Education and society
Degree project with Specialisation in English
Teachers’ beliefs and implementation of
CALL
15 Credits, First cycle
Lärares erfarenheter och implementering
av digitala verktyg
Daniel Stolt
Elin Vibe
Degree (Grundlärarexamen F-6, 240p) Examiner: Damon Tutunjian Date for the Opposition Seminar (17 March 2020) Supervisor: Shaun Nolan
Preface
In this Degree Project, we have each contributed equally to the working process. We divided the responsibilities for the theoretical background up somewhat but have both thoroughly read through each other’s sections. The survey was created together and the interviews were recorded and transcribed together. All the data was analysed and presented in full
cooperation.
Hereby, we have each contributed an equal amount to this paper.
Abstract
The National Curriculum in Sweden states that students should be given the opportunity to develop understanding of digital tools. However, based on previous international research on the subject, teachers rarely find that they have enough digital competence and knowledge of the tools to implement them properly in their teaching practises. This study aims at
discovering what active teachers’ experiences are with Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and how well they implement it in Sweden. This paper provides an
overview of the previous research done on teachers’ beliefs and their tendencies to implement CALL. Directly accessed primary data was collected through a survey and semi-structured interviews with five teachers in years K-6. Analysis of this data showed that teachers do implement CALL on a regular basis, however, some of them find it difficult to utilize fully. It was also found that the age of the teachers might play a part in how well they understand the CALL software. Furthermore, after analysing the policy documents from Skolverket, it was found that teachers in general feel they lack the necessary digital competence to teach digital competence to their students. The main conclusions of this study are thus that (i) teachers implement CALL on a regular basis, (ii) teachers feel that they lack basic digital knowledge and thus struggle in using the digital tools efficiently in their teaching practises, something that should be included in the teacher training programs, (iii), that the age of the teachers seem to play a part in how well the they implement CALL in their teaching practises, and (iiii), that whilst teachers find CALL useful and convenient, it can never replace the role of a teacher.
Keywords: CALL, CALL barriers, Computer Assisted Language Learning, ESL, K-6, Policy documents, SLA, Teachers’ beliefs.
Table of content
1. Introduction………..…………...………4
2. Aim and research question……….………...…….6
3. Background………...………...…...7
3.1 Computer Assisted Language Learning………….………....………...……...7
3.1.1 CALL as a tool and CALL as a tutor………...….8
3.2 English language pedagogy and computers……….……....9
3.2.1 Second language acquisition……….……..12
3.3 Previous research on teacher beliefs……….…….12
3.4 Background on Skolverket regarding CALL……….………....15
4.Methodology……….…...17 4.1 Participants………...………..……17 4.2 Materials……….18 4.2.1 Survey………..18 4.2.2 Semi-structured interviews………..18 4.3 Procedure………...……….20
4.3.1 Procedure for the survey………....…..20
4.3.2 Procedure for the interviews………...……….20
4.4 Data analysis………...20
4.5 Ethical considerations……….21
5. Results and discussion……..………....………....………..22
5.1 Teachers beliefs of the use of CALL for teaching English and how their age may affect their CALL implementations………...22
6. Conclusion………...………....………....30
6.1 Limitations of the study………..31
6.2 Further research………..32
7. References………...………...……….33
Introduction
The main focus of this study is to understand how and why teachers use digital tools in their teaching of English as a second language. In Swedish schools, the usage of digital tools has exploded over the past 15 years (Skolverket 2020), which has made it easier for young students to access these tools both at home and at school. According to Kim (2002), teachers are relatively unfamiliar with computer assisted language learning (hereafter CALL) and how to use it in order to best benefit the students and may, due to this, completely refrain from implementing CALL in the first place. However, if used correctly the digital tools can scaffold and help the students to reach the learning goals by themselves.
According to the Swedish national Agency of Education, students should be able to use digital tools to make sure that they develop an understanding of how digitalisation affects the individual as well as our society (Skolverket, 2011/2019). Furthermore, students are supposed to develop their ability to use digital tools. This includes developing a critical and responsible approach to digital tools as well as being able to see new possibilities, whilst still
understanding the risks which occur when using digital tools. Students should also be given the opportunity to develop their ability to value information. Finally, it is stated that the school should provide the students an opportunity to develop their digital competence and an approach which may encourage entrepreneurship (Skolverket, 2011/2019).
As numerous researchers have demonstrated, digital tools can make the overall learning experience more efficient for several students in a shorter period of time, something that would not be possible to achieve with only teacher-led lessons (Langari, Gorizi & Rezaie, 2017; Park & Son, 2009; Rakes & Casey, 2002).And according to Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002), teachers seem positive towards the implementation of CALL in their classrooms, however, due to some difficulties with understanding the software, they
sometimes refrain from using it in their lessons. This is supported by Hedayati, Reynolds and Bown (2018) who claim that teachers are in need of support, for example from teacher training programs, in order to gain the knowledge of how to best utilize CALL efficiently with their students. They also imply that the knowledge that teachers have, especially
younger teachers, regarding the use of CALL more often than not comes from personal experience.
As can be seen above, one might argue that there are some uncertainties between the steering documents and previous researchers on the subject area. The steering documents heavily suggest that students must be given the opportunity to develop their skills in using digital tools as it will increase. And as Park and Son (2009), Baskaran and Sharfeeq (2015) and Hlas, Conroy and Hildebrandt (2017) all state, teachers have a positive attitude towards the implementation of CALL but lack proper training in the usage of it in the English teaching.
In this degree project, a methodological triangulation approach was implemented during the data collection period. This triangulation is based on quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data. This was done to improve the validity of this study by combining three different data collection methods.
Aim and Research question
In the current study, our goal is to determine teacher's attitudes towards implementing CALL in their teaching practises in reality; how they perceive their usage of CALL in their
classrooms through self-reporting (through quantitative and qualitative survey questions, in-depth interviews), as well as trying to discover if there is a connection between the age of the teachers and their tendencies to implement CALL in their teaching practises. Our specific research question is as follows:
1. What beliefs about the use of computer assisted language learning for teaching
English do teachers express and is there any correlation between the age of the teacher and their implementation of computer assisted language learning?
3. Background
In this section, we survey research on teachers' beliefs and practises regarding computer assisted language learning and how it may affect their teaching practises. Firstly, we define CALL and what practises might take place within it. Secondly, we review research on teachers’ beliefs and how it affects their teaching with CALL. Lastly, we review Skolverket policy with regard to digital competencies with a focus on CALL.
3.1 Computer Assisted Language Learning
According to Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), CALL is an acronym for ‘computer assisted language learning’. This refers to the area of applied linguistics and is concerned with the use of computers for teaching and learning a second language. Another definition by Levy (1997) states that CALL is “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (Levy 1997, 1). CALL emerged as a tool in the early 1960’s, during which time it was mostly used in colleges and universities where it was used to develop programs on larger computers. Levy (1997) claims that with industrialization in the 1990’s, one could find a computer in most homes, which had the developers hard at work utilizing its many possibilities. The early stages of CALL, known as traditional CALL by Hubbard and Bradin-Siskin (2004), focused almost solely on grammar teaching and other practises associated with programmed instruction. CALL has since then evolved along with the advances made in technology and is now a tool often used in classrooms as well.
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) pose the question; “If CALL is used for teaching primarily the same knowledge and skills that teachers teach in the classroom, what is special about
CALL?” (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008. p. 6). The authors continue on to discuss the answer and argue that CALL is special due to the many supplementary functions it can provide for the English language teachers. Generally speaking however, two activities within CALL are further described: CALL as a tutor and CALL as a tool for learning, which we will return to in section 3.1.1 CALL as a tool and CALL as a tutor in this paper. Is it also stated by
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) that a crucial difference between implementing CALL as a supplement to traditional teaching methods is the ability to individualize interactive
instruction, which, according to the authors, would not be possible using traditional teaching methods exclusively. An example of this given by the authors is when a child is using a computer or tablet to practise reading or writing, they are likely to encounter an unfamiliar word in the text. A learner may then click on the unfamiliar word in the text in order to summon an online dictionary so that they can find the definition of the word they did not recognize. The learner can thus consult the dictionary whilst doing the activity and they can look up the word an unlimited amount of times. Furthermore, the students do not have to wait in line to use a dictionary, but can all use it at the same time, and the lesson is not held up causing the teacher to feel anxiety about having to move on.
3.1.1 CALL as a tool and CALL as a tutor
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) argue for two types of CALL: CALL as a tutor and CALL as a tool. The first type “presents information, guides the learner, provides practise, and assesses learning, which in CALL terminology includes interactive activities such as drills, tutorials and tests” (Chapelle and Jamieson, 2008, 6). The second type refers to incorporating technology programs as tools, such as online dictionaries in order to enhance language learning. These two types of CALL are also mentioned by Hubbard and Siskin (2004), who argue that CALL in the tutor role, similar to Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), controls the learning process and even sometimes temporarily substitutes for the human teacher. In the second type, CALL as a tool, it is argued that CALL does not evaluate, rather it enhances the learning activities by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of these activities. Hubbard and Siskin (2004) continue to argue that these learning activities may involve both the learner and the teacher, whereas in the tutor role, the computer can, to some degree, replace the teacher. It is stated that flashcards, and grammar drill programs are examples of tutor-based CALL, while word processors, web browsers and emails are all examples of CALL as a tool. Furthermore, it is argued that CALL as a tutor is applied less often by teachers. Hubbard and Siskin (2004) mention some myths that might bear a connection to this.
The first myth regards ‘tutorial CALL’ as not being communicative. It is in fact often denounced for its failure to provide real communication. As a counter to this, Hubbard and Siskin (2004) argue that while computers alone fail to offer the quality of communication
which can be provided by human interaction, tutorial programs and activities can easily be applicable for a communicative learning approach. Furthermore they claim that any software that can be used by students on their own has the potential to be used in communicative ways when pairing students up to work with the software together. For example, the teacher might create a task for students and divide them into groups. The group now needs to work with the task communicatively. For example, one student might look up information online, whilst another provides useful information of a handout. Another student notes the information using another computer.
Another myth that is mentioned by Hubbard and Siskin (2004) is that in tutorial CALL, the teacher is absent or has no significant role. Levy (1995) does argue that in tutorial CALL, the role of the teacher might be greatly reduced or even discarded, which is supported by
Hubbard and Siskin (2004), stating that many tutorial CALL practises take place without a teacher present. This is followed by a statement where they argue for the contrary, that
teachers may very well be included in the learning process to a very high degree, despite their absence at that moment. For example, teachers may have been involved in evaluating and selecting the software which is used, or designed the exercises that the students should work with while monitoring the process. They should also be present in the class in case there is a need to clarify certain things for the learners that they encounter whilst using tutorial CALL software.
3.2 English language pedagogy and computers
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) mention that there are three components in English language pedagogy; the teacher, the learner and the English language itself. Language pedagogy is about how the teacher can aid the learner in acquiring a new language. This includes the teaching strategies, the activities that take place and the materials which are provided in the classroom. In order to connect these three components to the computer and the technology, we need to remember that many teachers are of the opinion that the technology offers them the option to expand their views of how students are learning a new language. One of the myths mentioned by Hubbard and Siskin (2004) regarding CALL as a tutor was that the computer will supposedly “take over” the teaching and thus replace the teacher. However,
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), like Hubbard and Siskin (2004) argue that the computers should only be used as a part of the teachers’ pedagogy, without letting it take over their lesson plans completely. Chapelle and Jamieson’s (2008) three parts of English in which the computer is used as a tool which could be described as a CALL triangle, visualized by the authors in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Three parts in English language pedagogy and the computer as a tool. Chapelle and
Jamieson (2008).
As stated by Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), those who have knowledge about the English language pedagogy are the professionals developing the CALL materials and practises, not the computer itself. This is something that the teachers can use in their teaching as they can then decide how they want to implement the software into their lesson plans. Learning a new language is challenging, and students often depend on the teachers when it comes to dividing up the work of learning a new language. When looking at the language as a whole, students often get overwhelmed, unaware of where to start, thus in need of the guidance of a teacher.
Figure 2. Divisions of language learning from the teacher’s perspective. Chapelle and
Jamieson (2008).
Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) present a model of divisions of language learning from the teacher’s perspective (Figure 2). In their model, the innermost circle represents the grammar and vocabulary which can be seen as the building blocks for teaching English as a foreign, or second language. Teachers can use CALL to teach these contents of the circle figure by, for example, starting off by using a website to determine the skill level of the students’
vocabulary. Another example of how to teach grammar and vocabulary using CALL could be by doing online crossword or using a text-to-speech software. Continuing outwards, the middle circle represents the four core learning abilities; reading, writing, listening and speaking. In order to acquire knowledge of these skills and how to use them, one must first have knowledge about vocabulary and grammar, however, it is claimed by Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) that the learners never finish learning about grammar and vocabulary, meaning that they are constantly evolving these language skills. Once again, CALL activities are used in order to help the students develop these skills. However, grammar and vocabulary are strengthened by the new knowledge of the four core skills and can aid the learners in receiving a broader knowledge horizon of the English language. In the outermost circles are the larger areas consisting of communication skills and content based language. Both of these
areas draw upon the previously gained knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, in combination with the four core English language skills. CALL activities that focus on content-based language and communication, such as emails or bulletin boards are used in order to develop the learners’ further knowledge about these language skills. It is believed by Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) that by connecting these stages of the circle figure which is presented, learners will gain the ability to build on previous knowledge and thus constantly evolve and develop their English language skills.
3.2.1 Second Language Acquisition
CALL is often connected to a second language instruction. In Sweden, for example use their digital tools in school based on systems with English origins and there are several English programs used in teaching. Connecting it to second language acquisition (SLA) was therefore found relevant to this study. Stephen Krashen’s (1982) theory
of SLA is a connectionbetween the first language and the second language acquisition. The second language
learning (SLL) is based on the first language principles and the teachers use the first language to improve their input to help the students in the SLL classroom.
3.3 Previous research on teacher beliefs
Redmond, Albion and Maroulis (2005) created a study with the purpose of discovering pre-service teachers’ use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) during professional experience. This was done by collecting data regarding the teachers’ intentions for ICT use prior to an experience where ICT could be implemented, and comparing it to the use of ICT which was reported after the placement. The data for the study was collected through surveys as well as semi-structured interviews during a time period of five weeks. A total of 140 students were offered to participate, however, only 39 and 47 responded to the first and second questionnaires, respectively. Through this data, it was found that while teacher education programs may include the necessary preparations for teacher students to include ICT in their teaching practises, if they do not observe it being used, they are likely to refrain from it as well. It was also found that very few teacher students were encouraged to implement some form of ICTs in their teaching practises.
Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002) performed a study with the goal of investigating how language teachers apply practical experiences from computer assisted language learning (CALL) coursework to their actual teaching practises. The study was conducted using a total of 20 ESL and EFL teachers who have, within the last four years completed the same teacher training program, and who are all currently teaching. The data was collected through surveys and follow-up interviews. The findings of this study argue that teachers who are familiar with CALL prior to completing the teacher training program, are those who are most likely to implement CALL software later in their working life. It was also found that several barriers, such as lack of time, support and resources may also keep teachers from using CALL in their lessons.
Hlas, Conroy and Hildebrandt (2017) conducted a study to investigate 21st-century foreign language (FL) student teachers’ technology use and their beliefs concerning technology. One method for data collection was surveys. The survey was active for a timespan of two years, in order to achieve a sufficient amount of respondents to the survey. 71 surveys were completed. Most of the respondents to the survey were female (85%). Six student teachers partook in online Skype- or phone follow-up interviews. All of them were female. It was found that CALL technologies do not seem to be present in all FL teaching trainer programs. Another finding from the study was that the FL teacher students described themselves as beginner CALL technology users, however, nearly all (96%) reported that they recognise the benefits of learning about CALL for teaching.
Park and Son (2009) reported on a study aiming to investigate factors affecting EFL teachers’ use of computers in their classroom and to find out EFL teachers’ perceptions of CALL, as well as how to improve CALL practises in a school setting. The participants in the study consisted of twelve Korean EFL teachers, two male and ten female in the age group of 31-57. Methods for data collection were a questionnaire as well as in-depth interviews. The findings show that teachers generally have a positive attitude towards CALL and consider it useful for their teaching practises. However, barriers such as lack of time, teachers’ limited computer skills and insufficient computer facilities may affect how well teachers implement CALL.
A study was conducted by Hedayati, Reynolds and Bown (2018) regarding the impact of CALL in teachers practices. The study was made with 86 Iranian EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers. To begin with, eight teachers were interviewed and all of the teachers interviewed was between 18-40 years of age, which then continued with 78 survey questions. The interview question were all regarding CALL or digital tools in some way, while the survey included questions of their CALL competence and the CALL training they have received. In the results of the interviews it is stated that 6 out of 8 participants reported that they had not received any CALL training at their workplace nor at the university. The results from the survey however, proved that a majority of the teachers learn CALL on their own and that most of the teachers preferences way of learning CALL would be through a workshop. The conclusion were drawn to that the schools should provide CALL training to promote the teachers use of technology.
Another study, this time conducted by Baskaran and Sharfeeq (2015) was made on how CALL integrated with ELT (English language teaching) according to ESL (English as a second language) teachers. A total of 105 teachers were questioned with a survey made by the researchers and in addition to that, 15 teachers were interviewed. The survey both included a background information section, and a section with the teachers perceptions of CALL integration, whereas the interview questions were regarding benefits of CALL in the English teaching and what kind of technologies the teachers were currently using. The results showed that the teachers had a positive attitude when implementing CALL in the ELT,
however, most of the teachers were not regular users of digital tools in the classroom teaching and according to the survey, the majority had not received any training in using CALL even though they had access to digital tools.
Kim (2002) conducted a case study in order to investigate barriers to network technology integrated instruction in ESL classes. In the study, three teachers were observed and interviewed. One female and two males. They all were to attempt to implement network technology in their teaching for one semester. Several barriers towards the use of network technology integrated instruction were found. The first barrier refers to the lack of knowledge among the teachers. The teachers asked themselves: “what shall I do?” (Kim, 2002. p 47). The second barrier that teachers encountered was the lack of experience when it came to
leading their web based classes. Furthermore, the teachers experienced that implementing the technology was time consuming, they struggled with the technical aspects of implementing computers and they also reported that their students seemed reluctant towards the web based classes. The last finding of the study reports that teachers find it difficult to access computers at all times.
3.4 Background on Skolverket Regarding CALL
The introduction of calculators in Swedish classrooms in the 1970s caused lively discussions about whether or not they would enhance learning or even work as an obstacle to this.
Despite this, digitalization continued on with personal computers in the 1980s which resulted in several training sessions for the teachers to develop their own digital competence. But the big breakthrough happened in the years 2007-2008 when each student got their own digital device. This was mostly possible because of easier access to the internet which was more stable than before. The debate is still going on to this day whether or not digital tools should be encouraged or limited. In our modern schools they usually have access to some sort of digital tool, it could be a projector or interactive whiteboards, even Ipads or Chromebooks are frequently used in the classrooms (Skolverket 2018).
Skolverket (2018) presents an initiative on digitalization for schools in which it is stated that students should develop their digital competence by getting:
- an understanding about how the digitalization affects the individual and the society - an enhanced ability to use and understand digital tools and digital services
- an enhanced ability to relate to media and information in a critically and responsible way
- an enhanced ability to solve problems and to use ideas in action in a creative way with the help of digital tools.
At the time of writing, Skolverket is in the process of digitizing the national test in Sweden. This further reinforces the need for a high level of digital competence among teachers. Even though it is stated on Skolverkets (2020) website how the curriculum has been revised and now contains learning goals concerning digital tools for the students’, the curriculum does not
mention anything about what the teachers prior knowledge must be, or what sort of digital competence they should be able to teach their students.
The Swedish curriculum has implemented digital tools requirements in the English courses and only one learning goal was found connected to CALL, which was that different ways to search and choose texts and spoken language in English from the internet and other media should be used from the central content in the English course, grades 4 to 6. Lgr 11” (Skolverket, 2011/2020).
According to a report from Skolverket (2019), approximately half of the teachers asked in their survey found that they were in need of more digital competence in order to further aid their students in their learning. Skolverket has designed a digitalisation strategy, which refers to how every student and every child should get the digital competence they need as citizens of society and in their future working life, to further increase both the teachers, students but also the headmasters’ competence in the usage of digital tools. Without this competence, the results might be an inaccurate use of digital tools or the creation of distractions inside the classroom which will intervene with a calm study environment. It is also of major importance that the teachers know about copyright when using the web, to make sure that the students are responsible web users as well using it in a socially responsible manner. The teachers also report that they are in need of further training in how to use digital tools when working with sound, movies or pictures, as well as how to make sure that the students are using the internet in a safe way. It is stated, however, that despite the fact that teachers are in need of more knowledge of the digital tools, the competence within the source-critical thinking, the use of presentations or use of administrative work with digital tools has been improved with the teachers in recent years.
4. Methodology
To answer the above stated research question (cf. section 2), a study using quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, as well as policy documents from Skolverket was
conducted. A tool for data collection were interviews and a survey, as Alvehus (2013) argues that interviews is one of the best ways to get information about a target’s experiences,
opinions and attitudes towards a topic. The use of a survey facilitates generalization so that the found data can be applicable to a larger group (Fekjær, p.14).
4.1 Participants
In order to find participants for the study, 20 schools in the city of Helsingborg (in the south of Sweden) were contacted through an email. The email was sent to the school
administrators, and thus not directly to the teachers as their emails were not attainable. Helsingborg is the seventh largest city in Sweden and has come a long way in digitising the schools, therefore a survey about CALL would be relevant in such a city. Private schools, including the international schools, were excluded in order to be able to draw coherent conclusions. It was decided to make these exclusions since private schools might have different school budgets and thus the use of digital tools may differ from public schools. The email sent out can be found in the appendix A of this degree project. The email informed the potential participants of the purpose of the study, the rights of the participants and how all the information gathered would be used. Furthermore, a link to the survey was also included.
Out of all the participants of the emails, 22 answers were registered in the survey once it was closed 14 days later. The classes in which the teachers taught were between the complete range of nursery class up to the 6th grade and the age group of the participants were between 22-55.
Out of the original respondents to the email, five agreed to an interview regarding their personal experience using CALL in their English learning classrooms.The participants were 4 women and 1 man and they were between 30 and 50 years of age. We gave the participants
in the interviews the pseudonyms of Clara, Anna, Sara, Peter and Ida. The interviews were conducted with teachers in the years K-6 in their own classroom.
4.2 Materials
4.2.1 Survey
It was decided to use a survey as a part of the study as it allows the researchers to reach a larger number of possible respondents and thus it may offer a possibility to draw conclusions from the result of the study which can apply to teachers in general. It is mentioned by
Christoffersen and Johannessen (2012) that surveys need to be pre-coded and calculated ahead of time, stating that, in contrast to observations or interviews, the researchers need to have a clear image of what exactly they are going to ask for in the survey. It is therefore crucial for the validity of the study that the researchers have thoroughly thought through which questions to ask. With this information in mind, the questions asked in the survey were the following:
- Your age?
- In what class do you teach?
- If you use some sort of digital tool or digital aid in your English teaching?
- How easy or difficult do you find it to get access to digital tools or digital aids in your school?
- Do the digital tools favour your English teaching?
The goal of the survey was to identify if teachers use CALL in Swedish schools, as well as how easy they thought it was to get access to digital tools when teaching. The authors would then be able to investigate if there is a connection between the age of the teachers and well they implement CALL.
4.2.2 Semi-structured interviews
Semi structured interviews (SSI) are done with one respondent at the time, it blends open- and closed-ended questions and there are usually some questions asked as a follow-up. The questions can be developed by delving into repondant answers in more detail and further investigated as opposed to a questionnaire survey. And the interview can unveil some issues
or points of interest not known beforehand (Adams, 2015). There are some disadvantages as it is time consuming, not only because of the interviews themselves but also the analysis. The interviewers also need to have valid questions as well as to know what could be a sensitive point and how to avoid that.
The questions asked in the interview were the following: 1. Age
2. What does it mean for your teaching to integrate digital tools? 3. Why do you use digital tools - why not?
4. Which digital tools do you use in your teaching? - Does every student have their own digital tool? 5. How do you think using digital tools in teaching works?
- Do you think digital tools make teaching more effective? 6. Do you find it difficult to use digital tools?
- Which?
7. Have you noticed any differences in the students’ results in teaching after using digital tools?
8. Do you have a lesson plan that extends over a longer period of time that we may see?
The aim of the interviews is to discover teachers’ perceptions about CALL and how well they implement it on a regular basis in their teaching practises, as well as if there is a connection between the age of the teacher and their usage of CALL. Thus, the first question is relevant for the study. The researchers also wanted to investigate how the teachers defined CALL and what it meant in their teaching to implement it, as well as what tools they used. This was then followed by another question regarding if students had any sort of digital tools that were theirs, which was used for learning purposes. Following along these lines, the researchers wanted to discuss how well CALL works and how easy the teachers find it to use, which was then followed by a question regarding if they believe that CALL makes their teaching more effective. Another interesting point was to investigate if there was any real difference in the results of the students after the implementation of CALL. Finally, to confirm the answers that the interviewees gave, they were asked for a lesson plan which included CALL. The
questions asked would then be compared with the confirmed studies and previous findings which can be found in 3.3 Previous research on teacher beliefs.
4.3 Procedure
4.3.1 Procedure for the survey
In the study, a survey was conducted. It was created using a tool from Google Forms which allows the researchers to conduct high-quality, anonymous surveys in correspondence with the ethical requirements from the previously mentioned Vetenskapsrådet (2019). The survey was introduced by a brief introduction to the purpose and aim of the study as well as a
reminder that all answers would be completely anonymous. The survey consisted of a total of five questions which can be found in Appendix B of this degree project. It was made certain that all five questions were quick and easy to answer to ensure that the respondents felt they had the time to participate in the survey. It was also made certain that the researchers would be able to see the individual answers from the respondents in order to be able to draw the necessary conclusions in order to answer the research question.
4.3.2 Procedure for the interviews
Appointments were made with the teachers willing to participate in the interviews which later occurred in the teachers’ own classrooms. This was due to it being a familiar surrounding for the teachers. The teachers were then asked seven questions regarding digital tools in their classroom and how they believed that the digital tools affected the learning outcomes. A total of five teachers were interviewed and their answers analysed to get the required data. Each interview was recorded, in order to be able to transcribe it, which was done the same day in order to keep the information and the expressions from the interviewees fresh in mind. The interviews were also done in Swedish as it is the first language of the teachers and therefore may prompt a more comfortable and more forthcoming response from the interviewees.
4.4 Data analysis
A Google Spreadsheet was used to enter the data which was received by the survey answers. This made it possible to visualize the individual answers and connect respondent age groups to how well the respondents implement CALL in their teaching practises.
4.5 Ethical considerations
Vetenskapsrådet’s (2019) ethical requirements for research have been taken into consideration in this Degree Project. In accordance with Vetenskapsrådet (2019),
Christoffersen and Johannessen (2015) list four main requirements to conclude the ethical principles with the overall goal of protecting the individual:
1. The information-requirement, which states that the researcher must inform all participants what it means to participate in the study as well as what will be expected of them. The researcher must also inform the participants of the purpose of the study.
2. The consent-requirement, which states that any participant may withdraw their
participation at any given time. It also states that participants who do this do not have to give any explanation to their withdrawal from the study.
3. The confidentiality-requirement, which states that any data collected during the study about individual people must be kept in such a way that no third party may receive any knowledge of such information.
4. The requirement of usage, which states that any and all data collected for the study may only be used for said study.
5. Results and Discussion
In this section, the researchers will present and discuss the findings from the survey as well as the interviews with the teachers. The findings will then be compared with previous research on teachers’ beliefs as well as the policy documents from the National Agency of Education in Sweden.
5.1 Teachers beliefs of the use of CALL for teaching English
and how their age may affect their CALL implementations
Through the survey, it was made apparent that teachers seem to implement some sort of CALL in their teaching practises, as 100 % of the survey participants reported using CALL in their lessons. This can be seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Do they use some form of digital tools or digital aid in their English teaching?
Through the interviews, however, the researchers could investigate further regarding the teachers use of CALL in their classroom activities. Teachers report that each student in each class had access to a personal Chromebook which is being used both in school and at home for student work. When asked about their use of CALL software in the classrooms, Clara, who is around 30 years old, reports a massive use of CALL programs in her teaching and
claim that this benefits both her teaching practises, the learners and the learners’ parents. Clara state that:
“[...] I use for example InfoMentor a lot, where I post things like PowerPoints, picture aids, checklists, everything they do here in school, they can now do at home. This is something that parents find useful, for they can follow along with what happens in their child’s learning progression at all times.” (The researchers translation of the transcribed materials)
Another teacher, Sara, describes a software that works with the textbook and workbook that is used in her English classes, called MAGIC. She explains that there is a digital program where the students can get the text read aloud for them and practise glossary that is relevant for the chapters in the books. She report a frequent use of this software during English classes.
Regarding the teachers implementation of CALL, the participants are relatively united. The majority of them state that they implement CALL as a tool to be used by the teacher, the learners and even the parents of the students. Clara, argued that:
“It is that they have it as a teaching aid, as a tool in their tasks” (authors’ translation)
All of the participants in the survey report that they believe that CALL is useful and beneficial for their English teaching practises. This can be seen in Figure 4:
When asked what it means to implement CALL in their teaching practises and how it benefits their teaching, Clara stated that they have had extremely positive reactions from the parents regarding their use of digital tools as it offers the possibility for the parents to get involved with their children’s learning. All the teachers (100%), reported that they find that CALL is extremely beneficial for students who may be struggling with learning through traditional teacher-based activities. With the aid of digital tools, they find that the learning outcomes of the students increase significantly. Ida reported that:
“[...] especially for the students who are, who think that the English language is strugglesome and difficult, simply, due to the fact that they are the ones who require direct feedback. So I think that there are several more who are positive towards English, eh, where they might have previously thought that it was difficult to repeat glossaries and sit and write, where you now through the Chromebook and find it less complicated to write on the keyboard if you have dyslexia [...]” (authors’ translation of transcribed materials).
Similar to this, Ida explains that she sees several pros with implementing CALL in her teaching practises. She argues that the students often have access to direct feedback on their tasks, instead of her having to correct the students’ work, needing several days to complete the assessment. She also explains that a benefit of using CALL for her, is that students can have access to their school work at home, during evenings, weekends or vacations, as it is all stored digitally. This is described as a big advantage especially for students who have missed days of school due to sickness. Ida also reports using the software for the MAGIC textbooks.
Peter reports that he benefits from the students writing digitally as some of them have a bad handwriting, which means that he spends a lot of time trying to decode the students’ texts. Using digital tools, he saves time as all texts are written in the same font.
All of the interviewees were also asked whether or not they found that implementing CALL had any effect on the students’ end-of-term results. Regarding this question, the respondents were unanimous, stating that all of them have experienced a significant gain in students’
results after applying CALL. The teachers report that the learners and their parents have both become more involved with the learning process and the students take a higher responsibility for their learning. They also state that the students who find English as a school subject a struggle through traditional teacher-centered methods are usually those who are in greatest need of direct feedback, something that CALL can offer them. When asked if CALL has affected their students’ grades, Peter states:
“Yes, I have noticed it. It is… it has gotten better. The results have improved. Especially for those who experience difficulties when writing.” (authors’ translation of transcribed materials)
The final question of the survey asks the respondents how easy or difficult they believe it is to attain the tools needed to implement CALL for their classes. Which is presented in a bar chart (figure 5). The survey offered the respondents to mark their answer on a scale of 1-5 where 1 means “very difficult” and 5 means “very easy”. Out of the 22, 2 respondents (9,1%) believed it to be neither difficult nor easy to attain the tools they needed in order to
implement CALL (a 3 on the scale). 8 respondents (36,4%) of the 22 respondents stated that they believe it to be relatively easy (a 4 on the scale) to get access to the digital tools they needed to incorporate CALL in their English teaching practises. 12 respondents (54,5%) of the 22 respondents stated that it was very easy (a 5 on the scale) for them to attain the tools needed for their CALL implementations.
Figure 5. Did they find it easy or difficult to get access to digital tools in their school?
The teachers were asked how smoothly it works for their classes to implement CALL, and what struggles they encounter with CALL. On this question, the teachers had differing
opinions. Anna mentioned that they struggle with organizing lessons where CALL is implemented, since they have no way of controlling what the learners do on the screens in front of them. Therefore the learners may be spending the lesson time on irrelevant activities, such as web-browsing or playing non-student-based games. Both Sara and Peter stated that they find the technical bit surrounding CALL to be a struggle for them as they do not possess enough knowledge of the CALL softwares. In other words, a majority of the lesson time may be spent simply trying to figure out how to use the CALL software appropriately. Sara states that:
“ [...] the program itself is fine, but when it does not work. For example, we had major issues with launching the digital tools, because it did not work on our Chromebooks. We had to reset the accounts and create new ones. But once it works, it is good.” (authors’ translation of transcribed materials).
Peter who is around 49 years old, claims the opposite of most of the other teachers; that CALL does not necessarily benefit the English teaching practises. He claims that CALL is an opportunity to aid some students, who might struggle with teacher-based lessons, but that it all depends on how you implement the CALL software. Peter continues to state that he does not have enough knowledge of CALL and how to use it in the most beneficial way.
In the semi-structured interviews, the teachers were of the following ages; 30, 36, 36, 49 and 54. An interesting connection regarding the ages of the teachers and their experiences of CALL is that the age seems to play a part in how well the teachers implement CALL in their teaching practises. For example, we see a clear connection between Clara and her level of CALL implementation. She uses CALL in various forms and ways and do not experience any difficulties with the software. Anna and Ida, who are slightly older, 36 years of age, express that they implement a decent amount of CALL software and do not find it very difficult to implement efficiently. However, when looking at Peter and Sara, who are 49 and 54
respectively, both express that they do implement CALL in some forms, but find it difficult when the technology “does not work”. This causes them to, in some cases, refrain from using CALL as it is too time-consuming for them. As shown in the theory section above,
the CALL software, possibly due to the fact that they grew up with the interest of
digitalization and the software that it involves. This theory is confirmed by the data collected through the interviews, however, when looking at the survey, this theory could not be
confirmed. This was due to the the fact that despite the age span of the participants (22-55), all of them reported that they use CALL and believe it to be beneficial for their teaching. The difference between the survey results and interviews result could depend on the fact that the interviews allowed the participants to answer more deeply and provide the researchers with more information on each question.
Ida and Clara states that their implementation of CALL has actually won them time in the end as they do not have to be present at all times and provide constant instruction and feedback as this can now be obtained through the technology. Furthermore, the computer can aid in assessing glossary work and receive immediate feedback. They also argue that you do not have to post the instructions to a task more than once, thus leaving more time for the task at hand during a lesson. The students can simply go online to their teaching platform to discover the instructions for the task.
Despite the fact that teachers seem positive towards the implementation of CALL most of them experience some difficulties regarding it. When asked in interviews, some teachers argue that they do not have enough knowledge overall regarding how best to implement CALL and that they sometimes encountered difficulties with the software. When asked if they believe that they have enough digital competence to implement CALL, Sara stated:
“ No, I do not. I would like much more. And I would like to… like, receive training in using it, for real, not just sitting by myself and play it by ear. Because that time is not available.” (Authors’ translation from the transcribed materials)
This statement correlates with Hedayati, Reynolds and Bown (2018) idea that teachers’ beliefs about a topic can be traced back to their own experiences and past situations that they were exposed to. The statement from this teacher can also be connected with Park and Son (2009) who claims that implementing CALL in classrooms is difficult and demands some previous knowledge from the teacher. It is stated that many teachers lack the digital
competence needed to fully utilize the CALL software and that the knowledge that teachers do have often comes from their own trial-and-error experiences. This is supported by Hubbard and Siskin (2004) who claims that a barrier which teachers are facing when
implementing CALL is their lack of required knowledge and training in using the softwares.
Many of the teachers who participated in the semi-structured interviews did in fact claim that CALL is an opportunity to significantly aid the students who may be struggling with reading and listening skills, both in English as well as their main language. They argue that, when used correctly, students who struggle with reading and listening comprehension can use digital tools and software to support them in their learning process, for example by using a text-to-speech software which lets the students type a text online and have it read out loud for them to hear. This makes it possible for the students to hear their written text aloud whilst the teacher is free to help support the other students in the class. This saves time for the teacher whilst helping the student with their second language acquisition. This corresponds with what is stated by Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), who claim that the one crucial difference which CALL might make for teaching is the ability to supplement the traditional teacher-based lessons. This is due to the possibility afforded by CALL to individualize interactive
instructions, something that is deemed impossible for the teacher to do alone. Ida state that digital tools help her in her time-management as an educator, as the CALL software has the ability to, for example, correct simple tests that the students have performed. However, shestate that the software does not have the ability to discover patterns of mistakes that the students make, nor the ability to analyse the results of the single student. Ida gives the following statement:
“It is still an asset to have the digital software. As long as you don’t believe that it can replace everything.” (Translated from the transcribed materials.)
This statement correlates with a myth mentioned by Hubbard and Siskin (2004) who claims that a common mistake belief regarding CALL, especially in the tutor role, is that it will eventually replace the teacher in the classroom, as the teacher may not be needed anymore.
On another note, Anna mentioned in the interview that there are so many materials out there, but they still find it hard to navigate the different activities and programs. This aligns with Kim’s (2002) study where teachers claimed that they are aware of the fact that there is many CALL-based materials, however, teachers are unaware of how to decide which material is most suited for a specific learning situation. Like the teachers in Kim’s study, the respondents in the present study all report implementing CALL despite these barriers.
Looking into the Swedish curriculum to find a connection between the English subject and CALL was found to be a bit of a struggle. Only one central content goal was found in the goals for the English course in the use of digital tools, which is contradictory if you compare it to what has been implemented in the digital tools section within the last two years. Instead of implementing more digital usage in the curriculum, especially in the English subject where the language can be expanded with the help of digital tools, it is still focused on traditional teacher-based teaching. The report from Skolverket about the digital competence in the Swedish schools (2019) states that the teachers are in need of competence to further help their students in their learning. Since the National Curriculum stipulates that students are to be given the opportunity to develop their digital competence, the teachers must be provided with the training to carry out these instructions. Based on the author's’ own experience in the teacher training program, there is no specific training on the use of digital tools in teaching. Based on the findings of this study, that integration of specific training in the use of digital tools in English teaching with a focus on CALL should be considered and would be of benefit to future teachers. Another possibility and to help current active teachers is that schools should be encouraged to organise professional development days in CALL for their language teaching staff.
When observing the knowledge requirements, it’s obvious that the students should be given the chance to develop their digital competence. This creates a lack of cohesion with regard to CALL in the policy documents, especially specific activities that relate to CALL, as well as the fact that CALL is used by teachers in a sometimes conscious fashion in schools. Due to this, it is important to specify what aids are offered for teachers who are teaching digital competencies to their students to help them in their approaches to CALL so that they know
6. Conclusion
On the topic of teachers beliefs, Park and Son (2009), Baskaran and Sharfeeq (2015) and Hlas, Conroy and Hildebrandt (2017) all agree that the beliefs of teachers will influence their implementation of CALL practises. They agree that teachers in general have a positive attitude towards CALL materials. They state that whilst teachers do implement CALL software, most of them struggle with it and may find it difficult to use efficiently. On top of this, the National Curriculum in Sweden (Skolverket, 2011/2020) states that students are to be given the opportunity to develop their understanding of digital tools.
Our research question asks: What beliefs about the use of computer assisted language
learning for teaching English do teachers express and is there any correlation between the age of the teacher and their implementation of computer assisted language learning? The
findings of the data collected in the present study show that teachers in general believe that CALL can be an important asset to their English language teaching and implement it on a regular basis within their teaching practises. It was also found through the semi-structured interviews and in the report from Skolverket (2019) that teachers find that they lack the digital competence needed to fully utilise the CALL materials. The conclusion is also drawn that whilst students are to be given the opportunity to develop digital skills, teachers rarely have enough digital skills to aid the students in achieving this goal set by the National Curriculum. The findings also show however that teachers do see positive changes in the learners’ results, and motivate these changes by referring to the enhanced motivation and engagement that often comes with implementing CALL software. Finally, it was discovered that younger teachers seem to struggle less when it comes to implementing CALL software in their teaching practises.
As soon-to-be K-6 teachers, it is our understanding that teacher training programs are lacking with regard to CALL. Through this study, it was found that teachers often find it difficult to incorporate CALL software effectively in their teaching and thus, it is crucial to include training and education in how to use CALL and CALL materials properly in teaching training programs. Another finding made by the researchers is that based on Skolverket’s (2019) own report and echoed by our own teacher respondents, active teachers are lacking in their digital
competencies and thus struggle with passing the knowledge on to their students in an adequate manner. This must be addressed by education authorities though professional development.
6.1 Limitations of the study
Some limitations that may affect the reliability of this study should be mentioned. Firstly, due to a limited time-schedule, the researchers were not able to keep the survey up for a
significant period of time, which probably resulted in fewer correspondents. Additionally, of the initial selection for the survey, only around 10% answered all five of the survey
questions. Secondly, in order to attain a higher reliability of the study’s results, a larger qualitative study might have been needed, as it would give the option to compare the results to more teachers, preferably in different places in Sweden. This was, however, not an option as most teachers refrained from responding to the initial email regarding their participation in an interview. Finally, due to the fact that the survey questions were very shallow, the
researchers failed to extract a significant amount of data from the reponses. Had this been done differently, by asking more and deeper questions in the survey, the researchers would have the option to achieve a higher amount of data triangulation, thus increasing the validity of the data collected.
Something that was realised during the interviews was that most interviewees interpreted “CALL” and “digital tools” as no more than the Chromebook or computer itself, where as the researchers wished to reach deeper into the software of the CALL practises, such as the programs that the teacher used. Some programs were found and identified, but most teachers, when asked what CALL programs were used, answered that their students used
Chromebooks to write. If this is the case for most, then we still are unsure about what
softwares, and how much, the teachers actually include in their lessons in order to benefit the second
Another limitation to this study which may have affected the results’ reliability is that the researchers had to schedule the interviews on odd times for the interviewees seeing as these often had classes and could thus not participate. This could mean that they were stressed,
giving short and brief answers as they did not have the time to truly give any deeper answers. It could also mean that the teachers who participated in the interviews simply gave the answers they thought we (the researchers) wanted to hear.
Finally, another limitation is that the interviews were only held with 4-6 teachers, as these were the only ones responding to the email and were willing to participate in the interviews. This could heavily influence their answers and we thus have no way of knowing if their answers would match those of a K-3 teacher.
6.2 Further research
It would be interesting to conduct a similar study but on a larger scale. This would mean reaching a significantly larger population with the survey, possibly with a few more questions and conducting interviews with more teachers, making sure that the teachers were both in K-3 and 4-6. One could possibly create a similar study and compare it to higher educational levels, such as upper secondary school or high school.
7. References
Adams, C, W. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Hatry, P, H, & Newcomer, K, E & Wholey, J, S. (Eds) Handbook of practical program evaluation (Fourth edition). [San Francisco]: Jossey- Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
Alvehus, J. (2013). Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: en handbok. (1. edit.) Stockholm: Liber.
Baskaran, L & Shafeeq, C, P. (2015). ESL Teachers’ Perception of CALL Integration in ELT. IJSELL 3(5), pp: 63-74
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: practical approaches to
computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Christoffersen, L. & Johannessen, A. (2015). Forskningsmetoder för lärarstudenter. (1. uppl.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Egbert, J.L., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on
classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6, pp. 108-126. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/
Fekjær, S.B. (2016). Att tolka och förstå statistik. (1. uppl.) Malmö: Gleerup.
Hedayati, M., Reynolds, B., & Bown, A. (2018). The impact of computer-assisted language
learning training on teachers' practices. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
9(6), 1127-1137. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.mau.se/10.17507/jltr.0906.02
Hubbard, P., & Siskin, C. B. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), pp. 448-461. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.proxy.mau.se/docview/85634445?accountid=12249 Kim, H. (2002). Teachers as a barrier to technology-integrated language teaching. English
teaching. No. 57 (2) pp. 35-64.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levy, M. (1995) Integrating CALL: the tutor and the tool. In: Gimeno, A. (ed.), Technology
Enhanced Language Learning: Focus on Integration, Proceedings of EuroCALL ’95.
National Agency for Education (2018) Digitaliseringen i skolan. Retrieved from
https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d438/1553968018488/ pdf3971.pdf
Park, C. N. & Son, J.-B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the
EFL classroom: Teachers’perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2). pp. 80-101.
Rakes, G. & Casey, H. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional
technology. International journal of educational technology.
Redmond, P., Albion, P. R., & Maroulis, J. (2005). Intentions v Reality: Preservice teachers’
ICT Integration during Professional Experience. 16th International Conference of the
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Phoenix, USA. Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum, (LGR11 )revised 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-gru ndskolan/laroplan-lgr11-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet
Skolverket. (2019) Digital kompetens i förskolan, skola och vuxenutbildning. Retrived from
https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=4041
Skolverket. (2020) Skolverket enhance the school systems digitalisation. Retrieved from
https://www.skolverket.se/om-oss/var-verksamhet/skolverkets-prioriterade-omraden/d igitalisering/skolverket-framjar-skolvasendets-digitalisering#Skolverketstodjerskolans digitalisering
Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Ethics in research. Retrieved from
https://www.vr.se/english/mandates/ethics/ethics-in-research.html?fbclid=IwAR2tzlQ V7R6uVEt1cczj_e-dmtcH-nrSSlibqR8vosTxELsr63Sh4iGMhsE
Appendix A
The email sent to the teachers:Hej!
Vi är två studenter från Malmö Universitet som läser Grundlärarprogrammet 1-3 och 4-6 med fördjupningsämne Engelska. Vi heter Daniel Stolt och Elin Vibe. Vi är nu igång med att skriva vårt examensarbete (Degree Project).
Vi hoppas att ni vill vidarebefordra detta mail med den bifogade enkäten till era lärare i årskurser F-6.
Vår undersökning handlar om digitala verktyg i engelskundervisningen. Med digitala verktyg menar vi allt som används av er i undervisningen som är teknologi. Till exempel iPads, chromebooks, smartboards, powerpoints eller inläsningstjänster. På engelska kallas det för
Computer Assisted Language Learning. Vi hade varit mycket tacksamma om vi fått lov att
ställa ett par frågor till era lärare i klasserna F-6 via en bifogad enkät och eventuellt få intervjua er om er användning av digitala hjälpmedel i er engelskundervisning. Enkäten består av fem frågor och intervjun beräknas ta ca 15 minuter.
Naturligtvis är ert deltagande fullständigt frivilligt och ni kan, enligt samtyckeskravet, när som helst dra tillbaka ert deltagande. Ert deltagande kommer även självfallet att ske under total anonymitet och ingen utomstående kommer att ta del av era intervjuer. Delar av intervjuerna kommer dock att transkriberas och användas för undersökningens syfte, även detta helt anonymt. Efter att studien är färdigskriven kommer allt material från
datainsamlande att förstöras.
Om ni kan tänka er att delta i vår undersökning ber vi er hjärtligt att fylla i de initiala frågor bifogat via en enkät i detta mejl. Om ni kan tänka er att delta i denna del av undersökningen, men inte i intervjun är detta helt okej. Om ni kan tänka er att delta i intervjun också ber vi er vänligen att skriva tillbaka med datum och tider som passar er för en intervju. Vi är mycket flexibla och anpassar oss efter ert schema. Intervjun består av ett antal, mer djupgående frågor om er användning av digitala verktyg.
Vi hade varit mycket tacksamma om ni vore öppna för att träffas för en intervju med oss med mer djupgående frågor om ämnet och hur ni använder digitala verktyg i er
engelskundervisning. Ni når oss på informationen nedan. Även dessa kommer självfallet att anonymiseras fullständigt.
Vi hade gärna velat få svar senast den 7 Februari, då vi behöver samla in och analysera vårt resultat! Tack på förhand!
Vänligen,
Elin Vibe och Daniel Stolt
Translated: Hello!
We are two students from Malmö University in the teacher program 1-3 and 4-6 with a focus on English. Our names are Daniel Stolt and Elin Vibe. We have now started our degree project.
We hope that you can forward this mail with the attached survey to your teachers in K-6. Our survey is about digital tools in the English language learning. With digital tools we are referring to everything that is used in your teaching that is technology. For example iPads, Chromebooks, smartboards, powerpoints or scanning services. In English that is called
Computer Assisted Language Learning. We had been very grateful if we were able to ask a
few questions for your teachers in the K-6 by an attached survey and if possible get to
interview them about their usage of digital tools in their English teaching. The survey consist of five questions and the interview is calculated to last approximately 15 minutes.
Of course, your participation is entirely voluntarily and you can, according to the consent requirements, whenever you want withdraw your participation. You participation will of course happen under total anonymity and no outsider will take part in your interviews. Parts of the interviews will however be transcribed and be used as an investigation in our degree project, also this with total anonymity. After the degree project is complete all materials collected will be destroyed.
If you would like to take part in our survey, we kindly ask that you answer our questions to the survey attached to this email. If you would like to take part in the survey but not the interview that is perfectly fine. If you would like to take part in the interview as well we ask you kindly to write a day and time that suits you for an interview. We are very flexible and accommodates to your schedule. The interview is based on more deep going questions about your usage of digital tools.
We would have been very grateful if you would like to meet us for an interview with more deep going questions about the subject and how you use digital tools in your English teaching. You can reach us with the information below. And even the interviews will of course be totally anonymized.
We would like to receive answers by the 7th of february, because of the need to collect and analyse the data! Thank you!
All the best,
Elin Vibe and Daniel Stolt
Länk till enkätundersökningen (link to the survey):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYmcWgc2NN2D81UUdbLHVK_N19ozJMF WHiDYZ6AnTDCRm-FA/viewform?fbclid=IwAR0NiNSNHIYw9llqgDj49xwv7kXR5mku Yv2Uvj4fsNxEbwfy_AlhaoAWiBY
Appendix B
Survey questions and answers: Age of the respondentsDo you use some sort of digital tools or digital aid in your English teaching?
How easy or difficult do you find it to get access to digital tools or digital aids in your school?
