In this chapter, the methodology of this study is described in detail, including descriptions of the setting, participants, procedure, data collection, and data analysis.
Participants
The current study explored secondary English teachers‟ beliefs and practices regarding technology integration. Thus, the researcher intended to target English teachers in secondary schools who may or may not use technology in their classrooms.
Through means of convenient sampling, three English teachers were targeted based on the following criteria. First, all teachers taught in public secondary schools. Second, all of them had taken courses related to CALL (Computer Assisted Language
Learning) application in the professional courses in graduate school. Third, they were all equipped with basic computer literacy. That is, they were able to operate basic computer systems, such as Microsoft word processor and Internet searching.
The three participants were first informed of the purpose of the study. Through a consent form (see Appendix A), they were then asked whether they were willing to participate in the current study, and all three of them agreed to be the participant for this study. Their identification is presented by codes to ensure confidentiality. Table 3.1 presents the basic demographic information for respective participants.
30
Table 3.1
Basic demographic information of participating teachers
Categories Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C
Gender Female Female Female
Age early 40s early 30s late 20s
1Years of English
teaching experiences 16 years 10 years 4 years
School level Junior high school Junior high school Senior high school Location Taipei City Hsinchu County Hsinchu City Number of classes2 3, from 8th grade
Note 1. Years of English teaching experiences account for the total years up to 2009 academic year.
2. The data collection time for Teacher A‟s case began from the spring semester to the fall semester, and during this time her students turned from 8th grade to 9th grade.
Note 3. 11th grade in Taiwan‟s educational system refers to 2nd year in senior high.
Note 4. The total teaching hours account for those in an academic year.
Teacher A
Teacher A was a female English teacher at her early 40s. At the time of data collection (Spring semester to Fall semester in 2009), she had 16 years of English teaching experiences in total. She was teaching at School A, a junior high school in Taipei City.
Teacher A had two years of English teaching experiences in two other remote junior high schools and three years in an elementary school in Taipei City,
respectively. Then she transited to the current School A in Taipei City, where she had been teaching for 11 years. When Grade 1-9 Curriculum1 was first announced in 1999, Teacher A‟s teaching experiences in the elementary school enabled her to bridge
1 Grade 1-9 Curriculum refers MOE‟s effort in connecting years of education from elementary to junior high school level, making it more thorough and integrated instead of fragmented and disconnected.
31
the gap between elementary and junior high level, thus making her more familiar with the execution of the policy. Concomitantly, her teaching experiences in remote areas also allowed her to take into consideration any practicality issues present on the teaching sites.
While teaching in School A, Teacher A received her master‟s degree in ETMA2 from a public university in Northern Taiwan. She considered the training in graduate school helpful for her teaching, as she was able to combine her teaching experiences with the theories she learned, making her more efficient in designing her instructions.
During Teacher A‟s master‟s study in TESOL, however, she failed her thesis once, and her thesis was criticized on putting too much emphasis upon technology alone rather than referring it to English teaching. Coupled with several other personal incidents that upset her, she temporarily suspended her teaching and instead was transferred to administrative work for a year. During that time she got to deliberate upon the
meaning of technology in English teaching. She also encountered a group of teachers who were conducting IEARN projects. These experiences stroke her and led her to realize that English teaching could be enriched with so many different aspects, with computer technology assisting rather than dominating English instructions. She was thus able to overcome this particular obstacle and continued working on her thesis by a different focus.
During her five years of master‟s study, Teacher A was also assigned to be a member at the Compulsory Education Advisory Group3, which in turn allowed her to be more familiar with nation-wide educational policies, receive in-service training, and attend various seminars and workshops related to teaching.
2 ETMA refers to Master of Arts in English Teaching, and this program is specifically designed for in-service English teachers with at least two years of practical experience in English teaching.
3 The Compulsory Education Advisory Group Teacher A participated in was led by the central MOE, in which experienced and professional teachers would be recruited. To put it simply, they would be trained and train other teachers in order to elevate the overall quality of Taiwan education.
32
According to Teacher A, as an English teacher, she carried several distinct
characteristics that characterized her as a unique instructor. First, she described herself as one without much patience but willing to experiment new teaching ideas in her instructions. Thus, instead of recycling the same teaching materials over and over again, she favored adding innovation and creation into her own teaching. Second, Teacher A remained single in her marital status, which, granted her lots of time and flexibility to design her own instructional methods and materials. Third, Teacher A also reported a continuous high interest in computer technology, as she had been learning computer since senior high school. Such interest in computer technology, her computer technical skills, coupled with her years of English teaching experiences, altogether enabled her to know which technology would work best in meeting her teaching goals and needs.
Teacher B
Teacher B was a female teacher at her early 30s, and at the time of data
collection, she had 10 years of English teaching experiences in total. She was teaching at School B, a junior high school in Hsinchu County. Teacher B first taught in a
private vocational high school for 5 years, followed by another 4 years in a local junior high school in Pintung City. During the particular time when she was teaching in Pingtung City, she was on unpaid leave of absence, as she was pursuing her master‟s degree in TESOL in a public university in California, U.S.A. Then starting from the fall semester in 2009, she was transferred to her current school, School B.
Thus, when the data was first collected, it was only her first year in School B, and Teacher B admitted that she was still in the process of adjusting to a whole new setting.
Teacher B regarded herself as an English teacher with good adaptability, as she
33
stated she was able to adapt to different schools and different students‟ learning needs in the shortest time possible. Moreover, she considered herself a conscientious and positive teacher who would strictly demand order in the classroom as well as proper writing on students‟ note-taking and assignments. She also hoped that she could become an English teacher who could strive for the better and incorporate as much diversity in as possible in her instructions, so that students could indeed learn something from her English classes.
Teacher C
Teacher C was a female at the age of late 20s, and at the time of data collection, she had been teaching for 4 years. During data collection time she was teaching at School C, a senior high school in Hsinchu City. Before starting out as a teacher, Teacher C had received her master‟s degree in TESOL in a public university in Northern Taiwan. Upon the completion of her master‟s study, she taught at a local senior high school in Taoyuan County. After her internship, Teacher C taught first as a substitute in Taoyuan for a year. She was later hired as a regular teacher in a local senior high school in Hsinchu City for another year before transferring to her current school, School C.
As an English teacher, Teacher C regarded the willingness to learn new things as the one of the most important qualities of being a teacher. From her perspective, teachers cannot reject the idea of learning nor be satisfied with the status quo. In particular with computer technology getting more prevalent these days, Teacher C thought that teachers cannot be terrified of new challenges nor have any phobias regarding technology. Thus, feeling yet still in sufficient in her abilities even after her master‟s study, she would attend and participate in various seminars and workshops related to either teaching or technology integration. Her school (School C) would also
34
hold similar seminars, inviting model teachers of every discipline to demonstrate how they integrated technology in their classes. In addition to being open to innovations, Teacher C also considered it of primary importance to become an irreplaceable
English teacher. In her own definition, this meant to impart to students knowledge that they might not be able to obtain if they were to learn from other sources (e.g.,
dictionary, cram school, parents, etc.)
Data Collection
A case-study approach was used to allow greater in-depth examinations of the stories of each individual teacher, reported in their own voice. Such an approach, according to Stake (1995), gave a great a chance to explore the unique and common sides of the teachers, as well as the detail of interaction within the given contexts.
Two major sources of data were collected, namely classroom observations and interviews. The interviews were the primary source for data collection in this study. In order to gain a more holistic picture, the interviews included those with participating teachers, their students, and the school administrators they worked with. By having such multiple interviews, teachers‟ interpretations of their actions could be supported and supplemented by statements from students and administrators. Further details of observations and interviews are described in the following section.
Classroom Observations
Given the concern of time constraint and the fact that classroom observations constituted secondary source of data that served supplementary function to the interview data, only one class of each participating teacher was randomly selected by us for observations, and the researcher acted as the outside observer sitting behind in the classroom. These observations focused on how teachers normally conducted
35
classes and how they integrated any forms of technology in their teaching. With each observation, field notes were kept, and class documents, including worksheets, classroom materials, student works, and example readings, were also collected.
Interviews
Interviews with participating teachers
As the data collection time with Teacher A spread across two different semesters, the number of interviews with her was more than that with the other two teachers.
There were 5 major interviews conducted with Teacher A, and 3 major interviews conducted with Teacher B and C. Throughout all the interviews, Chinese was used to ensure mutual understanding on both the researchers and the participants. The first major interview with all teachers lasted for approximately an hour. In this interview, the questions probed into the following aspects: (a) specific demographic information of each teacher, (b) teachers‟ own definition of technology integration, (c) teachers‟
beliefs about technology integration in their English classes, including its pros and cons, (d) practices of technology in any forms, if any, in the past or in the current school semester, (e) factors for deciding to integrate technology in class, and (f) difficulties encountered when attempting to integrate technology in class as well as the attributions for such difficulties (see Appendix B). Moreover, as Teacher A was situated in a different context in the fall semester of 2009, the researcher conducted another interview with her in the fall semester to explore again her beliefs and practices in a different context.
For the next major interview, the researcher spent 30 to 40 minutes to explore the underlying rationales and philosophy behind teachers‟ instructional practices and integration of technology in the ways observed (see Appendix C). Lastly, a final interview (see Appendix D) with each participating teacher taking for about an hour
36
was also conducted near the end of the semester. In this interview, they were asked to clarify further (a) their thoughts regarding how technology can be integrated to facilitate their teaching and (b) how the underlying factors might altogether assist or impede their attempt to integrate technology in the classroom.
Interviews with students and school administrators
The researcher randomly selected two representative students from the observed class to conduct an interview, which lasted for about 30 minutes. Questions for the students included their knowledge of and attitudes toward technology integration, and their expectations of how technology could be integrated in their English classes (see Appendix E). The researcher also interviewed two school administrators from the Office of academic affairs in each school. These administrators were the Section Chief of Curriculum Design (教學組長) and the Section Chief of Information
Technology (資訊組長). They were asked about the infrastructure available in school, the extent of technical support given in any ways to teachers and the general degree of technology integration teachers usually incorporated in their school (see Appendix F).
Procedure
The procedures undertaken in the study extended over two semesters. Table 3.2 shows a detailed timeframe for respective interviews and observations conducted in this study.
The data collection with Teacher A first started out in May 2009, in the middle of the spring semester. To achieve initial understandings of her demographic information, her beliefs as well as practices regarding technology integration, a first major
interview was conducted. Through this initial interview, the data collected served as guiding references for later observations. After the first interview, classroom
observations were conducted rather intensively for the following May and June, with
37
the researcher observing the target class for five classes in a row. Through such intensive observations, basic knowledge was obtained as to how teachers‟ classes were usually conducted a lesson. In between the observations, the researcher also had small, informal conversations with Teacher A as follow-ups of her classroom teaching.
The second major interview with Teacher A took place near the end of the semester to explore and summarize the rationales of Teacher A‟s teaching and decision-making of adopting technology in her classroom.
Next, as it was the beginning of another academic year, the researcher continued to conduct the third interview with Teacher A to trace her follow-up beliefs and practices in a different context (i.e., time and classes). Then starting in September 2009, the researcher additionally recruited Teacher B and Teacher C as two other participants for the study and conducted the first major interview with them. The purpose was to gain their demographic information, beliefs in technology integration and their teaching practices. Then similar to the previous semester, intensive
observations were once again undertaken throughout September and October.
Likewise, with the same intention of getting to know teachers‟ teaching philosophy, the fourth interview with Teacher A and the second interview with Teacher B and Teacher C were conducted respectively in October. Later subsequent classroom observations continued to take place for another month. The researcher nonetheless reduced the number of observations at this point,; they were conducted only once every two weeks, and they served as a regular check up on teacher‟ instructions.
The final major interviews with each teacher were conducted at the end of the semester. At this particular time, the researcher sought for further illumination of teachers‟ beliefs and practices in technology integration, tapping farther into the relationship among technology, their teaching, and the underlying attributions. Lastly, there were also respective interviews conducted with two students in each observed
38
class as well as two school administrators from the office of academic affairs. The purpose was to delve into students‟ and administrators‟ attitudes toward technology integration in the classroom. The teachers were consulted first before the interviews took place so they could feel comfortable with their students being interviewed.
Table 3.2
Schedule for the interviews and classroom observations Time span Things to do Purpose(s)
May, 2009 1st major interview- Teacher A Teacher A‟s demographic
information & her beliefs & practices in technology integration
May & Jun.
2009
Intensive classroom
observations- Teacher A‟s class
Basic knowledge of how classes were conducted
Jun. 2009 2nd major interview- Teacher A Understanding of Teacher A‟s rationales for teaching
Sep. 2009 3rd major interview- Teacher A Follow-ups of Teacher A‟s beliefs &
practices of technology in a different context
1st major interview- Teacher B
& Teacher C
Teacher B‟s and Teacher C‟s demographic information & their beliefs & practices in technology integration
Sep.-Oct. 2009 Intensive classroom observations- all teachers
Basic knowledge of how classes were conducted
Oct. 2009 4th major interview- Teacher A
Understanding of teachers‟ rationales for teaching
2nd major interview- Teacher B
& Teacher C Oct. -Nov.
2009
Follow-up classroom
observations Check-up on teachers‟ teaching Jan. 2010 Final interview with each
teacher
Further clarification of teachers‟
beliefs and practices in technology Jan.-Feb. 2010 Interview with students &
administrators
Attitudes toward technology integration
39
Data Analysis
Data analysis was mainly based on the data collected from interview and observations. In trying to further understand how the participants operate or make instructional decisions, data analysis also employed the six components in
Engeström‟s (1987, 1999) model of activity theory – subject, object, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and division of labor. In the context of the current study, respective components in the activity system are listed as the following (see Figure 3.1).
Subject: Three participating teachers and their subject agency, such as their beliefs, personal background and experiences.
Object: The teaching of English and teaching goals as stated by each participating teacher.
Mediating artifacts: All kinds of artifacts that helped teachers achieve their objects, such as materials, languages, tools, resources, and technology.
Community: All stakeholders involved in teachers‟ teaching, such as the observed classes, English faculty members, school administrations, and parents.
Rules: The conventions, structures, regulations and cultures that are historically developed within that particular communitysuch as schools or classrooms.
Division of labor: The power status delivered by the teachers, students, and school administrators within and across each community.
40
Figure 3.1 Activity system in the current study
After defining what each component entailed, the researcher analyzed and coded all the interview transcripts and field notes, categorizing them according to the
component the researcher considered appropriate. One of the focuses of the study was to investigate teachers‟ beliefs in teaching, learning, and technology as well as the relationship between their beliefs and their English instructions. With such purpose in mind, it only makes sense to analyze each component in the activity system to
interpret and explain any possible triggers that might be held accountable for participant‟s choice of actions.
Trustworthiness
Two approaches were used to ensure the trustworthiness and to increase credibility of the study, and these included triangulation of data, the employment of member checking technique. According to earlier studies, it was essential to
triangulate the data from multiple data sources (Patton, 2001; Yin, 2003). The data collected in this study consist of interviews with teachers, students, and school
SUBJECT:
Teacher A, B & C Their subject agency
MEDIATING ARTIFACTS:
All kinds of artifacts teachers used to achieve their objects
DIVISION OF LABOR: Roles and power status performed and
DIVISION OF LABOR: Roles and power status performed and