Teachers’ Views on Digital Tools in the English as a Second Language Classroom

(1)

Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies in

Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Teachers’ Views on Digital Tools in the

English as a Second Language Classroom

- Nuanced by a student perspective

Lärares syn på digitala verktyg i det engelskspråkiga klassrummet

- Nyanserat ur ett elevperspektiv

Alexandra Söderlund

Wilhelm Johansson

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, LANGUAGES AND MEDIA

(2)

(3)

Preface

Before we started working on the paper, we quickly decided that we were going to write the paper together without giving each other individual responsibility for the different parts. Furthermore, the paper was written together in person, with one of us writing and the other reading the source material. The role of who wrote and who handled the sources differed day to day, with an equal distribution. Moreover, the transcriptions of the interviews and the gathering of sources was also done together in person. The structure of our work process was decided on due to the need for both of us to be equally familiar with the different concepts and theories in order to properly analyze our material and connect it to our interviews. Hence, the paper has been written together, with equal involvement, throughout the entire process.

(4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate teachers’ and students’ experiences and views of how and why digital tools are used in the English as Second Language (ESL) classroom for upper secondary school. These experiences and views were collected by conducting semi-formal qualitative interviews with teachers, and focus group interviews with students. The results indicate numerous benefits for enhancing student performance by the implementation of digital tools such as individualization, autonomy, and engagement. Furthermore, the teachers’ implementation of the digital tools is dependent on a sufficient teacher competence, which is based on the TPACK-model, consisting of three different aspects technological-, content-, and pedagogical knowledge. These three all have to be mastered for an optimal implementation of digital tools. Lastly, the interviews with the teachers indicate that there is a demand for more extensive and thorough in-service training in order to achieve confidence and greater knowledge in how the digital tools are to be used.

Keywords: Digital tools, blended learning environment, TPACK-model, 21st_{century skills,}

(5)

Introduction

From our own teaching experience it is clear that there is an increase in the use of digital tools in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. However, it is also clear that there is a demand for knowing the didactic questions how and why these tools are to be incorporated in the classroom by both students and teachers. In other words, as teachers use these tools more frequently, they need to understand how and why these tools are to be incorporated.

In the modern days of teaching English, the choices on how we decide to teach are endless. According to Sträng, these choices will continue to increase as our society is constantly changing and evolving, which eventually results in new challenges and demands to consider. These challenges and demands are according to Sträng closely linked to education. In other words, it becomes the teacher's responsibility to find methods and tools in order to make the education relevant to our ever-changing society (Sträng, 2005). This type of concept, which uses new methods and tools in the classroom, is often referred to as blended learning. The concept is not new; however, it was recently that the term “blended learning” was coined. Researchers define this term as “combining Internet and digital media with established classroom forms that require the physical co-presence of teacher and students” (Banditvilai, 2016, p. 220). A branch of blended learning is the flipped classroom which promotes the use of digital tools in order to create a classroom environment that focuses on tasks rather than instructions (Tucker, 2012). According to Lynch (2018), a possible future direction for digital tools within the field of education is the implementation of virtual reality. This particular digital tool enables empathy, authenticity and is of aid for struggling students.

Furthermore, the new digitalized society has resulted in what Prensky (2001) refers to as digital natives and immigrants. People born between 1980 and 1994, and onward, are considered digital natives, while digital immigrants are born before 1980. He argues that “[t]oday’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (Prensky, 2001, p.1). Although, it is important to acknowledge that the Swedish educational system LGY11 has adapted to the global digital era, and this was done by explicitly including requirements for digital use. However, according to Prensky (2001) the problem does not

(8)

Prensky concludes that it is important that digital immigrant teachers adapt to a digitalized learning system in order to reach and engage the current generation of students.

With digital learning being a key tool in many classrooms, teachers are expected to make sure that all students are “able to use different tools for learning, understanding, being creative and communicating” (Skolverket, 2011, p.32). With this in mind, our goal is to see how and why teachers implement different digital tools, which tools are most commonly used, and how students and teachers perceive the effect the incorporation has had on student performance.

Furthermore, Skolverket (2016) claims that the use of digital tools contributes to students’ overall understanding of the English subject, and their own learning process. However, it is difficult for teachers to acknowledge the actual benefits of using digital tools. Hence, it is important for teachers to reflect on what benefits the digital tools provide, and for other teachers to be informed of these benefits. In addition, since today’s upper secondary school is supposed to make sure that the students are prepared and provided with knowledge for higher education; students need to have the ability to develop a digital competence. This competence is required since we live in a society with a big flow of information, mostly through digital platforms. Lastly, digital competence gives students more equal conditions in education, and helps the teacher meet each student’s individual needs. Visconti (2015) claims that if teachers fail to incorporate digital tools and the Internet into their teaching, students will no longer feel satisfied with their education since they cannot relate to what is being taught. Moreover, digital competence is now regarded as one of many keys to a lifelong learning. In order to fulfill this need, teachers have to go through a professional development regarding how to include IT usage in their classrooms to prepare students for future learning.

(9)

Aim and Research Question

The aim of this study is to investigate why teachers implement digital tools in their classroom, and how this is done. In order to answer our research question, we have chosen to divide the question into the following themes: the teachers’ implementation of digital tools, the schools’ requirements of digital implementation and in-service training, the perceived benefits of digital tools in connection to student performance, increasing willingness to communicate through the use of digital tools, and the possible limitations due to the implementation of digital tools.

The research question is:

(10)

Literature Review

In this section key-, and theoretical concepts will be examined and explained. Firstly, the literature review will define what digital competence entails in the 21st_{century and why}

digitalization is important according to Skolverket. Secondly, it will present a definition of digital tools, which skills are relevant in our modern society, blended learning, authentic material, and the theory of Willingness to Communicate.

English as a Second Language

We included studies about second language learning due to the reasoning that there is an ongoing debate that English should be considered more as a second language (L2) than a foreign language (FL) in Sweden (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014). This since exposure to the English language through popular culture, movies, and commercials is quite extensive for the general population, even from an early age. Sundqvist and Sylvén (2014) mention that due to the everyday exposure of English, Swedes “come in contact with authentic English more or less on a daily basis” (p. 4). Furthermore, English is taught in school from an early age, and instruction is becoming increasingly similar to that of a first language (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014).

Digital Competence

Digital competence is regarded as an overarching term often used in connection to digitalized education in the 21st_{century. Despite its reoccurring presence in educational settings, there is}

not a unanimous definition of what the competence entails. However, according to the European Commission it is defined as having both the confidence and the ability to critically use technology in connection to communication, work, and leisure (Punie & Cabrera, 2006). Furthermore, it requires the user to be familiar with Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), which is a term that includes “the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the Internet” (Punie & Cabrera, 2006, p.17).

Additionally, the paper “What is Digital Competence?” by Ilomäki et.al (2011) defines digital competence in four steps:

1. The ability to use different digital technologies

(11)

3. Critical use of the technologies

4. A strive to partake in the digital culture

Digitalization According to Skolverket

Digitalization has become an important part of Skolverket’s work towards adapting the Swedish school system to the modern society. This strive can be seen in Digilyftet which acts as mandatory in-service training for all teachers to develop their digital competence. One aspect of Digilyftet is for teachers to understand why digitalization is an important part of teaching. Skolverket states that we are currently facing a breaking point, which requires a discussion to be held of what knowledge and competence entails in a digitalized educational setting. Thus, digitalization becomes a key aspect in order to partake in the 21st_century

society. Furthermore, this aspect is mentioned in the steering documents which emphasize that each student should be given the means to participate in society (Tallvid, 2016). Moreover, in order to adapt to a new era, one has to merge the existing ways of teaching with the new digitalized methods. Lastly, how information is gathered, how knowledge is viewed, how text and language is implemented in the classroom and which consequences this have for both teaching and learning becomes more important to evaluate in the digitalized society (Tallvid, 2016).

Teacher Competence

Due to the importance of digital competence, Figure 1 is an attempt by Koehler and Mishra to define what teacher competence entails in the 21st_{century; “Technological [sic!] Pedagogical}

Content Knowledge (TPACK) attempts to identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge” (Tallvid, 2015, p. 62).

(12)

Figure 1. The TPACK framework from http://tpack.org

The different aspects of teaching are divided into three circles, content, pedagogical and technological knowledge. However, it is the four overlapping areas: TCK, PCK, TPK and TPACK that show the complexity of incorporating the three types of knowledge in the classroom by teachers. Tallvid (2015) discusses Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and how it is not only a question about the teacher’s technological knowledge, but also how they can make good use of that knowledge to make computer-based education as rewarding for students as possible. Tallvid (2015) argues that it is not enough for the teacher to know the subject area; they must also be able to understand how digital learning can benefit both the students and the teacher while also making sure that the knowledge requirements are met. Moreover, the Organization for Economic co-Operation and Development (OECD) sought to make sure that teachers of the modern age had a modern approach to teaching, and they too stated that the different aspects of knowledge alone were not enough. In order for education to be meaningful; content knowledge, technological knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge must work as a whole in order to create an education that is informative, relatable, engaging, and promotes lifelong learning (Tallvid, 2015).

(13)

The Relevance of Blended Learning

The article “Forward thinking: three forward, two back: what are the next steps?” by White (2013) examines the relevance of digital technologies for both teaching and learning. By referring to a meta-analysis consisting of 40 years of technology in education, White (2013) concludes that blended learning is the best alternative if compared to isolated use of face-to-face or online learning. In other words, combining face-to-face-to-face-to-face learning with digital learning tools, i.e. blended learning, becomes the ideal learning method. The superiority of blended learning can be linked to the findings in the study “Choosing between Online and Face-to-Face Courses: Community College Student Voices” published by Smith Jaggars. In the article, it is clear that the students preferred explanations from teachers face-to-face, while also appreciating the effectiveness of immediate feedback in online courses (2013). In the article “Enhancing Students’ Language Skills through Blended Learning”, Banditvilai (2016) argues that students can improve their English language skills more sufficiently through a blended learning environment, unlike a classic classroom setting. She mentions several benefits, the first being that students’ work becomes more flexible, allowing them to set their own pace. Second, Banditvilai argues that when incorporating digital tools students become more autonomous in their learning. Third, a blended learning environment facilitates a more varied teaching approach (2016).

Authentic Material

The use of authentic material has long been part of teaching, and due to digitalization the possibilities are rapidly increasing, and its implementation has become more versatile. According to Berardo (2006) students are benefiting from the use of authentic material in the classroom. Firstly, it allows for exposure to real language which is put in a real context, unlike standard textbook material. Secondly, it is highly motivating and provides the students with a sense of achievement due to its relevance. Thirdly, by using authentic material it gives students the opportunity to be exposed to the language that occurs outside of the controlled classroom environment. Lastly, Johnson argues that by using tools already familiar to students it “allow[s] them to perceive new connections between content material and lead to helpful collateral and serendipitous learning” (2016, p. 11).

(14)

Digital Tools

For this paper, we have chosen to use a combination of two definitions in order to define the concept of digital tools, the first one being the book “Arbeta formativt med digitala verktyg” by Patricia Diaz. She (2014) states that digital tools often refers to web based resources, but it can also entail both social media and apps. Furthermore, the second definition is offered by Strömberg (2014), who gives a more in-depth explanation of digital tools by using two different categories, hardware and software. The first, hardware, refers to a computer, a tablet, smartphone, or smartboard. While the second, software, refers to programs and apps used for educational purposes. For example, these might involve the Internet, different editing programs, PowerPoint, video programs, or e-platforms.

An example of how this can be done in practice is the flipped classroom. Its core idea is to move teacher instructions from the classroom to the students’ home. This process is done by using the Internet as a platform to create interactive instructions, most commonly done through videos, which enables students to access the instruction outside of the classroom without time limitations. Consequently, this makes the classroom more focused on active learning, problem solving, and collaborative learning rather than functioning as a platform for instructions. Furthermore, it promotes autonomous learning and acts as a stepping stone for the implementation of future digital tools. Lastly, the theory enables teachers to individualize their classrooms by having more time to focus on the task at hand instead of instructions (Tucker, 2012).

The digital tools used by the interviewed teachers at schools X and Y were:

Hardware: Software:

Ipad Quizlet Padlet Kahoot

Chromebook EdPuzzle Exit tickets Stavarex

Macbook Spellright PowerPoint Prezi

Mobile phone Mentometo Google Classroom Legimus

(15)

Willingness to Communicate

Willingness to Communicate (WTC) is a prominent concept used in second language learning. It entails, as the name suggests, that the students need to acquire both willingness and abilities to communicate in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom by using the target language (TL). In the article “Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation” by MacIntyre et.al. (1998), the authors argue that the most important aspect of learning a second language is enabling a willingness to communicate among students. Furthermore, the importance of implementing WTC in education can be seen in the statement “a proper objective for L2 education is to create WTC. A program that fails to produce students who are willing to use the language is simply a failed program” (MacIntyre et.al., 1998, p. 547). Consequently, a willingness to communicate can be achieved by implementing several strategies suggested by Cutrone (2013):

1. The teacher should strive towards eliminating student anxiety and improving their confidence in using the target language

2. Use learners’ knowledge as a platform when creating tasks

3. Creating a safe learning environment by using small groups before having discussions involving the whole class

4. Use authentic material for classroom activities 5. Have variation in both tasks and topics

Moreover, Chotipaktanasook (2014) also claims that there are benefits with an increased WTC in the classroom. For example, she mentions that the students will interact more frequently in the TL, naturally engage more often in the TL, become more confident in using the TL in the classroom, and achieve greater language proficiency in terms of speaking, and thus improving their communicative skills. Lastly, she states that “[e]ngendering WTC in the L2 has been suggested as a crucial goal for L2 pedagogy” (Chotipaktanasook, 2014, p.13).

(16)

the 21st century” (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009, p. 8). Moreover, the skills and competences are according to authors Ananiadou and Claro (2009) put into two different categories. The first is functional skills which entails the skills needed for mastering a productive use of different ICT apps. These are e.g. Google Classroom, Quizlet and Google Drive. The second is learning skills that combines the functional skills with cognitive abilities leading to a higher proficiency in using ICT apps for educational purposes (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).

Consequently, learning these skills will be much dependent on the exposure to both digitalization and technology in general. This exposure will look very different depending on when a person was born, and according to Bennett et. al. (2008) the ones born between 1980 and 1994 are regarded as ‘digital natives’, meaning their lives have been greatly affected by technology leading to a greater digital competence. On the other hand, people born before 1980 are referred to as ‘digital immigrants’, and Prensky claims that “this section of the population, which includes most teachers, lacks the technological fluency of the digital natives and finds the skills possessed by them almost completely foreign” (as cited in Bennett et.al., 2008, p. 777). Furthermore, since most teachers are said to lack these crucial skills, students tend to feel alienated and dissatisfied in the context of education (Bennett et.al., 2008).

However, Prensky has made two assumptions concerning digital natives that are highlighted and problematized by Bennett et. al. (2008). The first assumption made is that young people of the digital native generation will automatically have a greater knowledge and understanding of ICT, and possess the necessary skills in order to use digital tools. This assumption is nuanced by Bennett et.al. (2008) who state that this is not generally applicable, since only a small number of students in the modern classroom will possess a high level of skills equivalent to the thesis stated by Prensky. Thus, leading to the conclusion stated by Bennett et.al. (2008), that there is a great variation within, as well as between the different generations. The second assumption Prensky has made is that due to upbringing and personal experience, digital natives will have acquired the following skills: multitasking, learning at a higher speed, the ability to see connections, being able to learn from visual and interactive information, and benefit from game-based educational contexts. These skills highlight the need for an implementation of a new learning style in order to adapt the education towards the digital natives. However, according to Bennett et.al. (2008) research has shown that generalizations such as the above fail to acknowledge the cognitive differences of digital

(17)

natives. Moreover, the claim that digital natives favor one specific learning style is not valid since it will depend on students’ perception of what a task requires, and their previous experience from the particular task. In addition, many of the popular games played by students are not suited for educational use. Lastly, Lorenzo and Dzuiban (2006) state that students are not critically equipped to use digital tools autonomously in an educational context. Therefore, Bennett et al. (2008) suggest that “students’ everyday technology practices may not be directly applicable to academic tasks, and so education has a vitally important role in fostering information literacies that will support learning” (p. 784).

Lastly, there is a clear socioeconomic factor to consider when mentioning 21st_{century skills.}

In the article “Digital delaktighet – en demokratisk angelägenhet” it is stated that elders, newly arrived students, and people with lower education are more likely to not have a sufficient digital competence (Nordh, 2017). However, newly arrived students are not secluded to one specific category. Instead, as with digital natives, there is great variation within the “category” newly arrived students, which is also much dependent on their socioeconomic background. Moreover, Folkebrant and Eidenert (2010) state that the use of digital tools enables students to bring home their tasks, although, one cannot assume that the students possess the competence needed in order to use these efficiently without support. Furthermore, this shows the need for digital competence is required in the household in order to provide guidance for the student. Finally, this implies that even though a student is considered a digital native, everyone will have different knowledge, experience, and support when entering the digital classroom in a digitalized school environment.

(18)

Method

This section will present our work process in terms of participants, a justification for using qualitative interviews and focus groups, and ethical considerations.

Participants for Qualitative Interviews

Since the aim for this paper is to investigate how and why teachers incorporatedigital tools in the ESL classroom, this section will provide the methodological choices made in order to answer our research question. This was done through 8 qualitative interviews with both teachers and students which will serve as our empirical material. The students were included in order to create nuances in the teachers’ answers. The nuances provide an insight as to how digital tools are actually being used in the classroom since we did not include observations for this paper. However, it is important to acknowledge that observations would have given an even greater nuance to the answers given by the teachers. Moreover, the interviews were held in Swedish due to each student being more prone to answer. If the interviews were to be held in English, the risk would be that only students with extensive knowledge of the English language would answer, resulting in only a small number of students participating. Furthermore, despite the teachers having excessive knowledge of the English language, the interview will become more fluent when conducted in the native tongue, and hence, possible language barriers will be reduced. However, when transcribing the interviews we chose to do so in English, and thus, the quotes from the interviewed teachers are our own translations. This was done due to the entire paper being in English.

The interviews were recorded and conducted at two different schools, and for the purpose of anonymity the two will be referred to as X and Y. The first school, X, is an upper secondary school situated in a mid-sized city in Skåne. Unlike X, the school Y is a secondary school located in a suburban area, and both schools have a great focus on digitalization. The justification for choosing the two schools was availability and familiarity due to previous internships. Furthermore, our primary target wasto interview English teachers since our focus is on the ESL classroom. However, we have also chosen to interview a special needs teacher due to the fact that she is in charge of developing and implementing digital tools at school Y. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that all the teachers interviewed were female due to availability.

(19)

Margaret Daniella Anna Karin

School Y Y X X

Teaching experience

13 years 21 years 24 years 19 years

Subjects taught Special needs teacher English and special needs teacher English, Italian, and Swedish English and Swedish

Years they teach 7-9 7-9 Upper

secondary

Upper secondary

Furthermore, the student participants chosen for the interviews were restricted to school X. This was due to the fact that they were upper secondary students, making their answers more relevant as they were able to provide a more thorough response with nuanced aspects. However, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the groups were homogenous in terms of gender, and both groups attended vocational programs. In order to create a clear structure and transparency in the result section the following table includes all student participant groups:

Group A1 Group A2 Group B1 Group B2

Program Electricity and Energy Electricity and Energy Health and social care Health and social care

Course Eng 5 Eng 5 Eng 5 Eng 5

Gender distribution

All male All male All female All male

Number of participants

5 5 6 2

Qualitative Interviews

According to Kvale (1997), the reason for using a qualitative interview is to understand the world from the interviewee’s perspective. It also emphasizes the importance of peoples’

(20)

how and why the teachers include digital tools in their ESL classroom. Furthermore, the interview was conducted in a semi-formal manner, meaning that the interview was based on a number of questions guiding the interviewee with options for more specified questions depending on the answers given. However, Kvale (1997) argues that a danger with interviews is the asymmetrical relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, which could lead to the interviewee adjusting her answers based on what she thinks the interviewee wants to hear. Lastly, we have chosen to apply a partial transcription, meaning that only the relevant parts of the interview was transcribed which was due to time restrictions (Dörnyei, 2007).

Focus Groups

In order to obtain students’ thoughts and values concerning digital tools we have chosen to conduct focus groups. According to Bryman (2011), working with focus groups is a qualitative research method which allows groups of people to be questioned regarding their beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions toward a concept or idea. Moreover, the questions asked were aimed towards a small group of students, and we emphasized the importance of having a natural discussion. The reason for having a small number of students in each group is grounded in Bryman’s (2008) idea that small groups are more suitable when participants are familiar with the topic. The familiarity stems from digitalization being a big part of their leisure time due to them being digital natives, and it is also a prominent feature in education. Another reason for using focus groups is that the use of discussion allows for an interview which is not as restrictive as an individual qualitative interview.

Consequently, despite the many reason for using focus groups, there are some disadvantages according to Bryman (2011). Firstly, it is very time-consuming to transcribe, however, this was avoided by using a tape analysis (Dörnyei, 2007). Secondly, and quite obviously, when having groups of people interviewed at the same time it might be hard to distinguish the different speakers from one another. Thirdly, one has to consider the group dynamic, it is not unusual that some speakers are reticent while others tend to dominate and take over the conversation. This might lead to the reticent speakers adjusting their answers after the more dominant individuals, ultimately affecting the nuances of the answers in general. Lastly, during interviews in focus groups it is common that people tend to avoid confrontational situations, and tries to agree with one another. This leads to a harmonization of the interviews, which might result in the loss of both controversial and differential views (Bryman, 2011).

(21)

Ethical Consideration

Ethical consideration is important when conducting an interview for the sake of the person being interviewed. When constructing the questionnaire Vetenskapsrådet (2002) has served as our guideline, for example we chose not to include any questions that can be seen as either uncomfortable or insulting. Hence, this resulted in questions of a non-sensitive nature. In addition, Vetenskapsrådet (2002) also offers four main requirements that are designed both to protect the interviewee, and to make sure that the ethical principles are being followed. Aside from the ethical consideration, these requirements have been taken into account during our interviews. The first requirement is about information, to inform the interviewee what their purpose is, that participation is optional, and that they can cancel their participation whenever. The second requirement is getting consent from the interviewee, and the third requirement, confidentiality, means that the information gathered during the interview is kept from unauthorized individuals. The fourth requirement revolves around usage, and means that the collected information will only be used for the purpose of which it was conducted, and not for commercial and other non-scientific purposes.

(22)

Results and Discussion

In this section of the paper, we answer our research question; how and why teachers incorporate digital tools in the second language classroom, based on the interviews conducted with teachers and students. Furthermore, in order to create a clear structure we have divided this section into five themes, all connected to the research question. The first theme, teachers’ implementation of digital tools, answers the question of how digital tools are incorporated into the ESL classroom. The four remaining themes target why digital tools are to be incorporated into the ESL classroom, and these are: the schools’ requirements of digital implementation and in-service training, the perceived benefits of digital tools in connection to student performance, increasing willingness to communicate through the use of digital tools, and the possible limitations due to the implementation of digital tools. It is important to acknowledge that the answers given by the students will act as a complement to the teachers´ views, providing nuances of how and why the tools are being used in practice. Lastly, it provides an insight to how the teachers perceive the benefits and limitations of digital tools, and if these correlate with the students own perception of the benefits and limitations.

The Teachers’ Implementation of Digital Tools

All teachers interviewed use digital tools in their classrooms and possess a high digital competence. Margaret, who is a special needs teacher, implements the tools mainly for students with dyslexia or reading disabilities. She mentions that she initially introduces the students to a specific tool, e.g. Legimus, and after being taught how to use it they are given an Ipad with the specific tool. Margaret then educates the student’s teacher in using the tool. This allows the student to become more autonomous in the classroom and they are able to participate in all of the activities. The students in group A1 claim that it is easier to partake in lessons despite dyslexia and other diagnoses due to the aid provided by digital tools, such as Clear Read.

Daniella uses many different digital tools in order to create variety and engagement during her lessons. The engagement is achieved by using different tools every 15-30 minutes; for example, Padelet, Mentometo, Kahoot, Quizlet, and Exit Ticket. Moreover, she states that these allow the element of competition to be included which motivates a lot of students. Furthermore, Anna and Karin also use a variety of different tools such as Quizlet, Kahoot, BBC links, YouTube, spelling aids, and Gleerups. An example of how digital tools can be

(23)

used is by combining authentic material with visual aid. Anna gives an example of a lesson which revolved around the Las Vegas shooting where both YouTube and news articles were used; this engaged all of her students. Lastly, Karin states that trying to connect different content areas to the students’ vocational programs creates both motivation and authenticity. An example of how this is done is by combining content specific textbooks with online clips.

The Schools’ Requirements of Digital Implementation and In-service Training During our interviews, it became apparent that there is an explicit requirement for teachers to implement digital tools in the classroom for both schools. Both Anna and Karin mention that they are required to implement e-platforms and digital tools in their teaching. An example of this is given by Karin who states that the requirements mostly consist of a one-way communication, teacher to student, entailing information about the course and assessment. For school X there was no continuous process for the in-service training the teachers received. For example, Anna stated that once they had received training prior to the implementation of Google Classroom, which also was too brief, there was no check-up. This led to uncertainty in how to best utilize the tool, she explains that “If you have not used the tool you do not understand anything, you have to revisit it [in-service training] once you have learned how to use it” (Anna, personal communication, April 13, 2018).

One consequence mentioned by both Anna and Karin is that if you are not confident in using a tool the students tend to notice this, and you risk losing both their interest and attention. Bennett et.al. (2008) also acknowledge the consequences of not mastering a tool which might result in alienation and dissatisfaction amongst students. Moreover, the teachers at school Y expressed a more positive attitude towards the in-service training they received. Both teachers agreed that they were offered training in digitalization throughout the year, and due to the principal’s interest in digital tools they were also given several workshops. An example of this was expressed by Daniella who mentions that she feels very comfortable using digital tools in her classroom, which she gives credit to both her own interest and the extensive in-service training offered at school Y. Furthermore, Margaret also acknowledged the extensive in-service training by accounting for several encounters with Specialpedagogiska

(24)

The thoughts expressed by all teachers during our interviews correlate with Tallvid’s (2015) idea of technological knowledge not being enough for a successful implementation, and the teachers also acknowledge that you need to know how to make it rewarding for students. This shows that the teachers put more emphasis on the technological knowledge rather than the content- and pedagogical knowledge in the TPACK-model, as there is some uncertainty in how some digital tools are to be used. Consequently, the merge between the three different parts of the TPACK-model is not fully achieved, which shows a need for greater in-service training.

Furthermore, both schools have explicit requirements, Y more than X, regarding the use of digital tools. School Y has a demand for every lesson to include at least one aspect of digital tools. Margaret also states that all educational materials have become digitalized, however, Daniella mentions that even though school Y is considered completely digitalized, the level of efficiency when teachers use digital tools varies a lot. Daniella claims that despite the excessive in-service training offered to teachers, the most important factor for a successful implementation is dependent on self-interest and curiosity. In addition, Anna acknowledged the benefits of digital tools, and implements them in her classroom. However, she noticed that the lack of in-service training has had a negative impact on her use of digital tools. For example, she expresses a concern when using recording devices. She states that the school offers recording apps which benefits students speaking abilities, however, due to a lack of in-service training for these apps they cannot be used to their full potential, and she is forced to rely on her own smartphone.

Despite every interviewed teacher participating in the mandatory in-service training Digilyftet, there is still uncertainty of how some of the tools are to be implemented. This leads to teachers having to educate themselves, and in some cases share their knowledge with colleges. Moreover, Karin mentioned that two of her colleges received in-service training and were given the task to set up workshops for the other teachers regarding digitalization. Unfortunately, these workshops tend to collide with teaching hours and other obligations. Lastly, she summarizes by saying that a lack of time becomes a major factor for not feeling confident in using some of the different digital tools, which leads to a lot of trial and error when implementing a new tool in the classroom.

(25)

The Perceived Benefits of Digital Tools in Connection to Student Performance There are several benefits which affect student performance when using digital tools. Some of these benefits, as expressed by the interviewed teachers were motivation, authenticity, individualization, and real-life context. Daniella mentioned motivation as key factor for her implementation of digital tools. She explains that structure becomes more easily attainable which leads to students having a clearer view of what is expected of them. Moreover, by using digital tools it is easier to create diverse lessons consisting of different activities, and this enables students to be both active and interested throughout the entire lesson. Daniella states that ”I believe that the students become engaged in a different way, they remain alert because it is interesting and a part of their everyday life” (Daniella, personal communication, April 24, 2018). The statement correlates with the importance for students to obtain digital knowledge in order to be effective workers and citizens in our modern society according to OECD (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). Furthermore, acquiring these skills are dependent on the exposure to technology and digital tools in the classroom (Bennett et.al., 2008). Lastly, it is mentioned by Skolverket (2018) that all teaching should encourage students’ lust for lifelong learning and their participation in society.

Karin also highlights a number of benefits in connection to increased student performance by the use of digital tools. Firstly, it enables students to set their own pace during assignments, for example she creates listening exercises via EdPuzzle which allows her to insert questions throughout YouTube clips that the students are to answer. This creates an assignment where the student can set their own pace by pausing, replaying, having access to it at home, and where the teacher is able to follow students’ progression. Secondly, it facilitates individualization and adaptability towards students’ different levels of proficiency by implementing websites such as BBC where students are exposed to articles of the same subject area, but with different difficulty levels. However, this might not be obtainable every lesson as Karin states that “I wish that there was more time to find material regarding the same content area with different levels of difficulty, individualization through digital tools is often a matter of time” (Karin, personal communication, May 8, 2018).

(26)

Banditvilai’s arguments for using a blended learning approach. That is; flexibility for students, autonomy in their learning, and a greater variety in tasks and teaching approaches (Banditvilai, 2016). In addition, the students in group A2 mention that a combination with teachers and computers is more favorable due the instant feedback from digital tools, and the teachers more in-depth explanations. This correlates with Smith Jaggar’s (2013) study which states that students prefer explanations from teachers face-to-face in combination with immediate feedback from online tools. Furthermore, Karin’s use of authentic material connects to both Berardo’s (2006) and Johnson’s (2016) idea of an increased motivation when exposed to real life language.

Margaret argues that by using digital tools, information becomes more accessible for students, thus helping to create a school for all. For example, students in group A1 mention that people who are dyslectic benefit from the help offered by digital tools in terms of vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and text to speech. They also explicitly state that Quizlet makes vocabulary learning easier and fun, even for students who are not in need of special aid. Furthermore, they claim that “some people feel that they are not very good at English, therefore they do not speak, but digital tools make it easier to understand and therefore, easier to speak” (Group A1, personal communication, April 13, 2018).

Moreover, Margaret stresses a need to remain updated as a teacher, and as a school, in order to keep up with the digital native students. The students in group A1 and B2 both agree that due to familiarity with digitalization it is easier to work with the tools offered in class. Furthermore, the students in group A1 state that “thanks to our upbringing with the Internet it is easier to understand and to use the educational tools” (Group A1, personal communication, April 13, 2018). Another reason to implement digital tools mentioned by Karin, is that students who require a lot of repetition are benefitted. This is achieved due to the teacher being able to record him/herself, allowing the student to receive information at home while the classroom becomes devoted to discussions and task completion.

Skolverket (2016) also acknowledges the need for equal conditions in education, which can be achieved by allowing learners to have access to material outside of school, thus setting an individual pace. Moreover, by storing information on e-platforms, such as Google Classroom, both parents and students have a greater insight in what is expected during lessons. This is in line with what students in group A1 and B2 mention, that by storing all information in one

(27)

place there is never insecurity in knowing what to do, since tasks and instructions are always posted on the same platform. Additionally, the students in group A2 argue that the formative feedback made available by Google Drive helps with improving their writing in terms of structure, spelling, and grammar. Furthermore, they state that both Google Drive and Word offer instant feedback due to the highlighting of errors, which is seen as positive. The e-platforms promote a transparency for grading matrixes, materials used in class, and assignments which allow the students to follow the progression of their learning, while also taking responsibility for it. This is in line with Lynch (2018), who argues that the flipped classroom allows students to have access to assignments and materials at home, which enables individualization and active learning.

Increasing Willingness to Communicate through the Use of Digital Tools

An important part of language teaching is communication, but unfortunately, this is often linked to insecurity amongst students. The insecurity was mentioned during our focus group interviews with students. Further, all interviewed teachers also agree that speaking, especially in English, is connected to both nervousness and anxiety. However, the digitalized classroom offers several resources which facilitate a beneficial and safe environment for communication. For example, Daniella and Margaret mention that their students tend to be uncomfortable with presentations involving the whole class. In order to avoid this, Daniella either records them or allows them to sit in small groups while she observes, and this tends to defuse the situation. Although, students in group A1 recognize that despite the many benefits there are downsides, such as the possibility to hide behind your computer in order to avoid communicative activities.

Karin continues to mention the benefits of digital tools by stating that a PowerPoint removes some of the anxiety, as the audience can focus on the visuals instead of solely on the speaker. Furthermore, the students in group B2 acknowledge the benefits presented by Karin, and state that by using a PowerPoint, focus is to some extent removed from the speaker. There is also the benefit of having a well-prepared presentation which is a result of creating a PowerPoint. Additionally, Anna recognizes the benefits of using a PowerPoint, or Prezi, when conducting

(28)

entirely removed with the help of digital tools. Instead, it is greatly dependent on the classroom environment as well as the unity among classmates. All students interviewed agree with what the teachers are mentioning, but they also add that nervousness is dependent on the self-esteem of each individual. Moreover, the students in group A1 state that “it is the idea of having to stand in front of the class that creates anxiety” (Group A1, personal communication, April 13, 2018). Although, it is important to recognize that all students interviewed represent a certain population as they are all enrolled in the course English 5 at the same school, and that they have only known one another for less than a year.

Cutrone’s (2013) steps to increase willingness to communicate within a classroom all correlate with what was mentioned by the teachers during our interviews. For example, all teachers base their teaching on students’ interests and prior knowledge to reduce anxiety. This in turn correlates with what all students said, that when having prior knowledge you are more inclined to speak due to the decrease of factual errors. The students in group A2 provide an example of a successful communicative activity which was based on their interests.

We had debates where we got to pick a subject, and then we were put into groups, those who were for or against the subject. Then we got one week to prepare ourselves with facts and to write a speech. It was fun because we got to express our opinions, and we felt secure doing it since we had time to prepare and look up the facts on our computers. (Group A2, personal communication, April 13, 2018).

Moreover, the teachers use smaller groups to eliminate anxiety during communication, this is also acknowledged by the students who favor small groups during oral exercises. In addition, all teachers recognize the benefits of authentic material, and strives towards using it. Lastly, they state that variation in material and tasks becomes possible with the implementation of digital tools.

Possible Limitations due to the Implementation of Digital Tools

Despite the many benefits digital tools have on student performance, there are limitations to be aware of when implementing them in a classroom. During our interviews, all teachers agreed that the most common limitation in the digitalized classroom is the lack of insight in what the students are doing behind their computers. Moreover, the access to the Internet, various social media and online games can also become a distraction. In addition, the students

(29)

interviewed also recognized the risk of being distracted due to digital tools, it was stated that “some students do not use the tools in the right way, instead they play computer games and stuff” (Group A2, personal communication, April 13, 2018). Furthermore, Margaret raised a concern regarding superficial implementation of digital tools, stating that some teachers believe that simply using a computer automatically improves their teaching and makes the classroom digitalized. She continues by saying that:

It easily becomes very superficial, that you are looking for new tools without asking yourself why you are going to use it. It is easy to get stuck in the quest for the “perfect app” that will make all of your students understand your lessons, it is a tool that does not exist. (Margaret, personal communication, April 13, 2018)

Another possible limitation that Daniella mentioned is the lack of a critical approach towards the information found online. Furthermore, she states that it is vital to introduce source criticism to the students at an early stage in order for them not to buy into everything they read. Margaret agrees with the statements made by Daniella, but adds that the need for a better study technique becomes relevant due to the vast number of sources brought on by digitalization.

(30)

Conclusion

To this date, digital tools have become a key part of the Swedish educational system, and due to technological advancements there are no signs of a reduction in the demands for digital tools. By conducting this degree project, we have been given an invaluable insight of the importance of asking the didactic questions before implementing digital tools in order to avoid superficial implementation. Due to the five themes: the teachers’ implementation of digital tools, the schools’ requirements of digital implementation and in-service training, the perceived benefits of digital tools in connection to student performance, increasing willingness to communicate through the use of digital tools, and the possible limitations due to the implementation of digital tools, we were able to elicit reasons as to how and why teachers incorporate digital tools in an ESL classroom. Thus, answering our research question, how and why teachers incorporate digital tools in the second language classroom.

According to both researchers and practicing teachers the benefits in terms of enhancing student performance are considerable. These include individualization, the use of authentic and varied material, increased motivation and engagement, adapting the content to each student’s needs and level of proficiency, increased autonomous learning, and lastly, due to improved structure, such as e-platforms and visual aid, a decrease in speaking anxiety can be achieved. Apart from researchers and teachers, these benefits are also acknowledged by the students in our focus groups. Finally, the increase in student performance is attainable due to an implementation of a blended learning environment.

However, despite the obvious reasons for having a digitalized classroom environment, its success is highly dependent on sufficient in-service training. Although Skolverket introduced the mandatory in-service training Digilyftet, there is still an aspiration among the teachers interviewed for in-service training that provides concrete examples, workshops, and follow-ups in order to become more proficient and confident in the use of digital tools. The need for in-service training is also seen in the TPACK-model which defines teacher competence. The teachers interviewed are all confident in their pedagogical and content knowledge, and to some extent their technological knowledge. However, in the modern teaching environment, one has to be able to merge these three aspects in order to have a sufficient teacher competence. Consequently, in order for digital tools to reach its full potential one has to master the technological pedagogical and content knowledge, which according to our research and interviews is attained through satisfactory and extensive in-service training. Without an

(31)

understanding of the merged competences, there is a risk of superficial implementation of digital tools in the classroom, which can have negative effects on student performance.

As for the limitations of this degree project; time, number of participants, and variation in geographical locations have been present. Due to time- and length restrictions, it was difficult to include as many participants as we initially wanted. The lack of variation among the participants might have led to a one-dimensional interview outcome. Furthermore, the restrictions also affected the possibilities to visit schools outside of our own geographical location. Lastly, if these restrictions were to be removed, one could gain a more thorough insight into how the Swedish school system as a whole implements digital tools.

For future research, it would be interesting to conduct observations in the ESL classroom concerning the implementation of digital tools. This would remove nuances of the personal communication, and enable unbiased observations of the practical use of digital tools. It would also give greater insight in how the digital tools are actually being used. Consequently, by examining teachers’ and students’ perceptions, views, and experiences we are given an insight into the theoretical aspects of how digital tools are used in practice. As previously mentioned, by using observations for future research one could gain insight into how digital tools are used in practice in a digitalized environment. Furthermore, there is a limitation in terms of the number of participant in our interviews. Perhaps the inclusion of more participants would show a greater variety in the digitalization, which would allow for generalizations. These generalizations could have impact on the educational system and to the extent teachers receive in-service training.

(32)

References

Ananiadou, K. and M. Claro (2009), “21st century skills and competences for new

millennium learners in OECD countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. Retrieved 2018-04-21 from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154

Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning. The

Electronic Journal of e.Learning Volume 14 Issue 3, (p 220-229). Retrieved

2018-04-26 from: http://www.ejel.org/volume14/issue3/p223

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39. Retrieved 2018-04-24 from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200772429_The_'Digital_Natives'_Debate_ A_Critical_Review_of_the_Evidence.

Berardo, S. (2006). The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading. The Reading

Matrix. 6. Retrieved 2018-05-14 from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237413136_The_Use_of_Authentic_Materia ls_in_the_Teaching_of_Reading

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. (3. ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2011). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. (2., [rev.] uppl.) Malmö: Liber

Chotipaktanasook, N. (2014). Enhancing learners’ willingness to communicate in English with social media. Dhurakij Pundit University. Retrieved 2018-04-11 from: http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpurc/assets/uploads/public/jemq7fsotjk80s48ck.pdf

Cutrone, P. (2013). Assessing pragmatic competence in the Japanese EFL context: towards

the learning of listener responses [Electronic resource]. Cambridge Scholars

(33)

Diaz, P. (2014). Arbeta formativt med digitala verktyg. (1. uppl.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eidenert, A. & Folkebrant, L. (2010). Lärares syn på digitala media i undervisningen - En studie om lärares inställning och uppfattning om digitala media i grundskolan.

Uppsala Universitet. Retrieved 2018-05-03 from:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:392955/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Ilomäki, L., Kantosalo, A., & Lakkala, M. (2011). What is digital competence? In Linked

portal. Brussels: European Schoolnet. Retrieved 2018-04-11 from:

https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/files/48681684/Ilom_ki_etal_2011_What_is_digital_co mpetence.pdf

Johnson, A. (2016). Designing ‘authenticity’ in digital learning environments. The Journal of

Interactive Technology & Pedagogy (9). Retrieved 2018-05-14 from:

http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/811176/1/Designing%20authenticity.pdf

Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur. 

Lorenzo, G. & Dziuban, C. (2006). Ensuring the net generation is net savvy. EDUCAUSE

Learning Initiative (2). Retrieved 2018-04-28 from

https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2006/1/eli3006-pdf.pdf

Lynch, M. (2018). A vision for the future of virtual reality in education. Early Childhood &

K-12 EdTech. Retrieved 2018-04-23 from:

http://www.thetechedvocate.org/vision-future-virtual-reality-education/

MacIntyre, P., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R. & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The

(34)

https://skl.se/naringslivarbetedigitalisering/digitalisering/digitaldelaktighetoppenhet/di gitaldelaktighet.5557.html

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon Volume 9 No. 5. Retrieved 2018-04-08 from: https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Punie, Y., & Cabrera M. (2006). The future of ICT and learning in the knowledge society.

Report on a Joint DG JRC-DG EAC Workshop. Seville: European Commission Joint

Research Center. Retrieved 2018-04-10 from: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf

Smith Jaggars. S. (2013). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: community college student voices. CCRC Working Paper (58). Retrieved 2018-04-26 from http://anitacrawley.net/Resources/Reports/Online-Demand-Student-Voices.pdf

Sträng, M.H. (red.) (2005). Samspel för lärande: didaktiskt redskap för professionella lärare. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Strömberg, M. (2014). Digitala verktyg i undervisning – en kvalitativ studie om pedagogers erfarenheter och användning av digitala verktyg som pedagogiskt hjälpmedel. Umeå

Universitet. Retrieved 2018-05-04 from:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:793077/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L.K. (2014). Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26(1), 3-20. Retrieved 2018-05-29 from: https://www5.kau.se/sites/default/files/Dokument/subpage/2014/01/sundqvist_sylv_n_ 2014_language_related_computer_79189.pdf

Sverige. Skolverket. (2018). Läroplan – gymnasieskolan. Stockholm: Swedish National

Agency for Education (Skolverket). Retrieved 2018-05-07 from:

https://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.261821!/lgy11.pdf

Sverige. Skolverket. (2011). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket).

(35)

Retrieved 2018-04-20 from: http://www.skolverket.se/om- skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-

publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fsk olbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FBlob%2Fpdf2705.pdf%3Fk%3D2705

Sverige. Skolverket. (2016). Digitala verktyg olika bra på att visa vad eleverna förstår.

Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket). Retrieved

2018-04-20 from: https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/forskning/amnen-omraden/it-i- skolan/undervisning/digitala-verktyg-olika-bra-pa-att-visa-vad-eleverna-forstar-1.254214

Tallvid, M. (2015). 1:1 i klassrummet - analyser av en pedagogisk praktik i förändring. (Doctoral thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg). Retrieved 2018-04-25 from:

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/37829/1/gupea_2077_37829_1.pdf

Tallvid, M. (2016). Skolan i ett digitaliserat samhälle. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency

for Education (Skolverket). Retrieved 2018-05-09 from

https://larportalen.skolverket.se/LarportalenAPI/api-

v2/document/path/larportalen/material/inriktningar/0-digitalisering/Grundskola/201_Leda_och%20_lara_i_tekniktata_klassrum/del_01/Mat erial/Flik/Del_01_MomentA/Artiklar/D1_GRGY_01A_01_artikel.docx

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.

Visconti, A. (2015). Learning English by surfing: Swedish upper secondary school students’ views on how they learn English by surfing the Internet – a case study based on a questionnaire. Karlstads Universitet, 1-35. Retrieved 2018-04-23 from:

http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A828096&dswid=-543

Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig

(36)

Extended version of a presentation given to the Australian College of Educators National Conference, Melbourne. Retrieved 2018-04-26 from:

(37)

Appendix 1

Interview questions for teachers

Introduction:

How long have you been working as a teacher?

What years do you teach?

Which subjects do you teach?

Have you been part of the digitalization of your school?

The school:

How important has digitalization been at your school?

Are there any explicit requirements of you to digitalize your classroom?

Have you been offered any in-service training for digitalization?

The teacher:

How do you use digital tools in your classroom?

- Do you see any benefits in using them? - Do you see any negatives in using them?

In what types of activities do you use digital tools?

- Do you build on students’ previous knowledge and interests?

Does the use of digital tools enable more varied tasks and the use of authentic materials? (News articles, video clips, podcasts etc.)

(38)

Appendix 2

Interview question for students Swedish translation in parenthesis

Which digital tools are being used during English?

(Vilka digitala verktyg använder ni under engelsklektionerna?)

What makes digital tools for English good/bad?

(Vad gör digitala verktyg bra eller dåliga?)

Has digital tools helped you develop your English language? - Speaking, Reading, Writing and Listening

(Har digitala verktyg hjälpt er utveckla er engelska? - Tala, skriva, läsa och lyssna.)

Has digital tools affected the classroom situation? (More students are speaking, it is easier to follow instructions etc.)

Har digitala verktyg påverkat er klassrumsmiljö? (Fler vågar prata på engelska, det är enklare att följa instruktioner osv.)

When do you feel most comfortable to speak? (Pairs, groups, in front of the class) - Is there anxiety connected to speaking in the classroom?

- If so, how can this be avoided?

(När är du som mest bekväm att prata engelska i klassrummet? (I par, grupper, framför klassen)

- Är det ångestladdat att prata i klassrummet? (Svara på frågor, föra diskussioner och inför klassen)

- Om svaret är ja, hur kan detta undvikas?

(39)

Is it easier to answer the teacher’s questions if you use the textbook or have watched a YouTube clip or read an article online?

(Är det enklare att svara på lärarens frågor om ni använder en lärobok, tittar på ett YouTube klipp eller läser en artikel online?)

Is it easier to speak when you are familiar with the subject at hand? (Gamers → Gaming, Athletes → Sports)

(Är det enklare att prata när du har förkunskaper om ämnet ni pratar om? (Datorspel, Sport, Mode, Fritidsintresse)