunity to learn the word in a context, there is a risk that they believe the only way to learn vocabulary is through mere translation (Skolverket, 2012). Moreover, as a consequence of not learning vocabulary in a context, the risk that learning may not occur emerges since there is no support for the memorisation (Skolverket, 2012).
Furthermore, in the curriculum it is stated that pupils should develop their digital competence and digital understanding, such as how digitalisation affects the society and the individual, and thereby themselves, as well as develop a critical awareness and responsibility regarding digital technology (Skolverket, 2018a). Further, it is the teachers’ obligation to give the pupils opportunities to use digital tools in a way that encourages knowledge development (Skolverket. 2018a).
4. Method
To answer this study’s research question and sub-questions a qualitative approach was used. Mackey and Gass (2005) defined qualitative research as being based on descriptive data rather than statistical procedures and contains, for example, rich descriptions, natural and holistic representations, and few participants. The authors also pointed out the limited focus on the issues of generalizability and being able to generalize the collected results to a larger population when a qualitative approach is adapted. Instead, the primary focus lies on the few participants and the descriptions they can present (Mackey & Gass, 2005). According to Bringsrud Fekjær (2016), a qualitative method often gives a more profound understanding of the participants’ personal experiences, thoughts, and opinions, and, as was amplified by Dörnyei (2007), a qualitative method offers an opportunity to obtain rich and varied insights into the research area. Therefore, conducting qualitative research is the most beneficial in this study’s endeavour of providing extensive insight into the participants’ EFL/ESL practice and of collecting the data required to answer the study’s research question and sub-questions.
Next, the methodological considerations in the process of gathering the empirical data will be described and discussed in the following sections: the participants and the selection process, the data gathering process including instruments and procedure, an analysis of the collected data, and ethical considerations.
4.1 The participants
In this study five, one male and four female, Swedish EFL/ESL teachers took part. All participants participated willingly. They gave their consent by signing a consent form (see Appendix A) and once again orally before they partook in the project. The participants work at different schools situated in three different municipalities in southern Sweden and teach EFL/ESL in the primary years. The participants (see Table 1) are given pseudonyms so as to not reveal their identity and will be referred to as Teacher 1 (T1), Teacher 2 (T2), Teacher 3 (T3), Teacher 4 (T4) and Teacher 5 (T5).
Table 1
Teachers who participated in this study, including grade/-s they are currently teaching EFL/ESL to, and grade/-s they have taught EFL/ESL
Teacher Grade/-s they are Grade/-s they have
currently teaching experience teaching
Teacher 1 (T1) 4thgraders 4thgraders
Teacher 2 (T2) 4thgraders 4th, 5thand 6thgraders
Teacher 3 (T3) 4th, 5thand 6thgraders 4th, 5thand 6thgraders
Teacher 4 (T4) 4thgraders 4th, 5thand 6thgraders
Teacher 5 (T5) 1stgraders Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
6th, 8thand 9thgraders
4.1.1 The selection process
When considering possible participants for this study a strategic selection was used. Alvehus (2013) explained that when participants are selected so as to be able to relate to research questions or based on specific experiences, a strategic selection has been made. That is, the selection process is strategic in the sense that the research questions determine suitable participants (Alvehus, 2013). Due to the time restrictions of this project it was advantageous to use a strategic selection and include familiar participants easily contacted, who were already known to fulfill the inclusion criteria and who therefore were able to offer valid and relevant data for this study’s aim. The research question and sub-questions of this study were the framework for the inclusion criteria, which consists of the following:
- The participants need to teach EFL/ESL in the primary years in a Swedish school. - The participants need to use or have used digital tools to some extent in their EFL/ESL
teaching.
However, Alvehus (2013) underlined that there is a risk of being too strategic in the selection process and thereby excluding possible participants to the extent where valuable data is disregarded. To avoid the mistake of eliminating significant data, the inclusion criteria was
carefully defined so as to not be too restrictive, and thereby excluding important and valuable data, but also not too inclusive resulting in irrelevant information. For example, a certain amount of work experience was not required. This is due to the fact that the Swedish curriculum was revised and approved in 2017 and took effect on the first of July 2018 (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2017). The revised edition discusses aspects of digitalisation, where the pupils are to be taught how to orient themselves and act in a digitalised world, develop their knowledge of how digital tools can be used, and how to relate to and stay critical towards such tools (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2017). That is to say, in the revised curriculum pupils are to be given opportunities to develop their digital competence. Consequently, shorter work experience does not necessarily entail considerably less experience using digital tools when teaching EFL/ESL in a Swedish school, since the revised curriculum has only been in place since the middle of 2018.
In order to select the participants for this study, five teachers working at five different schools and in three different municipalities were contacted. All five teachers responded positively to the offer of partaking in this study. Even though all participants work at different schools, three of them work in the same municipality. However, it is a large municipality with great socioeconomic variance wherefore the participants working within it were included. It was decided to include a more heterogeneous sample to enable more nuanced results that can give a broader insight into the phenomenon studied (Alvehus, 2013). Therefore, teachers from different schools and municipalities were selected, to avoid a homogenous sample as a result of all participants being located nearby. Interviewing several teachers working in a small and socially homogeneous area could result in the teachers’ limitations and opportunities in the EFL/ESL classroom being based on the schools’ and/or municipalities’ guidelines and assets, wherefore it would offer a more restricted understanding of digital tools in the EFL/ESL classroom.
4.2 Data gathering process
In the following section, the choice of methods and materials for the data gathering process will be described and discussed.
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews
The aim of this study is to investigate how and why teachers use digital tools in their teaching practice, based on their personal experiences and beliefs. According to Dörnyei (2007), conducting interviews as a way of collecting data is both a natural and socially accepted way, which can be used in different contexts to provide in-depth data. Therefore, interviews were conducted as the main method of collecting the empirical data since they allow information about such that is not always observable, such as attitudes towards and experiences of a phenomenon (MacKey & Gass, 2005). Further, it was decided to gather the data through interviews rather than in written form, since the interaction interviews offer allows for clarifications and deeper progress into certain answers if needed. According to MacKey and Gass (2005), including multiple interviews can address the issue of selective recall, self-delusion, perceptual distortions or memory loss from the participants, and subjectivity in the researchers’ interpretation of the collected data. Therefore, five teachers were interviewed in order to increase the reliability of this study.
According to Alvehus (2013), how the interview is structured will affect the answers given as well as how detailed and profound they are. Semi-structured interviews, which is the method used in this study to collect the empirical data, are interviews where the interviewers have a few open questions that allow the participant to answer with more in-depth answers (Alvehus, 2013). Moreover, Dörneyi (2007) stated that semi-structured interviews is a considerable method since it gives the researchers a chance to follow up answers and the interviewee a chance to elaborate them. Due to semi-structured interviews enabling richer answers depending on the participants’ personal experiences and beliefs, the method was adopted in this study.
Furthermore, as pointed out by Christoffersen and Johannessen (2020), open questions allow the participants to answer more freely depending on how they have interpreted the questions, since the interviewers do not have as much control over the answers during a semi-structured interview. Additionally, Christoffersen and Johannessen (2020), stressed that answers given to open questions often give more profound answers than what is given in pre-written questionnaires containing closed questions. Further, Dörnyei (2007) stated that one of the benefits with semi-structured interviews is that the interview questions do not have to follow an exact order. Even though a questionnaire was prewritten (see Appendix B for more detail), it was not strictly followed and additional questions were generated depending on given answers. The
conducted interviews focused on the usage of digital tools and non-digital tools in the participants’ teaching practice.
4.3 Procedure
To collect the empirical data, five semi-structured interviews were conducted during the month of February 2021. The interviews were held via Zoom and each interview took approximately 30 minutes, excluding conversation before and after the interview itself, which is the typical length for a qualitative interview (Dörnyei, 2007). Every interview was recorded through Zoom, although the video file was deleted immediately afterwards meaning that only the audio file was saved, in order to facilitate the transcriptions. Even though the participants had received a consent form before the interview, they were once again asked to give their consent to be recorded during the Zoom meeting, using Zoom’s record function, as well as for the audio file to be saved locally for the transcriptions. All participants gave their consent to both aspects before the recording and interview began. Each interview built on the same questionnaire (see Appendix B), but since they were semi-structured the content focused during them differed somewhat based on the participants’ experiences.
MacKey and Gass (2005) mentioned the importance of trying to make the participants as comfortable as possible and suggest using the L1 during the interview, conduct it in a, for the participant, familiar place and begin with smalltalk before the interview itself, as methods of relaxing the participants. All interviews were conducted in Swedish rather than English, in an effort to make the participants more comfortable in the interview environment and remove possible constraints answering the questions due to lower proficiency and/or comfortability using another language than their L1, which consequently could affect the quality and quantity of the collected data. To enable the participants to feel comfortable during the interview, in the hopes of getting deeper and fuller answers, they got to choose time and thereby also place since the interviews were conducted digitally.
4.4 Analysis of collected data
After collecting the empirical data, the process of analysing began. As a first step towards producing the results, the conducted interviews were transcribed (Alvehus, 2013). The
transcription was coded using open coding, which, according to MacKay and Gass (2005), is when the researcher(s) self-shapes categories and looks for connections. To do so, the transcriptions were read in relation to the research question and sub-questions, since the data thereby automatically was divided into categories in which it could be used to answer the research question and sub-questions. Whenever something in the transcriptions was unclear, which had not been noticed during the interviews, the concerned teacher was contacted via email or Facebook messenger for clarifications. All participants had previously consented to further contact after the interviews for that specific purpose. Since the interviews, and therefore also the transcriptions, were in Swedish, direct quotes have been translated to English. However, the Swedish original is included underneath the quote to strengthen the reliability of the translations and thus the interpretations of the collected data. Further, when analysing the data, a constant comparative method was adapted, meaning that during the analysis differences and similarities were highlighted (Dalen, 2008). To facilitate the constant comparative method, the transcriptions were colour-coded according to category.
4.5 Ethical considerations
This study follows Vetenskapsrådet’s (2002) guidelines for conducting research. The four main concepts from Vetenskapsrådet (2002), which were stated to be crucial when conducting research, were adhered to and are as follows: 1) The information requirement, 2) The consent requirement, 3) The confidential requirement, and 4) The requirement of usage. When contacting the potential participants through email or Facebook messenger, they were asked whether they were interested in potentially participating in this study, in which case they would get sent the consent form (for more details see Appendix A) including more in-depth information regarding the project than what they had received through the first message. The consent form also informed the participants of their voluntary participation and the possibility to terminate it at any point without any negative consequences. Additionally, it informed them about how their personal information and the collected data will be treated and stored carefully, that it will be deleted upon publication, and that they will remain anonymous at all times wherefore they are given pseudonyms which can not be connected to their identity. Further all data processing is in agreement with GDPR (Vetenskapsrådet, 2019), wherefore no personal information regarding the participants, such as the school or municipality they work in, is available to outsiders. Caution was continuously taken throughout the writing process of this project, in order to not reveal any participants’ identity.
5. Results
These results are based on the conducted interviews with five Swedish EFL/ESL teachers in the primary years. The five teachers work differently with the pupils’ vocabulary learning, both in how often they use different teaching material as well as in how intensely they focus on teaching and working with vocabulary in particular. In the following sections focus will lie on digital tools and non-digital tools used specifically to enhance and support the pupils’ vocabulary learning. Vocabulary drills, generally in the form of homework, is the primary method of teaching vocabulary and are therefore discussed in a separate section.
5.1 Digital tools in Swedish EFL/ESL classrooms
Digital tools are used as the main teaching tool by all five participants who claim that they are used to some extent during every lesson. The digital tools used can be divided into two categories: hardware and software applications, which will be described in the following two subsections.
5.1.1 Hardware
Since laptops (or computers) are considered to be the ultimate necessity in digital teaching, all of the participants have access to one. In addition to this, T3 also possesses a tablet although it is used infrequently. The laptops are foremost used to connect to other devices in the classroom, such as smartboards (T1 & T4) or projectors (T3 & T5). All these four teachers utilise this extra display to present the content of the lesson and instructions of what the pupils are expected to do during the class.
The pupils of T1, T2, T4 and T5 each have a Chromebook, while T3’s pupils have a tablet. The tablets can be connected to external keyboards that can be borrowed from the school. There are keyboards enough for one class of pupils, but are shared between three grades and are generally borrowed only when the pupils are to write longer texts. The pupils are allowed to take their Chromebooks and tablets home and therefore use them both in class and at home for homework and personal purposes.
5.1.2 Software Applications
Several different software applications are used by the participants. This study will focus on the software applications they believe to support the pupils’ vocabulary acquisition to some degree and are used specifically for that purpose. How the software applications are connected to the pupils’ vocabulary learning will be explained under the following heading.
One of the software applications the participants use is kimstudies.com, which is a free website where numerous other websites offering teaching material are linked. Another software application used is elevspel.se, a free website offering pedagogical and educational games. Furthermore, Google Classroom is frequently used, a free web service where teachers can provide the pupils with links to different websites, create and share such as documents, quizzes and spreadsheets, as well as assess and grade assignments handed in by the pupils. Google Forms is another free software application used, which enables surveys of different kinds, for example quizzes created by teachers to test their pupils’ vocabulary knowledge.
Another of the software applications used is gleerupsportal.se, which is a digital teaching material where teachers and pupils are provided with a personal login by their school. They then have access to a textbook where texts can be read and/or listened to, all of which have an associated vocabulary list. A workbook is also accessible with activities related to the texts. Further, widgitonline.com is a software application, requiring a login, where the focus lies on pictures and associated words, where teachers can provide their pupils with, for example, flashcards, picture support and symbol supported schedules.
Furthermore, the participants use urplay.se which is a Swedish educational website where the teachers, after creating an account, can find videos and series for educational purposes. One such series used is Grammar Company which covers most of the basic grammar struggles younger pupils may have, for example when to use “a” or “an”. Additionally youtube.com is mentioned as a software application used for vocabulary teaching purposes. Youtube, like UR-play, is a software application which provides videos. However, the videos on Youtube are not limited to educational programs. Unlike UR-play, Youtube does not require an account to get access to the videos.
5.2 The incorporation of digital tools to facilitate learners’
vocabulary acquisition/learning
T1 uses the website kimstudies.com to support their pupils’ vocabulary acquisition and believes this website to be more beneficial than a physical text-/workbook. T1 explains that there is an enormous amount of words used on the website, sometimes words beyond T1’s own vocabulary knowledge. T1 says that:
[The pupils] are exposed to so many more English words on Kim Studies than what there are in a book for example, because there is this limited space where everything has to fit but on the digital webpage you can fit an infinite amount. And there can be maybe nine pages of exercises and on each page there are maybe like fifteen different exercises. They get the vocabulary, all of the words – first they get to learn them and then they need to know how to spell them and then they need to be able to choose between them and put them into the correct sentences. They learn so much through that website.
(De får så mycket mer engelska ord på Kim Studies än vad som finns med i en bok till exempel, för där är det ändå du har den här platsen och där ska allt få plats men på den digitala sidan får du liksom plats med oändligt mycket.Och där kan finnas kanske nio exercise-sidor och på varje sida finns där kanske en femton olika övningar. De får glosorna, alla orden – först får de lära sig dem och sen ska de kunna stava till dem och sen ska de kunna välja mellan dem och sätta in dem i rätt meningar. De lär sig så mycket genom den sidan.)
T1 copies links to the web pages they want their pupils to work with onto Google Classroom. The pupils then access these using their Chromebooks and follow the links onto the websites. Once on a website the pupils themselves try different exercises to find what they consider to be an appropriate and suitable level. This means that T1 does not direct the pupils to specific exercises, but allows them to explore what exercises they manage but yet are challenged by. Moreover, T1 argues that when their pupils have worked with an exercise repeatedly then the next exercise, which was previously too difficult, becomes manageable. According to T1, the amount of exercises the webpage offers results in the pupils working continuously with them during the intended time, as they rarely have time to finish them all. However, T1 points out that there is no way for them to control how the pupils performed or what they have learnt, since the software application does not save that kind of data. Therefore, T1 creates tests either non-digitally, which will be discussed later on, or digitally. Such digital tests are accessible to the pupils via Google Classroom, where they after completing the set assignment hand them in via Google Classroom to T1 for assessment.
Moreover, Gleerups is the software application that is mainly and most frequently used in T3’s teaching practice to teach their pupils new vocabulary. T3 explains that:
If we talk specifically about vocabulary that is linked to every chapter, a section called “Wordwork” which the pupils access through their tablets and maybe need to pair words together. And those who work extra quickly there is even at the end of a chapter, a part called “More Wordwork”.
(Om vi talar just ordförråd så finns det kopplat till varje kapitel, ett avsnitt som heter “Wordwork” där eleverna går in med sina paddor och kanske ska para ihop ord. Och de som jobbar extra snabbt så finns det dessutom i slutet av varje avsnitt, en del som heter “More wordwork”.)
Furthermore, T3 continues by discussing the effectiveness of the software application and the exercises and states that:
I do find it effective since there are these… these Wordwork-exercises, they differ somewhat. Yes, they vary. So sometimes the pupils for example have to pair an explanation in English with the English word. And sometimes it can be in the shape of a memory, that they like click and turn tiles and so on. So since it is quite varied and almost in a game form, it is something everybody is keen on doing, something they want to work with.
(Jag tycker det är effektivt eftersom där är de här… de här Wordwork-övningarna, de ser ju lite olika ut. Ja, de varierar. Så ibland kan det till exempel vara att eleverna ska para ihop en förklaring på engelska med det engelska ordet. Och ibland kan det va i form av ett memory, att de liksom klickar och vänder på brickor och så. Så i och med att det är lite varierat så där och nästan i spelform, så är det någonting som alla är rätt så pigga på, alltså som de gärna jobbar med så.)
Further, T3 finds one distinct advantage of using Gleerups to be the function where the pupils’ work is registered gradually as they complete exercises, allowing T3 to support their pupils in real-time without them having to ask for assistance.
Moreover, T1 watches Grammar Company with their pupils occasionally, as a way to further assist their vocabulary acquisition. T1 talks about how Grammar Company foremost aids their pupils in learning English grammar, but underlines the effect grammar has on vocabulary and how a progression in English grammar results in a deeper understanding of how to use English vocabulary correctly. T3 also uses Grammar Company, though more frequently than T1, to support their pupils’ language and vocabulary development. T3 works both digitally and
non-digitally with grammar but both methods are connected to the series. The non-digital working method will be described later in this study.
T2, like T1 and T3, focus on grammar to support their pupils in making use of their English vocabulary and speaking correctly. To do this T2 links the pupils to elevspel.se which they access through gleerupsportal.se. Like T3, T2 has continuous access to their pupils’ results and consequently gets a clear description of their struggles and progression with grammar. Furthermore, T2 works with enhancing their pupils’ vocabulary acquisition and word comprehension by letting them watch English movies with English subtitles. Similarly, T5 watches video clips with their pupils. T5 foremost searches for videos on urplay.se but expresses that they find it difficult to find videos on a suitable level for their pupils, as the videos are often on too high of a level linguistically. Therefore T5 often turns to Youtube instead:
I often find these Youtube videos, for example about numbers and colours you can find short cartoon clips, which I show them. And then the children take part and sing along and say the colours and so on. You do want this participation.
(Jag hittar ofta de här Youtube-klippen till exempel med numbers och colours kan man ju hitta tecknade små filmer kring, som jag visar då. Och då är ju barnen med och sjunger och säger färgerna och så där. Man vill ju ha med den här delaktigheten.)
Furthermore, T5 works both digitally and non-digitally with vocabulary. The digital part of those lessons will be described presently, and the non-digital in the subsequent section where such are discussed. T5 explains how they, besides from watching videos together, work with vocabulary and word comprehension:
Widgit Online is bilingual, so there are pictures of for example a hen, then it says on a picture of a hen “höna” (hen) and then it says “hen” underneath. And then I go through them via the projector one at a time and I have all of the animals I think are important animals which the children usually have knowledge of. Then we pronounce them and then we talk about them in Swedish since I have pupils with Swedish as a second language, some pupils don’t know all of those animals in Swedish, and then we go through them in English. After that we circle them together like “okay, is this a wild animal?”. Then I still stand by the projector and I have a red pen and the pupils get to answer. And they answer “that’s a pet, that’s a farm animal, that’s a wild animal”. And they have their own worksheets from Widgit Online, which they use to circle. Although they have three pens in different colours.
(På Widgit Online är det tvåspråkigt, då är det ju bilder då på till exempel en höna, då står det på en bild på en höna “höna” och så står det “hen” undertill. Och då går jag igenom dem via projektorn en i taget och då har jag liksom med alla djuren jag tycker är viktiga djur som barnen också oftast har kännedom kring. Så uttalar vi dem och så pratar vi om dem på svenska eftersom jag har svenska som andraspråkselever, vissa elever kan inte alla de djuren på svenska, och sen går vi igenom dem på engelska. Sen så har vi tillsammans då fått ringa in “okay, is this a wild animal?”. Då står jag fortfarande vid projektorn och så har jag en röd penna och så får eleverna då svara. Så säger de “that’s a pet, that’s a farm animal, that’s a wild animal”. Så sitter de med egna worksheets från Widgit Online, och då ringar in. Fast de har tre färger på pennorna)
Thereafter, T5 continues with non-digital work regarding vocabulary learning (discussed later on), before continuing using digital tools to watch more videos about the vocabulary content.
5.2.1 Motivation and digital tools
Motivation and the importance of this in pupils’ learning process is discussed by several of the participants, who relate motivated pupils to the usage of digital tools. Talking about using Kim Studies, T1 points out how quiet it is in the classroom due to the pupils being so engaged in their work, which T1 believes is a consequence of the software application offering the pupils their results immediately and thereby making their progress more visible to them. Further, T1 points out that:
Right now everything is available digitally and that is what they themselves think is enjoyable. And for me it is… it is easier to get them to learn something if they themselves find it interesting and intriguing. That way they become more engaged.
(Just nu finns allting digitalt och det är det de själva tycker är roligt. Och för mig är det… det är lättare att få dem till att lära sig någonting om de själva tycker det är intressant och att de tycker det är kul. Då får du fler med dig.)
T2 seconds this and describes how motivated the pupils are when asked to use their Chromebooks, since T2 argues that the pupils find digital tools to be both appealing and a sign of status. T2 continues to explain how they see the motivation rise amongst the pupils, both visually in their expressions and body language, as well as results wise in completed exercises and assignments:
I do see that they get excited when I say “alright, then you’ll take out your computers and do these exercises”. And let’s say that they’ve got ten exercises to work with during a lesson, everyone will complete them and everyone thinks it’s exciting and fun. But if I
were to give them the exercises in paper form it would’ve been more whining and whimpering. So in that way I actually do believe it helps.
(Jag ser ju att de tycker att det är kul när jag säger “ja men okej, sen så plockar ni fram datorn och sen så kör vi på de här uppgifterna” liksom. Och säg att de har tio uppgifter de ska göra under en lektion liksom, alla blir klara och alla tycker liksom att det är spännande och kul. Men om jag hade stuckit det i pappersform i händerna på dem så hade det varit mer gny och gnäll liksom. Så på så sätt tror jag faktiskt att det hjälper.)
Furthermore, T2 clearly states that they do not necessarily believe digital tools specifically to be a more effective teaching material than non-digital tools, but definitely a more engaging teaching material which will make the pupils more motivated and consequently resulting in them learning more effectively. It is the connection between digital tools and motivation T2 believes is the crucial point, rather than the digital tool itself. However, T2 stresses that when discussing digital tools’ efficiency as a teaching material in relation to low-performing pupils, T2 believes digital tools to be superior. T2 tells of a pupil who at the beginning of the school year required very frequent assistance in order to progress in their work, but gradually became more self-sufficient. This, T2 believes is due to digital tools providing more support through such as software applications and spelling programs, than non-digital tools do, wherefore, when pupils become comfortable in using those aids, they become more independent in their work.
T4 does not agree with digital tools being the reason for more motivated pupils, but rather believes it to depend on the assignments and lesson plans. Therefore, T4 does not limit higher motivation to digital tools but also believes non-digital tools to be motivating:
I actually believe a variation to be the best for the pupils, and also I don’t really think it is of importance whether it is digitallyor non-digitally but that the focus still is on varied exercises, that you make sure to do different things to withhold an interest. Perhaps that you mix non-digital and digital during the lesson.
(Jag tror egentligen att det bästa för eleverna är att man har en variation och sen tror inte jag egentligen att det är av vikt att det är digitalt eller analogt men att det ändå
är varierande uppgifter man lägger fokus på, att man ser till att man gör olika saker så att man har ett intresse uppe. Kanske att man mixar analogt och digitalt i lektionen.)
T5 also finds it important to vary lesson content and believes that is what the pupils find to be the most fun. T5 explains how it is clear that the pupils are engaged in their work, as they gladly get started on new exercises. T5 continues by talking about how the pupils get bored when they
are required to do the same sort of exercises each lesson, how they start to complain and ask for lessons where they have done different exercises to be repeated. T5 argues that the pupils themselves want a variation in their education.
Furthermore, T4 discusses how their pupils’ work ethic is affected by digital tools and how this then affects the pupils’ learning. T4 explains how:
Sometimes all of a sudden one has found another website and has to go and show their friend, but often this is done stealthily because they would rather not get caught when doing so. Then other times one all of a sudden has to search for a video for one’s presentation but all of a sudden one spends way too much time watching a Youtube video which doesn’t really have anything with the work to do and doesn’t… that is still related to the work but that doesn’t contribute to it. And that’s where they need to learn how to sift and you have to help them with that. The Internet is so immensely large.
(Det kan vara att man helt plötsligt så har man hittat någon annan sida, så ska man gå och visa sin kompis men ofta så gör de ju detta i smyg då för de vill ju helst inte bli påkomna när de gör det, så de är ju tysta många gånger när de gör det. Sen kan det ju vara att man helt plötsligt ska söka efter en film till sin presentation men helt plötsligt så spenderar man alldeles för mycket tid med att titta på någon Youtubevideo som egentligen inte har med arbetet att göra som inte… som ändå är kopplat till det men som inte ger själva arbetet någon vikt. Och där behöver de lära sig att sålla och det måste man hjälpa dem med. Det är så ofantligt stort internet ju.)
T3 agrees with T4 on digital tools being distracting and argues that pupils concentrate more easily if they work with a booklet or other non-digital tool. This since the pupils, when using their tablets, are able to change tabs and play games instead of doing the set assignment. T3 expresses how hard it is to notice and control the pupils’ usage of their tablet, in a classroom full of pupils. Therefore T3 believes it to, in some ways, be easier to work non-digitally than digitally. However, if there was a setting which could prevent the pupils from accessing websites that are not related to the current subject, T3 would prefer to work digitally since their pupils seem to be more motivated and engaged when they get to use their tablets. Further, T3 says that when their pupils do begin with their exercises on their tablets immediately, and are not distracted by games, they are inclined to work more effectively digitally than non-digitally, since they do get motivated when using digital tools in the intended way.
5.3 The incorporation of non-digital tools to facilitate learners’
vocabulary acquisition/learning
Even though many digital tools are used by the participants for the purpose of supporting their pupils’ vocabulary acquisition/learning, several of them stress the importance of non-digital tools in their pupils’ vocabulary acquisition/learning process, as a complement to the digital ones.
T1 mainly focuses on speaking English as a method to teach and practice vocabulary. English is the primary language spoken during their English lessons, even though explanations are always given in Swedish afterwards. These explanations, however, are generally given by one of the pupils, in order for them to show their understanding. Further, T1 creates a lot of non-digital material themselves, such as memory-games. According to T1, the pupils enjoy playing memory immensely while learning new vocabulary simultaneously. Moreover, T1 creates non-digital tests too, partly to give their pupils a clearer overview of the test but also to avoid spelling programs affecting the answers. Taking the test on paper therefore allows T1 to see what their pupils truly know without the support digital tools can offer. Some tests are done orally for the same reason, as well as it being an opportunity to listen to the pupils’ English pronunciation. T4 agrees with T1’s experience of non-digital tests being a more honest representation of the pupils’ knowledge. T4 explains that:
Sometimes I feel like some writing assignments I would rather do on paper since I want to see what words they really know. Because when you have access to your computer it is so easy that you just google a word and then all of a sudden you have forgotten what it means. So therefore I have some writing assignments which, how to put it, are a bit heavier or how to put it, to really check how many English words they actually know, how well they can put them into sentences. So I do that on paper mostly to ensure myself that they know them and don’t rely on Google.
(Ibland känner jag att vissa skrivuppgifter vill jag hellre göra på papper eftersom då vill jag se vilka ord som de har befäst på riktigt. För när man har tillgång till sin dator så är det så lätt att man bara går in och googlar upp ordet och sen helt plötsligt så har man glömt vad det betyder. Så därför har jag vissa skrivuppgifter som, vad ska man säga, är lite tyngre eller vad man ska säga, för att verkligen kolla hur mycket engelska ord kan de egentligen, hur bra är de på att sätta in dem i meningar. Så de gör jag på papper mest för att försäkra mig om att de kan och inte förlitar sig på Google.”
Moreover, like T1, though not to the same extent, T4’s pupils play non-digital memory-games. They also play other games which T4 has created themselves, where the pupils are to describe a specific word to their classmates, who try to guess what the word might be. The pupils play a similar game too, also created by T4, where they try to describe a picture instead, for example a picture of an animal, while the other pupils try to figure out what is being described.
It was previously explained how T5 works with vocabulary both digitally and non-digitally. After T5 has worked together with their pupils by the projector, they continue by working non-digitally with the vocabulary area they are currently learning about, for instance animals which was the example given by T5, to deepen their word comprehension:
[T]he next step is that they get to sit in smaller groups and tell each other about their pets and then they get to… if they don’t have any pet, what pet they wish that they could have and they get to talk English or Swedish. And I do have groups who want to, who “Oh well I actually have a dog at home”, so they’re sitting there talking. Like it’s completely wonderful to hear seven year olds who aren’t at all… who really find English entertaining and that is so much fun. And then after that they get to cut out these pictures [from Widgit Online] och put them in categories, farm animals, wild animals, pets [...]. So that way they get to work with categorising them as well.
([N]ästa steg är ju att de ska få sitta i små grupper och berätta om sina husdjur och sen ska de få… om man då inte har något husdjur, vilket husdjur önskar man att man skulle få ha och då får man prata engelska eller svenska. Och då har jag ju grupper som nu vill, som “Oh well I actually have a dog at home”, så sitter de där och pratar. Liksom helt underbart att höra sjuåringar som inte liksom alls… som verkligen tycker det är kul med engelska och det är jätteskoj. Och sen så efter det så ska de klippa ut de här bilderna [från Widgit Online] och lägga de i kategorier, farm animals, wild animals, pets [...]. Så då får de jobba med att kategorisera dem också.)
Furthermore, as was previously described, T3 watches Grammar Company with their pupils to enhance their vocabulary knowledge. T3 explains that after each episode of Grammar Company, the pupils get to work with a few grammar worksheets where the content is connected to the episode they just watched. T3 points out that they work both digitally and non-digitally with grammar, in order for the pupils to be more engaged in their work and get a deeper understanding of the area of grammar in question.
5.4 Vocabulary drills
In addition to the focus given to vocabulary acquisition/learning during English lessons, T1, T2, T3 and T4 all give their pupils vocabulary drills, generally as homework. T5 advocates strongly for vocabulary drills, but since T5’s pupils currently struggle with their vocabulary drills in Swedish, T5 feels that it would be too much for them to also have English vocabulary drills at present. How many words, the frequency of the homework and how it is tested does differ between the participants.
T1 gives the pupils vocabulary drills as homework each week to support their vocabulary learning, where they are to learn the English translation of 8 Swedish words. When T1 creates the homework, Widgit Online is used to offer the pupils image support to each word. The vocabulary drills are then printed out and put in their vocabulary booklets. To test the pupils on their homework T1 creates a quiz in Google Forms. The pupils use their Chromebooks to enter the quiz via Google Classroom, which is not accessible until the specific time T1 has chosen for the test, and translate the Swedish words into English. The correct answers have been pre-written by T1 to enable the pupils checking whether their answers were correct or not immediately after they have submitted them. This is one of the reasons why T1 chooses to use Google Forms to test the pupils on their vocabulary drills, as well as the fact that there is no autocorrect available in the quiz – solely the pupils’ knowledge is tested, without the impact of spelling programs or other such aids, and T1 and the pupils can find out immediately how they performed. However, the program does not present the correct spelling of the words after the pupils have submitted their answers, but only whether they were correct or not. Therefore, in instances of mistakes having been made, T1 needs to go through what was incorrect with the specific pupil/-s. Additionally, T1 finds Google Forms beneficial since the statistics of the results can be transferred and saved to T1’s computer.
T4 works similarly with vocabulary drills. The pupils are given 10 words as homework almost every week, but get breaks from such homework when they are working with other time consuming projects, in order for them to now feel overwhelmed. T4 tests their pupils in the same way T1 does by using Google Forms. T4 expresses that the fact that Google Forms corrects the tests immediately saves them a lot of time which can be put to better use. T4’s pupils access the quiz in the same way that T1’s do. Like T1, T4 assesses the pupils’ ability to translate the words from Swedish to English. However, even though the pupils are not required to use the vocabulary in a context during the test, T4 explains that:
Right now it is only the words [they get as homework] but the words are related to the text we’ve had as homework so that you still get it in a context.
(Just nu är det bara orden [de får som hemläxa] men orden är kopplade till den texten vi haft som läxa så att man ändå får det i ett sammanhang.)
T2 has a more intense focus on vocabulary drills than T1 and T4, since this is one of T2’s main approaches (apart from watching movies) to strengthen the pupils’ vocabulary. Therefore, T2 gives the pupils 25-30 words each week. T2 says that:
I try to give them as extensive a vocabulary as I possibly can, in order for them to be able to express everything they want and not only limited. Say that there are gamers online, that they only know those expressions and suchlike.
(Jag försöker ge dem en så stor vokabulär som jag bara kan, för att de ska kunna uttrycka allt vad de vill och inte bara begränsat då. Säg att det är spelare på nätet liksom, att de bara kan de uttrycken liksom eller så.)
At the beginning of each school week, the pupils write down the vocabulary drill for that week in their booklets, and at the end of the week they get tested on how well they spell the words and use them. T2 prints out the tests from Quizlet where they have been created. The tests consist of multiple-choice questions, translations and exercises where the pupils are to use the words in sentences and in a context. The words are always written in English since that, according to T2, is what their pupils need to practice. T2 explains the reason for the vocabulary test consisting of more than only translations, and says that:
T2: Just stacking the words isn’t beneficial, but we use them. Because most often it is this to use the words in a context, that is what they find to be difficult. If they only practice the drills and don’t like make use of them and don’t get them in context then it is actually pretty pointless to have vocabulary drills.
I: Yes, then perhaps it is easy that one forgets them again. T2: Yes! No, it doesn’t work.
(T2: Orden staplade det blir inte bra liksom, utan här använder vi dem. För oftast är det ju det här att använda orden i sammanhang, det är ju det som är svårt för dem. Om de bara tränar glosorna och liksom inte utnyttjar liksom dem och inte får det i ett sammanhang så är det ju rätt meningslöst att ha glosor faktiskt.
I: Ja, då blir det kanske lätt att man glömmer dem igen. T2: Ja! Nä, det funkar inte.)
T3 teaches grades 4-6 and gives each grade homework in the form of 10-15 words as vocabulary drill every week. The vocabulary is connected to the text T3 has listened to with their pupils. T3’s pupils receive the words via Google Classroom with a link to the text, in order for them to again experience the words in a context. T3 agrees with T2’s belief that using the vocabulary is of big importance. Therefore T3’s vocabulary tests require the pupils to create their own sentences using the words. However, only the 5th and 6th graders are asked to create such sentences, 4th
graders are tested differently. T3 explains how the 4th graders get to come up to the whiteboard
and write the words there, since they really enjoy doing so.
As previously mentioned, T5 does not currently give their pupils any vocabulary drills as homework since they are in the 1st grade. However, T5 strongly advocates for the importance of
vocabulary drills, wherefore, as was previously explained, they work with vocabulary during lessons instead. Moreover, T5, based on experience, explained how they work with vocabulary in years 4-6 both as homework in the form of vocabulary drills and during lessons. T5 explains that: I think it is important that one gets these vocabulary drills, that one knows how to spell, that one knows how to pronounce the words and put them into context. I have colleagues who don’t think it’s important at all to spell them which I don’t really understand, you need to be able to do so later on. It really is important later on because otherwise one won’t understand what you mean or say and so on, write and so on.
([J]ag tycker att det är viktigt att man får de här glosläxorna, att man kan stava, att man kan uttala orden och sätta in dem i ett sammanhang. Jag har kollegor som inte alls tycker det är viktigt att stava dem vilket jag då inte riktigt förstår, det ska du ju kunna längre fram. Det är ju ändå viktigt längre fram för att annars kommer man ju inte förstå vad du menar eller säger eller sådär, skriver och så.)
Additionally, T5 emphasizes that they also work with the vocabulary in the classroom and explains that:
Then in the classroom I do work with writing sentences, conjugating verbs and such together. Because they shouldn’t be able to simply say them and spell them, but actually understand the word too, how one can use them.
(Sen jobbar jag ju i klassrummet med att skriva meningar, att böja verb och sådana saker också tillsammans. För att de inte bara ska kunna rabbla dem och stava dem, utan de faktiskt ska förstå ordet också, hur man kan använda dem.)
Moreover, T5 believes that if their pupils know how to conjugate verbs when they write, they will have remarkably fewer errors in their texts and consequently, when they have fewer errors, their confidence and will to learn increases. T5 also discusses the effects competitions can have on
