Learner Perceptions of EFL Classroom Technology

1. Learner Perceptions of EFL Classroom Technology James Elwood Tsukuba University, Japan George MacLean Tsukuba University, Japan JALT 2007 Tokyo

2. First, some terminology…

3. Technology technology = devices including personal computers, cell phones, clickers, audio players (MP3, iPod)

4. Mobile device Mobile device = any device that is small enough to fit comfortably in a pocket or purse, that have hardware and software features, and which is used for computing, communication, entertainment, or educational purposes

5. Mobile learning mobile learning = any type of learning which employs mobile devices to engage in learning and which occurs in an environment that is unconstrained by time or location

6. George’s move from ESL to EFL (1) Challenges in our EFL context • Effectively engaging students (interesting and relevant material with some measure of student control) • In ESL would be implicit negative feedback in the form of recasts, but often difficult or impossible in EFL contexts • Getting students to respond to questions

7. George’s move from ESL to EFL (2) • Reluctance to speak up (a “face” issue) • Providing effective, timely feedback to students • Providing quantifiable assessment • Thus…sheltered content or CALL • Duncan (2005) on clicker use in large courses in the US, focus was instant feedback, checking if students understood, then proceeding accordingly…so

8. “Clicker,” you ask? clicker = a handheld personal response system (PRS), an electronic, in-class polling system which employs radio frequency

9. PRS RF System Architecture Remotes Hub Host Computer (Windows/Mac/Linux) ((())) (3…) USB link

10. Our situation (1) • Tsukuba University: multi-media classrooms with few computers • 40-50 students per class • Face-oriented culture • Cell phones ubiquitous

11. Our situation (2) • CALL classrooms can be difficult to use (moving desks, for example) • Computers are often bulky and expensive • Clickers reasonable financial expenditure • Students may lack tech proficiency to fulfill objectives

12. “Student” profile

13. In addition… • Some difficulties with PowerPoint • However, cell phones useful in completing some of these tasks… • Emerging applications such as cell phones (e.g., with FTP capabilities, Bluetooth, IR, increased CPU and data transfer rates)

14. Research Questions (1) • How comfortable are learners using different kinds of technology? • To what extent do learners perceive anxiety about technology? • Where are learners acquiring knowledge about technology? • Do learners teach each other about technology?

15. Research Questions (2) • Which do learners prefer for various tasks, tech or non-tech (e.g., paper)? • How do learners rate their own competence / proficiency with various technological devices? • Do learners display willingness to use technology (WUT)?

16. Method: Pilot Study • Data collected with clickers • 53-item instrument emerged from research questions • Included age, gender, and major • Respondents (N = 142) • Rasch-analyzed  reliability fine, categories functioning well • High-comp and low-comp groups

17. Method: Main Study • Data collected with clickers • N = 381, mostly at Tsukuba University • Convenience sampling • Data collected Sept-Oct 2007 • About 15 minutes to complete survey • Data from PRS to Excel: ~20 minutes per group of 32

18. Results With the 5-point Likert-scale responses, the anchors are: 1 = not competent / not useful / etc., and 5 = competent / useful / etc. 3 = midpoint, “somewhat / slightly”

19. Are students competent with various tech-related tasks? • Yes: surfing with PC (3.58) • Yes, slightly: surfing with cell phone (3.06) • Yes: e-mail with cell phone (4.10) • Yes: e-mail with PC (3.35) • Yes: word processing (3.31)

20. Are students competent with various tech-related tasks? • No: using Excel (2.56) • No: downloading (2.29) • No: installing (2.43) • No: connecting (2.44)

21. Are students anxious about tech-related tasks? • No: touch-typing (2.50) • No: Internet surfing (2.12) • Yes, slightly: test-taking (3.03)

22. It’s really not so complex…

23. Learners’ views of tech Tech viewed as: • Slightly useful for foreign languages (3.06) • Slightly useful for science (3.07) • Not useful for learning L1, Japanese (2.60) • Not useful for math (2.56)

24. Learners’ views of technology for their future use Tech viewed as useful in the future for… • Private use (4.29) • Work (4.14) • Study (3.83)

25. With apologies… some help from Dr. Seuss

26. While enjoying some reading….

27. Suddenly….

28. A pertinent question…. Do you like technology?

29. An answer… Technology! Technology! I do not like technology!

30. A persistent sort… Would you use it in a box? Would you use it with a fox?

31. “Doubt it…” I would not use it in a box! I would not use it with a fox! Neither Mac nor a PC, I do not like technology!

32. Willingness to Communicate(WTC)  Willingness to Use Tech (WUT) WTC: McCroskey looked at 4 kinds of tasks X 3 groups of people WUT: We looked at 10 different tasks X 2 dimensions (tech vs. non-tech)

33. Willingness to Use Tech (1) Paper preferred for: • taking memos (75.13%) • taking tests (75.20%) • checking reference material (55.43%)

34. Willingness to Use Tech (2) No preference: • face-to-face chatting and Internet chatting (49.19%), but • Females prefer face-to-face interaction to Internet chatting

35. Willingness to Use Tech (3) Tech preferred for: • writing a 5-page report (70.20%) • contacting teacher (71.41%) • doing a budget (57.34%) • getting info (57.75%) • doing presentations (76.60%) • dividing restaurant check (72.87%) • exchanging email (74.06%)

36. Where do learners acquire tech knowledge? (1) About cell phones: • At school (11.60%) • From friends (28.69%) • Self-taught (45.62%)  Largest portion learned by self

37. Where do learners acquire tech knowledge? (2) About non-cell technology: • At school (43.82%) • From friends (30.03%)  Substantial portion learned in educational setting

38. Where do learners acquire tech knowledge? (3) How much do learners use educational software? • Rather little (1.88)  In spite of educational software being readily available, it appears to be little used

39. Implications • Can inform choice of technology (choose tech format accordingly) • Need to do more research, notably in the area of types of tasks that are appropriate for mobile learning

40. Implications (2) • Tech viewed as future-useful, not so much for specific subjects  properly contrived task should be effective • No formal instruction in touch-typing…would behoove us to include that in curricula • McCroskey (WUT) implication: students appear willing to use tech for many types of tasks

41. Miscellaneous comments • Difficulties: software glitches (beta) • Researchers’ learning curve vis-à-vis software

42. What’s next? • Would like to replicate this study in other contexts in Japan and in other countries. • This research suggests students are open to technology use in EFL classrooms—why, then, is it not more widely used?  Would like data on teachers. • Would like to extend this to secondary and primary education contexts.

43. Conclusion, Q & A At this time, we’d be happy to answer any questions you have 

44. A shameless plug…

45. We thank you for your attendance and attention!