In this chapter, the findings are discussed in depth to address the research
questions of this study. In the last section of this chapter, the conclusions for this study are outlined, which include a brief summary of the study findings, pedagogical
implications, and suggestions for future research.
Discussion
The findings of the current study are discussed through addressing the two research questions framed in this study.
Research question 1: How do English teachers’ beliefs lead to their practices regarding technology integration?
Examining three teachers‟ cases through the analytical lens of activity theory, the findings indicate that as the subject of their own activity system, each teacher brought with them a dynamic set of beliefs and concerns about the values as well as the nature of computer technology in the classroom. These subjects‟ beliefs then largely
contributed to teachers‟ instructional decisions regarding technology integration. In the current study, whereas Teacher A held positive beliefs in the potential of computer technology that enabled her to adopt technology as the mediation in her teaching, Teacher B and Teacher C questioned the practicality of technology in the classroom, which ultimately led them to resort to use traditional lectures instead of technology integration as the major mediation in their classroom.
Asserting that computer technology should serve as a facilitative role to mediate her English instructions, Teacher A believed that the greatest merit of computer
84
technology was its potential in offering students‟ multiple possibilities of English learning experiences and cultivating students‟ global vision. Whereas textbooks normally were deemed as the dominant authority for knowledge and often criticized for being blend and rigid (Lin, 2007), computer technology can present to students various English learning sources and open up students‟ horizon, which cannot be achieved through textbooks alone. Such advantages became the objects in Teacher A‟s instructions. Acknowledging the value of computer technology in teaching, she was thus willing to integrate technology and conduct computer projects as the mediation to reach those objects. Moreover, the positive experiences she had and feedbacks
received from students when conducting these project-based learning also led her to confirm her belief in the benefits of technology and continued to integrate technology in her teaching.
The fact that Teacher A‟s positive beliefs and experiences with computer
technology enabled her integration of technology echoed with findings from previous research. In Bullock‟s study (2004), for instance, a preservice teacher‟s positive in-class experiences with technology and her observations of successful modeling were important enablers that triggered her to perceive and use technology as an integral part of her instruction. As witnessed in Teacher A‟s case, in Windschitl and Sahl‟s study(2002), teachers‟ beliefs regarding technology were also consistent with their practices, and those beliefs filtered their interpretations of how technology was to be used. The transfer of beliefs into practices also follows Drenoyianni and Selwood‟s suggested model (1998), in which rationales were changed into goals and instructional decisions. In Teacher A‟s case, her beliefs in the potential of technology became the rationales for her to integrate technology in her teaching, the advantages technology brought were transformed into the goals or objects she would like to achieve, and they ultimately were realized in her decisions to integrate technology
85
through computer projects.
On the other hand, Teacher B‟s and Teacher C‟s instructional practices in
technology integration as mediation was largely framed upon their beliefs in whether technology could enhance their teaching. They appeared to evaluate the pros and cons of technology in terms of its practicality in their English classrooms, and they finally decided that its restrictive nature did not fit into their instructions. For both teachers, three major concerns played a role in affecting their decisions, including (a) their uncertainty about how technology could be implemented in their instruction, (b) their questioning about its effect on students‟ learning, and (c) lack of teacher-students interactions posed by technology integration. These concerns thus formed a strong subject agency that resulted in their limited use of technology in teaching.
First, Teacher B acknowledged that her unfamiliarity with technology prevented her from integrating it in her teaching, because she was afraid of wasting valuable time figuring out what to do if any unanticipated computer glitches took place.
Similarly, Teacher C also reported she was unsure of how assessment could be implemented by means of computer technology, and whether such assessment could be proved as effective when students were still assessed via the traditional
paper-and-pencil test. Consequently, such uncertainty as to what to do caused both Teacher B and Teacher C to either integrate little or no technology at all in their instructions. According to previous studies, avoiding uncertainty and exerting control were of crucial importance to teachers (Chen, 2008). In a study on secondary school teachers‟ use of technology, for example, teachers‟ comfort or intolerance for
uncertainty was also found to determine teachers‟ use of technology (Saye, 1998).
While it seems that most teachers tend to rely on routine or familiar practices, it has also been suggested that such fear or doubts toward uncertainty and the lack of confidence in taking risks or incorporating changes should be regarded as an
86
acceptable and normal part of a teacher‟s professional development (Levin &
Wadmany, 2008).
Second, both Teacher B and Teacher C were held back toward the effect of computer technology on students‟ learning. Teacher B argued that when she integrated technology in her teaching, she could only teach limited amount of textbook content in certain amount of time. Given the tight schedules teachers in high schools usually had to cover in a semester, this may jointly affect students‟ learning process too.
Students might not be able to learn that much when compared with the traditional teaching of „chalk and talk‟, where teachers could simply deliver more concepts.
Teacher C also questioned students‟ ability to comprehend, as she was under the impression that the fanciness of technology was likely to distract students from learning target points. Shaped by her previous experiences during internship, she preferred the traditional „chalk and talk‟ as more practical, effective, and time-saving.
From both cases, it could be found that, consistent with the findings drawn from Lam‟s study (2000), teachers unconvinced of the benefits of technology in teaching – as evidenced in Teacher B‟s and Teacher C‟s cases – would result in their lack of technology use. Unless teachers themselves can perceive the potential of technology to their teaching, it is very likely that technology would just remain untouched even when computer access is made readily available
Third, Teacher B and Teacher C also remarked that technology integration lacked a sense of interaction. Teacher B, for example, argued that little communication would be involved between teacher and students when technology was used in class. Unease with computer technology in particular was also spotted when she reported her feelings toward letting students learn through computer technology. It seemed that compared with conventional teacher lectures by which teacher usually exert total authority over students‟ learning and interact with students a lot, Teacher B‟s
87
descriptions of computer technology as „casual and slack‟ as well as „stiff and surreal‟
suggested her unwillingness adopt computer technology in her teaching. Likewise, Teacher C preferred having students‟ full attention because such authority helped her be reassured of students‟ understanding. However, the use of technology in class, as Teacher C commented, often resulted in the teacher getting held up and distanced from students. Particularly in an English classroom where teachers often need to interact with students a lot, the use of computer technology seemed to fail to attend to this area.
Acting as the authority in the classroom, teachers often believe that surrendering such authority is likely to hinder students‟ learning, and they would choose to assume substantial control of their classrooms (Chen, 2008). Such was proven to be true in Teacher B‟s and Teacher C‟s cases as well. As the integration of technology
respectively implied giving students more autonomy in learning and the possibility of teacher getting distanced away from students, they seemed rather uncomfortable and reluctant to do so. Consequently, their beliefs of computer technology as surrendering control and authority prompted them to integrate little technology in their teaching.
Additionally, what previous studies on teachers‟ use of technology did not seem to address was the nature of an English classroom. In a language class, communication needs to be in place, and teachers usually have to do constant on-the-spot interactions with students, asking students questions and providing them with prompt feedbacks.
Such function is likely to be reduced, however, when the presence of computer technology often requires teachers to teach and operate computer at the same time.
The complexity involved within perhaps can explain why the two teachers did not integrate much technology in their classrooms.
Overall, the current study were compatible with the findings from earlier research, which demonstrated that teachers‟ beliefs in technology or technology
88
integration can largely determine how technology is to be defined and integrated in their classroom practices. As concluded in Levin and Wadmany‟s final remark (2008),
“[…] we should also consider the broader profile of teachers‟ educational beliefs, their cognitive and emotional disposition to face novel, uncertain situations, their actual teaching practices, and their views on technology and its supportive and restrictive nature” (p. 255). Accordingly, for successful technology integration to take place, it is vital to examine teachers‟ activity system, looking into what teachers believe
technology could bring to the classroom and how it can be integrated.
Research question 2: How do contextual factors interplay with English teachers’
classroom practices in technology integration?
Using activity theory to explore possible attributions to teachers‟ practices in technology integration, it can be found that in addition to individual teacher‟s subject agency, contextual factors embedded within teachers‟ situated communities also contributed to shaping teachers‟ integration of technology. Due to various contextual constraints from the community, in the fall semester Teacher A was unable to integrate technology through computer projects as she did in the spring semester. Likewise, Teacher B and Teacher C were rather reluctant to integrate technology in their instructions as a result of similar contextual factors.
Teacher A was able to adopt computer projects as the mediation in the spring semester because of the availability of computer access, joint support from colleagues, school and parents, and the nature of her students who attended cram schools and carried higher English proficiency than those in remote areas. The source of these facilitative factors, however, became inhibitions when Teacher A transited to a whole new semester and her students reached the 9th grade. No more computer class was assigned in the 9th grade, and the support from colleagues and flexibility that was once
89
present in the 8th grade was replaced with the requirement that all the 9th-grade teachers had to have a unified teaching schedule. Such requirement formed a
community rule which regulated teacher A‟s teaching and the mediation she could use.
Instead of continuously sustaining teachers‟ instructions, school and parents started to demand for students‟ academic performances in the new semester. Students at this point were also confronted with heavy school load to attend to, but they were insufficient in their autonomy to monitor their own learning process. All of these contextual limitations confined Teacher A from conducting any computer projects to mediate her teaching, and she could only use minimal technology by finding online supplementary materials for her students.
Tracing the source for such drastic change between two semesters, we found that the need and pressure to prepare students for the upcoming Basic Competence Test (BCT) appeared to mark the divide between her classroom practices in the spring and fall semester in 2009. The emphasis on preparing students for the ultimate exam was in line with the findings highlighted in previous literature (Chen, 2008). High grade in the exam is often equated with entering prestigious schools, or vice versa. As such high-stake exam has been practiced in Taiwan for many years, they become the underlying convention that is deeply rooted within every secondary schools that are hard to be challenged. The stakes involved is so high that getting students to score high in the exam becomes the prioritized goal in teaching. In addition to teachers, other stakeholders such as school‟s administrative body, parents, and even students also consider students‟ exam performance of primary importance. Under such circumstances, the integration of technology in innovative ways is likely to be discouraged, since it often implies teachers taking risks to conduct teaching that is more student-centered and creative but also time-consuming. Moreover, in
comparison with technology integration, teachers may be more concerned with more
90
pressing priority they need to attend to, that is, improving students‟ grades in the exam (McGrail, 2005). In Teacher A‟s community, this priority surpassed her original
teaching object, and ultimately had to make compromises.
When comparing Teacher A‟s case in the fall semester with Teacher B‟s and Teacher C‟s cases, certain contextual factors in common can be identified as
preventing them from integrating technology. These factors include the pressure for exams, the lack of time, nature of students, and the stress among colleagues. Some other factors such as insufficient infrastructure and the nature of Taiwan‟s EFL environment, while may not be shared among all teachers, were also pinpointed as significant for influencing teachers‟ practices in technology integration as well.
First, all of the participants unanimously stated that the pressure to prepare students for the upcoming test and exam (BCT for junior high school students and Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE) for senior high school students) was one major reason that pulled them back from integrating technology. In Taiwan, test or exam has been considered and used as the gatekeeper to success, and scoring high in exams often infers getting the ticket to reputed high schools and colleges. This test-oriented atmosphere within schools and classrooms drove them to conduct teaching that focus primarily on knowledge retention, memorization and test preparation. This corresponded with Teacher A‟s reported concern in her second semester of teaching, and it shows that preparing students for the examination is an issue of utmost importance to all teachers alike in educational settings. Occupied with this particular goal, teachers may not be able to spare extra time or efforts to integrate technology in their instructions.
Second, all three teachers stated lack of time or teaching hours as one of the factors inhibiting their technology integration, and this has been proven throughout much literature (e.g., Chen, 2004; Chen, 2008; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;
91
Huang, 2003). The integration of technology oftentimes implies that teachers spend additional hours on locating and preparing the appropriate computer resources for their classes. However, oftentimes it is the school‟s norm that teachers attend to homeroom class supervision and administrative work in addition to curriculum design (Hsu, 2003). With the need to follow such norm, it is not surprising why the teachers in the current study were complaining about not having enough time to integrate technology into teaching. Furthermore, the pressure to prepare students for the test also drives teachers to act as an „academic specialist‟ (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001) who are primarily concerned with covering large body of content information that may be related to the items appear in the test. Given that technology integration might suggest allocating valuable class hours to adjust technical issues or for students to explore on their own, most teachers are hesitant to do so at the expense of affecting their class schedule (Lee, 2008). Content coverage thus becomes the dominant focus for teachers in secondary schools, and this urge prevented them from integrating technology in their classes.
Third, the nature of the students was also referred to as one factor inhibiting teachers‟ integration of technology. Students‟ passivity in receiving knowledge and heavy reliance upon teachers to guide them through reduced the possibility for teachers to spend additional time on technology integration. Such passivity has been addressed and discussed in various literature (e.g., Cheng, 2000; Kember, 2000;
Littlewood, 2000), and a common attribution would be the Asian cultural norm that asserts teachers‟ authoritative figure and students‟ reticence. While some argued that such stereotypical misconception of Asian learners is only „situation specific rather than culturally pre-set‟ (Cheng, 2000, p. 435) that cannot be generalized into all Asian educational settings, this appears to be true for all three of the teachers in the current study. This might due to the fact that students in general are not exposed to
92
occasions that require necessary use of English, thus lowering their autonomy and motivations for English learning (Chang, 2003, as cited in Chen, 2008).
In addition to students‟ passivity, their heavy school load was another factor that restrains teachers‟ technology integration. With the intention of raising students‟
performance in BCT or JCEE, students are often asked to read and prepare as many English materials as possible besides regular textbooks. These might include workbooks, test papers, English magazines, and other practice books as well.
Students‟ such school load naturally made it impossible for teachers to conduct technology-integrated activities that might pose as extra burden for the students.
Fourth, both Teacher A and Teacher B cited the pressure among colleagues as the source for their unwillingness to adopt or integrate technology as the mediation in their teaching. Teacher A faced the unification requirement among her colleagues, and Teacher B, regulated by the transcript spread among teachers, experienced the
pressure to catch up with other teachers‟ teaching schedule. Institutional or organizational culture from teachers‟ situated community should be taken into consideration when examining teachers‟ technology integration, as its culture can largely shape individual teacher‟s effort, either positively or negatively, in adopting any technology (Adamy & Heinecke, 2005). In Teacher A‟s and Teacher B‟s cases, the need for unification and printing out the transcript could be considered part of an institutional culture that had been established and practiced for years in their respective community. Such practices were deeply in-grained in their schools, and they formed certain pressure that inhibited the extent of their technology integration.
Some other factors such as insufficient infrastructure also served as contextual influences that determined teachers‟ practices in technology integration. During the data collection semester, there was no projectors built in Teacher B‟s classroom, and there were only two computer labs available for the entire faculty in her school.
93
Similar to the participants in Chen‟s study (2008) who had no intention of reserving computer labs, such inconvenient and limited access to computer technology also deprived Teacher B of the fundamental condition she needed for technology integration.
Teacher C also cited the nature of Taiwan‟s EFL environment as one particular factor that inhibited her technology integration. She stated that the focus of English subject on reading and writing as well as lack of opportunity to use English in Taiwan altogether limited the extent of her technology integration. This comment suggests
Teacher C also cited the nature of Taiwan‟s EFL environment as one particular factor that inhibited her technology integration. She stated that the focus of English subject on reading and writing as well as lack of opportunity to use English in Taiwan altogether limited the extent of her technology integration. This comment suggests