Composition 2

adult Intensive English Program (IEP) in the United States. The ulti- mate goal was to identify areas of improvement for teacher education programs with regard to technology-enhanced language teaching and student teachers' professional development.

Since the lines between traditional and online language learning contexts have become increasingly blurred (Goodfellow & Lamy, 2009), the ongoing call to equip teachers with the skills to teach with technology seems more important than ever (e.g., Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Pegrum, 2009; Willis, 2001). Back in the early 1990s, Woodrow advocated that "[p] reservice teachers need to perceive computers as integral parts of the instructional strategies and professional activities of teachers and become committed to their use" (1993, p. 373). Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-Vanstrander, Tseng, and You (2006) concluded that computer-aided instruction and multimedia were frequently the subject of research but not frequently used by teachers of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). In a similar vein, a recent study in Canada on how novice teachers perceived their preparedness and efficacy showed technology in teaching as the fifth least effective (Faez & Valeo, 2012).

Thus, teacher educators have reemphasized the urgent need to equip teachers with basic information and communications technol- ogy competence (e.g., Hampel and Stickler, 2005) and electronic literacy skills (e.g., Fuchs, 2009). For instance, the benefits of using wikis and blogs for peer editing (Kessler, 2009) and reflective and collaborative writing in foreign language instruction have been well established (Mak & Coniam, 2008; Warschauer, 2010). Other researchers have implemented telecollaboration for language study and intercultural learning (Belz & Thorne, 2005; Guth & Helm, 2010) and explored the potential of using synchronous videoconfer- encing (e.g., Skype) to connect French learners in the United States with student teachers of French as a second language (FSL)

in France (Develotte, Guichon, & Kern, 2008; see also Yanguas, 2010).

Against the backdrop of these studies, we explored student teachers'

proficiencies and preparedness in using technology tools in their Eng-

lish classes, the frequency of use, and the possible impact of these

tools on teaching and learning. The research questions for this study were therefore as follows:

1. What kind of prior technology experience and training do IEP student teachers have? How important do IEP student teachers consider technology implementation in their language teach-

ing?

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 157

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2. How do IEP student teachers rate their proficiency in using technology tools? How often do they use these tools in teach-

ing?

3. What are the perceived benefits and drawbacks of technology use, and what areas can be identified to improve professional development?

RESEARCH DESIGN

A questionnaire was administered to past and present stud ers (hereinafter respondents or R) in an adult IEP at a priv

ate institution on the East Coast of the United States (N= 39). The participants were enrolled in TESOL applied linguistics (AL) pro- grams and taught in the IEP three times a week as part of their practi- cum courses. At the time of the study, 2 out of the 39 participants were novice teachers, 25 were enrolled in 5000-level practica (i.e., they had at least 2 years full-time teaching experience), 7 were enrolled in 6000-level practica, and 5 were hired master teachers. The authors, a student-researcher and a teacher-researcher, designed this anonymous online survey via Google Forms and piloted the survey in May 2010. The final questionnaire was sent out via email to the same list of par- ticipants between June and October 2010. This was done a total of four times to elicit as many responses as possible. The invitation to complete the survey contained an explicit statement that respondents should only submit once.

In this questionnaire, five multiple choice questions asked student teachers about demographics (age, gender), their roles in the IEP (e.g., novice, master teacher), proficiencies in the tools, the frequency of use, and the teacher's role in technology-based instruction. Five open-ended questions (not including a final comment section) focused on participants' prior technology experience and training in language teaching, the number of years of teaching experience, the use and effects of technology in their IEP teaching and student learning, and areas for professional development needed to foster student teachers' technology implementation. The return rate was 35.45%; however, not all participants responded to all questions of the

survey. For the data analysis, each answer was extracted from the Google

forms spreadsheet, numbered, and compiled in a Word document. For the quantitative analysis, the summary responses were exported from the Google Forms spreadsheet into Excel to calculate the per- centages and averages. In a first round of coding the qualitative comments, the two researchers did open coding in an online docu-

158 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ment. In a second round, both researchers coded for themes emerging from respondents' in vivo codes, i.e., words taken from subjects themselves (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), such as engage stude and personal dislike of social networks. Finally, categories such as in grating authentic materials and engaging students and lack of access by IEP learners were generated based on the codes. Additionally, t researchers were interested in documenting the use of technolog tools such as course management platforms (Moodle, Ning), soc bookmarking, blogs, discussion forums, podcasts, YouTube, and wi

(for electronic portfolios), because these tools had been introduce in the methods and practicum courses, and in a technology electi

(all taught by the teacher-researcher since Fall 2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research Question 1: Participants' Prior Technolog Experience and Training and Perceived Importanc Technology Use in Language Teaching

Almost half of the respondents (47.5%) responded negat question of whether they had had prior technology exp teaching, while 52.5% said they had some experience attended various workshops on how to use technology ov

(R37). Moreover, 38% of participants had learned to use through the IEP, 30% through another opportunity at institution, 23% said they had never learned how to use and 9% said they learned to use technology outside of th The IEP training was, however, primarily about the use o resources in the IEP and at the institution in general (e.g media services). For example, one participant stated: "M

experience prior to the IEP was very simple, because of limited resources, and just included CD players, tape players, and VCRs" (R21).

Most participants (over 60%) responded positively to the question

of whether they considered technology use important in language

teaching: "I do not think you can ignore technology in the classroom.

It is a given in terms of me using it. It makes the classroom come alive.

Technology is relevant in our lives today" (R31). While it is important

that student teachers acknowledge the need for using technology, it is

equally or even more important to encourage them to actually use

technology in their teaching. The latter also requires a certain level of

proficiency. These issues are addressed by research questions 2 and 3 below.

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 159

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Research Question 2: Self-Rated Proficiency in Using Technology Tools and Frequency of Use

When asked to self-rate their proficiency, the majority of respon- dents ranked the following technology tools the highest: Internet

(74%), Skype (60%), YouTube (57%), and Instant Messenger (IM) (50%). Similarly, Piccardo and Stille (2012) found that the tools used

by experienced teachers of FSL in Canada were the Internet for

searches, word processing projects or activities, digital images or

audio/video (e.g., YouTube), and Powerpoint. In the present study,

the second highest were blogs (38%), group discussion forums (37%),

online document management (30%), and wikis (30%). In contrast,

podcasts, Ning, Twitter, Moodle, and social bookmarking were rated the lowest.

Participants were also asked which of these technology tools they had used in their IEP teaching and how often (on a 4-point Likert Scale: 1 = never, 2 = once every other week, 3 = once or twice a week , 4 = every lesson) . The most frequently used tools were the Internet and

YouTube. The remaining tools (social bookmarking, Twitter, Skype, IM, group discussion forums, online document management, Ning, and blogs) were used "once every other week" or "never" by the major- ity of participants.

The following three tendencies emerged from the data:

1. Participants' high self-rated proficiency and high frequency of use in teaching (Internet, YouTube);

2. Participants' high self-rated proficiency but low frequency of use (blogs, IM, Skype); and

3. Participants' low self-rated proficiency and low frequency of use (Ning, Twitter).

These tendencies point to a mismatch between high self-rated proficiency in the tools and low frequency of use of these tools in teaching. It does not seem surprising that synchronous tools (e.g., Skype) may not easily be implemented due to logistical issues (e.g., different time zones, typing speed for communicating in real time). Nonetheless, it is puzzling that wikis, blogs, and discussion forums are not used more provided that student teachers in every practi- cum are exposed to Blogger (as part of their required teaching reflections). Moreover, for their practicum courses, student teachers create an electronic portfolio on a wiki. Additionally, in the meth- ods course (a prerequisite to the practicum), student teachers typi- cally use online discussion groups and complete a technology-based

writing task using blogs or wikis. 160 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Research Question 3: Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Technology Use

Following are the recurring themes in the qualitative comments of the respondents regarding the benefits and drawbacks of using tech- nology tools in their teaching.

Benefits

1 . More tool variation with experienced student teachers . In addition

to Powerpoint and Ning, some of the experienced student teachers

had used PBWorks (formerly PBWiki), a wiki which was not formally

introduced in the practicum. Something similar was observed with the

Ning, which had been used by a seasoned student teacher who shared

the positive results in the methods course in Fall 2009: "I will not

teach another class without the Ning" (R16). Ning was formally intro-

duced in the teacher-researcher's technology elective in Spring 2010, and some IEP student teachers started to use the tool in their classes

that same semester. This supports Egbert, Paulus, and Nakam (2002), who found that teachers who used computer-assisted langu

learning (CALL) in their classrooms were frequently those who alr had prior experience with CALL or who had had years of classro teaching experience (see also Piccardo & Stille, 2012). Similarly Meskill, Mossop, DiAngelo, and Pasquale (2002) reported that nov teachers who had received state-of-the-art training in classroom t nologies tended to be much less comfortable in their implementat than the more experienced teacher who had no formal training w computers but a great deal of classroom experience.

2. Integrating authentic materials and engaging students . A f respondents mentioned that they used corpora for vocabulary teac and the Ning for teaching integrated skills. For example, one resp dent stated, "the use of online corpora has facilitated my studen acquisition of vocabulary" (R5).

Others mentioned "flexibility" and "spontaneity," especially w regard to using the Internet in class (e.g., for pulling up images of ke vocabulary words). According to R3, "being able to use the Interne the classroom gave me flexibility

for vocabulary teaching . . . once instead of tion of the word pine cone , I found an image f Moreover, student teachers said that they

found it "engaging" and that "students like "(t)echnology provides me with more innova

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 161

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

lesson and ways to engage students in a class." Additionally, R15 stated: "I remember, for instance, using YouTube for warm-ups, going over a cultural reference from a [IEP] midterm by showing my learners a scene from The Brady Bunch on YouTube . . . they really loved what I did." However, it was not clear how exactly student teachers used these tools. For example, using YouTube for showing a clip (like The Brady Bunch) is something that a videocassette could have achieved. It would have been significant to know what tasks were performed by the stu- dent teachers and if or how their learners used technology (e.g., com- menting on clips via the blog function).

Drawbacks

1. Lesson planning takes precedence over technology xmth novices . Les

son planning is generally emphasized in the novice practicum and

also part of the classroom observation checklist. Technology, howeve

is not part of the checklist, even though student teachers are encou

aged to use technology tools in their teaching. This could expla some of the novice teachers' comments: "Once I am less overwhelmed

with lesson planning, I hope to integrate more technology into m teaching" (R18).

Furthermore, respondents complained about the time-consumin nature of using technology (see Egbert et al., 2002; Fuchs, 2009):

students do not come to class, I do not have the time or resources to Skype or chat via AIM" (R25). This seems particularly relevant because in addition to being full-time graduate students, student teachers struggle with the heavy IEP teaching load.

2. Participants projecting negative experience onto teaching. Some stu- dent teachers articulated their own dislikes of a certain tool, which

they subsequently chose not to use in their class: "I have a personal dislike of social networks and technology used to socialize so I don't really want to bring them into the class" (R35). This supports findings from previous studies, which found that factors such as insecurities and attitude toward computers played a role in technology implemen- tation; one main reason for teachers not to integrate technology was the perception that it was not worthwhile (Fuchs, 2009).

3. IEP learners 9 lack of access and low e-literacy skills. The data also revealed that IEP students seemed to have a lack of access to technol-

ogy or low electronic literacy skills. These constitute issues especially in beginning-level classes: "[I]t was not easy to implement a lot of online 'tools' and even very basic assignment requiring them to download attachments from emails or access videos online, etc." (R22). Piccardo

162 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and Stille (2012) also stressed the need to involve language learners in activities that engage technological skills and capabilities.

4. Technology cannot substitute for face-to-face communication . A couple

of respondents seemed to compare technology-based with face-to-face

teaching with a preference for the latter: "I try not to force technology

into my teaching plans. If there is a way that a live discussion can accom-

plish the same thing, I prefer a live discussion, possibly with onscreen

images" (R19). This statement indicates that it may have not been made

explicit to student teachers that technology should be regarded as an

add-on rather than something that comes at the expense of face-to-face communication.

CONCLUSION

In sum, despite the fact that the promotion of technology, of Web 2.0 tools, has been on the rise, the reality in IEP clas seems rather grim. Although more than 70% of the reported high proficiencies in tools such as Skype and Y than 30% reported having used these tools in their classes.

With regard to participants' self-rated proficiency in tech and the frequency of use in the classroom, there appear match. On the one hand, there are technology tools that self-rated proficiency and frequency of use (Internet, YouT other hand, there are technology tools that do not matc and use, i.e., high proficiency but low use (e.g., blogs, IM While synchronous tools may not be as easily implemented a nous tools due to logistical reasons such as timing, it appear that somewhat established asynchronous tools like blogs a forums were not used more frequently, especially since

teachers had been introduced to these tools in their core courses.

With regard to benefits, it can be noted that there was more tool variation with experienced student teachers. Overall, technology was perceived as a way of integrating authentic materials and engaging stu- dents. However, it was not clear how exactly teachers used these tools. For instance, using YouTube for showing clips seems not any more novel than using a videocassette - unless one takes advantage of the blog function of YouTube.

By the same token, student teachers pointed out that their IEP learn- ers seemed to lack technology access or that they had low electronic lit- eracy skills. This constituted an issue especially in beginning-level classes. Student teachers' negative prior experience also had an impact on current praxis: Some student teachers articulated their own dislikes

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 163

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of a certain tool, which they subsequently did not use in teaching. Other factors include a lack of time, insufficient preparation and sup- port, and learners' lack of access and lack of electronic literacy skills.

Moreover, a number of respondents seemed to view lesson planning

and web tools as two separate things. Technology appears to be some-

thing that should be tackled once the lesson plan is done rather than

something that constitutes an integral part of lesson planning. Finally,

student teachers thought that technology could not replace face-to- face communication.

IMPLICATIONS

Based on the results of this study, we identified major such as student teachers' lack of training and/or negative ence using technology as well as a mismatch between self- ciency in technology tools and the frequency of use of th their classrooms. We suggest the following to promote st ers' professional development.

Implementing Technology Across the Program Curr

We would like to echo previous calls to move away fro CALL coursework to a succession of situated technology for teachers (Egbert et al., 2002; Luke & Britten, 2007). St ers need to be encouraged and trained to use the tools in already consider themselves proficient (e.g., Skype) in a p sound way. One way of achieving this is for teacher educator ment tools like blogs and discussion forums, or course m systems (e.g., Moodle) as course platforms and communi in all core courses in the program.

Establishing a Mentor Model

According to one of the results of the study, lesson pl given great importance in training novice teachers. Keep mind, a group of graduate students could assist these stud as "tech fellows" across the program for meaningful and eff gration of technology in their classrooms. This could be i something the department at the graduate institution, where was conducted, has already begun to implement to help f the various programs. This training can function in a sim

164 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

teaching assistant experience, or, as one respondent put it, as a "volunteer tech group of instructors and student teachers, with consid- erable educational tech-knowledge, skills, and experience" (R4).

It is also possible to suggest pairing up teaching partners in a men- tor-model fashion. This means that electronic literacy skills would need to be taken into consideration in addition to prior teaching experience and context and English proficiency levels. More specifi- cally, practicum students could be required to fill out a needs analysis to indicate what they need help with in terms of technology use in teaching. This background information could also be shared on a joint IEP platform like Google Sites or Moodle, and the more tech-sawy teaching partners could become the designated tech experts who pro- vide assistance by putting up "frequently asked questions" and answer- ing inquiries by the tech novices.

Making Technology Use a Requirement in the Practicum Courses

Implementing technology in teaching should be made an integra part of every practicum especially since most student teachers ha some exposure to different tools in the methods course. Additionall building on one of the results of the study, which showed that expe enced teachers employ more variation in their choice of technolog tools, using technology could be made a requirement for the asses ment of student teachers' end-of-term electronic teaching portfoli For example, they could be required to include one technology-bas lesson (using a technology tool), a peer observation of a tech-based lesson, and a reflection thereof.

By the same token, training language learners in using technolog should be a required component of the syllabus of any IEP class. Fir student teachers need to assess their learners' electronic literacy nee Second, the advantages of technology use for language learning ne to be made explicit to English as a second language (ESL) learne Moreover, student teachers could stimulate their learners' interest highlighting the relevance of Web 2.0 tools to their personal lives. F example, most ESL students have family abroad, and tools such Skype can help them stay in touch.

Lastly, the electronic portfolios, which are already an integral par of the practicum, could be implemented throughout the program part of the exit mechanism. By the same token, these technology-based requirements call for tech-sawy teacher trainers to train and scaffo student teachers accordingly.

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 165

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank all participants in the online survey. Moreover, we th Noelle Lamy for her invaluable contributions, as well as for her presen the CALICO Conference in Vancouver on May 20, 2011. We are also ind Tara Tarpey and Alice Chen, who designed and implemented a pre-pilo of the survey as part of a class assignment in spring 2008. Finally, we w thank two anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers for their comments on version of this paper.

THE AUTHORS

Carolin Fuchs is a lecturer in the TESOL applied linguistics program College, Columbia University. Her research interests include technolog guage teaching and learning, electronic literacy skills, language play, She has also conducted Internet-mediated projects with institutions i Germany, Poland, and Taiwan.

Farah Sultana Akbar is a doctoral student in the applied linguistics prog ers College, Columbia University. Her areas of interest include secon acquisition via technology-mediated communication with special emp and written corrective feedback, teacher education, and curriculum dev

REFERENCES

Beiz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2005). Internet-mediated intercultural fo guage education. Boston, MA: Heinle 8c Heinle.

Develotte, C., Guichon, N., 8c Kern, R. (2008). Alio Berkeley? Ici Lyo nous voyez bien? Etude d'un dispositif de formation en ligne sy franco-américain à travers les discours de ses usagers. Alsic , 11( 2), 12 doi: 1 0.4000/alsic.892

Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., 8c Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL ins

on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking techno

teacher education. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 108-126. d 1.92.5333

Faez, A., 8c Valeo, F. (2012). TESOL teacher education: Novice teachers' perceptions of their preparedness and efficacy in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly , 46 , 450-471. doi:10.1002/tesq.37

Fuchs, C. (2009) . Digital natives and their self-rated electronic literacy skills: Empirical findings from a survey study in German secondary schools. In R. Oxford 8c J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the next generation (pp.

31-52). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Goodfellow, R., 8c Lamy, M.-N. (Eds.). (2009). Learning cultures in online education. New York, NY: Continuum Books.

Guth, S., 8c Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0 for language and intercul- tural learning. Bern, Switzerland: Lang.

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning ; 18, 311-326. doi: 1 0. 1 080/09588220500335455

166 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Hubbard, P., 8c Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning and Technology , 13( 1), 79-95.

Luke, C. L., 8c Britten, J. S. (2007). The expanding role of technology in foreign language teacher education programs. CALICO Journal , 24(2), 253-267.

Mak, B., 8c Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System , 36, 437-455. doi: 10.1 01 6/j. system. 2008.02.004

Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-Vanstrander, S., Tseng, C.-H., 8c You, J. (2006). CALL: A survey of K-12 ESOL teacher uses and preferences. TESOL Quarterly , 40. , 439-151. doi:10.2307/40264532

Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., 8c Pasquale, R. K. (2002). Expert and novice teachers talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning and Technology , 6(3), 46-57.

Pegrum, M. (2009). From blogs to bombs : The future of digital technologies in education. Perth: University of Western Australia Press.

Piccardo, E., 8c Stille, S. (2012, March). Teachers' perceptions about information and communication technologies (ICT) in French as a second language ( FSL ) instruction. Paper presented at the AAAL conference, Boston, MA.

Strauss, A., 8c Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE Publications.

Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Lan- guage Learning and Technology, 14(1), 3-8.

Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 305-320.

Woodrow, J. (1993). The implementation of computer technology in pre-service teaching. In Technology and teacher education annual (pp. 368-373). Charlottes- ville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It's about time! Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 72-93.

Effects of Four Vocabulary Exercises on Facilitating Learning Vocabulary Meaning, Form , and Use

MINHUI LU National Taiwan Normal University

Taipei, Taiwan doi : 10.1002/tesq.79

■ Empirical studies on vocabulary learning have confirmed th tage of reading with a vocabulary task over reading without (e.g., Keating, 2008; Laufer, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; man, 1997). However, researchers have not come to an agree

BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 167

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.113 on Mon, 16 Sep 2019 03:12:10 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms