Technology and Language Teaching and Learning : A study on teachers’ experiences of and attitudes to computers and handheld devices in the EFL classroom

(1)

School of Education, Culture and Communication

Technology and Language Teaching

and Learning

A study on teachers’ experiences of and attitudes

to computers and handheld devices

in the EFL classroom

Degree Project in English

Mathilda Backlund

Supervisor: Thorsten Schröter

Spring 2014

(2)

Abstract

Modern information and communication technology such as computers, smartphones and tablets has quickly become an integrated part of people’s studies, work and everyday lives. The present study focuses, in a Swedish context, on the application of technology in the EFL classroom, the education of English teachers regarding technology, their understanding of key concepts (digital competence, e-learning, m-learning, CALL and MALL) related to technology and language education, the advantages and challenges with technology in schools, the teachers’ perception of available software, as well as any additional digital tools and features that they would consider desirable in education. In an attempt to address these issues, seven Swedish secondary and upper-secondary teachers were interviewed. Their responses indicate that they use technology regularly, and that most, but not all, of them are comfortable with using technology in language education, though they do ask for more training and support. While digital competence, e-learning and CALL appeared to be familiar concepts, m-learning and MALL were unknown to most. It could also be noted that, more positive comments were made in reference to computers than to handheld devices, and the teachers could identify more room for development in handheld software than in computer software. Overall, more in-service training seems to be needed, e.g. on the relation between social constructivism and technology, and possibly enhanced encouragement and facilitation of teacher-to-teacher support and instruction in technology.

Keywords: EFL, ICT, digital competence, e-learning, m-learning, CALL, MALL, secondary school, upper-secondary school, Sweden, interviews

(3)

1. Introduction

We live in a world where people are constantly surrounded by technology: personal computers have been around for several decades, smartphones are now virtually every person’s property, and small children grow up around tablets, a combination of the former two, and master these with little or no difficulty. This new technology is part of what has been denominated a “digital revolution”, based on the internet and everything connected to it, and this revolution has caused profound changes in global communication (Candy, 2004, p. 33). Concerning ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and education, digital competence is a key concept from an international and a national (Swedish) perspective. In European education, digital competence regards e.g. access to, application of and attitudes towards ICT, and a clear connection has been noted between improvement of ICT skills among young people who have dropped out of school, and their subsequent re-involvement in education or work (European Commission, 2012, p. 121). In Sweden, representatives from Skolverket (the Swedish National Agency for Education) claimed that digital competence indirectly has been incorporated in all aspects of the curricula (Lgr11 and Gy11), for instance, in formulations highlighting the “civil perspective” and the “preparation for working life and further studies” (Heldmark, 2011).

In the context of language learning, specifically of English as a foreign language (EFL), digital skills and aids have proven to be helpful for students. This is the conclusion by Jämterud (2012), who summarized educational efforts, including the use of ICT, in a secondary school setting. For example, Jämterud described several benefits with using digital tools, such as variation in EFL teaching methods, increased motivation and involvement among the students, and a tendency towards improved study results.

Factors such as those mentioned, i.e. the publication of guidelines from the European Commission regarding digital competence, the indirect incorporation of this concept in the Swedish National Curricula (2011a,b), and the suggested advantages with digital tools in language learning, may all be motivational forces in the promotion of e.g. computers, tablets and smartphones, in secondary and upper-secondary school education. Since 2011, reports from Skolverket (2013) on ICT in education have confirmed that more and more Swedish schools have provided all their students with some kind of digital aid, especially computers

(6)

and tablets, and in a few cases even smartphones (P3 Nyheter, 2011). However, the number of teachers using technology regularly is low in relation to the availability, and their competence when it comes to implementing ICT in their teaching varies, as do their preconditions for improving it (Skolverket, 2013, pp. 63, 106).

In view of the demands and challenges of implementing educational technology, it is of interest to study Swedish teachers’ experiences of and attitudes to e.g. computers and handheld devices in class, for instance in EFL education. The present study aims at providing a glimpse of exactly that.

1.1 Aim of study

This study aims at investigating the experiences of seven Swedish teachers of English when it comes to modern ICT in the language classroom. The focus is on tablets and smartphones, but also computers, and, in particular, on how such tools can create learning opportunities and what challenges they present. The analysis of authentic experiences of and attitudes to educational technology will contribute to the identification and discussion of possibilities and challenges connected to EFL in Swedish secondary and upper-secondary schools - conclusions that could be applicable to the learning and teaching of other foreign languages and/or to other contexts as well.

1.2 Research questions

In line with the above aim, a number of more specific questions are addressed in this study: 1. What are the teachers’ general experiences of technology in EFL education?

2. Are these teachers given sufficient in-job training and support for successfully using technology in education?

3. Do these teachers know about key concepts and terminology related to EFL education through technology, that is, digital competence, e-learning, m-learning, CALL and MALL?

4. What are the advantages and challenges, respectively, when it comes to technology in EFL education, according to them?

5. Do these teachers find that there is enough useful software available for educational purposes, and what additions, if any, would they like to see?

(7)

2. Background

2.1 Digital technology in education

2.1.1 Computers

During the 1980’s, computers were introduced as a potential tool for education in Swedish schools. However, the investments did not produce the desired results at first, so the Swedish government decided to renew their efforts in 1988 based on a number of assumptions: firstly, the Swedish educational system was in need of transformation to be able to introduce students to the challenges, opportunities and increasing impact of IT1; secondly, IT provided a greater range of information sources, which increased the demand for student knowledge of source criticism; thirdly, it was stated that knowledge of technology was essential to ensure student influence and activity in society; fourthly, it was anticipated that computer technology would “develop and rationalize teaching with new methods and aids” (Hylén, 2011, p. 29).

Subsequently, these goals and efforts produced much change in schools during the 1990’s and early 2000’s. To exemplify, the student-computer ratio was 11 upper-secondary students per computer in 1993, while it had dropped to 2.5 in 2008 (Hylén, 2011, p. 35). Between 2008 and 2013, the situation further evolved and the numbers now tend towards one computer per student (Skolverket, 2013, p. 6), which applies to both the secondary and upper-secondary levels. Furthermore, Skolverket (2013) concluded that a majority of both secondary and upper-secondary teachers have a work computer, and that the IT-related competence among teachers has improved, although more in-job training is needed (pp. 6-7).

Nevertheless, computer usage among students is still often limited to information searches and text production and students also display insufficient knowledge of source criticism, while teachers and principals respectively consider themselves unsupported and inadequately educated when it comes to general IT-related challenges, the application of technology for students with special needs, and development of IT in education (Skolverket, 2013, pp. 7-8).

2.1.2 Smartphones

While some early mobile phones already had features such as internet access and a touch interface accessed with specially designed pens, the iPhone (released in 2007) was the first smartphone with a finger multi-touch screen and mobile applications with interactive

(8)

functions (Wikipedia, n.d.). However, the iPhone is nowadays not the only smartphone on the market, since there are also numerous Android phones, BlackBerrys and Windows phones, all of which “effectively combine a mobile phone, a digital media player, a digital audio recorder, a digital camera, a PDA [Personal Digital Assistant], and a computer in one small device” (Pegrum, Oakley & Faulkner, 2013, p. 68).

Interest concerning the use of smartphones in schools has been raised through a number of projects globally (Barnes & Herring, 2012; Davis, 2010; Pegrum et al., 2013), but has only had limited impact on education in Sweden so far (P3 Nyheter, 2011), despite the fact that an estimated 90% of Swedish teenagers and young adults, 15-24 years of age, own one (Ungdomsbarometern, 2013). The reasons could be several, such as small screens or a general resentment towards smartphones as distractors (P4 Nyheter, 2013).

2.1.3 Tablets

Experiencing a breakthrough on the market in 2010, tablets basically include the same features as smartphones, that is, a touch interface, easy internet browsing, mobile applications, etc. The only tangible differences may be the bigger size of the screen and the lack of phone call and texting functions (features found in smartphones), while tablets may be connected to Wi-Fi networks and some applications are only available compatible with them (Difference Between, n.d.). Pegrum et al. (2013) defined a tablet as a device “with an onscreen keyboard and/or a digital pen, alongside the ability to take photos and make audio and video recordings, all of which may be subsequently edited using appropriate apps downloaded from the internet” (p. 68).

In comparison to smartphones, the number of tablets is increasing in secondary and upper-secondary education (Skolverket, 2013), supposedly since they, among other mobile devices, have proven to offer much support for students with special needs and may even increase interaction between students, in comparison to computers (Hashemi, Azizinezhad, Najafi & Jamali Nesari, 2011, p. 2480).

2.2 Digital competence

The rapid technological development described in section 2.1 has certainly had an impact on perspectives on education and didactics. According to the previously mentioned report, Digital Competences in the Digital Agenda (European Commission, 2012) schools are no

(9)

longer only responsible for the teaching of more traditional skills such as reading or writing, but all education should include techniques on collecting and processing digital information, which is available in abundance on the internet (pp. 95-96).

In view of these demands, digital competence is an important factor in education (see also Heldmark, 2011), including EFL. What does this mean in practice? For instance, the report by the European Commission (2012) stated that the development of digital competence encompasses four vital factors: firstly, to what degree the environment enables access to ICT; secondly, how the individual student masters the basics of ICT and the internet; thirdly, in what ways each student applies knowledge of ICT in different spheres of life (education, work, etc.); and fourthly, personal awareness of issues that may arise in connection with ICT and the responsibilities that come with it, such as taking a critical stance towards sources and respecting laws within the digital world (p. 96). In sum, to fulfil the requirements for digital competence, students must be able to apply their basic ICT knowledge in a variety of situations in their future adult life, and meet the demands on general or specific ICT skills, including ethical decision-making, regarding online material, which they may be faced with at work or at university.

2.3 E-learning – definition, design and challenges

Electronic learning, or e-learning, is a phenomenon equally common in the corporate and in the educational spheres. Welsh, Wanberg, Brown and Simmering (2003) defined e-learning “as the use of computer network technology, primarily over an intranet or through the Internet, to deliver information and instruction to individuals” (p. 246). Another study concluded, among other things, that e-learning, enables learning at all times, since the information is always available online, and it is reasonably easy to find fresh and updated information, while it may also appeal to young learners growing up in a digital environment (Candy, 2004, p. 5). However, e-learning can be either “asynchronous” or “synchronous” (or a combination): asynchronous e-learning implies stored material online that makes it possible for the learner to access and process information at any time, while synchronous e-learning takes place live, during online chat or audio sessions (Welsh et al., 2003, pp. 246-247). Welsh et al. (2003) pointed out that so called “blended learning” (p. 247) is another alternative growing in popularity, offering the learner a combination between classroom and online teaching. For example, in a study carried out by the authors, the learners worked with

(10)

“e-modules” (p. 247) at home to prepare themselves for the classroom instruction. The authors claimed that studies have shown that e-learning actually may support and improve academic performance, as opposed to traditional classroom learning (pp. 250-252).

Despite the fact that several factors speak in favour of e-learning, there are, of course, some challenges to consider. One potential concern, raised by Welsh et al. (2003), is that although e-learning is ideal for “less complex knowledge and intellectual skill” (sic), it can be difficult to provide instructions and activities regarding more complex course content, such as “advanced simulations and interaction” (p. 251). This also includes teaching of procedural skills, e.g. the practical use of surgical instruments when performing surgery. (In the context of the present study, this concern might be transferable to the instruction of English conversational skills). Furthermore, Welsh et al. observed that another negative result of e-learning was decreased interaction between students, which, in turn, they feared would cause less effective learning among the course participants (p. 249). One conclusion of the study, based on the negative aspects mentioned, was that all e-learning instruction demands detailed planning and careful implementation, in order to produce positive results (p. 256).

2.4 M-learning – definition, design and challenges

Although m-learning may appear quite similar to e-learning, the significant difference between the two concepts is reflected in the letter m, which stands for mobile. In a recent study (Hashemi et al., 2011), m-learning is described as learning involving the use of ”handheld technologies, together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning” (p. 2478). More specifically, mobile handheld devices may be

digital media players (including iPods or iPod Touches), smartphones (including iPhones, Android phones, BlackBerrys and Windows phones), personal digital assistants (PDAs), and tablet computers (including iPads). They are distinct from portable devices such as laptops which, although they can be transported to different locations, lack the convenience and flexibility of smaller handheld devices. (Pegrum, et al., 2013, p. 66)

Due to its mobility, a device such as a smartphone or tablet enables learning on multiple locations and at all times; with such conditions in mind, the concept of learning should not be limited to a physical classroom setting, but be governed by other factors, such as situation and

(11)

convenience; in other words, learning needs to be seen as integrated with real life, rather than separated from it (Pegrum et al., 2013, pp. 67-68).

Pegrum et al. (2013) claimed that tablets include most, if not all, of the functions of a smartphone, and also give access to a wide selection of educational applications. Regarding educational theories in relation to m-learning, the authors suggested that mobile devices, especially tablets, are best suited for a social constructivist environment; in other words, m-learning with handheld devices should actually promote collaboration and student activity (p. 69; see section 2.5).

The other study on m-learning mentioned (Hashemi et al., 2011) came to similar conclusions about the phenomenon, but also added some more positive factors, e.g. the positive attitudes among young learners towards handheld devices, increased motivation, the lower cost of these devices compared to computers, and therefore greater accessibility, and also the fact that the features of mobile devices may offer much valuable support to students with special needs (p. 2480).

Pegrum et al. (2013) also highlighted potential challenges with m-learning and handheld devices in education. For example, one concern was that smartphones or tablets may pose a distraction “at senior levels” (Pegrum et al, 2013, p. 73) and thus may be better suited for younger students. Other issues were related to hardware, software and network limitations as well as teacher competence: the small size of the screen, the complexity of sharing software simultaneously on multiple devices and the varying quality of the mobile networks (p. 75). As to the teachers, in the Pegrum et al. study, they felt neither properly instructed in how to implement mobile devices in their teaching, nor could they find enough time to search for better educational applications (p. 75).

2.5 CALL – Computer-Assisted Language Learning

According to Chinnery (2008), the perspective in so called Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has shifted from dealing with “what computers can do” to “what learners can do” (p. 472), which he explained as being in line with the transition in education from behaviourism, i.e. the idea of language learning by means of the formation of correct language habits in students, to social constructivism, i.e. the idea of language learning through student cooperation, and construction as well as analysis of knowledge. What is currently

(12)

called social constructivism has its roots in earlier educational theories, one of which claims that learners can absorb more knowledge through interaction with others than on their own, as long as the learning happens within the learner’s “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1934, pp. 187-188). In the context of CALL, Chinnery (2008) points out that previous CALL approaches favoured individual and quite passive computer exercises, testing students on certain linguistic content, while social forums and interactive computer environments are more characteristic of newer CALL approaches (p. 472).

Furthermore, Chinnery (2008) mentioned five components that he believed are vital in successful e-language learning, i.e. CALL. Firstly, he recommended that e-language learning should become a vehicle for production, i.e. an educational approach where students are viewed as producers rather than recipients, and where production for an authentic audience in the target language spurs motivation for learning. Secondly, the author maintained that good e-language learners master all the necessary skills to access and select relevant information. The internet is a virtually endless source of facts, analyses and opinions, but the students have to learn e.g. how to compare, critically analyse and select relevant sources online. Thirdly, in line with Pegrum et al. (2013; see section 2.4), e-language learning should include collaborative tasks, which ideally generates “knowledge construction” and “meaning-making” (Chinnery, 2008, p. 475), and could increase motivation as students learn from each other. Fourthly, the author claimed that communication is another important element in e-language learning. In fact, students in a study by Swaffar (as cited by Chinnery, 2008, p. 476) appeared to communicate more freely and confidently via, for example, chat rooms than in the classroom setting. Fifthly, Chinnery explained that partly as a result of the development and spread of multimedia, the idea of literacy has expanded into that of “multiliteracies” (p. 476), which comprise knowledge communicated through ”linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, and spatial” media (p. 476); in other words, an aggregative element is needed in CALL. In conclusion, CALL activities should encourage student production and interaction, strengthen the ability to successfully retrieve and process online sources, and comprise a mixture of different media involving several senses.

(13)

2.5.1 Skill-specific2 CALL 2.5.1.1 Grammar

Needless to say, CALL has influenced the development of EFL grammar teaching. Levy (2009), summarizing previous research on CALL, claimed that it, initially, primarily consisted of gap-filling exercises. However, there has been a shift in CALL-based grammar teaching towards specially designed software that both include communicative exercises and involve “conscious reflection on … form … meaning and usage” (Levy, 2009, p. 770). Nevertheless, critics still argue that many existing computer-based grammar exercises do not provide adequate situational feedback to learner errors, even though, as technology develops, the capacity to design “nuanced [error] feedback” (Levy, 2009, p. 770) increases. Thus, modern grammar software could be designed with interactive features that respond individually to each student’s performance.

2.5.1.2 Vocabulary

As the internet can be said to represent a gigantic corpus over virtually all modern languages, including English, much new vocabulary may be retrieved from and processed through online sources. In addition, Loucky (2006) concludes that vocabulary learning online should focus on the “form, meaning and use” of new vocabulary, and also provide opportunities for “input … interaction … output” (p. 367). Other common features in CALL material on vocabulary are hyperlinks directly connected to “an image … a standard definition, an audio pronunciation … and a translation” or (Levy, 2009, p. 771), but also exercises supporting memorization, elaborating on the meaning of familiar words, etc.

2.5.1.3 Reading

For reading practice in foreign languages, including EFL, Levy (2009) exemplified typical CALL resources that can support students with various multimodal annotations, i.e. pictures, examples, audio samples etc., providing deeper understanding of new vocabulary and concepts in texts. However, Levy argued that few students actually take full advantage of all features in online dictionaries, since they tend to “opt for simple definitions or translations” (p. 772); therefore, teachers who choose to make use of these online tools must encourage and train their students to use them, but also ensure that different learner styles are respected when using them.

2_{Seen from a traditional point of view, there are four language skills: reading, writing, listening and}

(14)

2.5.1.4 Writing

Although personal computers mostly provide access to excellent word processing programs, Levy (2009) pointed out that spelling and grammar checkers most often were not designed with language learners in mind. Subsequently, alternative spell checking programs have been created with the help of corpora featuring learner errors, e.g. specific grammar and spelling mistakes that Swedish EFL learners usually make. In addition, blog writing may encourage informal writing in the target language and provide an opportunity to use e.g. images, music or video clips, to present certain content. However, Levy stressed the importance of teacher support, in order to ensure that the blog content remains educational (p. 773).

2.5.1.5 Listening

There is a wide selection of resources available for, among others, EFL learners, who need to learn to identify “intonation, rhythm, and stress” (Levy, 2009, p. 774) in order to develop their comprehension skills regarding the naturally spoken target language. A method full of potential according to Levy is the podcast; specifically, a podcast may consist of e.g. “listening and culture material … greetings” (p. 775). Levy pointed out that this type of listening material requires the teacher to demand attention from the students, e.g. by providing questions regarding the content, to avoid passivity (p. 775). In addition, podcasts are often authentic, and therefore valuable for learners who need a lot of spoken input, and mostly available outside of class as well (Al Qasim & Al Fadda, 2013, p. 33).

2.5.1.6 Speaking

According to Levy (2009), extensive research has been done in the area of CALL software for speaking practice. For example, students are not only able to converse live, on the basis of educational material, via VoIP (Voice-over Internet Protocol), e.g. Skype, practice conversational language through live text/voice chat, but also display their level of spoken proficiency when submitting sound files stored in an audio-blog. The author also mentioned a method that is under development, i.e. chatterbot[s], which is software including a virtual individual that responds in a conversation-like manner to written or spoken input from the student (p. 776).

(15)

2.6 MALL – Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

For an outsider, Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) may be perceived as identical to CALL, but with smartphones or tablets replacing computers. However, Kukulska-Hulme (2012) argued that such a conclusion is inadequate, since smartphones, in particular, but also tablets, offer virtually unlimited access to mobile or wireless networks and applications that provide instant and exciting new learning opportunities, such as “foreign-language radio … language games while queuing or waiting … foreign movies while traveling” (p. 1). More specifically, MALL enables language learning in untraditional environments as well as the opportunity to spontaneously record, take photographs or make a note of unfamiliar input in a foreign language in informal situations, in order for it to be discussed in class later (p. 2). In other words, as Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) stated, the difference between MALL and CALL principally falls within the “continuity or spontaneity of access and interaction across different contexts of use” (p. 273).

As a result of the flexible nature of MALL, language learning through technology may take place “face-to-face, distance, or online” (Chinnery, 2006, p. 9). Chinnery also stressed that a favourable language-learning climate in class should always be created prior to any introduction of technology. Therefore, technology should never become the driving force behind language education; according to the author, it cannot be proven that language learning through technology has greater impact than live interaction between individuals in a classroom setting. Thus, MALL should be more concerned with the course content than the technology, since mobile devices still are not “instructors; rather, they are instructional tools” that require application of educational theory (Chinnery, 2006, p. 9).

2.6.1 Skill-specific MALL 2.6.1.1 Grammar

Although there are several applications focusing on grammar, e.g. the for-profit Grammar A-Z, the software alone is not enough to instruct and practice grammar adequately. Teaching grammar, and other skills, with the help of MALL means,

(a) providing engaging learning materials that are neither too long nor overly-demanding; (b) a proper degree of teacher monitoring; (c) student involvement; (d) the need for incentives; (e) a respect for privacy; and (f) a safe and secure mobile-learning technical environment. (Wang & Smith, 2013, p. 117)

(16)

To meet these requirements, the authors opted for creating their own grammar software, since, among other things, they realized that they knew their student’s specific needs and wishes better than anyone else. Furthermore, grammar instruction and exercises were delivered by means of two programs: one of them providing and reinforcing knowledge of certain aspects of grammar, while the other, a grammar quiz, was created with self-evaluation in mind. At the end of the study, Wang and Smith concluded that despite e.g. potential interference with the private spheres of the students, approaching grammar through the use of the students’ private smartphones could improve learning (pp. 129-130).

2.6.1.2 Vocabulary

Apart from a number of vocabulary applications, mobile devices may be used in other ways for learning new words. Cavus and Ibrahim (2009) carried out an experiment where participants would regularly receive a text message with new vocabulary that they were expected to study on the go. The software that was used in their study would automatically send 16 messages to the student phones at certain times of the day, for the duration of the experiment. At the end of the experiment, the authors concluded that the students who had participated in the experiment performed significantly better in vocabulary tests than a control group, which they attributed to the value of repetition, and the participants also expressly stated their appreciation of this kind of learning opportunity.

2.6.1.3 Reading

In the Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) study, a Taiwanese project was described, where the EFL students supported each other in synchronous online reading; specifically, one student would read aloud while the listeners would indicate mispronounced words with their tablet pens, and these indications would also appear on the screen of the reader (p. 276). Kukulska-Hulme (2012) also proposed the use of e-book readers3 as an opportunity to directly access “integrated dictionaries, parallel texts, and tools for translation” (p. 3) to facilitate the reading of books, though these devices also are considered ideal for the reading of newspapers, while electronic literature is proposed to be as useful as paper books and even promote “affective learning” (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Courduff, Carter, & Bennett, 2012, [Abstract]), which would suggest learning through emotional involvement (Tooman, 2006).

3_{In general, this term refers to tablets (see section 2.2.2) including software (applications, etc.) with the help of}

(17)

2.6.1.4 Writing

Although Kukulska-Hulme (2012) acknowledged that MALL writing might be limited by the screen and keyboard sizes on handheld devices, these devices may enable blogging, which may influence student motivation positively. Another advantage is that handwriting on handheld devices, with a stylus pen, is more similar to ordinary handwriting on paper than writing on a computer keyboard (Hashemi et al., 2011, p. 2479), although some mobile devices (e.g. iPads) may be connected to a separate keyboard as well.

2.6.1.5 Listening

To some, mobile devices may be considered, first and foremost, music/audio machines; thus, language listening exercises may easily be stored on them. Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) stated that MP3 players (now integrated with smartphones and tablets) may be used to deliver various listening exercises, such as informative podcasts or songs in the target language, textbook related content (vocabulary, etc.), and audio comments provided by the teacher. The authors also noted that, for instance, podcasts might be used both during class and at any other time (pp. 276-277; see also section 2.5.1.5).

2.6.1.6 Speaking

In the past, MALL-related interactive speaking activities seem to have been difficult to design. Yet, Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) described two studies where language learners, at the university/college level, received instruction or completed oral tasks with the help of “inbuilt cameras and voice recording facilities” (p. 274). In the first study, EFL students had to retrieve information from a certain location, i.e. take a picture or record an oral message, and then upload it to a so called “web board” (p. 274) that could be accessed by both students and teachers. In the other project, language learners were regularly instructed by the teacher via the mobile phone and they were also assigned to complete “voice-controlled grammar and vocabulary quizzes” (p. 275).

(18)

3. Method

3.1 Method selection and ethical considerations

For this study, interviews were chosen as the most suitable method to capture teachers’ opinions and experiences (see also Denscombe, 2009, p. 233) of technology in EFL teaching and/or learning, and it was assumed that at least ten teachers in the Mälardalen region would be willing participate. The interviews were designed to be semi-structured, face-to-face and personal, i.e. with one interviewee at a time, answering a number of predetermined questions but with room for spontaneous follow-up questions and elaboration. Consequently, the interviewees were hardly restricted at all in the scope of answering and their answers were relatively easy to process, due to the one-at-a-time principle (see also Denscombe, 2009, pp. 232-235). The method and proposed interview questions were also successfully tested in a trial interview with an upper-secondary teacher of English, to ensure the reliability of the approach (see also Stukát, 2005, pp. 125-126).

In an introductory letter to the potential participants, a number of aspects of the study were explained (see appendix I): that there were two options for participating in the interview, namely in person or through Skype; the estimated time frame of 30 minutes; and respect for the principles of voluntariness and anonymity (see also Stukát, 2005, pp. 131-132). The potential informants could also choose to conduct the interview in Swedish, if that would make them feel more comfortable. Besides, once a teacher consented to an interview and named a possible date for it, they would also be informed about the fact that the interview would be recorded, unless they disagreed to it, according to “the requirement of information” (Stukát, 2005, p. 131). The primary reason for recording was that notes were not expected to sufficiently document the answers of the informants (see also Denscombe, 2009, p. 367). Finally, the material thus collected was declared to be used for academic study only (see also Stukát, 2005, p. 132).

3.2 Participants

The selection of participants was neither completely randomized nor systemized (see also Denscombe, 2009, pp. 56-62); on the contrary, all English teachers in all upper-secondary4 schools of two Swedish towns were invited to participate, but since the interest seemed really

4_{In the Swedish school system, upper-secondary students are normally 16-19 years old (year 1-3 of gymnasiet),}

(19)

low, all English teachers in secondary5 schools were given the same opportunity. The introductory letter was e-mailed to the administration at each school with a request to forward it to every English teacher. Although the teachers were going to be selected primarily based on their interest in participating, the fulfilment of some additional conditions was either required or deemed desirable: firstly, the teachers had to teach English to students in any of the grades ranging from 6 to 12 (the latter being the third and last year of gymnasiet or upper-secondary school); secondly, they had to have some experience of technology in class; thirdly, a number of teachers (preferably at least half of them) were expected to have experience of handheld devices; and, fourthly, the informants would represent as heterogeneous a mix of age and gender as possible.

In the end, however, only eight teachers (out of all the English teachers at 69 schools) responded, of whom one dropped out later. One reason for this lack of response could be the form and content of the introductory letter. Specifically, there was an element of risk-taking in starting the letter with a heading that limited the focus to “smartphone/tablet applications” (see appendix I), but it was done to ensure that at least a few of the participants would actually have experience of mobile devices and applications in teaching. The remaining group of seven participants was quite mixed regarding age, but less so when it came to gender. All seven interviews were carried out in October, November and December, 2013, and all teachers except number 5 (see below) agreed to an interview in English. Besides, the informants worked at separate schools.

Teacher 1: female, 29, full-time upper-secondary teacher of English and history, graduated

2007. All students and teachers at her school have been provided with a computer for educational purposes.

Teacher 2: female, 45, full-time upper-secondary teacher of English and Swedish, graduated

2003. At her current school she has a work laptop; the first- and second-year students have tablets, and the third-year students have laptops.

(20)

Teacher 3: male, 47, upper-secondary teacher of English 60% of full-time, graduated in

2001. At his current school, he has a work mobile phone and a computer, while the students may borrow a laptop or use their private smartphones if needed.

Teacher 4: male, 63, full-time upper-secondary teacher of English, Swedish and German,

graduated in the early 1980’s. The school has equipped all teachers and students with a computer and every teacher has been offered a smartphone as well.

Teacher 5: female, 34, full-time secondary teacher of English and Swedish, graduated in

2004. All teachers and students 13 years and older have been given a computer for schoolwork, while students in year 6 share iPads in pairs.

1989. Her current workplace has provided each student and teacher with an iPad, but she also uses her work computer and smartphone.

2003. Both the students (year 7-9) and teachers have been equipped with an iPad and the teachers have also been given a work computer.

3.3 Method discussion

Although the method should be considered appropriate in the context of this study (see section 3.1), some aspects need to be pointed out. For example, interview question number 2, in the general section, could have had been misinterpreted, since it suggests that “digital competency” (referred to as digital competence throughout the essay; see also appendix II) explicitly appears in the Swedish National Curricula (Skolverket, 2011a,b), which it does not (see section 1). Another potential weakness is the small number of participants, which rules out the possibility to generalize the results to all (secondary and upper-secondary) teachers of English in Sweden; nevertheless, it is still possible to relate the results to a bigger context and concede that they may be indicative of a more general reality (see Stukát pp. 129-130), although the results should primarily be considered within the scope of this limited study. Finally, the fact that teachers would primarily participate based on personal interest should also be considered, since it could imply that some teachers were positively biased towards technology; however, as it turned out, some informants in the study were somewhat critical

(21)

towards technology in the classroom, so a certain range of attitudes was represented after all.

4. Results and discussion

In this section the results from the seven interviews are presented and discussed in relation to the previous research. The organizing principle is that each subsection represents an attempted answer to one of the research questions (see section 1.2).

4.1 What are the teachers’ general experiences of technology in EFL

education?

At the beginning of the interviews, all teachers were asked to describe their personal relationship to technology, in general and in education. The answers showed that all seven teachers were, on the whole, quite positive to new technology in class, but with different perspectives on it. For instance, teachers 1 and 7 had found that technology as a method may simplify teaching, while teachers 4, 6 and 7 had experienced that teaching with the help of technology might catch the interest of the students and enhance learning. Nevertheless, learning the English language was not perceived as dependent on a specific technology, since

“it’s not essential … what you use: it’s what you learn” (teacher 4).

In other words, the assumption made by the Swedish government in 1988, i.e. that computers had the potential to “develop and rationalize teaching with new methods and aids” (Hylén, 2011, p. 29) may be said to be confirmed, in the present study, by teachers 1 and 7. As to the fact that learning through technology may be engaging for young people, it may be explained with the simple fact that technology already is an integral part of the lives of teenagers (Candy, 2004, p. 5). However, it is important that the technology is never more in focus than the subject content, since computers or handheld devices are no more than educational tools (Chinnery, 2006, p. 9).

There were also some informants in this study who expressed concerns about new technology in class: teachers 2, 3, 5 and 7 thought that it may be distractive, teacher 5 also felt that she lacked the necessary know-how; and another one wondered, regarding appropriate applications and other software,

“When shall I have the time to search for everything and to learn about everything?” (teacher 7)

(22)

In view of these concerns, the distractive nature of technology in the classroom, and teachers having limited knowledge of technology as well as limited time for professional development are apparently not only challenges abroad (see Pegrum et al., 2013, pp. 73, 75), but in Swedish schools as well.

4.2 Are these teachers given sufficient in-job training and support for

successfully using technology in education?

As regards further professional development and day-to-day support in technology, all informants had been offered different courses for in-job training, but they had different experiences of it. They mentioned “PIM”6 as well as training in how to use smart boards, Power Point, Google Drive, the laptop or tablet or attendance programs; in addition, teachers 3 and 4 specifically highlighted introductions to spelling and writing software that supports students with reading, writing or other learning difficulties, etc. Several teachers (2, 6 and 7) mentioned that they had colleagues who had gone through more extensive training in how to use technology, and some of these (e.g. ICT teachers) are supposed to support and instruct all the other teachers whenever they have questions or encounter a problem related to technology and teaching. Nevertheless, one teacher felt that there was too little support available at her school, since

“We have the stuff but we need know-how, education, courses”(teacher 5).

Teacher 3 commented that it might be good to provide a “refresher course” to reinforce the instructions on technology that the teachers had been given previously.

Skolverket (2013) has provided a nuanced picture of how well technology has been implemented in secondary and upper-secondary education: the ICT-related teacher competence has improved, but still more instruction and concrete tips are needed in order for teachers to work with computers and/or handheld devices successfully (see also Skolverket, 2013, pp. 11-12), which tallies with some of the opinions expressed in the interviews. Besides, Hashemi et al. (2011) expressed the value of specific computer software for students with different learning difficulties (p. 2480), something that two informants in this study also had experienced.

6_{Abbreviation for Practical IT and Media competence provided through tutorials, adult education classes or}

(23)

4.3 Do these teachers know about key concepts and terminology related to

EFL education through technology, that is, digital competence, e-learning,

m-learning, CALL and MALL?

To gain an insight into the teachers’ knowledge of key concepts and specific terms for technology in education, and specifically EFL education, questions were asked that concerned both the broad term (such as digital competence), knowledge of general research on technology in (language) education, but also examples of more specific terms (e-learning, m-learning, CALL, MALL; see sections 2.3-2.6).

4.3.1 Digital competence

Regarding the term digital competence (or digital competency), all teachers but one (teacher 3) had heard about it previously, and some of the explanations given corresponded to the definition given by the European Union (see section 2.2). In fact, one teacher (5) specifically stated that it is related to “future competencies”, or what is officially called “key competencies” (see also European Commission, 2011, p. 96), and the ability to use computers at university or at work in the future; another informant pointed out that it means teaching students

“how to be selective and also … really criticising different kinds of sources and the web pages they are searching” (teacher 6).

In other words, this teacher pointed out that with digital technology comes a perceived need for teaching critical reading skills, since Swedish students will not automatically know how to treat and analyse online sources (see also Skolverket, 2013, pp. 13-14).

4.3.2 The effects of technology on (language) education

On the one hand, five teachers felt that they had very little insight into research on computers in relation to education, including language education, while two teachers said that, due to their personal interest,

“I’ve read some on my own” (teacher 2);

“[I] attended a bunch of courses … Enough for me to get started” (teacher 4).

(24)

example that students would benefit from writing their own texts in the class blog (teacher 5), which refers to production (see also Chinnery, 2008, p. 474), and that CALL makes it possible to address many different learner styles by providing a variety of methods (teacher 7), i.e. allowing “aggregative” teaching (see also Chinnery, 2008, p. 476).

On the other hand, none of the teachers could recall having read anything about handheld devices and their effect on language education, but considered the possibility by reflecting that the motivation for reading may increase thanks to the fact that iPads are considered fun to read on (teacher 6), while it is less appropriate to write on some handheld devices with small keyboards, since

“they [smartphones] are more difficult to write essays and things on" (teacher 2).

Both of these statements are in line with earlier research. Specifically, several researchers have highlighted the positive aspects of handheld devices, namely that young learners appreciate them (Hashemi et al., 2011, p. 2479) as well as the prospect of novel and inspiring learning approaches, involving e.g. games or movies (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012, p. 1), while Kukulska-Hulme (2012) also voiced concerns about the limits of writing on smartphones due to the size of the screen and keyboard (p. 4).

4.3.3 E-learning, CALL, m-learning and MALL

Apparently, e-learning and CALL were familiar to some teachers, one of whom had experience of online interaction in international projects for language learning:

“I have used a … tool that I think you could call e-learning, “e-twinning” … You can co-operate with schools in other countries in Europe and … create a project and … decide what your project is about” (teacher 7).

This understanding of e-learning is confirmed by another study, where e-learning is defined as either asynchronous, synchronous or blended learning in an online environment (Welsh et al., 2003, pp. 246-247); in this case it would mean e.g. receiving e-mails from students abroad, chatting with them in real time and working with the gathered information in the classroom. Regarding CALL, it was stated it means using the computer, e.g. dictionaries, Google Translate or other websites providing audio samples to vocabulary, to learn a language (teacher 7), and that there is software available supporting students with reading difficulties

(25)

with spelling or speech support, or other interactive tools (teacher 4).

Parts of these reports correspond to features of CALL software as described in the literature: multimodal dictionaries, i.e. with hyperlinks providing further reading, descriptive images or “audio pronunciation”, spelling and grammar checkers adapted for EFL learners, and interactive grammar programs offering situational feedback to each student (Levy, 2009, pp. 770-771, 773).

By contrast, the concepts of m-learning and MALL appeared completely unfamiliar to the informants, although one explanation was that

“students use their phone to search for information or look up words” (teacher 7).

This kind of activity obviously falls within the concept of MALL, but is not an exhaustive description of it, since language learning with handheld technology may involve all six skills (see section 2.6.1) and also promote co-operation between students (Pegrum et al., 2013, p. 73), once teachers possess sufficient practical knowledge of how to implement these devices in language education, in accordance with educational theory (Chinnery, 2006, p. 9).

4.4 What are the advantages and challenges, respectively, when it comes to

technology in EFL education, according to them?

The following sub-sections summarize the answers to the question regarding the respective advantages and challenges with computers and handheld devices in the EFL classroom.

4.4.1 Computers

Concerning perceived advantages with computers in EFL education, three things were mentioned more than once in the interviews. One was motivation, since computers facilitated writing for some students (teacher 6) and the abundance of online material offered possibilities to individualize learning materials by taking

“something they’re interested in, cause it’s so much easier to talk about” (teacher 3).

Another advantage mentioned is that there are more possibilities to plan inspiring and varied lessons with computers as an aid, due to easy access to video clips, interactive websites (teachers 1, 4) and the exchange of ideas through, for instance, lektion.se, where teachers may

(26)

post their own lesson plans and download the material of others (teacher 7). The third positive side to computers in class was the constant access to varied materials, which was considered especially beneficial for students with learning difficulties. For instance, students with reading and/or writing difficulties may listen to texts that are read aloud by the computers through voice synthesis, or take advantage of spelling programs and grammar checkers (teacher 3), while all students are able to access lesson slides and homework anywhere, at any time, thanks to the computer (teacher 1).

As suggested by the above answers, the teachers who have successfully introduced technology have most likely made an effort through careful planning for and implementation of computers in their classrooms, as recommended by Welsh et al. (2003, p. 246), and they have apparently also realised the advantages that stem from the facts that teenagers are attracted to technology, in general, and that much information on the internet is both constantly available and regularly updated (see also Candy, 2004, p. 5). In addition, the offer of constant access to information could potentially enhance learning (see also Welsh et al., 2003, p. 246), which may speak in favour of ICT in education, but of course, more comprehensive investigations than the present one would have to confirm this.

By contrast, two frequently recurring challenges with computers mentioned in the interviews were that student did not know how to successfully browse and critically select information (teacher 1), and that students with concentration difficulties in particular suffered due to the constant information flow (teacher 2). On the other hand, it was also pointed out that whether distraction becomes a problem or not depends on “your role as a teacher” (teacher 4). Another challenge mentioned was difficulties with computer-related technology, such as malfunctioning wireless networks, projector connections or computer software, which sometimes created frustration (teacher 5, 7). Furthermore, two participants (4, 7) indicated that introducing too much technology too quickly with inadequate training might create stress among both teachers and students, and that this could also cause resistance towards e.g. computers from teachers, who lose interest and thus

“they [computers] are still mostly used as typewriters” (teacher 5).

In addition, two other teachers (3, 5) expressed a related concern regarding the need for appropriate educational EFL material (applications and computer software) to be better

(27)

promoted and become more accessible, so that teachers would not have to spend hours searching for them.

As stated in a recent report (European Commission, 2012, p. 96), it is indeed crucial to teach students how to treat different sources, as a part of preparing them for adult life and all its demands. However, seen from a different view, teachers without technology-specific knowledge may run a greater risk of losing the educational perspective on using technology in class and may encourage the use of technology for nothing else but information searches and writing (see also Skolverket, 2013, p. 7).

4.4.2 Handheld devices

Only teachers 2, 6 and 7 had experience of tablets in their work place, while the other four teachers had worked with computers only, and the positive comments regarding tablets focused on their mobility (teachers 1, 2), the easy browsing (teachers 4, 7) and the fact that

“students who can’t keep track of … their book … can’t lose it [the tablet]” (teacher 6). In other words, the informants perceived the students as quite attached to their handheld devices, which are also conveniently available in all situations for both pleasure and learning (see also Candy, 2004, p. 5).

On the negative side, apart from considering them distractive (teacher 7), some informants believe that tablets connected to online chats, games or messaging may cause unnecessary stress for teenagers (teacher 3, 4), and with regard to reading one opined that

“I think it’s more straining to your eyes to do it on the screen” (teacher 2).

As to smartphones in class, most informants were sceptical: teachers 2, 3 and 4 allow their students to use their smartphones for school work only if they have no computer or tablet available, while two schools (those of teachers 5 and 6) have a ban on smartphones in class.

However, some teachers had identified useful sides to smartphones, namely, that one may demand that students speak English if answering their phone in the classroom (teacher 3) or one may use it for

“Making films, looking up words … record themselves … put on an alarm for homework” (teacher 7).

(28)

The role of distractive devices in the secondary/upper-secondary classroom may indeed be questioned (see also Pegrum et al., 2013, p. 73), as may reading tasks involving a small screen, but recording functions or dictionaries as applications could actually open up for spontaneous language learning and use (see also Kukulska-Hulme, 2012, pp. 1, 4).

4.5 Do these teachers find that there is enough useful software available for

educational purposes, and what additions, if any, would they like to see?

At the end of the interviews, the seven teachers were asked to name examples of software that they knew about or had experience of, both for computers and handheld devices. In addition, questions were asked regarding future software development, i.e. functions and features that the informants were unable to find in the currently available educational software.

4.5.1 Computers (websites and programs)

Taken together, the informants provided examples of useful computer software for all six skills (see also section 2.5.1): firstly, grammar and vocabulary material can be found on the British council website Learn English; secondly, students may work with new vocabulary through NE.se and glosor.eu; thirdly, reading practice may take place on websites such as those of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Famous People (BBC) or Wikipedia, as well as in online books; fourthly, students may write and automatically submit their texts on the file server Google Drive or write on the free school blog, moobis.se; fifthly, the video resources on YouTube, FLOD, Britain/USA/Australia Today, and the BBC website are examples of sources for listening comprehension; and sixthly, simply by googling “conversation” one may find great material for speaking. Besides, students may practice various skills except writing on Newsreel (UR.se). Socrative is another web-based tool, where teachers basically may ask questions (in games, quizzes or similar) regarding any skill and the students are required to answer them.

What could be concluded from these examples is, among other things, that many of them are actually about “what learners can do”, i.e. based on the view that students are active learners and producers (see also Chinnery, 2008, pp. 472) who can write blogs or submit texts on Google Drive; in addition, computer software such as Socrative may simplify communication for students who normally avoid speaking in the classroom (see also Chinnery, 2008, p. 476). However, the teachers in this study yet have to explore CALL speaking activities through

(29)

Skype or even so-called chatterbot[s] (see also Levy, 2009, p. 776), as well as expand their understanding of the possible social constructivist side of CALL (see also Chinnery, 2008, p. 475).

4.5.2 Handheld devices (applications)

In comparison, the teachers were only familiar with a few mobile applications for education, and some teachers (2, 3, 5) did not have experience of any at all. Nevertheless, the most frequently used applications were Google (+), Google Drive, Safari and e-mail, while no examples of grammar software were given. For vocabulary learning, NE.se, Google Translate and glosor.eu were used, and it was stated that most newspapers have their own application. Apart from that, one may read books through Blue[Fire] Reader. Furthermore, examples of writing applications mentioned are Stava Rätt (Android) and REX for spelling, as well as Story Board, Notes, Keynote and Explain Everything. With the help of the latter two, students may create multimodal presentations, so they may also be used for oral tasks. Other speaking (and writing) applications mentioned are Socrative, since students who are too shy to speak may write their answers there instead, and an unspecified application where students may record their presentations, accompanied by images, beforehand.

It could be argued that the facts that students communicate more freely online (Chinnery, 2008, p. 476) and can practice conversation-like language in chatrooms (see also Levy, 2006, p. 276) also apply to handheld devices, although this was pointed out only in reference to computers. In other words, written informal communication (as in Socrative) may potentially enhance spoken proficiency.

4.5.3 Future software development

Regarding computer software available for the teaching and/or learning of English, the informants expressed that the material available online was quite sufficient, since

“basically, you could find everything, it’s just how much time you put into looking for it” (teacher 2).

Nevertheless, some teachers (3, 4, 5, 7) asked for more reading material, such as an online library providing fiction and short stories, for more short texts with reading comprehension questions that come with a key, and, above all, for these texts to be free of charge. Apart from these wishes, one teacher thought that better writing guidelines online are needed (teacher 3),

(30)

and it was also claimed that good listening comprehension exercises are still difficult to find on the internet (teachers 3, 5).

If other more extensive studies than this present one were to confirm that listening comprehension materials online are scarce, podcasts, accompanied by e.g. discussion questions to provide scaffolding (see also Levy, 2009, p. 775), might be an alternative for teachers, due to the availability and authenticity of such materials (Al Qasim & Al Fadda, 2013, p. 33).

By contrast, much more educational content was asked for when it comes to applications in hand-held devices: firstly, fun grammar games; secondly, trustworthy dictionaries; thirdly, library applications for fiction and short stories, lyrics and everyday texts about culture and traditions; fourthly, creative writing guidelines in several steps; fifthly, applications offering TV shows, non-profit English music and various listening exercises; and sixthly, interesting discussion tasks. One teacher even said that

“It could be a squarish app … If you have a specific purpose for something” (teacher 4).

In other words, this statement could be interpreted as support for the view that any type of application may be used, but only as long as it is based on educational theory (see also Chinnery, 2006, p. 9). In addition, regarding MALL in relation to grammar and potentially all other skills, this type of learning material must, among other things, be concise and simple as well as actively involve students in their own learning process. If that can be achieved, adequately implemented mobile devices may enhance learning (Wang & Smith, 2013, pp. 117, 129-130).

5. Conclusion

5.1 Summary of the answers to the research questions

In answer to the five research questions (see sections 1.2 & 4), the summed up experiences of and attitudes to technology expressed in the interviews were that: firstly, the teachers had experienced that technology in education in general may facilitate language teaching and learning, but they also voiced concerns regarding limited time and professional development; secondly, various different in-service courses are available to some, as well as particularly technology-savvy colleagues who may offer their support in ICT-related issues, while some

Technology and Language Teaching and Learning : A study on teachers’ experiences of and attitudes to computers and handheld devices in the EFL classroom