Análisis

In relation to technology-related factors, the EFL teachers commented specifically on a lack of facilities and technical breakdowns, as well as issues with resource provision at the university.

Lack of facilities and technical breakdowns

Two EFL teachers reported that, although they attempted to use ICT in their classroom practice, both a lack of facilities and technical breakdowns appeared to hinder their attempts. Valerie said she could not use computers and projectors to play a video clip in the Speaking lesson because the equipment was not available in her classroom. Moreover, in the lab where there was a computer, the projector screen was so blurry that it could not show the interactive grammar exercises she had prepared for her students, so the

computer could only function “as a TV”. In addition, Judy reported that in teaching English culture to students, she frequently encountered problems in downloading audio and video files for students to work on, which was very frustrating for her.

Resource provision at the university

Some of the teachers implied that they thought the investment in technical infrastructure by the university was not always synonymous with ICT use by the teachers. This view is reflected in the comment by Mary that follows.

As far as I know, the university always invests in the best infrastructure with the expectations that this will optimize language learning and teaching at the university. The technology is the most updated one, which is supposed to bring about positive learning outcomes. But whether the teachers will fully integrate the technology in their EFL teaching is a different story. I think some technologies are being overused while some are underused, which might be a waste of resources … For example, videos are least frequently used while projectors are used too often so that teachers need to book one or two weeks in advance to be able to use projectors for teaching presentation skills.

In the worst case, this may become a waste of resources, as with some computer labs, because of a lack of coordination between the university/department/technical centre and teachers. Valerie reported that she witnessed that there were some modern computer labs

132 that were underused by the teachers, while the university was wasting resources such as electricity on these rooms because the air conditioners were still turned on for the purpose of maintenance of the computers in these rooms.

Additionally, one teacher, Valerie, stressed the need to provide EFL teachers with enough teaching resources and exposure to opportunities of ICT use. She felt these could change teacher resistance to ICT use in classroom teaching.

Previously when I was asked about the feasibility of ICT use in our university, I was not very optimistic because I saw a big resistance from the teachers. However, when I was working with the Dean of the English Department on a new syllabus for students, we bought soft copies of the new textbooks, CD ROM, teachers’ books … everything was available and I started using the resources and I realised that the change was not that difficult as I initially thought. In the English Department, not all teachers are using ICT in their teaching, mostly because they are not provided with enough resources. But with enough resources, teaching is much easier than the traditional way; it can be time-saving and can also help change the classroom mode.

In summary, interview findings show that from the EFL teachers’ perspective, the factors influencing their ICT use came from different sources, such as from the teachers themselves, their students, their colleagues, the technicians, the administrators and the technology. The level of impact of these factors on teachers’ use of ICT in classroom teaching was also different. Teachers’ self-assessed TPACK is discussed below. 4.2.4 Questionnaire findings around TPACK

This section reports on the EFL teachers’ self-report on their TPACK, as influencing their decision to use ICT. The participants were asked to rate their level of knowledge in relation to each of the seven TPACK domains (TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK and TPACK) using a four-point scale: Not at all (1), Little (2), Moderate (3) and Much (4). Similar to the section 4.2 of this chapter, findings on teachers’ TPACK were obtained from the mean score (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the ratings of the amount of knowledge. These mean ratings (including the SD) are presented in Table 7 below.

133 Table 7 Mean Score and Standard Deviation on Ratings of Teachers’ TPACK

(1-Not at all, 2- Little, 3-Moderate, 4- Much)

Item (*N=81) *M *SD

CK1-English language knowledge 3.52 0.55

PK3-Classroom management knowledge 3.43 0.55

PK4-Teaching planning knowledge 3.43 0.55

TK1-Common ICT applications knowledge 3.38 0.75

PK5-Student learning assessment knowledge 3.37 0.51

PCK1-Input modifying knowledge 3.32 0.59

CK2-Linguistic knowledge 3.27 0.63

PCK2-Student interaction knowledge 3.17 0.61

PK2-Different learning styles catering knowledge 3.12 0.60

PK1-Learning theories knowledge 3.05 0.67

TK3-Technology updating ability 3.05 0.71

TK2-Troubleshooting technical problems knowledge 3.02 0.87 CK3-English speaking countries culture knowledge 3.02 0.65 TCK1-ICT applications for English language knowledge 2.84 0.66 TPK4-Lesson preparation using ICT knowledge 2.84 0.64 TPK3-Classroom management using ICT knowledge 2.74 0.63 TPACK2-Task designing using ICT knowledge 2.70 0.66 TK5-Student learning assessment with ICT knowledge 2.70 0.66 TPACK1-Student learning English with ICT knowledge 2.65 0.73 TCK2-ICT applications for English linguistics knowledge 2.64 0.71 TCK3-ICT applications for English culture knowledge 2.63 0.78 TPK2-Different learning styles with ICT catering knowledge 2.58 0.69

TPK1-ICT learning theories knowledge 2.43 0.67

TPACK3-Software evaluation knowledge 2.36 0.68

* Note: N= Sample size, M= Mean score, SD= Standard Deviation

Table 7 provides information on the self-rating of the teachers’ TPACK. Generally speaking, the EFL teachers indicated that they had knowledge in all seven TPACK domains (all mean score of the ratings were above 2), yet the amounts of knowledge they reported in these domains varied (with the mean score of the ratings ranging from 2.36 to 3.52, SD varied). Overall, higher levels of knowledge were reported in relation to CK, PK and PCK, than for TCK, TPK and TPACK. The only exception was the TK item ‘ICT applications knowledge’, which was rated as the third highest item (M=3.38, SD=0.75).

134 A closer analysis of how participants rated individual items showed the following trends. The highest rated item of all the listed 24 TPACK items was a CK item ‘English language knowledge ’, with M being 3.52 (SD=0.55).

Next, the second highest rated items were two items in the PK domain, ‘Classroom management knowledge’ and ‘Teaching planning knowledge’. The mean scores for the ratings of these two items were both 3.43, with the same SD being 0.55.

One TK item, ‘Common ICT applications knowledge’ was rated the third highest with M being 3.38 (SD=0.75). This was followed by a number of PK, PCK and CK, namely ‘Student learning assessment knowledge’ (M=3.37, SD=0.51), ‘Input modifying knowledge’ (M=3.32, SD=0.59), and ‘Linguistic knowledge’ (M= 3.27, SD=0.63). A whole gamut of CK, PK and PCK items had the ratings mean score of more than 3.0 (SD varied), ranging from 3.02 to 3.27.

In contrast to these ratings, a number of items around TPK, TCK and TPACK were rated very low by the participants. The lowest rated item of all was a TPACK item, ‘Software evaluation knowledge’ (M=2.36, SD=0.68), followed by two TPK items ‘ICT learning theories knowledge’ (M=2.43, SD=0.67), and ‘Different learning styles with ICT catering knowledge’ (M=2.58, SD=0.69). Additionally, two TCK items, ‘ICT

applications for English culture knowledge’ (M=2.63, SD=0.78) and ‘ICT applications for English linguistics knowledge’ (M=2.64, SD=0.71) were the fourth and fifth lowest rated items of all the listed 24 TPACK items. A whole gamut of other TPK, TCK and TPACK items also received low ratings from the teachers, with the mean score all below 3.0 (being from 2.65 to 2.84, SD varied).

In summary, higher levels of knowledge was reported for CK, PK and PCK items than for TCK, TPK and TPACK items. This shows that the EFL teachers rated that they had

135 much knowledge in relation to CK, PK and PCK domains. In contrast, they rated that they had less knowledge in relation to TCK, TPK and TPACK.

4.2.5 Questionnaire findings on relationships between teachers’ ICT use and