This is an empirical case study in which the participating teachers’ reflectivity development and their conceptualizations of CALL were explored. The first section will introduce the research setting where the CALLTD program was designed and initiated as a teacher- learning platform. The second section will inform the readers of the background information about the participating teachers. The third section will specify the roles of the researcher in this study. The fourth section will report on the CALLTD program in which the participants were taught to integrate technology into teaching. The fifth section will deal with data collection procedures. Lastly, data analysis will be described so that the readers can understand how the data were coded and interpreted by the researcher.
Research Setting
The participating teachers learned to teach English with the computer through a 12-week CALLTD workshop which ran from April 1 through June 17, 2006 at English Language Training Center of National Taiwan Normal University. During this period, the teachers, who came from various local elementary or high schools, met face to face three hours per week.
The whole workshop took up thirty-six hours in total.
This CALLTD workshop was conducted in a blended mode involving on-campus mode and online mode, one of the effective ways to promote teacher learning (Motteram, 2006).
The former refe rred to three-hour class each week on the campus whereas the latter a web-based learning environment, i.e. the OLCoP, available twenty- four hours a day seven days a week. That is, in addition to conventional teacher-student interactions in a physical classroom, the participating teachers and the teacher educator communicated with one another over this web-based learning community intended to supplement the on-campus
learning. The OLCoP can be accessed at the URL, http://calltd.fld.ntnu.edu.tw/, with its homepage shown in Figure 2. While the on-campus learning engaged the teachers to learn and discuss with the teacher educator about hands-on technological skills and some CALL theories in class, online learning facilitated the participants to expose themselves to more web resources, to further discuss with the teacher educator and their peers after class, and to reflect through the discussion forum.
Figure 2. The Homepage of the O nline Learning Community of Practice.
Both the OLCoP and in-class sessions were devoted to developing teachers’
competenc ies in integrating the computer into English teaching. Meanwhile, reflective procedures were employed to facilitate the process of learning to teach with the computer.
The participants started with operating authoring programs and evaluating EFL software and websites rather than with reading theoretical articles and books. Also, they were encouraged to reflect on the applications of CALL resources and technological software programs to their teaching practices.
With regard to the contents of the OLCoP, they were generally categorized into four
areas: CALL Software Programs, Reflection Tools, CALL Practicum, and CALL Theories. In the area of CALL Software Programs, the teachers could learn about some technological tools such as authoring programs and other CALL-related software. In the meantime, they were encouraged to engage in reflections via the discussion forum that could be accessed in Reflection Tool. In the end, they were asked to plan a CALL lesson in which CALL materials might be authored. Lesson plans and authored materials were collected in CALL Practicum.
In addition, they could refer to some theoretical articles and materials selected and provided in CALL Theories, which the teacher educator would sometimes lead the teachers to read for the purpose of justifying CALL practices demonstrated. For example, in learning to evaluate EFL/ESL websites and CD-ROMs, the teachers were led to those articles concerning an assessment of the CALL resources. The learning contents in the four areas are briefly described below:
CALL Software Programs: This area contained a general collection of generic software, specific CALL software programs, CMC applications, and authoring programs. Generic software refers to programs with which the teachers can organize and manage their
instructional tasks. MS Word and Excel were taken as this type of programs. Specific CALL software programs involve multimedia CD-ROMs and websites devoted to language skills.
For example, The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English CD-ROM (Longman, 2003) was introduced with a focus on how this program could facilitate the development of
vocabulary and writing skills. CMC applications, such as e- mail, discussion forum, chat, and teleconferencing, were demonstrated in order for the participants to understand their roles in developing language learners’ communicative competence. MSN messenger and Yahoo messenger were two instances of this type. Finally, authoring programs, such as Hot Potatoes (Holmes, 2003), Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Microsoft PowerPoint, etc., were included.
Introductions to those programs were produced and demonstrated through a screen-captured authoring program, such as Camtasia Studio (TechSmith, 2004) or ViewletBuilder (Youth,
2004). The participants could learn to operate the above CALL applications by viewing on-screen video clips or flash-based animations generated by the screen-captured software.
Reflection Tool: In this area, the participants were introduced to the discussion forum in which the y could share ideas and talk about particular issues regarding CALL practices. This area consisted of several discussion forums of varying topics, such as CALL Websites, CALL CD-ROMs, Authoring Programs, CALL Design, CALL Theories, General Instructional Technology, and other related discussion forums. The classification of discussion forums could help the teachers locate and retrieve forum entries easily and efficiently.
CALL Practicum: In the CALLTD program, the participants were required to write a simple lesson plan involving technology use. Along with lesson plans, they also authored CALL artifacts, such as PowerPoint grammar, Hot Potatoes online quizzes, and other multimedia materials. The lesson plans and CALL materials were submitted to this area to share with others.
CALL Theories: This area comprised what Wallace (1991) refers to as “received
knowledge.” This type of knowledge is often synonymously termed as “public theory,” which refers to those scientific knowledge and academic theories regarding CALL. As research suggests, a qualified CALL teacher should be familiar with SLA, teaching methodologies and CALL theories (e.g., Brantmeier, 2003; Butler-Pascoe & Wiburg, 2003; Davies, 2000).
Accordingly, this section included articles and references regarding such topics as SLA, teaching methodologies, general CALL issues, and the integration of the computer into the curriculum. Those articles and references were collected or written in the forms of DOC and PDF files so that the participants could read them online. More specifically, SLA theories and teaching methodologies included introductions to SLA theoretical models, theory of
communicative competence, and communicative approach to language teaching.CALL issues contained such topics as CALL history, CALL practice, CALL research, CALL pedagogy, the roles of the teacher and the computer in CALL environments,CALL
courseware design, and ESL/EFL software and website evaluations. While learning to put technologies into actual practices, the participating teachers could refer to the articles that explicate the relevance of the computer to language teaching and learning, discuss the issues and procedures of technology integration into the instruction, and present other practical techniques in this regard. In addition, the teacher educator could refer the teachers to particular articles and references as he demonstrated CALL practices. For example, when learning to author and evaluate CALL materials, the teachers were oriented to Chapelle’s (2003) theoretical articles on CALL design and evaluation. This procedure was adopted to echo one of the teaching methods advocated in the theory of cognitive apprenticeship which OLCoP was based on: exploration. That is, with the above theoretical references provided, the teacher learners were expected to explore more about CALL and expand their knowledge voluntarily.
The Participants
Sixteen in-service English teachers who were teaching at elementary or high schools in Taiwan were recruited to join this study when they enrolled in this CALLTD workshop offered by English Language Training Center of National Taiwan Normal University. Upon entering the workshop, they were asked through a consent form (See Appendix A and Appendix B for Chinese and English versions of the consent form) whether they would be willing to participate in the study over the course of the workshop. As to the prerequisite of this course, it was suggested that teachers who would like to join the workshop had better at least possess an ability to operate the computer, such as the ability to use the Microsoft Windows operating system, word-processing programs, and the Internet. This requirement seemed to pose few threats to most of the elementary or high school teachers in the workshop because they had learned some general computer applications in seminars or workshops held
by local educational institutes and agencies.
In the very beginning of the workshop, there were sixteen in-service English teachers participating in the 12-week workshop. However, only eleven teachers were qualified for passing this CALLTD program at the end of the workshop as two-third attendance rate, i.e.
nine weeks, was set as the minimal threshold of receiving a certificate. Among the eleven, only four teachers (Shirley, Fanny, Teresa, and Fiona) were considered valid cases in this study because they were the only ones who completed all the tasks required in the study, such as weekly reflections on the discussion forum and planning a CALL lesson. In other words, seven (Sandy, Gracie, Dorothy, Elaine, Irene, Karen, and Lisa) of the eleven teachers who passed the program were excluded in the study for various reasons. Specifically, six teachers (Gracie, Dorothy, Elaine, Irene, Karen, and Lisa) did not come up with a CALL lesson plan in the end. Four of them (Elaine, Irene, Karen, and Lisa) did not complete all required reflection entries. The other teacher (Sandy) completed the above two main tasks, but she was excluded because she did not submit some reflection entries on time as scheduled in the syllabus of the workshop. The delayed submissions of reflection entries caused difficulties in determining the development of the teachers’ reflectivity over time.
As indicated in the previous paragraph, twelve teachers were not included in the study.
Among these twelve, seven teachers (Gracie, Elaine, Karen, Linda, Peggy, Becky, and Jane) dropped the CALLTD workshop in the middle of the program for unknown reasons. One teacher (Lisa) was troubled by an abrup t lay-off and discontinued her learning in this
workshop. Another three teachers (Dorothy, Irene, and Josephine) were too busy to meet the requirements of the workshop. In particular, two of them (Irene and Josephine) were
preparing for local teacher recruitment exams. The other teacher (Dorothy) was being overwhelmed by troublesome family businesses just happening at that time. It was apparent that the three teachers (Dorothy, Irene, and Josephine) had no adequate time and did not feel in the mood for finishing those time-consuming assignments, such as weekly reflections and
a lesson plan, throughout the workshop. The last teacher (Sandy), as described in the previous paragraph, did not submit weekly forum reflections on time. Tho se were the reasons why the twelve participating teachers were not taken as the valid cases of the study. Table 2 shows information about whether the participating teachers were considered valid cases, their attendances, their completion of course requirements, and the reasons why they quitted the workshop. For the convenience of reading, the participating teachers were ordered according to their performances in the workshop. On the top are the teachers with the best performances on attendance and completion of course work.
Table 2. Information About the Teachers Participating in the Workshop
Teacher Valid case The number
Reasons of being excluded from the study
Shirley Yes 12 Yes Yes NA
Fanny Yes 11 Yes Yes NA
Teresa Yes 12 Yes Yes NA
Fiona Yes 12 Yes Yes NA
Sandy No 10 Yes Yes Delayed submitting reflection
entries
Gracie No 12 Yes No Failed to submit the LP with
an unknown reason (out of contact)
Dorothy No 12 Yes No Failed to submit the LP due to
hectic family business
Elaine No 11 No No Failed to submit all REs and
the LP with an unknown reason (out of contact)
Irene No 9 No No Failed to submit all REs and
the LP due to her preparation for some local teacher
Table 2. (continued)
Josephine No 7 No No The same as Irene’s
Peggy No 7 No No The same as Elaine’s
Becky No 5 No No The same as Elaine’s
Jane No 4 No No The same as Elaine’s
As soon as the sixteen participants joined this project, they were surveyed through an open-ended questionnaire for their academic backgrounds, such as academic credent ials, field of study, CALL experiences, the number of teaching years, and other related information.
More specifically, the y were asked to reply to the following questions:
1. What college did you graduate from? What did you major in?
2. Have you ever taken any CALL course as a student or joined any CALL seminar as a teacher? What did you learn from those teacher development courses?
3. How old are you? For how long have you entered the teaching profession?
4. How do you teach a particular English lesson?
5. What constitutes successful teaching?
These open-ended questions helped to provide a rough understanding of the sixteen teachers’ teaching beliefs in general and academic expertise in English teaching. However, only the replies by the four valid teachers were eventually included as teachers’ background information in the present study.
The Researcher’s Multiple Roles
The researcher played multiple roles in this study. The primary role he took was the teacher educator in the workshop. More specifically, ahead of the workshop, he served as a course designer who created the OLCoP, selected learning modules, produced online learning materials, and specified the prompts for weekly reflections. As soon as the workshop began,
he worked as an instructor who introduced a variety of CALL software programs and tools and demonstrated numerous CALL practices. While the participating teachers were learning to design their own CALL lessons, he functioned as a facilitator to assist them in integrating computer technology into a lesson. In the meantime, he also performed as an observer in the study, constantly observing the in-service teachers’ learning in both the on-campus class and the off-campus OLCoP and documenting their overall reactions. Based on those observations, he offered needed help to all sixteen participants or made modifications to the ways he
instructed in order to ensure the qualities of the CALLTD workshop. Lastly, he was the researcher of the study, who interviewed the four valid participants, collected their discussion forum entries and CALL lesson plans, and analyzed all of the data collected.
The CALL Teacher Development Program
To ensure the success of the CALLTD program, a pilot study had been conducted on thirty in-service elementary school English teachers in Taipei County from November 9 through December 28, 2005. During the 8 weeks, the teachers met at Luh-Chiang elementary school, Taipei County (台北縣鷺江國小), three hours a week. In the following, the purposes and results of the pilot workshop are reported, followed by a report on the present workshop.
Pilot Workshop
The purpose of the pilot workshop was threefold. The first was for the researcher to learn to build a good relationship with in-service teachers since he had no experience in working with them before. Knowing the target group well could help the teacher
educator/researcher design and carry out the present workshop more successfully. The second was for the researcher to learn how to promote teachers’ reflectivity since general public, including the teachers, rarely engage in critical reflections. Under such unfavorable
circumstances, the teacher educator/researcher had to come up with some effective strategies to encourage the teachers to reflect critically during the workshop. The last was to evaluate whether the learning modules suited the teachers’ needs. Since this was the first time for the teacher educator/researcher to offer a CALLTD workshop to in-service teachers, he was uncertain about what was interesting to them and what was practical to them. This experience somewhat could narrow the gap between what the teacher educator thought about and what the teachers needed.
To achieve the purposes, three instruments were emp loyed: a researcher’s journal, a questionnaire, and interviews. In his reflective journal, the teacher educator/researcher documented what he had observed during the 8-week workshop. Through the questionnaire (See Appendix C for its Chinese version and Appendix D for its English version),
examinations were undertaken on the teachers’ (1) satisfactions with the modular contents, (2) satisfactions with the way the workshop was conducted, (3) experience in reflections, and (4) efforts made on the workshop. As for the interview, the teacher educator/researcher
interviewed six participants at the end of the pilot workshop for their opinions about this CALLTD program. Nine interview questions were constructed as an intervie w outline, as listed in Appendix E. The pilot workshop was overall successful. The main findings in the pilot workshop are summarized as follows:
Generally, the teachers appreciated the opportunity of professional development
provided by the workshop. They also felt satisfied with most of the modular topics introduced in the workshop. Furthermore, they thought the topical contents were generally practical to their teaching. That is, the workshop met their needs. These findings suggested that the workshop was useful to the participants in the pilot study and could be applied to the present participants.
In addition, in the pilot workshop, the teachers were encouraged to engage in reflections via the discussion forum and weblog. It was found that they were willing to reply to forum
prompts initiated by the teacher educator right after he finished introducing particular topics in on-campus class. However, only a few teachers would like to document their thoughts through their weblogs due to the lack of time. This result indicated that the teachers preferred completing the discussion forum tasks in class because they thought they were overwhelmed with their teaching chores and were thus not able to find adequate time to reflect outside the workshop sessions. Consequently, they opted for the discussion forum rather than weblog as their reflection tool. This finding might also suggest that the teachers lacked an ability to independently initiate their own reflections on their weblogs and perhaps needed the teacher educator to lead them to reflect. Because of this problem, weblog was not taken as a
reflection tool in the current study.
Overall, these findings suggested that the pilot workshop was basically useful to the participating teachers because learning topics and modules as well as reflective procedure were ensured for the present workshop.
Present workshop
The present workshop was carried out with a focus on helping the teacher not only learn technological skills but also develop their proficiency in relating technology to teaching context through reflective procedures. In the very beginning of the workshop, the teacher educator introduced course curriculum and presented model CALL lessons to the participants for the purpose of sketching out a general picture of the workshop. Right after the first week, the teachers were tutored to join the OLCoP of the workshop and other online teacher
deve lopment communities and organizations, such as Tapped In (http://tappedin.org),
EVOnline 2002 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evonline2002_webheads/), and EdTech Talk
EVOnline 2002 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evonline2002_webheads/), and EdTech Talk