Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation

Technophilia or Technophobia: Exploring Teacher
Autonomy in Learning ICT and Web Tools for the
English Language Teaching Classroom

Philip Longwell
1163612

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of MA in English Language Teaching (with a
Specialism in Multimedia)

September 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are a number of individuals that I would like to thank for their advice, guidance and
practical assistance in preparing this dissertation. Firstly, I need to acknowledge the
incredible amount of inspiration and influence that my personal tutor and dissertation
supervisor, Russell Stannard, had on this work. On many occasions he reassured me that I
was capable of great things, but he also pushed me constantly to aim high. Throughout
the dissertation process his suggestions and criticisms were never far from my mind. It,
therefore, made the whole process tough at times, but ultimately rewarding. In addition, he
allowed me to use his Teacher Training Videos website newsletter to advertise my research.
Secondly, I wish to thank Teresa Mackinnon at Warwick Language School for considerable
help in getting me set up with Blackboard Collaborate and granting me access to a room so
that I could conduct my interviews, even if on five occasions, I had to ‘revert to Skype’.
Thirdly, I thank David Dodgson, a fellow MA student and teacher of young learners in
Turkey, who was one of the founding members of my Personal Learning Network which
grew from nothing at the start of 2012. I could name several others people from my PLN,
some of whom became my focus group for this research project, but it would be too many
to mention. It was certainly as a result of my newly found PLN that I managed to generate a
lot of interest in my research and obtain so many responses in such a short space of time.
Fourthly, I would like to thank a good friend of mine, Mark Warnes, an experienced
researcher at Anglia Ruskin University, who gave me guidance on several occasions.
Penultimately, I would like to thank Gavin Dudeney for introducing and discussing the
residents-visitors paradigm with me and for sharing his work on ‘digital literacies’ with Nicky
Hockly and Mark Pegrum. Finally, I would like to give general thanks to my fellow MA
students on the MA ELT Warwick Facebook group and the feedback received in essays from
several tutors in the Centre for Applied Linguistics, most notably Steve Mann, Keith Richards
and Richard Smith, whose own definition of teacher-learner autonomy features here.

PL - September 2012

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

LIST OF FIGURES ii

CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 – Introduction / Purpose of Study 1
1.2 – Professional Development in ICT 1
1.3 – Computer-Assisted Language Learning 3

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 – Previous Studies 7
2.2 – Teacher-Learner Autonomy 10
2.3 – Paradigm 1 – Technophilia-Technophobia 13
2.4 – Paradigm 2 – ‘Digital Natives’ vs ‘Digital Immigrants’ 14
2.5 – Paradigm 3 – ‘Digital Residents’ vs ‘Digital Visitors’ 16

CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 – Research Questions 18
3.2 – Methodology 19
3.3 – Survey Questionnaire Design 20
3.4 – Sampling Procedure 21

CHAPTER FOUR – SURVEY FINDINGS

4.1 – Demographics 23
4.2 – Experience and Employment and Training 26
4.3 – Relationship with Technology 29
4.4 – Taxonomy of Current Practice 30
4.5 – Autonomy and Barriers 35
4.6 – Assessing Effectiveness of Tools 38
4.7 – Main Points 39


CHAPTER FIVE – INTERVIEWS

5.1 – Methodology 40
5.2 – Interview Findings 42
5.3 – Relationship With Technology 42
5.4 – ICT/Web Tool Usage 44
5.5 – Barriers 46
5.6 – Institutional Support or Training 48
5.7 – Autonomous Behaviour 50
5.8 – Discussion 52

CHAPTER SIX – CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH

6.1 – Conclusion 54
6.2 – Further Research 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY 56

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Survey Questionnaire with ‘Covering Letter’

Appendix B – Survey Results

Appendix C – Email Template – Information re: Interviews

Appendix D - Interview Guide

Appendix E – Sections of Transcribed Interview Data

ABSTRACT

The learning of Information Communication Technology (ICT) and web tools within
English Language Teaching (ELT) has not been researched as widely as the use of
technology in general education. In addition, the concept of teacher-learner autonomy
has rarely been used in relation to the extent to which language teachers are self-directed
and take responsibility for their own learning in this area. This dissertation uses this
theoretical perspective as well as paradigms which typify an individual’s relationship with
technology. Taxonomy of current practices was first generated through a widely
advertised survey questionnaire, for which 106 responses were received. From this
emerged a picture of the kinds of technology and types of web tools that are currently
being used and why. Findings suggested that self-directed learning was fairly widespread
and that training was not expected by employees. The amount of autonomous behaviour
and responsibility that language teachers take for learning ICT tools was further explored
by a series of 14 interviews with teachers in very different contexts. This included the
perspective of teacher-trainers who painted a slightly different picture of the amount of
training which takes place in institutions. What emerges will be of interest to language
teachers wishing to find out how they compare with others in this area and those possibly
seeking ways to create more autonomy for themselves in the workplace.

i

LIST OF FIGURES

(Q indicates the related question from the survey)

1. Which category below includes your age? (Q2) 23
2. Country of teaching (Q3) 24
3. First (or native) language (Q4) 25
4. How many years have you been teaching English as a Foreign Language (Q5) 26
5. How often do you receive support in your professional development in the area of
technology and ICT? – Detail (Q16) 27
6. How often do you receive support in your professional development in the area of
technology and ICT? – Full (Q16) 27
7. Who should provide training in relation to ICT and web tools? (Q17) 28
8. Would you describe yourself as either a ‘Technophile’ or a ‘Technophobe’ or are you
somewhere in between? (Q7) 29
9. What are you currently doing in respect of professional development in ICT and
technology? (Q8) 30
10. How often does the following technology get used in your teaching (Q9) 31
11. How often do you use or have you used the following kinds of ICT/Web Tools? (Q10) 32
12. (as above) continued
13. How do you learn about (discover) new ICT/Web Tools? (Q11) 33
14. Cross-tabulation of ‘self-discovery’ (Q11) with current professional development
activities (Q8) 34
15. How important are or would be the following when selecting an ICT/Web Tool? (Q12) 35
16. How autonomous are you? How frequently do you the following (Q14) 36
17. What are the barriers to learning about and then implementing ICT/Web Tools in
respect of your teaching practice (Q15) 36
18. Correlation between ‘reliability’ (Q15) and ‘technophobia’ (Q7) 37

ii


CHAPTER ONE - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STUDY

In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) there are many professionals who are actively
learning about new ICT (Information Communication Technology) and online web tools.
There are numerous ways that they are discovering, learning about and integrating these
technologies and tools into their teaching practice. Conversely there are other
professionals who are not as pro-active, but would be very interested to learn of the
benefits and the practical ways of developing in this area. This paper examines current
teachers’ attitudes and practices, therefore, with the purpose of being helpful to those
currently being left behind and those who feel the pressure of needing to incorporate ICT
knowledge and skills into their teaching. What kind of support or training is received? What
do they know about the latest online tools and to what extent are those tools used? How
do teachers learn how to use them? Do teachers have an instinctive, positive relationship
with technology or are they sceptical at first? These are some of the questions this study
will investigate, seeking answers which could be of benefit to others. It begins with a
discussion of the wider issue of professional development and a brief account of computer
technology in language learning. The paper discusses previous research, three paradigms
which typify people’s relationship with technology and uses definitions of teacher-learner
autonomy to underpin the research questions.

1.2 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ICT

The learning of new technologies can be seen as just one area of an English as a foreign
language (EFL) teachers’ professional development (PD) and any existing teachers’
continuous (or continuing) professional development (CPD). While these terms seem
interchangeable and there is some ambiguity in what the definition of each is, there are
distinctions. The term ‘Professional Development’ suggests acquiring new knowledge and
skills, or to change role or position. It can also mean ‘staying abreast of [the] evolving field’
(Bailey, Curtis and Nunan, 2007: 7). Although an EFL teacher’s physical teaching
environment may not change, the outside world does. It is ‘career orientated and has a
narrower, more instrumental and utilitarian remit’ (Mann, 2005: 104). Pre-service teachers
1


entering the ELT arena may have skills and knowledge lacking amongst in-service teachers.
This is where continuous professional development comes in, at the institutional level (ibid),
which for many professionals means ‘training in order to keep them[selves] up-to-date’
(Friedman and Phillips, 2004). This allows those professionals already established to
increase their income, accept roles with greater prestige or to provide greater employment
security:

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

The personal benefits, often promoted under the banner of ‘lifelong learning’, however,
may conflict somewhat with an institutional requirement to train professionals to fulfil
specific work roles (ibid: 363).

One of the core themes of teacher development is the comparison between bottom-up,
individual or group lead process and top-down professional development programmes
(Mann, 2005: 105). There is an important difference here, as I have begun to suggest above,
in terms of the kind of professional development which begins with the individual, in this
paper, the English language teacher, and the kind which emanates from above. The latter
can be seen in research carried out where top-down enforcement has taken place. For
example, a government identified and defined a framework of ICT competencies for
expected outcomes in primary school students in Belgium (Tondeur, van Braak and Valcke,
2007: 962), a joint European Commission/Greek ministry of education launched a project to
enable teacher communities to integrate new ICT practices (Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007:
153) and a ministry of education introduced national reform to bring in ICT use into tertiary
education in southern China (Hu and McGrath, 2011). Quite often, government regulations
or policies change to reflect growing ICT use in wider society. Similarly, educational
institutions often bring in policies or strategies which require implementation of greater use
of Information Communication Technology among its practicing teachers or lecturers (ibid).
These are not limited, of course, to English language teaching and are often strategies which
can affect the whole of an institution or level of schooling.

2


Information Communication Technology (ICT) is far more than just a secondary school
subject. It is something that can be integrated into most subjects at any level, depending on
how it is used. One relevant framework for this study is to what extent teachers have
found themselves increasing their knowledge of ICT from more autonomous self-directed
learning or to what extent have they waited for, possibly because they expect it from,
externally driven training, either by the institution they work for or by an external training
agency. Institutions reacting to government policy or initiatives may well be a key top-
down motivational force for teachers taking up new technologies in their practice, which
begs the question of ‘what expectations are there by institutions for their teachers to adopt
these?’ Does CPD in the area of ICT awareness, knowledge and implementation come from
external pushes, as and when the need arises? Do language teaching professionals actively
seek to empower themselves separately from top-down pressure or do these happen ‘in
concert’? Many more established ‘professionals’, it must be clearly stated, do not seek to
take steps in this area and according to a recent snapshot selection of current practicing EFL
teachers’ opinionsi, they stubbornly refuse to take part until they know what are they
getting out of it, are they getting paid for it and checking whether they are contractually
obliged (Wade, 2012). There is also the issue, therefore, that some professionals simply do
not or will not use technology and/or ICT tools in their practice, commonly for sound
reasons.

1.3 COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

The use of computer technology within language learning has, like the use of ICT in general
education, been in existence for decades. The Internet has, more recently, played a
pervasive role in institutionalised and non-institutionalised language learning (Benson, 2007:
26) and a vast literature exists which emphasizes opportunities for learner autonomy within
CALL and how technologies have been developed with self-study in mind (ibid).

CALL can be broken down into several periods: ‘behaviourist CALL’ (1960s-1970s),
‘communicative CALL’ (1980s), ‘integrative CALL’ (1990s-). Beatty (2010) outlines some
examples of Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and so on. These began in the late
1950s, with machine translations (ibid: 18-21), through linear simulations (ibid: 21-25), the

3


introduction of microcomputers, videodisc and CD-ROM formats in the 1970s, initiatives
such as ‘Macario’, a videodisc program for learning Spanish (sic, ibid: 27), ‘Interactive
Digame’ and the Athena Language-Learning Project, ‘ALLP’ in the 1980s (ibid: 29). One
particular software program called Eliza was an example of a computer being used to
simulate human intelligence (Beatty, 2010: 32).

Another way to look at the development of CALL is how technology has influenced the
method used. The ‘grammar-translation’ method relied on blackboard and chalk, still used
today in many ELT contexts. The blackboard was replaced by the overhead projector, which
is still commonly used, requiring the teacher to skilfully position the device in the classroom
for maximum readability. Early computer software drew on ‘drill and practice’ grammar
exercises and ‘linear simulations’, as we saw above. The audio-tape was the perfect
medium for the audio-lingual method, most popular in the 1970s and 1980s, and still
available – now as CDs or downloadable mp3s. Self-study aids, such as offered by Berlitzii,
remain widely available for the individual learners wishing to ‘pick up’ a language, often in a
short space of time.

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is another term used for the delivery of lessons.
Skill requirements in CMC are greater than for the typical classroom-bound instructor. This
has been examined, amongst others, by Hampel and Sticker (2005) who presented a
‘pyramid of skills’ needed for online tutors. The challenges of delivering online courses are
different from face-to-face settings. ‘Listing the skills required would not do justice to the
complexity of the training and development needed [although] a pyramid, from the most
general skills forming a fairly broad based to an apex of individual and personal styles’ can
be generated (ibid).

The delivery of online language courses has received much interest (ibid: 313). The initial
focus was on asynchronous text-based mediated interaction, (Warschauer, 1997; Kelm, in
ibid) but more recently the focus has been on online conferencing systems (Kern, in ibid;
Sykes, in Levy 2009; Mullen, Appel and Shanklin, 2009), which enables synchronous tuition
and distance learning to take place. An example would be Voice-over Internet Protocol
(VOIP) technologies, such as Skype.

4


Other developments, from a cognitive perspective, include text-reconstruction software,
featuring scrambled texts, and concordancing software, where users look at collocations
and the behaviour of particular words (Warschauer and Meskill, 2000: 2). In addition, there
is multimedia simulation software, allowing learners to explore simulated environments,
such as those created in Second Life. Collaborative learning and constructivist ‘negotiation
of meaning’ is a more recent trend. Technologies which support a cognitive approach to
language learning are those which allow maximum exposure to language in meaningful
context (ibid, 2000). Here it is ‘assumed that knowledge is an objective interpretation of
ideas and that such interpretations are best developed through the learner discovering and
struggling with ideas’ (Beatty, 2010: 105). One inquiry-based tool which has been used by
language teachers is the WebQuest. This initiative took a constructivist approach to learning
and an integrative approach to CALL. One empirical study found that WebQuests were an
effective way to use technology with students and ‘an excellent educational innovation
when used correctly’ (Perkins and McKnight, 2005).

More recent innovations include wikis and ‘walled gardens’ (Pegrum, 2009: 20) in the form
of password-protected, collaborative, virtual learning environments (VLE). The former
represents forums suited to honing communicative and intercultural literacies (Pegrum,
2009: 42), which most obviously turns collective intelligence into a structural principle (ibid:
30) and are inherently incomplete:

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

The unrestricted authorship has meant a shift from expert-generated taxonomies to
individually-created folksonomies (Beatty, 2010: 41), which are underpinned by organic
indexing processes (Pegrum, 2009: 29).

An Internet-enhanced object-oriented multiple-user domain (MOO), meanwhile, serves as a
tool to select and enhance Internet resources (Schwienhorst, 1999), while at the same time,
expanding the possibilities of the traditional classroom. One such popular innovation in this
area is Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (MOODLE), which is a free

5


source e-learning software platform. The implementation of MOODLE superseded the
successful use of language management systems (LMS) such as WebCT, a VLE system sold to
institutions and now owned by Blackboard, who recently developed the video conferencing
software, ‘Collaborate’, which can be used by language teachers for sharing and training
purposes, or for facilitating interviews, as this paper will show later.

The brief examples shown above are used to illustrate that there is nothing particularly new
in the existence of computer-assisted language learning, or the more appropriate
description of technology-assisted language learning (TALL). What might be newer is the
requirement on language teachers operating in certain contexts to learn how to use
institutionally bought technologies. Do language teachers feel pressure to learn these and,
consequently, what expectations do they have of their institutions? Or are teachers,
themselves, now leading the institutions, discovering and learning new tools for
themselves? This needs investigating, as autonomous behaviour in this area may well be
greater than believed.

6


CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES

Before investigating the area of ICT integration into ELT, I will discuss some of the previous
empirical research in the field, followed by a discussion of the theoretical construct of
teacher-learner autonomy, which underpins this new investigation.

There is not much literature on the uptake of ICT or web tools by English language teachers
or how they go about learning them, which is a gap needing investigation. There is,
however, a lot of research into the uptake of ICT in more general education (Mumtaz, 2000),
while this adoption can be traced back to the early 1970s (Levy in Hu and McGrath, 2011:
42). Romeo and Walker (2002) summarised two perspectives. The first, influenced by
behaviourist learning theories, focuses on the computer as a mechanism by which to deliver
information. In this ‘instructionist pedagogy’ the main focus is on the delivery of materials
in which information can be more effectively transmitted by teachers and understood by
learners. The second, influenced by constructivism, focuses on the use of computers as a
system to enhance teaching and learning. (Hu and McGrath, 2011: 43).

Mumtaz’ (2000) provided an extensive, international overview of the literature at that point
which highlighted a number of factors involved in the take up of ICT in schools. It separated
factors which discouraged the uptake of technology from those that encouraged its
integration. A lack of experience, specialist staff support and training, computer availability
and a lack of time to successfully integrate technology into the curriculum were highlighted
(ibid: 320). In addition, many teachers saw technology as a challenging force and only
relevant for teachers of computer science or ICT (ibid). Robertson et al (1996, in ibid),
particularly, dwelt on resistance to organisation change, outside intervention and issues of
time management (ibid: 320-321). Several articles, however, highlighted factors which
encouraged teachers to use technology. Examples included ‘making the lessons more
interesting, more motivating for the pupils’ (Cox, Preston and Cox, 1999 in ibid: 323), ‘gains
in learning and using computers for their own teacher development’ (Sheingold & Hadley
1990 in ibid: 324) and ‘if the software matched the teacher’s pedagogy, they used it’ (Veen,
1993 in ibid: 323). Constructivist pedagogy, in which learners make sense of new concepts
7


through use of their own knowledge experiences, was also highlighted. Becker & Riel (2000,
in ibid: 324) found that teachers regularly involved in ‘professional interactions and activities
beyond their classroom’ were more likely to have ‘teaching philosophies compatible with
constructivist learning theory.’

The benefits of ICT use in language education have been discussed previously, in one
qualitative study (Chambers & Bax, 2006), in terms of its potential to involve learners in a
variety of activities and support learners’ autonomous learning. In addition, a central aim for
CALL practitioners has been to strive for ‘normalisation’, where teachers and learners reap
its full benefits:

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

A sense of ‘normalisation’ is thus when technology is not used to amaze or engage students
and is not treated with ‘exaggerated respect’, but becomes a ‘normal’ part of everyday
teaching. This is the difference, probably, between ‘computer-assisted language learning’
and fully integrated teaching with technology.

ICT use is not without problems as it requires certain skill levels for both students and
teachers to operate technology and integrate materials successfully (McGrath in McGrath
and Hu, 2011: 43). A key study is one which questioned EFL teachers’ attitudes towards the
adoption of ICT in the wider context of a college English reform programme, in Southern
China. Hu and McGrath (2011) examined whether teachers were ‘ready’ to integrate ICT in
light of their CPD training or lack thereof. Despite the perception that the researchers
already suspected the teachers involved were ‘not ready’ to integrate ICT fully, the findings
did indicate that limited ICT skills and pedagogic reasons for using ICT were obstacles.
Despite having generally positive views, enthusiasm ‘waned in the light of inadequate
support and CPD opportunities’ (ibid: 47). A strong connection is made in this research
towards the autonomy shown by the teachers in learning about ICT tools for themselves.
The article makes many references to ‘deep rooted’, traditional teacher-centred pedagogy.
The apparent failure at the institutional level to respond to top-down demands to integrate

8


ICT usage, because of, for example, a lack of funding or inadequate training may not apply
everywhere. The findings showed that teachers had ‘little knowledge of autonomy’ (ibid:
52). Without teachers being autonomous in their own learning of new technology; they
couldn’t possibly expect students to become autonomous learners themselves. To what
extent teacher autonomy plays a role in ICT learning and their own training is worthy of
investigation. In addition, how does CPD in ICT actually happen – is it institution-lead
through compulsory CPD programmes or does it come down to autonomous teachers
learning ICT for themselves – or a combination?

One area which has been investigated by many previous researchers are the beliefs and
attitudes of both pre-service (Teo, Chai, Hung and Lee, 2008, Hismanoglu, 2012) and in-
service language teachers (Mumtaz, 2000; Albrini 2004; Tondeur et al, 2007; Li and Walsh,
2010; Hismanoglu; 2012, Sağlam and Sert, 2012) of ICT adoption or implementation.
Personal factors, such as gender, teaching experience and the perception of English as a
foreign language compared with other subjects affected some studies (Mumtaz, 2000;
Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007) as is the extent to whether the teachers studied receive
sufficient training and support to make this increased deployment of technology come to
fruition (for example, Mumtaz, 2000; Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston and
Wideman, 2002; Hampel and Stickler, 2005; Jimoyiannis and Komis, 2007; Hu and McGrath,
2011; Hismanoglu, 2012). Others (for example, Zhong and Shen, 2002) have looked at the
changes that have taken place in technologically integrated classroom practice.

Most of the selected studies selected above focus on a particular language-learning context.
Albrini (2004), for example, examined high school EFL teachers’ attitudes in Syrian education
and explored the relationship between their attitudes and factors thought to be influencing
them. This included a perception of their computer competence and the cultural relevance
of going against traditional styles of instruction. Personal characteristics (gender, age,
income, experience etc) were built into the design. A strong correlation between teachers’
attitudes towards ICT in education and their perceptions of their computer attributes were
found. A strong reference is made to Rogers’ ‘Innovation Decision Process’ (1995), which
states that ‘people’s attitudes toward a new technology are a key element in its diffusion …
An innovation’s diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages: Knowledge,
9


Persuasion, Decision, Implementation and Confirmation’ (Rogers in Albrini, 2004: 375). The
conscious learner, therefore, goes through a process which either rejects the innovation
(stage 3) or continues to adapt it, use it and re-use for its own purpose (stages 4 and 5). This
has a direct relevance to how teachers might choose a piece of technology or an ICT tool,
which I will return to when I discuss a teachers’ relationship with technology.

For now, I wish to move onto the concept of teacher-learner autonomy, which has been
already mentioned. This is relevant to this new research in light of the proliferation of web
and ICT tools and how teachers go about learning them.

2.2 TEACHER-LEARNER AUTONOMY

Teacher autonomy or more correctly, teacher-learner autonomy, has been be defined as
‘the ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in
co-operation with others’ (Smith, 2003:1). In an analogous relationship to learner
autonomy, it has also been defined as ‘the capacity, freedom, and/or responsibility to make
choices concerning one’s own teaching’ (Aoki, in Benson, 2007: 31). Little (1995) rightly
asserts that learner autonomy is nothing new. Genuinely successful learners have always
been autonomous but it is important to pursue ‘learner autonomy as an explicit goal, to
help more learners to succeed’ (ibid: 175). Little (1991) establishes ‘a capacity for
detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action’ (ibid: 4) on the part
of the learner. This capacity is displayed in the way that the learner ‘transfers what has
been learned to wider contexts’ (ibid).

There is a strong link between definitions of learner autonomy and the expectations to
foster this amongst students and a teacher’s own willingness to be autonomous themselves.
Much of the literature treats teacher autonomy as a professional attribute, involving a
capacity for self-directed professional development (Benson, 2007: 30). More recently, the
emphasis has been on ‘freedom from constraint’ and the teachers’ efforts to promote
autonomy amongst their learners in constraining settings, often outside of their control
(ibid: 30). In their extended, working definition of teacher autonomy, Barfield at al (2001),
emphasised the contextually based relationship between teaching, learners and institutions.
Teacher autonomy is closely linked to confronting constraints, being collaborative with
10


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

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

Smith (2003) outlines some theoretical dimensions of teacher autonomy. Prior definitions,
he argues, have ‘tended to advocate one aspect to the exclusion of others, from teacher
autonomy as a generalised ‘right to freedom from control’ to teachers’ capacity to engage in
self-directed teaching to teachers’ autonomy as learners’ (Smith, 2003: 1, emphasis in
original). McGrath’s (2000) attempt to identify different dimensions proves a noteworthy
exception, as does the Shizuoka definition already mentioned. McGrath’s separation of
teacher autonomy as (1) self-directed action or development and (2) as freedom from
control by others influenced Smith who extracted a further meaning. ‘Action’ and
‘development’ is not necessarily the same thing. In addition, a further similar distinction is
required between capacity for and/or willingness to engage in self-direction and actual self-
directed behaviour (Smith, 2003: 4). In this definition involving distinctive parts, there are
three dimensions in relation to ‘professional action’ and three in relation to professional
development:

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

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

While some (e.g. Aoki, 2000; McGrath 2000 in Smith, 2003) have emphasised the
importance of a capacity for the self-directed teacher (B, above) others (e.g. Benson, 2000;
Lamb, 2000 in Smith, 2003) have stressed the importance of freedom from control over
their teaching (C, above). In respect of A-C the autonomous behaviour shown is not limited

11


to one aspect of practice. Smith is critical of a limitation in using ‘teacher autonomy’ as a
loose synonym for the ‘capacity to promote learner autonomy’. This kind of capacity, he
says, is ‘not exactly the same thing as any, or all of the dimensions identified’ (2008: 85). He
later states, however, that it ‘does seem possible to propose certain general precepts’ for
this promotion (ibid: 86). Direct lecturing over the benefits of learner autonomy might be
insufficient, but actual practical experiences can be particularly powerful. Preparing
teachers for the development of their own autonomy can be difficult. It might be
appropriate for educators, including institutions, to focus directly on developing a
willingness and capacity for self-directed teacher-learning. How to do this is, according to
Smith (ibid: 87) not something frequently discussed in the literature. Nor, would I argue, is
an account of self-employed, freelance ELT professionals’ necessity to be autonomous
learners, which I will account for in my own research.

These different dimensions of teacher autonomy were useful for this new investigation, in
respect of separating the potential for action and actuality of something happening in
practice. It can also be the separation of the capacity of teachers, based on their perceived
‘relationship’ with technology, to learn about new tools, and their willingness to do so, given
that relationship and other contextual factors.

In this paper, the autonomous behaviour shown by teachers to learn about using ICT tools
can be seen as that which is carried out for the purpose of actual teaching practice
(professional action) and for future employment, training and other opportunities
(professional development). Definitions of teacher autonomy and teacher learner-
autonomy have not previously been used to frame discussions of teachers learning about
technology or web tools. There are a number of studies which evaluate more specific tools,
such as screen casting (e.g Gromik, 2007; Wales and Roberton, 2008; Grandon Gill, 2007)
but this rarely focuses on English language teaching. Often the research is conducted in
other areas, most notably by or for librarians (Jill Markgraf, 2006; Price, 2010).

Teacher autonomy covers a wide range of potential characteristics, as we have seen; more
than just a set of skills, technical or otherwise. Although it has been closely linked to the
idea of fostering learner autonomy, no explicit connection has been made between the

12


teacher’s own capacity, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other, in respect of learning
about ICT tools. I am investigating how autonomous teachers are as learners of these tools
and to what extent these are self-directed professional actions.

By ‘using’ the tools, this covers both the ability to effectively use the tool in lesson
preparation, the deliverance of the lesson or to facilitate its operation by the student
learners. It can also extend to using a tool reflectively or, for example, managing feedback.

It is worth pointing out that the general distinction of ‘freedom from control’ in practice can
be evidenced in more than two ways. That is, in terms of the opportunity to use technology
and ICT tools in professional practice and the necessary use of technology as imposed by an
institution which has spent resources installing such technology.

I will now proceed to explore the dimension of teacher-learner autonomy that focuses on
firstly, the capacity and secondly, the willingness to be autonomous when it comes to
learning about technology and ICT tools. In doing so, I will look at three different paradigms,
‘typologies’, that have been proposed. It is worth bearing in mind that a teacher’s ability to
be autonomous when it comes to learning new technologies or tools can be affected by the
relative freedoms they have in choosing to use it. One assumption on my part is that where
there is freedom from constraint, the teacher will show more autonomy but where there is
an imposed requirement, the teacher may feel less inclined to research the tool themselves
and, instead, wait for institutional training or support.

2.3 PARADIGM 1: TECHNOPHILIA-TECHNOPHOBIA

One particular dimension on the attitudes of EFL and prospective EFL teachers is their
perception of a relationship with technology. A person who is considered a ‘technophobe’
dislikes, is wary of or has some fear of using technology. Conversely, a ‘technophile’ is
someone with a love, passion or enjoyment of discovering and/or using new technology.
These contrasting perceptions are not limited to simply a ‘fear’ or ‘love’ and are usually far
more complex than these extremes. Furthermore, a person’s own attitudes might be
different from their personal belief in the benefits of technology rather than a simple
resistance to it. The research question of whether language teachers were perceived to be

13


technophobic was explored by a Canadian study (Lam, 2000) and appears to be the only
study which proposes this contention from the outset. This study aimed to test whether
fear was an underlying factor behind decisions regarding the use of technology.
Furthermore, it posed the related question of what other factors lead some L2 teachers to
choose not to use technology in their teaching practice. This relatively small-scale study,
featuring ten participants, indicated that the reasons for not using technology lay more in
the lack of pedagogical benefits they saw rather than an outright fear. One implication was
that it felt it necessary to convince them of the benefits of using it in the classroom (ibid,
411). It concluded that there was negativity attached to teachers considered to be
‘technophobic’, quite possibly by an overly ‘technophilic’ institution. As long as teachers
feel alienated from technology they will not see the benefits. Furthermore,

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

The idea of a creating a typology of people’s relationship with technology is not new,
although as technology develops, the actual devices or tools used as part of research into
that relationship changes too. It also appears common in literature on this topic to create a
typology (e.g. Tondeur et al, 2007), where there are two polar extremes or ‘dichotomy’,
such as above. Alternative terminology on this particular continuum could be describing
users as ‘tech-comfy’ or ‘tech-savvy’ (Dudeney, 2011). The latter ‘relationship’ is often
inappropriately attributed to younger users of technology, which will now be discussed.

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

Another widely held distinction is that there is a whole generation of ‘digital natives’
(Prensky, 2001), often called the ‘net generation’ (Tapscott, 1998; Oblinger and Oblinger in
Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008), ‘millenials’ or ‘gen Y’ (Pegrum, 2009: 55). Learners of a
certain age are portrayed as having spent their whole lives immersed in technology
(Prensky, 2001: 1). By the sheer volume of their interaction in this ‘ubiquitous environment’
(ibid), they possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies
which, in turn, informs their learning preferences. A clear distinction is made between this
generation born, for example, between 1977 and 1997 (Tapscott, 1998) and those who are
14


older, not born in the ‘digital age’, the so-called ‘digital immigrants’. Despite this, the latter
generation, have become fascinated by and adopted many of the newer technologies. Their
foreign ‘accent’, which translates as having ‘one foot in the past’ (Prensky, 2001: 2),
however, never disappears entirely.

Whilst the existence of an ‘accent’ might be argued to feature in a whole generation of
‘immigrants’, it is often characterised by anecdotal evidence and appeals to commonly held
beliefs (Bennett et al, 2008: 777). It is argued that there is little empirical evidence to the
claims that this arbitrary divide exists. By not empirically backing up this contention,
Prensky’s words only sought to create an academic version of a moral panic. The analogy to
Cohen’s (1972) notion of ‘moral panic’ is helpful, because of the similarity to ‘a youth
subculture, portrayed as embodying a threat to societal values and norms,’ (Bennett et al,
2008: 782). Prensky (2001) tried to expose this generational gap, warning of students who
had changed radically, no longer the people [the US] education system was designed to
teach and that digital immigrants instructors spoke an outdated language (ibid: 1-2).

While newer technologies may still be frequently portrayed as playgrounds for younger
generations, it does not necessarily follow that children are the authorities. It is true that
many young people are ‘driven to connect with their peers online as a result of increasingly
heavily scheduled and protected lives’ (Dudeney, Hockly and Pegrum, 2012: 8). It does not
follow, however, that the emergent technologies, including the newer generation of
dynamic web tools, which focus on communication, sharing and collaboration, thus turning
ordinary web users from passive consumers of information into active contributors to a
shared culture, have only been taken up by a younger generation. Empirical studies show
that the notion of a homogenous, digitally able generation is a myth (ibid), while simple
terms like ‘net generation’ can blind us to a more complex reality (Pegrum, 2009: 56).

In educational settings, teachers might find themselves having to be pro-active when
learning new technologies for the classroom, as a top-down requirement. Similarly, they
might take the lead on investigating web tools because they are part of a wider network of
professionals, which students are not. Finally, many language teachers currently practicing

15


are very open to creative possibilities of technology. They do not have a pre-digital mindset,
often knowing as much as, if not more than, their students.

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

A more recent paradigm, or continuum, has been proposed (White, 2008; White and Le
Cornu, 2011) which seems to more accurately define two contrasting but not polar opposite
users of online technology, who differ in the approach they take.

A ‘visitor’ goes online, presented metaphorically as a garden shed, and selects a particular
‘tool’ to carry out a task. It might not be ideal but it ‘does the job’. As long as progress is
made, the ‘visitor’ is content, with the tool ‘being replaced’ in the shed. Visitors are goal-
orientated and unlikely to have a social persona online as they might be wary of their digital
identity being known. They try to leave without creating a trace.

A ‘resident’, on the other hand, pictures the Web as a meeting place for exchanges of all
manner of ideas, opinions and activities. A significant proportion of their actual lives are
conducted online. For residents, the Web is a place to express opinions, a place in which
relationships can be formed and extended. They are nebulous, visible and communal, but
not necessarily collaborative. The web is a ‘social space’, where a resident ‘enjoys that sense
of ambient social presence … of other people in social media platforms’ but still retains a
strong sense of autonomy (White, 2008iii).

The construction of a web ‘tool’ as something which is purposefully selected is very useful,
in the same way that a piece of technology can be consciously chosen to do a job.
Incidentally, none of the numerous Web 2.0 tools, which will feature in the taxonomy of
tools described later in this paper, did not exist when Prensky offered his original,
dichotomous typology.

Many ‘visitors’ will limit their online activity for good reason. It can be a fairly conscious
decision not to engage for ‘fear’ of wasting time, being ‘exposed’ or being sucked into
something which causes anxiety and frustration. Being a cautious and selective ‘visitor’
means a person is no less technically adept at using a tool effectively than the ‘resident’. In
fact, they may be better skilled at selection, based on pedagogic principles.
16


Whilst the Visitors-Residents paradigm initially appears to represent a more fluid and
engaging way to frame this new research, it focuses more on online behaviour and still may
not accurately reflect the complexities of users engaging with technology today. It is also
not yet established in the minds of potential respondents. The technophile-technophobe
paradigm is, I would argue, more familiar and was, therefore, chosen as a starting point for
this investigation. Despite reservations over how accurately it can describe a person’s
relationship with technology, it benefits from not being age-based or dependent on online
activity. It also allows respondents to self-describe their relationship, based on their
comparative perception, which can be explored during the interviews.

17


CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

I have so far discussed Continuous Professional Development, Computer-assisted Language
Learning, some previous research into ICT use in education and by language teachers in
particular, dimensions of teacher autonomy and paradigms used to describe a person’s
relationship with technology. The research questions below were formulated ahead of this
new exploratory investigation into this area, with an attempt to connect the different
dimensions of teacher autonomy with the behaviour of currently practicing EFL teachers.

The perception of an EFL teacher’s view of technology was an interesting starting point and I
wanted to discover whether this affected autonomous behaviour and whether this changed
over time. This led to some initial research questions shown here:

 How do teachers discover ICT/web tools, what are they using and why?
 How frequent is teachers’ use of ICT/web tools in practice?
 Are they getting enough support to integrate these tools?
 What are the expectations of institutions in training teachers in this area?
 How autonomous are teachers in learning these tools for themselves and is this
based on their relationship with technology?
 What are the barriers to implementing ICT/web tools into teaching?

These are explored in the research, as taxonomy of what EFL teachers are doing was
developed. One presupposition was that they are either not getting enough support or that
there is a mismatch between institutional demand to increase ICT skills and a lack of
training. I also ventured that there were many self-employed and freelance teachers and
teacher trainers who, by their circumstances, are, by necessity, more likely to be
autonomous when it comes to their development in this area. It was important, however,
to see what came out of the data.

18


3.2 METHODOLOGY

Having set up my research questions, I will describe the process of research, including
reasons for this area of investigation and methodological approach.

I chose a ‘mixed methods’ approach to collect the data. On the one hand, I wanted to
collect taxonomy of what language teachers are currently doing, and where they are doing it
- a snapshot of the extent to which ICT and web tools were being engaged with. On the
other hand, I wanted to dig beneath the surface to find the reasons behind using these
tools, and especially of their relationship with technology. How do teachers learn these
tools for themselves and to what extent do they rely on others, more experienced in the
field? When finding out attitudes towards the use of technology, I suspected that many
teachers perceived their relationship with technology in a certain way. This second part
connects with the paradigms which I covered earlier.

The particular variant of mixed methods approach I used can be abbreviated to ‘QUAN ->
qual’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 170). This typology is reserved for a questionnaire survey which is
followed by an interview or retrospection, with dominance on the former method (ibid 169).
Research begins with a reasonably large amount of data collection in a short space of time,
using a questionnaire survey. The answers received are substantially dependent on the
questions asked. This is followed up with a hand-picked selection of qualitative interviews
with semi-structured questions, based on the responses to the open questions from the
survey. Those interviewed have already taken part in the survey. Hence, the capitalisation
of ‘QUAN’ and the lower-case, ‘qual’, because the subsequent qualitative component is
there to ‘remedy the potential weakness’ of the respondents’ engagement with the
questions as being shallow and unable to show the exact nature of the any observed
relationship (ibid: 170-171). An alternative to this method would be ‘QUAN+QUAL’
‘concurrent design’ method, in which equally weighted pieces of quantitative and
qualitative data are carried out, albeit separately from each other. As my interviewees also
participated in the questionnaire survey, they form a sequential secondary component of
the overall data collection. I felt it was important to do this because, in isolation,
questionnaires:

19


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

3.3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

For the survey questionnaire design, a combination of closed, demographic, ‘Likert scale’,
multi-item (matrix) scale and open-ended questions were used. In trying to establish
current practice, it was important to provide some suggestions for each question, but to
also allow respondents to state, in their own words, what they are doing, as supplementary
or additional information. Examples of this were questions 8 and 9, which account for some
options, but allowed for an open response to cover additional or alternative answers.

The survey underwent a process of several stages of piloting. Firstly, the survey was
advertised on an ICT in ELT blog, which already existediv, amongst current practicing
professionals, with a request to take part, It was circulated amongst members of the IATEFL
and #ELTchat Facebook groups and via followers on Twitter. A webinar was set up using the
WiZIQ platformv, providing a link to the class on the blog post. The aim was to ask some of
the preliminary research questions and to explore some definitions, including those of
‘technophobia’ and ‘technophilia’, with an aim to construct a questionnaire. Seven
teachers participated, including two who responded directly with comments on the blog.
Five others came via the aforementioned social networking sites and already formed part of
a growing Personal Learning Network (PLN), which had been building since the start of the
year. These seven willing participants, each one a currently practicing language teacher,
formed the ‘focus group’, of which two members complete their feedback by email.

The question wording was designed following that first webinar. The design underwent a
number of changes. Initially, ten questions were thought to be sufficient. I consulted a
friend, an experienced researcher, who noted a complete absence of demographic
questions, such as those on age and gender. It was also suggested that ten questions might
not be enough, a crucial point which was affirmed by my supervisor later. By this time,

20


however, a second webinar had taken place, thirteen days after the first. This webinar was
specifically to discuss the wording of the questionnaire, which at that point had only nine
questions. There were four participants, which included one new teacher who had found
the blog entry and wanted to take part. The four others, who were originally involved in the
focus group but couldn’t make the second session, submitted their feedback by email. A
working link to the draft survey was provided, so that they could go through each question
of the nine questions and suggest a possible 10th. All of this feed into a radically revised,
twenty question survey, which now included demographics and an option to take part in
follow-up interviews. This was subsequently ‘road-tested’ by two of the group, one of whom
suggested what subsequently became an optional question on measuring effectiveness of
an ICT tool. The final version, with ‘covering letter’ is included in Appendix A.

3.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

At this point, I will discuss the sampling procedure. From the outset, this study did not aim
to focus on one teaching context or location. The aim was to collect broad opinions from
EFL teachers around the world, without necessarily making generalised claims. Non-
probability sampling was used, as this consists of ‘a number of strategies that try to achieve
a trade-off, that is, a reasonably representative sample using resources that are within the
means of the ordinary researcher (Dörnyei, 2007: 97). In addition, a form of convenience
(with purposive) sampling was used. An important criterion here is the convenience of the
researcher, who is able to easily access members of the target population, using social
networks. In addition, it is somewhat purposive, because the request for participants
included a requirement that the person be working in the field of ELT as a teacher, teacher-
trainer, recently engaged as a teacher or about to start as one. Although the qualification
was narrowed at first, it was kept wide enough to catch potential candidates who had some
valid opinions on this.

Two ‘collector points’ were set up in Survey Monkey. The first consisted of accessing my
own Personal Learning Network (PLN), mentioned earlier, via the same sources used to
establish the focus group. They were given one uniform resource locator (URL) to complete
the survey. The second consisted of people signed up to the Teacher Training Videos (TTV)

21


websitevi newsletter. This group were given a different locator to complete the survey. It
is likely that some received both requests, but there can be confidence that nobody
completed the survey more than once, as was requested, due to identifiable Internet
Protocol addresses. A minimum of 50 and ideally 100 responses were sought, which was
easily achieved.

It is important to stipulate the manner of the sampling technique employed here. Any
survey about people’s behaviour with technology and experience of ICT tools would ideally
triangulate data collected by an online survey against that taken from a physical
questionnaire followed by face-to-face interviews from a contrasting source. A more
accurate current picture might be obtained by surveying people who otherwise do not
readily engage with online activities. So despite taking a ‘mixed’ approach, there is no
triangulation in the strictest sense (ibid: 165). An acknowledgement of the somewhat
inevitable problem of ‘self-selection’ (ibid: 100-101) is also required. By giving participants
freedom to choose, the resulting sample can be dissimilar to the ideal target population. A
reasonably representative sample was, nonetheless, obtained, given that the majority of
participants would have, at least, the basic skills of IT competence to complete the survey.
In addition, there was no deliberate attempt to target ‘technophobes’ or those less engaged
in the topic. A question which bluntly asks how ‘technophobic’ someone feels could be
taken as a somewhat irrelevant question given an online survey. It remained a starting
point, nonetheless, for investigating attitudes towards the issue, which could be tested later
during interviews. As stated earlier, this is more familiar terminology. A relationship with
technology can be more fluid than that, with the use of some technologies managed better
than others. The relationship can also change over time.

22


CHAPTER FOUR - SURVEY FINDINGS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS

107 responses were received in a 14 day period, with 68 from the general collector and 39
from the TTV collector. One response from the latter was discounted due to incomplete
information from a duplicated IP address. Effectively this resulted in 106 full responses,
who all completed the main 18 questions to reach the final page, while 23 added further
comments (question 19) and 46 left their contact address (question 20) to be informed of
the results of the survey and/or for a follow-up interview. The full findings are shown in
Appendix B, minus the contact details.

Of the first two demographic questions, 72 (67.9%) were female, 34 (32.1%) were male,
with a broad range of ages being represented. 40 (37.7%) of the respondents came from the
30-39 age bracket – see figure 3. One respondent was 60 or over and no-one was under 21.

Figure 1

Of the second two demographic questions, a total of 54 different countries and 26 different
first (or native) languages were represented. For this survey, ‘country’ was defined as
where the respondent ‘currently teaches or has recently taught’, while ‘first (or native)
language’ could include two answers if that person considered themselves bilingual. Both of
these open questions required a self-defined answer, rather than ticking from several
options.

23


1
Country of teaching 1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 10
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
8
1
1 1
1

1 7
1
1
1 1
1
7
2
2
2
4
2
2 4
2 4
2 2
2 3
2 3
2 2
2 3 3
3 3

UK (10) Turkey (8) Greece (7)
Spain (7) Argentina (4) China (4)
Japan (4) Australia (3) England (3)
Germany (3) Mexico (3) none/yet to teach (3)
Portugal (3) Canada (2) France (2)
Indonesia (2) Ireland (2) Italy (2)
Oman (2) Qatar (2) Romania (2)
South Korea (2) Thailand (2) Ukraine (2)
Venezuela (2) Vietnam (2) Armenia
Belgium Cameroon Channel Islands
Chile Croatia Ethiopia
India Iran Latvia
Libya Middle East Mynamar
Nepal Netherlands Poland
Republic of Macedonia Russia Saudi Arabia
Scotland Slovakia Sweden
Switzerland Syria Tanzania
Uruguay USA Virtual/Online with LEWWP

Figure 2

24


First (or native)
language 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1 1
1 1 11
1
1
2
2
2
2
2 49
2
2
4

6

6
12

English (49) Spanish (12)
Greek (6) Turkish (6)
Russian (4) Arabic (2)
German (2) Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) (2)
Italian (2) Polish (2)
Portuguese (2) Slovak (2)
Amharic Burmese
Croatian Greek/English (bilingual)
Lamnso Macedonian
Mandarin Chinese Nepali
Persian Pogoro
Romanian Spanish/Catalan (bilingual)
Swiss German Telugu
Ukranian

Figure 3

25


The most represented countries were the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece – see figure
2. Five respondents stated that they taught in more than country and these are counted as
separate entries (total 116). Some appeared to associate themselves with teaching in one
country (for example, eight years in Iran) but are currently teaching in another (Sweden).
One respondent, based in the USA, stated that she has set up a virtual ‘Ning’-built website
and, subsequently, teaches people from around the world. English was, perhaps not
surprisingly, the most common native language stated, with 49 stating this, followed by
Spanish (12) – see figure 3.

Figure 4

4.2 EXPERIENCE, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

On the question of experience, 98 responded, with 35 stating they had 11-20 years in the
area of ELT. 23 claimed more than 20 years’ experience – see figure 4. Eight skipped the
question, which, must be assumed, included three who had previously stated (in Q3) they
were yet to teach. The vast majority of respondents (70) stated they were employed, with
two part-time and two more employed as ‘volunteers’. This left 32 as ‘not employed’ - 11
self-employed, 9 as ‘freelance’, 8 as ‘student/not employed’ and 4 ‘other’. The latter
26


questions (Q16, Q17) on support and training are directly related to this. The survey found
little support by employers or institutions. 50% of those who responded said their
employer/institution has never or on just one occasion provided support and/or training,
while 62.6% responded similarly on the issue of the employer or institution paying for
training – figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 6

27


The full data – figure 6 – suggests a reasonable amount of teachers not receiving much PD
training in this area, whereas a higher proportion seem to say they are frequently (36%) or
always (28.1%) self-taught in this area. On the face of it, those kinds of results would
appear to correlate, but this required some cross-tabulation with ‘employment status’. An
expected high proportion of the ‘not employed’ group (32), outlined above, selected N/A for
those questions relating to what their employer does. Some of those, however, answered
‘never’, possibly referring to a time when they have been employed. Although answers
from the ‘not employed’ group have generally fallen into these two responses, different
interpretations of the question have arisen. So what initially appears to be a reasonable
finding reveals possible misunderstanding about the question and, therefore, required
further clarification during the interview stage.

Q17 asked opinion on three statements relating to where training should come. It revealed
both a strong desire for employer or institutions to provide and responsibility being taken by
the teacher. Of those that answered the question (92) opinion seems that training should
be a joint responsibility – see figure 7. The remainder (14), possibly containing many from
the ‘not employed’ group, may have decided the question was not relevant, although some
may still have selected the second option, given the lack of alternatives for them. By cross-
tabulating, we found half of those described as ‘self-employed’ or ‘freelance’ chose N/A
here. Again this needs further unpacking during interviews, as it may not have been entirely
clear how to answer the question.

Figure 7

28


4.3 RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

Before I discuss the taxonomy section of the survey, I will briefly show the results of Q7 –
figure 8 - which asked respondents to place themselves on the dichotomous technophobic-
technophilic paradigm. I have already mentioned that ticking a single box does not
accurately describe someone’s relationship with technology. Furthermore, asking this
question during an online survey can misrepresent the reality. Nonetheless, eight teachers
placed themselves at the technophobic end. Not surprisingly, a high proportion (73) placed
themselves at the technophilic end, suggesting a positive experience towards the questions
which followed. More interesting is how teachers describe themselves in relation to
technology. Feedback during the pilot study had already suggested terms like ‘tech-aware’
and ‘tech-user’ at the lower end, with ‘tech-aficionado’ and ‘tech-savvy’ at the higher end.
The term ‘enthusiastic amateur’ was additionally suggested, along with a sense of using
technology when needed, appropriate for activities. For others, it is less about ‘fear’, more
about the benefits of using the technology, which we return to in Q12. The interviews
would provide an opportunity to uncover a more fluid relationship and whether this had
changed over time.

Figure 8

29


4.4 TAXONOMY OF CURRENT PRACTICE

Now I will discuss the critical section (Q8-Q12) of the survey, which is essentially the
taxonomy of what English language teachers are currently doing in the area of ICT. Each of
these questions offered some likely options, but also the opportunity to comment further
with specific, individual responses.

Q8 was concerned with the original broader area of (continuous) professional development.
In the introduction, I wondered about the extent to which teachers have found themselves
increasing their knowledge through autonomous self-directed learning. A starting point is to
ask teachers what they currently do in the area of PD. Here, respondents were invited to
tick all that applied. ‘Following/reading blogs’ (76.8%) was the most popular response,
followed by ‘engaging with an online community’ (69.5%) – figure 9. Actually ‘writing a blog’
(41.1%) was lower down the list. More ambiguous general reading (68.4%) and voluntary
self-study (63.2%) were more popular, as is the more specific activity of attending
conferences (61.1%). A wide variety of additional methods were employed. These included
taking an MA, delivering peer training in e-learning, using Edudemic on iPad, watching
YouTube tutorials and taking part in webinars. A small number declared they currently did
nothing or that they were just starting out, while 11 skipped the question entirely, which
suggests they did none of those listed.

Figure 9
30


Q9 focused on the frequency of technology, the ‘hardware’, used in teaching. It was
deliberately worded in the passive so that use by students could be included. In addition, it
included use outside of the classroom. Results indicated a stronger use of more
conventional networked computers and laptops over tablets – figure 10. An overhead
projector, or beamer, was mentioned by some in the comments section, as was some kind
of audio or voice recording equipment, such as a Dictaphone. Some stated that none of
these applied, while 8 skipped the question entirely.

Figure 10

Q10 focused on the use of web tools, or ‘software’, broadly grouped by type. Respondents
were asked to select the frequency they used 15 types of tool, for which some examples
were given. The results – figures 11/12 – provide a snapshot of how frequent these tools
were currently being used. Some of these, such as materials creation tools, are more
obviously geared towards ELT, while others are not specifically designed for that purpose.
Unfortunately, the question did not stipulate the use in teaching, as did Q9, but this was
noted and later clarified during the interview stage.

31


Figure 11

Figure 12

32


Given the vast amount of web tools now in existence, it was unsurprising that many
respondents wanted to share specific names of tools, offering links and recommendations.
Glogster, Screen Chomp (for iPad), VoiceThread, Voki, Headmagnet, FlashcardsDb,
Fotobabble, Mailvu, Dropbox, Evernote and Lyrics Trainer were just some of those
mentioned. See Appendix B for the full list.

Q11 asked how teachers discovered ICT or web tools. This straightforward, optional
question revealed the highest proportion of respondents (79) stating this was through ‘self-
discovery’ – figure 13. This suggests complete independence, but I would suggest an
overlap exists with other methods, such as searching for certain terms on the internet,
following a blog, or discovering a tool at a conference. Certainly the crossover with Q8,
about professional development activities, exists. Indeed, a brief cross-tabulation between
these two questions – figure 14 - shows very high response rates between those engaged in
numerous activities for PD and those who claim to ‘self-discover’.

Figure 13

33


Figure 14

The factors behind choosing a tool were asked in Q12 and later explored during the
interviews. Does the web ‘visitor’ purposefully have a pedagogical aim and looks for a tool
that does the job or do they ‘discover’ the tool and then adapt the lesson accordingly? It is,
perhaps, not surprising that most teachers consider the importance of a tool to be easy to
access, easy to use and ideally free – figure 15. In addition, it needs to be relevant,
engaging, motivating and justified. Opinion is strong across all of these and it can be difficult
to argue against that. It was far less important for the institution to have a subscription.
Although many tools are basically free, there are often paid-for versions which do more,
such as increased integration. One respondent commented that it was important for
students to be able to embed content on other sites. Another, who was subsequently
interviewed, proposed that it should be ‘andragogically justified’, an previously unfamiliar
term to describe a theory of adult learning, coined by Knowles (cited in Hartree, 1984: 204)
in contrast to a more child-based pedagogy, ‘the art or science of teaching children’
(emphasis in ibid).

Many of the above questions shown required further unpacking to remedy the potential
weaknesses shown in the significant, but often misleading data obtained. That is where
follow-up interviews can be more explicit in their meaning towards, for example, factors
behind choosing and using a web tool. I will move onto the interview data shortly, but not
before summarising the responses to two key questions set out earlier. How autonomous
are teachers in learning about tools, as opposed to merely discovering them, and what are
the barriers to implementation?

34


Figure 15

4.5 AUTONOMY AND BARRIERS

Earlier I discussed overlapping definitions of teacher autonomy, which highlighted the
development of appropriate skills and attitudes, the capacity to make choices and the
support offered by teacher-learner pools of diverse knowledge. I also detailed the
theoretical dimensions which separated ‘action’ from ‘development’. I would like to use
these constructs to frame my discussion of the responses to Q14 and Q15. These questions
move the respondents on from their autonomous behaviour in respect of general
professional development, such as going to conferences, to the more specific learning
required to effectively use an ICT or Web tool. A person’s capacity and/or willingness to
engage in self-directed behaviour might be based on their ‘relationship’ with technology, or
how they perceive their ability to learn the tool. But this capacity can also be seen in terms
of an ability to put theory (learning of the tools) into action (integration). This, in turn, can
be compromised by barriers which limit this. Just as McGrath and Smith (ibid) separated
those factors which an autonomous teacher has control of from those which are outside of

35


their control, so too can we separate out factors which show good intention to learn and
implement these tools, from those which prevent it happening in reality.

Figure 16

Figure 17

36


Q14 asked how frequently teachers engage in autonomous behaviour, such as learning a
tool on their own. What is their reliance on others? This effectively begins to explore their
capacity and/or willingness to learn the tool. The results – figure 16 – suggest a high level of
autonomous behaviour. Most striking is that 80 (86.9%) teachers of those who answered
said that they learn by using and practicing, suggesting that confidence comes with being
self-taught. Almost as likely, 72 (78.3%) said they would try a tool out and only resort to
help if needed. 40 (43.5%) respondents claimed they frequently teach themselves
everything they need to know. Occasionally they would rely on others to show them what
to do but overall, according to the data, this appears to be a fairly resourceful and
autonomous set of teachers. One teacher highlighted their attitude:

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

Q15 effectively asked what kinds of barriers exist in moving the teacher from learning about
the tool (professional development) to using the tool in reality (professional action) – figure
17. ‘Financial costs’ - 60 (65.2%) – was the biggest barrier, with 54 of those stating it was
important or very important for tools to be free (cross-tabulation with Q12). ‘Reliability’
also featured highly – 55 (59.8%), and there is some expected correlation with the question
on ‘technophobia’ – figure 18 – although not completely conclusive.

Figure 18

37


‘Lack of training’ – 37 (40.2%) and ‘time consumption’ – 44 (47.8%) appeared lower down
than expected initially, but we have already established this group as fairly resourceful.
Institutional resistance - 40 (43.5%) could encompass all situations where stricter controls
on how things are taught apply, or difficulties in getting permission to install software on
institutional machines, as some commented. While 14 skipped the question and/or wrote
‘none at all’ in the comments, others took the opportunity to highlight their personal
barriers. One stated that while it is not time consuming, per se, to learn these tools, they
don’t have enough time to devote ‘to fully discovering, assessing and incorporating the tech
into the lessons.’ Another described physical discomfort associated with constant use of the
computer, with ergonomic issues being ‘an elephant in the living room’. Health issues are
often overlooked, and one respondent wanted to rectify this omission. In addition:

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

4.6 ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF TOOLS

Before concluding this section, I will briefly deal with the main points from the open Q13 on
how teachers would assess the success or effectiveness of a particular tool. This question
immediately followed one about what factors are involved when selecting a tool to use.
This was referred to as many teachers responded with examples of why they used certain
tools. Simple, manual coding of the answers revealed a significant judgement lay in
students’ engagement, interest, their opinions and feedback. If they responded well, then it
is effective. However, many of these went on to state that learning outcomes, proficiency in
performance and demonstrated use of the target language were equally markers for
success. For some, ease of use and the ability to integrate the tool into lessons, rather than
to become the focus of it, were additional important, as shown in the extracted comment:

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

38


The amount of time and effort involved were lesser but notable remarks, while some merely
commented that as long as the tool got used, inside and outside of the classroom, this was a
positive measure. Provided some pedagogical value can be proven or an actual increase in
student engagement or learning takes place, then teachers appear to make contextual
decisions regarding their use and choice of tool.

4.7 MAIN POINTS

I will now identify the main points from the survey which formed the basis for the
remainder of the investigation. To what extent have teachers found themselves increasing
their knowledge of ICT and web tools through autonomous self-directed learning? The
findings suggest this is happening quite a lot. To what extent do they wait for externally-
driven training to be given when needed? The suggestion is that this does not happen
much. Not only did the findings point to there being little support by institutions but an
overwhelming majority, (82.2%) of those who expressed an opinion, felt they should take
responsibility for their own training in this area. Although a high proportion (75.2%) also felt
that while the institution should provide training, this does not mean they expect it. The
amount of responsibility that teachers take for actually learning these tools, therefore,
became a focal point for the interviews.

The most common constraining factors from the survey were reliability (59.8%) and the
financial cost involved (65.2%). A high number of respondents ticked several factors as well
as adding their own reasons. The barriers which impact upon the teacher learning and
implementing these tools for themselves, therefore, also needed further investigation.

Finally, respondents’ ‘relationship with technology’ and ‘autonomous behaviour’ needed
further exploration. Finding out how both of these more personal factors have changed
over time could provide some benefit to others and offer practical ways of developing in this
area.

39


CHAPTER FIVE - INTERVIEWS

5.1 METHODOLOGY

For the follow-up interview stage, I drew upon the pool of survey respondents that had left
contact details. 45 out of 106 respondents were subsequently contacted, by group email
(Appendix C), for further participation. Fourteen individuals, based in thirteen different
countries, eventually signed up for a single online session, where they chose the date and
time, via a simple Wikivii, effectively confirming consent and to maximise involvement.

Conducting an online interview comes with potential technical barriers and need for the
participants to help troubleshoot problems so it was fortunate, perhaps, to have reasonably
technically-minded interviewees. A member of Warwick Language Centreviii provided
assistance by offering the use of a privately maintained room in Blackboard Collaborate 12ix,
a VLE previously mentioned on page 5, and forwarding the recordings.

The questions were piloted beforehand with one member of my survey focus group. This
one-off pilot did bring out some technical issues, such as ‘dropouts’, avoiding echo and
maximising the number of speakers. These issues were highlighted in further emails to the
interviewees. In addition, before recording, a few minutes were spent checking the
connection. On five occasions, however, unsolvable issues prevented access to the room or
a clear connection. Skype (version 5.10.0.116) together with a VOIP recorder plug-inx was,
subsequently, used instead.

In preparation for the interviews, individual survey responses were printed off and a semi-
structured Interview framework with content questions was devised – see Appendix D. The
interviewees were encouraged to elaborate on their survey responses. This approach is
suitable for cases when there is already a good understanding of the phenomenon and
there is a wish to develop deeper responses to those questions engaged with already
(Dörnyei, 2007: 136). Furthermore, interviewees were encouraged to tell their story, with
the questions intended to frame but also to allow elaboration upon this.

Fourteen interviewsxi were conducted during a one week period. The intention was initially
to transcribe and to code all the data, which is good practice for any researcher, by taking a
40

Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation

Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation

Ähnlich wie Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation (20)

Mehr von Phil Longwell

Mehr von Phil Longwell (14)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Technophilia or Technophobia - Exploring Teacher Autonomy In Learning ICT/Web Tools For ELT Classroom - Complete MA dissertation