0
國立交通大學
國立交通大學
國立交通大學
國立交通大學
英語教學研究所碩士論文
英語教學研究所碩士論文
英語教學研究所碩士論文
英語教學研究所碩士論文
A Master Thesis
Presented to
Institute of TESOL,
National Chiao Tung University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
以活動理論探討職前教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材
以活動理論探討職前教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材
以活動理論探討職前教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材
以活動理論探討職前教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材比賽
比賽
比賽
比賽的信念與實施
的信念與實施
的信念與實施
的信念與實施
Exploring the Beliefs and Practices of Pre-service Teachers in the
Participation of CALL Material Design Contest: An Activity Theory
Perspective
研究生
研究生
研究生
研究生:
:
:
: 李明倩
李明倩
李明倩
李明倩
Graduate: Ming-Chien Lee
指導教授
指導教授
指導教授
指導教授:
:
:
: 張靜芬
張靜芬
張靜芬
張靜芬
博士
博士
博士
博士
Advisor: Dr. Ching-Fen Chang
中華民國
中華民國
中華民國
中華民國
一
一
一
一○
○
○
○二
二
二
二
年
年
年
年
七
七
七
七
月
月
月
月
July, 2013
i 論文名稱:以活動理論探討職前教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材比賽的理念與實施 校所系別: 交通大學英語教學所 畢業時間: 101 學年度第二學期 指導教授: 張靜芬教授
中文摘要
中文摘要
中文摘要
中文摘要
資訊融入教學在國高中及國小老師中已屬趨勢，因此全國性資訊融入教學的教材比賽 也蔚為風行，為教師應用科技於教學的努力與專業發展平添獎勵。因此針對相關議題，本 研究企圖探討教師參與設計電腦輔助語言教學教材比賽的理念與實施。即便過去文獻中已 大量探討教師對科技融入教學的信念，鮮少研究探討教師信念與科技融入教學教材的關 聯。 以活動理論(Engeström, 1987, 1999) 做理論框架，本質性研究藉由訪談及文件記錄下三 位職前教師設計電腦輔助語言教學教材的過程。本研究有三個研究問題，包含(1)教師在電 腦輔助語言教學及語言教學及學習的信念，如何反映在參與比賽中設計的電腦輔助教學教 材上，(2)有哪些潛在的因素影響教師的比賽參與，和(3)參與比賽的經驗如何影響到教師的 信念及教師在教材設計、科技融入及比賽參與上造成的影響。訪談內容將依據活動理論六 大因素進行分析，包含「個體」、「欲達成之目標」、「達成目標的媒介」、「個體存在之社群」、 「社群內之規則」、及「個體和他人之間的權力關係」。 研究結果指出，教師信念對他們設計教材及科技上的選擇有重大影響。在語言教學與 學習上的信念有三個要點，包含(1)設計吸引人有趣教材的偏好，(2)讓學習者有參與的考 量，和(3)專業知識的呈現。另外，缺乏訓練、比賽規定及繳交作品的期限為造成教師信念 與實施前後不一致的主因。按照活動理論六大因素來探討，媒介包含教師信念、訓練及教 學和設計教材的經驗。第二，關於達成目標的媒介，兩位參與研究的老師採用多樣的輸入 管道以求教材多變化，惟有一位老師因為時間緊迫及傾向使用既有資源而採用較少的達成 目標的媒介。第三，至於比賽的環境下造成的社群內之規則，不但讓教師使用科技上有限ii 制，對教材設計也造成緊張和阻礙。相反的，個體存在之社群提供了支持及正向的幫助。 最後，有關個體和他人之間的權力關係，教師在比賽中對於主辦單位屈居劣勢，而權力也 因為考量到學習者和使用者及設計學生為主體的活動而部分流失。雖然本研究未捕捉到教 師信念上劇大的改變，但也探討到參與比賽對老師帶來正向及負向的經驗。 對於教學應用有幾項建議，包含鼓勵教師參與比賽及與之建立合作關係，及製定比賽 規則時應納入老師的觀點。 關鍵字：電腦輔助語言教學教材設計、活動理論、資訊融入、教師信念、比賽
iii
Exploring the Beliefs and Practices of Pre-service Teachers in the
Participation of CALL Material Design Contest:
An Activity Theory Perspective
Abstract
Integrating technology into teaching has been a trend among K-12 teachers. With reference
to such a trend, contests on designing technology-integrated materials encourage teachers’ efforts
in incorporating technology into pedagogical practice. In this regard, the present study aims to
explore the process of CALL material design in contests with the focus on teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Although teachers’ beliefs in technology integration have been addressed in abundant
literature, the relations between beliefs and CALL materials have not yet fully addressed.
Drawing on activity theory (Engestrom, 1987, 1999), the qualitative study targets three
pre-service teachers and records their process of CALL material design by means of
semi-structured interviews and documents. The study addresses three research questions,
including (1) how teachers’ beliefs in CALL and language teaching and learning are reflected in
their CALL material design in a contest, (2) what underlying factors mediated the process of
their participation for the contest, (3) how participating in the contest influences teachers’ beliefs
and teachers in terms of material design, technology integration and contest participation.
Interview data was coded into six components in Engeström’s (1987, 1999) model of activity
theory, including subject, object, mediated artifacts, community, rules, and division of labor.
The findings of the study reveal that teachers’ beliefs were influential in their practice.
Regarding their beliefs in language teaching and learning, three common themes were found to
be crucial, including their preference in creating attractive materials, consideration of involving
learners, and their professional knowledge. Additionally, insufficient training, contest regulations
iv beliefs and practices.
With reference to the components interplaying within teachers’ activity systems, firstly,
agency consisted of teachers’ beliefs, training as well as experience in both teaching and material
design. Second, the mediated artifacts were adopted by the two participants in varying their
materials. Interestingly, only one participant adopted rather few mediated artifacts due to her
limited time and the tendency to utilize only the available resource. Third, primarily established
within the contest, the rules were found to impact teachers’ use of technology and cause
restrictions to their practice. Conversely, the community such as partner or technical support was
suggested to be facilitative to teachers. Finally, concerning division of labor, teachers were at
disadvantage to the host institute in the context of a contest. Last but not least, despite no drastic
change in teacher’s beliefs was spotted, the experience of participating in such contest brought
both positive and negative impacts to teachers in terms of material design and technology
integration.
Several pedagogical implications were proposed, including the encouragement of contest
participation and collaboration with partners, and involving teachers’ perspective in constructing
contest regulations.
v
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have helped me accomplish my
thesis through the years. First, I would like to give a lot of thanks to my advisor, Dr. Ching-Fen
Chang, who tried her best to support me and show me the right attitude in doing research. I want
to thank her for not giving up on me when I was a lost goat in the sea of literature review, not
knowing what to expect between my thesis and busy job. Thanks to her patience, careful
instruction and tolerance, I was able to complete my thesis on time.
Second, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Chin-Chi Chao, Dr. Shao-Ting
Hung and Dr. Fang-In Yang. Thanks to their encouragement and valuable suggestion, I had a
good time doing my oral defense and proposal. With their priceless comments, I was able to
revise my thesis to improve for the better.
Third, I would like to give special thanks to my schoolmates Alec and Jenna, who gave me
heartfelt support and suggestion on writing thesis. Thanks to their company, I did not walk
through the final process all by myself but with their genuine support both mentally and
physically. I would bear the gratitude in mind and return their help with anything I am capable
of.
Finally, I would like to thank my participants for being patient, nice and willing to accept my
“harassment” during the whole process. Additionally, I would like to thank my family and
friends for their company and support. Thanks to Mom and Dad, who constantly called me to
check on the improvement of my thesis. Thanks to Leslie and Ben, who were willing to spend
time giving me suggestions. Lastly, I would like to give special thanks to my dear friends Mavis,
Gina, Nancy, Ming Fang and Anson for their willingness to listen to my monotonous wining and
give me support. They may not know how much they mean to me as a desperate graduate student
during the long process of completing the thesis. Thanks to all of you from the bottom of my
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 中文摘要………...………..……… i Abstract….………..………..……….. Ackowlegements………..………..………. iii v TABLE OF CONTENTS……..………..……… vi LIST OF TABLES……..………..……….. x LIST OF FIGURES……..………..………. x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ………...………….. 1
General Background of the Study….………..……….. 1
Teacher Beliefs, CALL Materials and CALL Material Design Contest………... 2
Sociocultural Theory………... 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions………... Significance of the Study ………... 6 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW………...………... 8
Material Design and CALL Material………...……….... 8
Material Design and its Development in Language Leaning ………... CALL Materials (CALL Design)..………...………... Studies on CALL Material………... Teachers’ beliefs and Practice in CALL………...……...………...……... Teachers’ Belief and Practice in General………...……….... Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice in CALL and Associating Factors…....………... Theoretical Framework: Activity Theory………...……... Activity Theory in Teaching and Learning…………...……... Activity Theory Studies of Teachers’ Beliefs in Technology Integration………... 8 10 12 14 14 15 19 21 24 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY .……….………... 27
vii Participants……….………... 29 Data Collection………... 31 Semi-structured Interviews………... Documents ………... 31 32 Procedure………... Data Analysis………... 33 34 Data Analysis Procedure ………... 36
Trustworthiness………... 36
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS .………... 38
Case I. Teacher A .………... 38
Teacher A’s Beliefs in General...………... 39
Teacher A’s Original Plan in CALL Material Design ... 41
Teacher A’s Practice in CALL Material Design... The Gap between Teacher A’s Beliefs and Practices... 42 47 Components Interplaying within Teacher A’s Activity System……….. Agency, Mediated artifacts, Objects and Outcome………. Contextual Components Affecting Teacher A’s CALL Material Design Rules.………... Community ………... Division of labor………... 48 48 50 50 52 53 How the Experience of CALL Material Design Contest Influenced Teacher A 55 Summary .………... 56
Case II. Teacher B...………... 60
Teacher B’s Beliefs in General ...………... 60
viii
Teacher B’s Practice in CALL Material Design... 63
The Gap between Teacher B’s Beliefs and Practices... Components Interplaying within Teacher B’s Activity System………….... Agency, Mediated Artifacts, Objects and Outcome……….... Contextual Components Affecting Teacher B’s CALL Material Design...………... Rules...………... Community………... Division of labor………... 67 68 68 69 69 70 72 How the Experience of CALL Material Design Contest Influenced Teacher B 72 Summary ………... 73
Case III. Teacher C………... 76
Teacher C’s Beliefs in General ...………... 76
Teacher C’s Original Plan in CALL Material Design ...……... 78
Teacher C’s Practice in CALL Material Design……... The Gap between Teacher C’s Beliefs and Practices... 79 83 Components Interplaying within Teacher C’s Activity System... Agency, Mediated Artifacts, Objects and Outcome... Contextual Components Affecting Teacher C’s CALL Material Design...………... Rules………... Community and Division of labor………... 84 84 85 86 86 How the Experience of CALL Material Design Contest Influenced Teacher C 87 Summary………... 88
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 91
ix
RQ1: How Are Teachers’ Beliefs in CALL and Language Teaching and
Learning Reflected in Their CALL Material Design in A Contest?...
How Teachers’ Beliefs in CALL Influence Their Practices…………... How Teachers’ Beliefs in Language Teaching and Learning Influence Their Practices………... Inconsistency between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices…………...
RQ2: What Underlying Factors Mediated the Process of Their
Participation of the Contest?...
Agency, Object, and Outcome………... Meditated Artifacts... Rules………... Community………... Division of Labor………...
RQ3: How Does Participating in the Contest Influence Teachers’
Beliefs and Teachers in Terms of Material Design, Technology
Integration and Contest
Participation?...
Conclusion………...
Summary of the Study………...
Pedagogical Implications………...
Limitations of the Present Study………...
Recommendations for Future Research…... 91 91 92 94 95 95 96 97 98 99 99 102 102 103 104 105 REFERENCES………... APPENDICES………...
Appendix A. Consent Form ………...……..………...
107
113
x
Appendix B. Interview Questions for Interview＃1…………..…………...……... 114
Appendix C. Interview Questions during and after the Design Process……….
Appendix D. Contest Regulations of the Two Contests …..……….……….
115
116
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Description of both contests 28
Table 3.2 The participants’ demographic information 30
Table 3.3 Procedure of the study 33
Table 4.1 Detailed description of the worksheets 46
Table 4.2 Detailed description of the worksheets 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Vygotsky’s Meditational Triangle 19
Figure 2.2 Activity theory adapted from Engestrom (1987) 20
Figure 3.1 Screenshot from the official website of Contest One 27
Figure 3.2 Screenshot from the official website of Contest Two 28
Figure 3.3 Activity system in the present study 35
Figure 4.1 Screenshot of the official website of Digital Archives 38
Figure 4.2 Screenshot of the homepage of the webpage 42
Figure 4.3 Screenshot of the webpages 43
Figure 4.4 The warm-up activity in the lesson plan 44
Figure 4.5 The activity in the lesson plan 45
Figure 4.6 An examples of the worksheet 47
Figure 4.7 Teacher A’s activity system 57
Figure 4.8 Screenshot from the official website of Contest Two 60
Figure 4.9 Two example PowerPoint slides 64
Figure 4.10 An example PowerPoint slide 64
xi
Figure 4.12 Discussion activities in Teacher B’s lessons
Figure 4.13 The scenario in Teacher B’s lessons
66
66
Figure 4.14 The worksheets in Teacher B’s lessons 67
Figure 4.15 Teacher B’s Activity System 74
Figure 4.16 The example PowerPoint Slides in Teacher C’s materials 79
Figure 4.17 The sample of the lesson plans 80
Figure 4.18 Example lesson plans of Teacher C’s materials 81
Figure 4.19 WebQuest activity in Teacher C’s materials 82
Figure 4.20 WebQuest activities in Teacher C’s materials 82
Figure 4.21 The worksheet in Teacher C’s material 83
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
General Background of Technology Integration
In the past decades, the use of technology has become indispensible in daily classroom.
With the benefits of technology integration addressed in abundant studies (e.g. Hew & Brush,
2007; Selwyn, 2007), more scholars are interested in investigating how technology can assist
teaching and facilitate learning. In recent years, classroom-based technologies such as Course
Management System (e.g. Sanprasert, 2009; Thang & Bidmeshki, 2010), interactive white
board (e.g. Orr, 2008; Tozcu, 2008), and ePortfolio (e.g. Kocoglu, 2008) have received more
attention. As for network-based social computing technologies, virtual world and serious
games (e.g. Dierdorff & Watson, 2007; Shih & Yang, 2008), blogs (e.g. Kim, 2011; Sun,
2010), and the latest use of mobile assisted language learning (e.g. Hsu, 2012; Oberg &
Daniels, 2012) are also found to be effective in assisting teaching and learning.
With reference to such a trend, it is suggested that computers still play a crucial role in
technology integration, with regard to acceptance, adoption or effectiveness for teaching and
learning (Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, & Freynik, 2012). The use of computers in
educational practice has been encouraged by the Taiwanese government, with the intention of
enhancing national competitiveness and globalization. According to the educational reform
entitled ‘Nine-year Integrated Curriculum’ (Ministry of Education, 2001), information
technology (IT) is highlighted as one of six crucial issues. Rather than being simply a subject
in isolation, IT is to be integrated into every subject. In addition, the government plan
‘General Blueprint for Information Education for Elementary and High Schools’ issued by
Ministry of Education (2001) suggests that each teacher should spend at least twenty percent
of instruction time on the use of computer. Even in more recent years, ‘Technology
2
and Vocational School’ has been advocated by MOE (2013), to systematically develop
technology-integrated materials and advocate mutual sharing of resources. In the plan,
computer-based materials of 21 subjects have been developed and 1746 lessons are available
online for teachers. With regard to technology-integrated materials, PowerPoint slides with
pictures, the use of videos, webpages, and multimedia software could all refer to as
technology-integrated materials in assisting teaching and learning. Furthermore, hardware and
equipments such as computers and projectors become more prevalent in the classroom,
reaching the replacement rate of 75 percent (MOE, 2013). Such reform and plan indicate that
the contemporary educational policy has been shifted to create a more positive environment
for technology integration.
Under such policies and educational trend, teachers in Taiwan have also been encouraged
to utilize technology in teaching. For example, a large number of computer-based training
workshops sponsored by the Ministry of Education (MOE) have been held for teachers.
Additionally, contests of designing computer-based materials are also held annually so as to
enhance teaching quality, attain curricular innovation, and encourage the use of online
resource. Reflecting the above-mentioned current trend, teachers are encouraged to design
computer-based materials as one of the ways to benefit student learning. Language teachers
are no exceptions.
Teacher Beliefs, CALL Materials and CALL Material Design Contest
In recent decades, abundant studies of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
have placed their research focus on finding out how CALL can be effectively applied in the
classroom (e.g. Thang & Gobel, 2012). However, the success of technology integration in
teaching may not just be determined by policies and computer hardware but determined by
teachers who play a decisive role in the uptake of technology (Bullock, 2004; Kersaint,
3
positive influence only when teachers know the ways to use it to enhance student learning (e.g.
Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Hsu, Cheng, & Chiou, 2003). Since the importance of teachers is
highlighted, more scholars are interested in investigating what teachers think and how they
experience when technology is integrated in their lessons. As a result, research on teachers’
beliefs and attitudes emerged in literature and their relations with the effectiveness of
technology-enhanced teaching are also addressed (e.g. Higgins & Moseley, 2001; Pickering,
2002).
Among the studies investigating the use of technology in teaching, some have focused on
teaching materials (Armenteros M., Liaw S.-S., Fernández M., Flores D.-R., & Arteaga S.-R.,
2013; Shih, Tseng, &Yang, 2008; Wang & Hsu, 2006). Since teaching materials are one of
the vital elements in teaching and learning activities (Shih et al., 2008), it is also necessary to
pay attention to the development of teaching materials when investigating language teaching.
In the same vein, in terms of specifically technology-enhanced language teaching, CALL
materials are worth researchers’ attention. Concerning CALL materials, previous research has
mainly focused on its evaluation by providing guidelines and inquiring into the learner’s
perception and needs (Burston, 2003; Chapelle, 2001; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004; Garcia, &
Padgitt, 2003; Gruba, 2004; Rosenbusch & Susser, 2001; Villada, 2009; Zhao, 2003), studies
on how teachers develop CALL materials remain scant.
Based on the findings of the studies of teachers’ beliefs in CALL and studies of CALL
materials, it is suggested that most of previous studies have mainly placed focus on three
themes—what teachers believe in CALL, how effectively teachers apply technology into
classrooms, and the evaluation of CALL materials. However, it seems that how teachers’
beliefs influence the development of CALL materials still needed further investigation
because it was less discussed in previous studies.
Furthermore, previous studies on technology integration have primarily focused on the
4
Although events such as participating in workshops have been researched, comparatively little
research has focused on the event of contest participation. Consequently, the research of
technology integration in the event of contest participation could be a field worth to further
explored.
Sociocultural Theory
Although teachers’ beliefs play a crucial role in shaping technology integration, there are
cases in which teachers do not practice what they believe (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross,
2001; Hu &Webb, 2009; Kane, Sandetto, & Heath, 2002). Such inconsistency is found to
have resulted from several factors (Beck, 1997; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Cuban, 1996; Egbert,
Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002; Franklin, 2007; Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2007). Among those factors,
contextual factors, such as limited resources and support, are suggested to be the main barriers
which impede teachers from the use of computers into their teaching lessons (Brinkerhoff,
2006; Egbert et al., 2002; Hsu et al., 2007). As the impact of contextual factors on teachers’
beliefs is emphasized (Bullock, 2004; Egbert et al., 2002; Hsu et al, 2007; Webb, 2002),
Pennycook (2001) maintained that language teaching is associated with broader social,
cultural, and political relations. Similarly, Johnson (2006) also embraced the notion that the
contexts within which teachers work are influential in deciding how and why teachers do
what they do. Meanwhile, she pointed out that L2 teachers are able to make decisions about
“how best to teach their L2 students within complex socially, culturally, and historically
situated contexts” (p.239). Therefore, examining teachers’ beliefs and practice should take a
sociocultural perspective into account.
From a perspective of sociocultural theory (SCT), the human mental activity is viewed as
a mediated process which is symbolic and socio-culturally constructed (Aljaafreh & Lantolf,
1994). Furthermore, learning is viewed as a situated and mediated process interweaving
between individual mind and social milieu (Lantolf, 2000). In a same vein, “teachers’ beliefs
5
and opinions expressed by those around them, and by the expectations of influential others”
(Ertmer, 2006, p.34). Therefore, teachers’ interpretation of technology-enhanced teaching
may be shaped by a wider sociocultural context.
Activity theory has been employed as a theoretical framework in the field of teaching and
learning (Hong, Chen, & Hwang, 2012; Isssroff & Scanlon, 2002; Jaworski, 2003; Lim &
Hang, 2003; Williams, Davis, & Black, 2007). As suggested by Mwanza and Engeström
(2005), activity theory entails the quality to “draw the researcher’s attention to important
factors to consider when analyzing teaching and learning activities” (P.457). In other words,
activity theory may help the researcher to explore the associated factors when they attempt to
focus on teaching and learning activities. Therefore, activity theory as a framework may be
suitable for the present study in exploring the complex underlying factors associated with the
study foci.
Although literature has investigated teachers’ beliefs and practice in technology
integration as well as the associating factors (e.g. Brinkerhoff, 2006; Ertmer, 2005; Pickering,
2002), there are still some areas where more work could be done. First, previous researchers
have mainly paid attention to the effects of teachers’ beliefs on classroom instruction with the
focus on general studies such as math, reading and science (Ertmer, 2006). However, a similar
focus on second language or English teaching is not as prevalent in current literature. Second,
although numerous studies have examined teachers’ beliefs and their use of technology in the
classroom (Ertmer, 2006; Hsu et al., 2007; Özmen, 2012; Waters‐Adams, 2006), the relations
between teachers’ beliefs and CALL materials in particular are not thoroughly examined.
Third, although contextual factors may have an impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices
(Brinkerhoff, 2006; Bullock, 2004; Egbert et al., 2002; Hsu et al, 2007; Webb, 2002), very
little research has examined those factors from a theoretical perspective of activity theory. To
6
experience in developing CALL materials in a contest and capture the associating factors
from the perspective of activity theory.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The current study aimed to explore three pre-service teachers’ beliefs in participating in a
CALL material design contest. Through the lens of activity theory, the purposes of the study
were, first to explore their beliefs toward the use of technology and CALL material design in
the process; second, to pinpoint the associating factors that might determine their material
design and the extent of technology integration; and third, to uncover how the experience of
contest participation influences teachers and their beliefs in terms of material design,
technology integration and contest participation. The study intended to address the following
research questions.
1. How are teachers’ beliefs in CALL and language teaching and learning reflected in their
CALL material design in a contest?
2. What underlying factors mediated the process of their participation for the contest?
3. How does participating in the contest influence the teachers’ beliefs and teachers
themselves in terms of material design, technology integration and contest participation?
Significance of the Study
By examining teachers’ beliefs and process in the participation of a CALL material design
contest from a sociocultural perspective, the study intends to investigate the contextual factors
that exert an influence on their preparation and outcome, and how the experience shape their
future beliefs in CALL. It is hoped that the study may provide suggestions for teachers and
researchers in understanding how CALL materials were designed. Through qualitative data
7
(1) provide teachers with a better understanding of the process in participating in
computer-based contest
(2) help researchers understand how contextual factors influence teachers’ practice of
material design
(3) inform teachers what crucial factors are in play in designing materials
In the next chapter, I review the studies associate with CALL material design, teachers’
beliefs in CALL, and activity theory to understand what research areas have been explored
8
CHAPER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review consists of past research with three major themes: CALL material
design, teachers’ beliefs in CALL and associating factors, and activity theory. Studies of
interrelated issues will be discussed according to their relations to the research foci of the
present study.
Material Design and CALL Materials
With the increasing attention on material design since the 1980’s, the ability to evaluate,
adapt, and produce materials was regarded as an essential qualification of an effective teacher
(Tomlinson, 2001). In addition, with the aid of modern technology, CALL material design in
computer-assisted language teaching and learning has also received strong interest from
teachers and scholars. The development of material design and studies on CALL materials are
stated in the following sections.
Material design and its development in language learning
Material development was referred to as “a field which studies principles and procedures
of the design, implementation and evaluation of language teaching materials” (Tomlinson,
2001, p.66). According to the definition given by Tomlinson, materials include “anything
which can be used to facilitate the learning of a language” with different educational purposes
(p.66). In the later research, Shawer (2010) offered another definition for curriculum materials,
the materials teachers use to approach curriculum. Curriculum materials are sometimes
considered to be equal to textbooks; however, textbooks are just one component. Curriculum
materials include “any pedagogical input that comprises textbooks, workbooks and teachers’
guides in addition to any software and audio-visual materials, which represent an institution’s
9
Aside from the aforementioned definitions, in terms of historical development, material
design has gone through a change in theory in the past decades. In the 1980’s, materials were
merely regarded as examples of methods, as addressed in books such as Evaluating and
Selecting ELT Teaching Material (Cunningsworth, 1984) and ELT Textbook and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development (Sheldon, 1987). In 1990’s, with the focus switched
to principles and procedures of material design, classical publications were published, such as
Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide (McDonough and Shaw, 1993), Material Writers Guide (Byrd, 1995), and Material Development for Language Teaching (Tomlinson,
1998a). An effective teacher is believed to possess the ability to design extra teaching
materials in addition to course books to bridge the gap between learners’ needs and the
materials they use. (Sabieh, 2001)
In addition to definitions and historical development, Tomlinson (2001) also listed the
different functions that materials could serve. The different functions are as follows.
Materials could be (1) instructional in giving learners information, (2) experimental in
offering language exposure, (3) elicitative in stimulating the use of language, or (4)
exploratory in pursuing discoveries about language use. However, with such features
mentioned above, whether mass-produced publications could cater to individual learners’
need and suit teachers’ teaching need remains doubtful. To address such doubt, creating
self-made materials may help solve the problem.
Several scholars have discussed the benefits of creating self-made materials in the field of
language teaching and learning (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Littlejohn, 1992; Levy, 2006),
with elaborations stated as follows. First, by designing self-made materials, teachers can
develop materials that match students’ individual needs and different learning styles. In
addition, it is believed that self-made materials may make up for the deficits entailed by using
a course book. Since a course book is universally developed for the majority of the learners, it
10
superficial coverage of language points (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Levy, 2006; Littlejohn,
1992). Moreover, since publishers of commercially produced course books tend to leave out a
list of controversial topics such as sexism and racism for economical reasons, the so-called
clean, concordant, and benevolent EFL course books (Wajnryb, 1996) are often complained
by many practitioners because they are dry and often not able to attain the engagement
required for learning (Tomlinson, 2001). Therefore, reflecting the notion that no course book
can be perfect for any specific class, Tomlinson (2001) suggested that an effective teacher
should have the ability to assess, make adjustment and create materials over and above course
book.
Second, another benefit of creating self-made materials is that it empowers teachers and
exploits teachers’ potential in purist of better teaching and learning. Regarded as a useful way
to aid teachers to put theories of language teaching into practice and attain professional
development (Tomlinson, 2001), material design offers teachers the initiative and power,
which are originally removed because of course books (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Littlejohn,
1992). In addition, experiments were executed by some practitioners who produce materials
instead of fully relying on coursebooks (Hall, 1995). It is concluded that developing materials
enables teachers to play an initiative role as a developer rather than a follower or a course
book reader in the classroom. Therefore, with a trend of individualized and adaptive learning,
developing diverse teaching materials to suit different requirements are what teachers are
encouraged to do (Shih, Tseng & Yang, 2008).
CALL materials (CALL design)
In the past decades, with the increasing popularity and prevalence of computers, and less
difficulty in attaining internet access, more teachers are apt to integrate computers into lessons,
with the advantages for teaching and learning addressed in several studies (e.g. Hew & Brush,
11
is referred to as “the aspect of teachers’ competency in developing computer-based materials,
tasks or projects in pursuit of teaching effectiveness” (Tseng, 2008, p.17).
Early studies on CALL design put emphasis on providing principles or guidelines for
potential material developers (Hemard, 1997; Hewer, 1994; Hickman& Gordan, 1994; Lynch
& Horton, 1997; Tomlinson, 1998a). For example, the criteria developed by Tomlinson
(1998a) have been recognized as a systematic approach to material development. As the
integration of technology for language instruction is increasingly encouraged, the demand for
designing suitable CALL materials also continues to grow. Given that practical and
well-conceived principles and guidelines are compelling elements in design process (Hemard,
1998), Sabieh (2001) has proposed a five-unit plan for CALL material designers to follow.
The five units are “(1) guaranteeing a learning environment, (2) understanding the educator
and computer partnership, (3) identifying the educators and programmers role in CALL, (4)
identifying who does what in the development of a CALL program, (5) ensuring evaluation
throughout the creation and implementation process” (Sabieh, 2001, p.5-7). Later in 2009,
Garatti (2009) has suggested a principled approach to CALL materials with three steps: (1)
starting with a clear objective, (2) deciding what medium works best for the lesson, (3)
determining what information should be found and what resources can be utilized.
In the meantime, CALL design plays a crucial role in learning effectiveness. According to
Levy (2006), three major qualities of CALL design have been identified. First, in terms of the
“highly context-bound” characteristic of CALL (Pederson, 1988), material developers should
have a clear understanding of the learners’ traits and the learning context before their material
design (Shneiderman, 1987). In a similar vein, Sabieh (2001) also brought out the notion that
by taking students’ needs and their course objective into account, the CALL materials could
suit teachers’ teaching environment. Second, it is believed that design is a creative process of
discovering new goals involving dramatic change and receiving feedback from learners. Third,
12
software tools are believed to play an influential role in shaping CALL design.
With the features and approaches of CALL design addressed above, integrating
technology into language lessons is believed be feasible in achieving better teaching
effectiveness. In order to probe into CALL material design from both theoretical and
pedagogical perspectives, several crucial studies on teachers creating CALL materials will be
discussed in the following section.
Studies on CALL material
Previous research has mainly discussed CALL materials from learners’ perspectives, with
the attention on examining how materials help to enhance learners’ comprehension and how
effectively they engage learners in learning (Cardenas-Claros & Gruba, 2007; Grgurovic &
Hegelheimer, 2007; Hsu, 1994; Levy, 2006; Liou, 1997). For instance, Cardenas-Claros and
Gruba (2007) examined how help options enhance learner’s comprehension on listening
materials with the aid of learner-computer interaction. In the English Longman Interactive
Program, students were offered help options such as cultural notes and audio/ video control
features in their listening practice, with their reflections collected later in an interview. The
study concluded that help options could be beneficial in language learning, offering
implications that to advance CALL materials, learners’ voices could be involved.
Additionally, researchers have also recognized the importance to engage learners in CALL
materials (Levy, 2006; Sabieh, 2001; Taylor & Thomson, 1982; Wang, 2007). That is to say,
in using CALL materials, attractive multimedia presentations alone do not guarantee better
learning. Instead, it is how the learners are engaged with the materials, text, or picture that is
truly decisive (Taylor & Thomson, 1982). Wang (2007) performed a course enhancement
process that collected ideas from students to modify the course materials. In the study, an
asynchronous interaction system was designed for students to voice their responses,
13
not only encouraged higher student participation, but also helped improve the curriculum by
including students’ thoughts in course materials.
With respect to exploring teachers’ perspectives, studies on CALL materials have
addressed the issues of teacher education (Kessler, 2007; Sabieh, 2001), the role of
technology in teaching and learning (Egbert, 2002), the effectiveness of using computers in
assisting teaching (Sabieh, 2001), the construction of program to shorten design process (Shih,
et al., 2008; Wang & Hsu, 2006), and how CALL materials can be integrated in vocabulary
and culture instruction (Chujo & Nishigaki, 2004; Garatti, 2009; Kawauchi, 2005).
Teacher training plays a compelling role in combating obstacles encountered in
developing CALL materials. Sabieh (2001) pinpointed that although teachers may encounter
two major dilemmas, namely facing the fears and dealing with the time-consuming and
frustrating process in exploiting CALL materials, the obstacles could be combated by training
and accumulation of hands-on experience. In addition, Sabieh also proposed a plan to train
teachers with effective ways to develop and evaluate CALL lessons. Later in a survey
targeting TESOL graduates, Kessler (2007) pinpointed that teacher training is decisive in
determining teachers’ confidence in CALL design as the teacher participants were not as
confident in CALL design as in CALL overall. Given that receiving inadequate formal
training in material design could be the main cause, the urgency of material design instruction
in formal CALL education is thereby addressed.
How CALL materials could be implemented in real classroom has been brought out in
previous studies (Chujo & Nishigaki, 2004; Garatti, 2009; Kawauchi, 2005). Garatti (2009)
illustrated specific ways culture instruction could be integrated in CALL materials. Contrary
to the perceived obstacles of CALL-based culture instruction as “a lack of instructional time,
technology skills and the required resources” (p.1), he brought out many CALL-based
activities which integrate culture into teaching. With features such as being up-to-date,
14
different learner styles and offer a chance for students to explore the experience different from
their real-life experience, such as a virtual tour of Louver. In the end, he concluded that by
means of CALL materials, the teacher can release the pressure of being the main source of
cultural information.
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice in CALL
In recent decades, scholars have been interested in investigating what language teachers
believe and what shapes their beliefs. In addition, abundant research has proved that it is
important to explore teachers’ beliefs for their significant influence on classroom practice
(Aguirre, 1999; Anders & Garner, 1994; Ertmer, 2005; Hsu et al., 2007; Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Özmen, 2012; Peacock, 2001). Therefore, numerous efforts have been made to
examine the relationship between teachers’ belief and practice. Since technology integration
has been a trend in language teaching and learning, it is worth discovering teachers’ beliefs
and practice in CALL and factors associated with beliefs and practice.
Teachers’ beliefs and practice in general
The studies of teachers’ beliefs and the relationship of those beliefs to instructional
practice have mushroomed in the aspect of teaching reading, mathematics, science and
literacy (e.g. Hazzan, 2003; Hsu et al., 2007; Miller & Satchwell, 2006). At the same time, it
has been questioned to what extent teachers’ practices are consistent with their beliefs (e.g.
Waters‐Adams, 2006; Richardson et al., 1991; Johnson, 1992; Kagan, 1992). Among these
studies, some scholars have pinpointed the consistency of beliefs and practice (Johnson, 1992;
Kane et al., 2002; Pajares, 1992). For example, Johnson (1992) claimed that clearly defined
theoretical beliefs consistently reflect one particular methodological approach and vice versa.
Additionally, Pajares (1992) has also supported the notion that teachers’ planning and
15
developed during the stage of being a pre-service teacher could decide their future teaching
behaviors. Similarly, in a study investigating changes in the beliefs of pre-service ESL
teachers, Peacock (2001) proposed the urgency of working on mistaken trainee beliefs
because they are likely to influence pre-service teachers’ future language teaching and
learning. Concluding from previous studies, a teacher’s beliefs are very likely to be closely
related to her consistent teaching style no matter which level or class she teaches (Kagan,
1992).
However, other researchers have discussed the significant gap between teachers’ beliefs
and practice (Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Hu &Webb, 2009; Kane et al., 2002;
Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). Richardson et al. (1991) conducted a case
study which witnessed the inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and practice in teaching
reading comprehension. The study indicated that even when the teacher is in the process of
changing beliefs and practices, the changes in beliefs were reported to occur before changes in
their practices.
The gap between teachers’ beliefs and practices could be determined by contextual factors.
Hu and Webb (2009) contended that because of contextual factors, the practice of technology
remained alien even though teachers knew its benefits. By means of interviews and classroom
observation, the study collected the perceptions of seven teachers. It is proposed that conflicts
arose from the student-centered pedagogy that accompanied technology implantation and the
traditional teacher-centered pedagogy. In conclusion, teachers’ beliefs and contextual factors
are decisive in the extent of change of teachers’ practices in terms of incorporating
technology.
Teachers’ beliefs and practice in CALL and associating factors
Researchers have emphasized the importance of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward
16
Marcinkiewicz, 1994; Pajares, 1992). Although abundant studies have focused on the notion
that it is the insufficient teacher education that results in the failure of technology integration,
they often ignore the fact that teachers themselves may be the main obstacle (Wong & Benson,
2006). In a study aimed to investigate factors influencing junior high school teachers’
computer-based instructional practice, Hsu et al. (2007) concluded that the best predictor of a
teacher’s successful practice of technology integration is their beliefs in its effectiveness. As
a result, teachers’ beliefs in the effectiveness of incorporating technology in teaching are
decisive and consistent to their classroom practice.
Considering specifically the link between teachers’ beliefs and practice in technology
integration, several factors may contribute to the inconsistencies, including the urgency of
classroom management and lesson planning, the effectiveness of teacher education,
contextual factors, the effectiveness of technology, previous experience in teaching as well as
in designing CALL materials and computer use, and technological skills (Beck, 1997; Cuban,
1996; Ertmer, 2005; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Hsu et al., 2007; Hadley &
Sheingold, 1993; Handler, 1993; Oiver, 1993; Sherwood, 1993).
First, the tough and urgent classroom management and lesson planning have left the
practitioners less time and energy to consider technology integration (Beck, 1997; Horwitz,
1996; Oliver, 1993). Targeting teachers in Western Australia, Oliver (1993) pointed out that
classroom management is a main reason why beginning teachers rated their computer use in
teaching lower than experienced teachers. Similarly, Horwitz (1996) suggested that factors
such as unruly students, a challenge on their English competence, unfamiliar environment and
equipment could cause high pressure. Under such a high-pressure teaching environment,
technology integration is certainly not a primary focus. In another study, Beck (1997) also
proposed that tasks concerned with classroom management and the shift of teacher’s role are
far more complicated than the development of technology integration skills. To conclude from
17
leave teachers no time and energy to use technology in the classroom.
Second, much research in technology integration has suggested that insufficient and
inapplicable quality of teacher training is another crucial factor leading to the difference
between teachers’ beliefs and practice (Cuban, 1996; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996;
Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Sherwood, 1993). Handler (1993) maintained that there is a
difference between what teachers are taught about technology integration and what they are
expected to use in the classroom. For this reason, fewer than 25 percent of new teachers
considered themselves adequately prepared for using computers in teaching, compared to
more experienced teachers. Egbert et al. (2002) also pinpointed the fact that although CALL
training could enhance teacher’s confidence with skills in technology integration and change
their attitudes, taking the course alone does not provide sufficient chance to apply and
guarantee student’s success in learning. In the same vein, Oliver (1993) pointed out that
courses with the attention on curriculum applications of the computer can increase later use of
computers for teaching more than courses in technical skills in using computer. Therefore,
instructing how technology can be effectively applied in class design and real practice is a
crucial notion which can not be left out in teacher training in CALL.
Third, contextual factors including lack of time for planning, inadequate resources, and
insufficient support are perceived as major obstacles that discourage teachers from using
CALL-related activities in the classroom (Egbert et al., 2002; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Hsu
et al., 2007; Sherwood, 1993). According to a sociocultural theory, human beings can not be
exempt from the influence of their context. In everyday teaching environment, teachers need
to compromise between beliefs and real-life constraints. Among recent studies, qualitative
studies in particular have emphasized the importance of localized contextual factors (Bullock,
2004; Lam, 2000; Strehle et al., 2001). In addition to time, resource and support, Ertmer et al.
(2001) identified the importance of other contextual constraints such as curricular requirement,
18
between their belief and practice. In the later study, Hsu et al. (2007) also identified the
school’s ability to acquire technical and personnel resource as the factors influencing
technology integration in their classroom. Moreover, Bullock (2004) suggested that sufficient
support is decisive in the use of technology. In his study examining relationships between
intern teachers and their instructors, insufficient support caused a pro-technology teacher
refuse to integrate technology, while sufficient support encouraged the initially resistant
teacher to use technology regularly. Furthermore, educational policy has also been identified
as another crucial contextual factor. For example, educational policy was pinpointed as one of
the predictors on factors influencing the use of CMC for teachers, suggesting that educational
policy can measure to what extent teachers are willing to use technological innovation in their
practice (Brussel, 2001).
Finally, lack of computer technology in learning experience may prohibit teachers from
incorporating technology in teaching, left alone designing CALL materials. In a study
targeting 72 elementary teachers, Evans-Andris (1995) concluded that a lack of computer
technology in their learning experience gave rise to their doubts about the use of computer.
According to the study, more than half of the participating teachers avoided using computers
while some of them viewed computer lab visits as an aimless activity. Furthermore, a case
study conducted by Lillian and Phil (2006) also seconded the notion that technical skills in
computers may influence teachers’ confidence and success of technology integration. Under
Hong Kong educational policy where technology integration was encouraged, the English
teachers allocated 20 percent of their teaching to CALL activities in their classroom. However,
teachers’ lack of expertise in computers and learning to use computers at a relatively old age
contributed to not only technical problems, but also their frustration and loss of classroom
control. Therefore, since incorporating technology in teaching seems to be a challenging yet
fruitless mission under the aforementioned constraints, teachers may be inhibited in doing
19
Theoretical Framework: Activity Theory
Over the past few decades, Vygotskian theories have influenced teaching and learning in
various domains, such as mediated mind, activity theory, private speech, zone of proximal
development and situated learning (e.g. Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Coughlan & Duff, 1994;
Donato, 2000; Dunn & Lantolf, 1998; Lantolf & Frawley, 1985; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Zuegler & Miller, 2006). Among the above works, activity theory has constantly been used as
a framework for understanding human activities in their context and offers a set of
perspectives for linking social and individual worlds (e.g. Hong, Chen, & Hwang, 2012; Lei,
2008).
Acknowledged by Leont’ev, socio-cultural theories and activity theory are closely
related to each other in several ways. As people are compelled to behave in a pre-specified
way, their disposition is interpreted to arise from motives, which are culturally constructed
(Harre & Gillett, 1994). With the goal in mind, people would pursue a course of actions to
realize the goals. Therefore, Wertsch (1998) brought out the basic unit in illustrating human
activity as “agent-acting-with-meditational-means.” Such notion is represented by the
Vygotskian triangular diagram shown in Figure 2.1. where subjects use mediated tools and
artifacts to aid them to achieve the goal and work on the object. While describing the diagram,
Wells (2002) suggested that “human on most occasions interpose a mediating artifact between
themselves and the object of interest, thereby enabling them to act more effectively” (p.46).
Fully interpreting elements associated with human activity, Engeström (1987) developed
an expanded triangle, which is shown in Figure 2.2. According to Lantolf and Thorne (2006), Artifact
Subject Object
20
this third generation of activity theory provides an appropriate and more complicated
framework in analyzing learning processes from the perspective of mediated artifacts,
embedded rules, situated community and division of labors. The definition of each component
is stated as follows (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). A subject is “an individual or group whose
agency is the focus of the analysis” (p. 222). An object refers to “the orientation of the activity
and arises from the motive for an outcome or result.” In terms of rules, they describe “the
regulational norms which afford and constrain the goings on within a functional activity
system (p.223). As for community, it is “the participants who share the same object that
shapes and lends direction to the individual and shared activity at hand (p.223). Finally,
division of labor means “the horizontal actions and interactions among the members of the
community and to the vertical division of power and status” (p.223).”
According to Wells (2002), one of the features of the model is that it alerts people of
tension and potential breakdown. That is to say, in an educational context, tensions are the
norm in any established activity system. Therefore, an activity system is described as “a
virtual disturbance and innovation-producing machine” (p.47). Similarly, Engeström (2002)
also mentioned that activity system is constantly working through contradictions within and
between its elements. In this sense, as contradictions or tensions are inherent in an activity
Mediated arficats
Subject Object→→→Outcome →
Rules Community Division of Labor
21
system, the six components above are by no means fixed. Instead, they may undergo constant
changes as a result of the interaction among elements.
Activity theory in teaching and learning
Studies of activity theory in learning and teaching have mushroomed in the field of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT), investigating issues in ICT integration
process in classroom (e.g. Demiraslan & Usluel, 2008; Hu & Webb, 2009; Park & Bracewell,
2007). Also, in recent years, activity theory has been employed in research on a variety of
socially embedded practices, such as the use of technology in high education (Issroff &
Scanlon, 2002; Mlitiwa, 2007), the design of online learning activities (Barab, Schatz &
Scheckler, 2004; Levy, 2008), technology integration (Koszalka& Wu, 2004), and the use of
online social networking in high education (Hamid, Waycott, Kurnia, & Chang, 2010).
Issroff and Scanlon (2002), for example, adopted activity theory to examine the use of
technology in enhancing learning in high education. Two case studies represented contrasting
uses of technology: one using ICT to teach students at a distance and the other using the
website to offer resources in line with lectures on a conventional course. From questionnaires
and assessment materials, the findings in the first case study indicated that the requirements to
post a message are intimidating to students who view the action as publishing their view, not
starting a discussion. Therefore, contradiction was spotted between the idea of students as
novice and senseless learners and the idea of their tutor, who wanted students to spur
discussion. The second case study also pinpointed contradictions through interviews and
questionnaires. Although the website gave access to original documents and images related
to the lectures, contradictions arose when some students merely printed out the materials,
having little electronic literacy to utilize the resource online. In conclusion, although this
study applied activity theory to investigate the use of technology in high education, the major
22
the benefits” (Issroff & Scanlon, 2002, p. 83) of the new technology. It was suggested that
activity theory is more valuable for understanding what went wrong instead of doing
predictive work (Nardi, 1996).
Another study by Basharia (2007) employed activity theory to examine a WebCT bulletin
board collaboration among English learners from Japan, Mexico and Russia, with the
purpose to improve students’ language use and intercultural awareness. After 12-week long
interactions, contradictions within an activity system and among activity systems were
identified as three groups, including a) intra-cultural contradictions (such as to post or not to
post), b) inter-cultural contradictions (such as clash of topic choice, resulting in negative
attitudes among some students), and c) technology-related contradictions (such as message
overload). It was proposed that “inter-cultural contradictions were the result of having the
same task–online collaboration–but engaging in different activities” (Basharia, 2007,
p.95), which echoed to the previous study exploring how the same task is carried out
differently through available tools across different sociocultural contexts (Thorne, 2003).
Although activity theory was employed as a theoretical framework, the primary focus of the
study was to identify the contradictions in collaboration without probing into what the six
components were in the activity system.
Furthermore, Demiraslan and Usluel (2008) investigated ICT integration process in
Turkish schools through the lens of activity theory. Targeting two teacher participants in
different schools, the study collected data through interviews, video records, and observations
to record the process of ICT integration in classroom. Using the six components (subject,
object, tools, rules, community, division of labor) in activity systems, the researchers
examined the interactions among ICT, individuals, and the context in which the activity was
realized. The findings indicated that although factors such as the access to technology,
inflexible timetable curriculum, and support of the school administration were pinpointed to
23
technology integration. Drawing on activity theory, the study revealed what the six
components in the activity systems were and how the components interacted with one another
in the activity systems. Additionally, the study also explored potential factors influencing
teacher’s practice in the contexts.
Specifically in the field of L2 teaching and learning, as the current trend of education
pedagogy has placed focus on the learner, activity theory has also been adopted to analyze
language learning with the focus on learners (Basharina, 2007; Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Lei,
2008; Maurino, 2007). Lantolf and Genung (2002), for example, examined power and
contradiction of a participant’s role in a classroom setting through a theoretical perspective of
activity theory. Drawing on activity theory, the study reported one student’s transformation of
motives and goals. Originally holding high motivation in learning Chinese, the participant
was wielded by the authoritative instructor and frustrated by the mismatch between the course
content and her goal. She attempted to resist and challenge the circumstance, however, in the
end she submitted to the power and became a passive student who merely intent to fulfill her
PhD requirement. It was proposed that the conflicts between the participant and the instructor
arose in their different learning history. Therefore, in learning a language, the influence of the
embedded rules of culture and the community on the learner could not be underestimated.
Additionally, Lei (2008) identified four types of mediated actions in writing strategy use
through the lens of activity theory. The study targeted two college students who strategically
mediated their writing with diverse resource in writing activities. The adopted writing
strategies are categorized into four types of mediated actions, namely, artifact-mediated,
rule-mediated, community-mediated and role-mediated strategies. As mediated actions are
oriented toward conscious goals, in the same vein, writing strategies are purposefully adopted
to attain the writers’ goals. As every element in the activity system interacted with other
elements, strategies were also found to do the same. As Lei described, “Through the
24
processes and realize their goals more efficiently and effectively” (p.232). Through activity
theory, the researcher was able to re-conceptualize writing strategies from a sociocultural
perspective.
Activity theory studies of teachers’ beliefs in technology integration
Abundant research has investigated how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes determined the
degree of technology into teaching (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Kagan, 1992; Marcinkiewicz, 1994;
Pajares, 1992). Among these studies, some applied activity theory to examine teachers’ beliefs
in technology integration by teachers who adapted themselves in their teaching contexts (e.g.
Hardman, 2005; Hu &Webb, 2009; Koszalka & Wu, 2004; Romeo & Walker, 2002).
Focusing on how primary school implemented Information and Communication
Technology in Education (ICTE), Romeo and Walker (2002) incorporated activity theory to
determine the views of two teachers, the principal, and IT coordinator in ICTE integration. To
identify major commodities and contradictions among participants’ perceptions, the six
components in the activity system were employed to organize the interview data. It was
suggested that a failure of a shared vision resulted from the decision-making process and the
unequal power possessed by the participants. Therefore, it was concluded that in
incorporating a new technology, it is important to “recognize the views of members in its
community” (Romeo & Walker, 2002, p.331). Through the lens of activity theory, the
researchers were capable of locating the implementation of new technology within the
broader milieu of the school.
To understand how four teachers use technology to mediate their teaching of math in
primary schools, Hardman (2005) incorporated activity theory to investigate teachers’
perceptions in contexts of the traditional lesson and computer lab. The six components in the
activity systems were employed to analyze the interview data. As teachers viewed the
25
were highly emphasized. Through activity theory, the researchers were able to understand
how different tools across different contexts impacted on teachers’ practice.
Similarly, Murphy and Manzanares (2008) explored the perspective of teachers who had
transitioned from classroom-based to web-based classroom contexts. The findings revealed
that the contradictions across the contexts were associated with four factors, including time
and workload, physical presence, interaction and rapport building, and use of direct
messaging and email. Since mediating tools such as body language and facial expressions
were no longer present in virtual classroom, teachers were required to make change in their
practice. This coincided with the notion that contradictions may not only result in tensions but
also transformation in activity system.
Examining specifically how teachers’ beliefs and practice in ICT integration were
associated with contextual factors, Hu and Webb (2009) adopted activity theory to investigate
seven teachers’ implementation of technology in China. The study identified conflicts
between two styles－the traditional teacher-centered teaching style and student-centered style
in technology integration. It was suggested that contradictory beliefs arose when teachers
struggled between benefits and drawbacks of technology. Based on the findings,
contradictions not only arose in subject and rules respectively, but also in four links between
elements in activity systems. Finally, contextual factors were highly emphasized for “the
extent of change of teachers’ pedagogical practice when ICT is introduced depends on
teachers’ beliefs and a range of contextual factors” (Hu & Webb, 2009, p.157). The study
not only identified what each component in the activity system was, but also analyzed the
relationship within and between elements in the teachers’ activity system.
The abovementioned studies might provide the following fruitful implications for the
present study. First, activity theory is suggested to be a workable protocol in examining
teachers’ perceptions and practice in different contexts. In addition, through the lens of
