Research Report Educational Research Methods American Intercontinental University

7/31/2019 Research Report Educational Research Methods American Intercontinental University

1/34

i

ESL Instructor Use of

Available Technology at

Pacoima Skills Center

by

Barry Bakin

A research project submitted inpartial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Education in EducationalTechnology

American InterContinental University

2005


2/34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgments iv

Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Review of Related Literature 3

Method

Participants 5

Instrument 6

Procedure 6

Results 7

Discussion 15

References 21

Appendix A Consent Form

Appendix B Survey Form

Appendix C Excel File with tabulated results


3/34

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page[Click and insert List of Figures]

ii


4/34

ABSTRACT

English as a Second Language (ESL) Instructors at

Pacoima Skills Center have access to many types of technology

for use with and by students learning ESL. The researcher has

anecdotal evidence that at least some of the ESL instructors at

Pacoima Skills Center either under-utilize or do not utilize that

technology at all. This research project is an attempt to survey

ESL Instructor usage of the available technology to see to what

extent instructors assigned to teach ESL at the main campus

branch of Pacoima Skills Center are using the technology and in

what ways. While results of the survey support the

researchers anecdotal evidence for the most part, there is

solid evidence that much of the available technology is used by

students as a language learning tool, as well as by instructors

for their own use in preparing for class.

iii


5/34

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank his colleagues in the Master of

Education in Educational Technology Program for their support

and suggestions during the course of this project.

iv


6/34

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Many schools and school districts have invested thousands of

dollars for new technology for use in the classroom in recent years.

Pacoima Skills Center, an adult school in the northeast San

Fernando Valley, that is part of the Division of Adult and Career

Education of the Los Angeles Unified School District, is one of them.

From computers to electronic whiteboards, the school has provided

its teachers with access to a wide range of the latest technologies.

Nevertheless, it has been the personal experience of this

researcher that many of his colleagues do not make use of all of

the available technology. In fact, it seems to actually be the case

that at least some of the teachers do not make use of anyof the

available technology in their instruction. In at least one case, the

belief that at least some teachers do not use much of the available

technology arises from the personal experience of the researcher

who shared a classroom that is extremely well equipped with

technology (desktop and laptop computers, LCD projector,

overhead projector, etc.) with a colleague who never left any

evidence that it was used at all (computers found in the morning

exactly as they were left, no evidence of student work or projects

1


7/34

on computers, no handouts detailing use of computers, etc.), and in

other cases thru personal conversations with teachers about their

use of computers and other technologies at the school.

The nonuse or under use of technology in instruction at the

school has implications in at least two areas: the wasting of scarce

financial resources in the purchase of expensive technology that is

not used, and the failure of teachers to make use of teaching

techniques involving technology that might be beneficial for

students attempting to acquire English language skills.

Additionally, if it is found that teachers are not using technology

that is available at Pacoima Skills Center that has been shown to

have a beneficial effect on students learning, there are

implications for the need to examine why teachers arent using a

teaching tool that is accessible and beneficial. Is the

underutilization of technology due to teacher perceptions as to the

lack of benefits of using technology, lack of training in using it, or to

some other reason. Finally, in an era when student progress, as

measured by learning gains on state-mandated tests, has a direct

financial impact on the school (achievement of a minimum number

of pay points impacts funding received in a subsequent year) the

2


8/34

failure to use a tool that could improve student progress and

achievement has financial implications as well.

Statement of the problem

The purpose of this preliminary study was to survey whether

or not ESL instructors on the main campus of Pacoima Skills Center

use the different types of technology available to them on campus,

and if so, whether or not they use any particular type of technology

only for their own use as instructors in preparing for classes,

whether they had students onlyuse the technology as part of their

learning, or whether they used the technology for themselves and

also had students use the technology as part of the curriculum.

Review of Related Literature

In How Teachers Learn Technology Best Jamie McKenzie

notes, the failure to fund and design robust professional

development leads to screensavers disease the educational

equivalent of an accountants red ink as hundreds of computers

sit idly glowing throughout the day and the districts investment

proves a huge waste of funds. (McKenzie, 2001) Additionally,

attempts to get teachers to use the equipment can be focused on

3


9/34

training that is misguided in its approach, concentrating on learning

a particular software instead of transforming teachers who use

traditional teaching strategies into ones who use the constructivist,

project-based approaches that the author feels are more conducive

to incorporating the use of technology as well as being based in

sound educational principles. (McKenzie, 2001) In McKenzies

view, teaching technology skills by itself isnt enough. One must

also convince teachers of the value in engaging students in

problem-based or project based learning with these new tools.

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) also concludes that to

use technology effectively, teachers need more than just training

about how to work the machines and technical support. (Coley,

Cradler & Engel, 1997)

This view is echoed in Koehler and Mishras summary of an

approach to technology training they call Learning by Design.

(Koehler & Mishra, 2005). In the Learning by Design approach,

the traditional training methodology of teachers being trained to

use the latest tools with the hope that they can apply them to

their practice is turned on its head so that teachers focus first on a

problem of practice and then seek ways to use technology (and

4


10/34

thereby learn about technology) to address the problem. (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005)

Fortunately some institutions are experimenting with

substantial and innovative approaches to training. The English

Language Institute (ELI) at Oregon State University, for example

dedicated 5% of its total budget to faculty development in the

area of technology (authors emphasis) including giving release

time to its core instructors to participate. (Averill, Chambers &

Dantas-Whitney, 2000) Investing so heavily in training helped the

ELI to move from a situation where only two of its instructors had

advanced technological expertise to a context in which most of

the 20 full-time instructors are trained to make regular use of

technology in the classroom. (Averill, Chambers & Dantas-

Whitney, 2000) All of the training is in accord with the ELIs basic

philosophy that technology should be used as a tool to enhance

instruction rather than to replace the instructor. (Averill, Chambers

& Dantas-Whitney, 2000)

Assuming teachers are getting some type of training,

however minimal it might be, or whether or not its in how to do

something technically vs. how is the technology useful for solving

problems, is irrelevant if teachers dont even know the technology

5


11/34

exists. One attempt to determine teacher awareness of the

existence of technology and other attitudes towards technology,

was the Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 national survey

of schools and teachers. More than 1,600 schools were part of the

nationwide sample with information from approximately 4,100

teachers, 800 technology coordinators, and 850 principals.

(Center for Research on Information Technology, 1998) Among the

findings of this research was a direct linear correlation between the

amount of spending on technology and the amount of

penetration of technology with penetration defined as a

measure of what proportion of the teachers did each of the

following: (1) experiment with new teaching methods involving

computers, (2) use computers for their own professional tasks, (3)

sometimes have students use computers to do curricular

assignments, (4) become involved in planning or implementing

Internet-based activities, and (5) seek out technology coordinators

for advice about integrating technology and curriculum. (Center

for Research on Information Technology, 1998)

Method

6


12/34

Participants

The sample for this study was ESL teachers who teach on the

main campus of Pacoima Skills Center weekday days, weekday

evenings and Saturday days. Branch location teachers were not

included because no current survey of available technology exists

for the various off-campus sites and it would be necessary to

ascertain what technology is available at each branch location prior

to any survey investigating the use of that technology. The total

number of assigned ESL teachers in this category is 14. Some

teachers teach both a day class and an evening class and every

teacher who has a Saturday class also teaches during the week so

there are fewer unique teachers than classes offered. The surveys

were passed out at faculty meetings held on Monday. Teachers

were given until Friday to fill them out and return them. Twelve

surveys were returned representing 85% of the sample.

Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of 4 questions to determine

the number of hours a teacher taught at Pacoima Skills Center, the

years of experience teaching ESL at Pacoima Skills Center and prior

to being employed at Pacoima Skills Center, and the level or levels

7


13/34

of ESL taught. The remainder of the survey instrument listed 13

different types of technology (TV with VCR, Overhead projector,

scanner, etc.) available for teachers to use at the main campus of

Pacoima Skills Center. Survey participants were asked to describe

their usage of each piece of equipment by placing a mark in the

column that best described it using one of the following descriptors:

Never, Instructor use only, Students use only, and Both

instructors and students use. Certain newer or infrequently

purchased technologies were depicted in accompanying photos for

clarity.

Procedure

The researcher performed a preliminary analysis of the

types of technology available in classrooms at Pacoima Skills

Center as well as those technologies that are available but are not

located directly in classrooms. The survey was compiled and

reviewed by the researchers study team for errors and issues of

survey design. After the review, the survey and accompanying

consent form were distributed at departmental meetings attended

by the ESL faculty. Most respondents completed the survey and

8


14/34

returned them immediately but several were returned the next day

and two were returned the day after that.

Results

Data from the 12 respondents show that the average

instructor teaches 20 .4 hours a week and has been working at

Pacoima Skills Center for 3 years. Prior to arriving at Pacoima

Skills Center, teachers taught an average of 5 years at other

locations but 5 of the 12 instructors have only taught 1 year or less

at Pacoima Skills Center. Of that group of 5 instructors who have

only taught 1 year, 4 of them report no previous teaching

experience at other schools. The teachers who responded include

at least one instructor from each of the levels of ESL taught at

Pacoima Skills Center.

The following tables illustrate the results for each category of

technology. There are a few cases where the results do not add up

to 100% because one respondent did not mark any answer for that

category. Respondents were instructed to describe their use of the

named technology according to the four categories. The

instructions for the survey defined the categories. For the purpose

9


15/34

of the survey Instructor use only meant that the instructor uses

the technology for such activities as preparing for class, doing

background research, creating a homework exercise, presenting

material to the students, or maintaining class records. Students

use only was defined as students use the technology for such

activities as studying grammar, watching a video-based lesson,

presenting a topic to the class, or doing research but the instructor

did not use that technology for his or her own use as described in

the previous category. Both instructor and students use was

indicated to mean that the instructor uses the technology in the

ways described above AND has students use the technology in their

studies. The fourth category Never was not defined but was

deemed clear enough to be understood without an explicit

definition.

10


16/34

TV with Built-in VCR

75%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Never Use Instructor OnlyUses

Students Only Use Both Instructor andStudents Use

Table 1

Audiocassette/CD Player

50%

8%

33%

8%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Never Use Instructor Only Uses Students Only Use Both Instructor and

Students Use

Table 2

11


17/34

Overhead Projector

42%

8%

25%25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Never Use Instructor Only

Uses

Students Only Use Both Instructor and

Students Use

Table 3

Computer (non-Internet) Productivity Software:

Word, Excel, Paint, PowerPoint, etc.

33%

42%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


Uses


Students Use

Table 4

12


18/34

Computer (non-Internet) ESL software

42%

33%

17%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


Uses


Students Use

Table 5

Computer (Internet) Not ESL Specific WebsitesWebsites intended for the general public, not necessarily English Language Learners

One survey participant did not enter a response to this question so the percentage of instructors does not

equal 100%

50%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Uses


Students Use

Table 6

13


19/34

Computer (Internet)Websites intended for use by ESL students

33%

50%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Uses


Students Use

Table 7

Cardreader Machine

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Uses


Students Use

Table 8

14


20/34

Interactive Whiteboard

25%

8%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Uses


Students Use

Table 9

LCD Projector

83%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%


Uses


Students Use

Table 10

15


21/34

Inkjet or Laser Printer

17%

67%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Uses


Students Use

Table 11

Digital Camera

92%

8%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Uses


Students Use

Table 12

16


22/34

Scanner

67%

25%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Uses


Students Use

Table 13

Discussion

Of the thirteen types of technologies available to instructors

at Pacoima Skills Center, almost half of them are never used by

50% or more of the ESL instructors. Those technologies are

using the Internet to visit websites that are not specificallymeant for ESL such as a government website or a tourismwebsite 50%

card-reader machines 100%

interactive whiteboards 67%

LCD projectors 83% digital cameras 92%

scanners 67%

17


23/34

Clearly, these technologies represent investments that are being

under-utilized at the current time. Administrators and the ESL

program coordinator would be advised to further examine each of

the above technology types to see why instructors are not using

them in the classroom, because some of them represent

substantial financial investments (the interactive whiteboards were

very expensive and several were purchased). Unfortunately, not

enough is known about why instructors never use a particular

category. In retrospect, it is clear that the category Never should

have been expanded into several categories to provide more

critical information as to why the instructor never uses that

technology. Is it because they dont know that the technology is

available, they do know that the technology is available but have

decided not to use it because they dont have training in using it in

the classroom, or because they know how to use it and perhaps

have even received training on using it in the classroom but have

made a conscious decision that that particular technology isnt

appropriate for use as part of their curriculum or teaching

strategies. A follow-up study could ask further questions relating to

the Never category to identify specific reasons why a technology

is not being used by a particular teacher or numbers of teachers.

18


24/34

While most of the technologies showed usage by at least

some of the instructors, 100% of the instructors stated they never

used a card reader machine. Obviously, follow-up is necessary.

While card reader machines are not as expensive as computers or

interactive whiteboards, they do have a cost and if not being used

would perhaps represent an investment better spent elsewhere.

On the other hand, card reader technology has been found to be

useful in language learning and is used quite often in reading labs

for vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation practice. It is quite

possible that instructors are either not aware of their utility in the

ESL context, or are simply not even aware that theyre available.

Additionally, card reader technology, while it has been around for

many years, has not been emphasized in ESL training courses for

quite some time (since the advent of computer technology, which

supplanted card readers for the most part) and since 33% (4 of 12)

instructors have taught only one year or less, it is quite possible

that they were never exposed to the technology as an ESL teaching

tool at all. Only three of the 12 instructors have 15 or more years

of experience (long enough to be familiar with card-reader

technology as a language learning tool).

19


25/34

The only two technologies that 50% or more of the

instructors said that they use both for their own preparation and

their students use in their learning were the TV with built-in VCR

(75%) and audiocassette/CD players (50%). This is perhaps not

surprising since they have been around for decades and instructors

have been exposed to their use in the classroom for many years.

On the other hand, the audiocassette/CD player usage might still

be seen as relatively low, especially since the schools selected

textbooks for ESL all come with accompanying CD-ROMs with

recordings of the conversations and activities. If only 50% percent

of the ESL instructors are using audiocassette/CD players with their

students, than a reminder that the textbooks have accompanying

CD-ROMs might be in order. That of course assumes that all of the

instructors are using the course textbooks, but that would be the

focus of another study.

A full 25% of instructors state they never use the overhead

projector in any way in the classroom. Overhead projectors allow

larger numbers of students to clearly and easily view the displayed

subject material than when that same material is presented on a

chalk or whiteboard. It is also much easier on the instructor when

writing large amounts. That this very useful teaching tool is not

20


26/34

used by 25% of the instructors is another indication that further

investigation and perhaps technology training is called for.

Not everything is bleak, however. 92% of the instructors

report that they use ESL specific software (non-Internet) either for

themselves or have the students use it, with 75% of those

instructors saying that their students are using ESL software in

some way. That is extremely positive, indicating that the large

investment in purchasing ESL software has for the most part

reached the students. Additionally, 25% of ESL instructors stated

that they have their students use productivity software (Microsoft

Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Paint, etc.) as part of their curriculum.

While that figure is less than that of students using ESL software,

much more training is required for instructors to feel comfortable

using such software in the ESL context because the activities

involved are more project-oriented and an instructor cannot just

point the student to the computer and say do the lesson on

verbs.

While 42% of instructors state that they use non-ESL sites on

the Internet for their own preparation or use, and 50% state that

they use websites intended for ESL for similar purposes, very few

(17% in the case of sites specifically intended for ESL) stated that

21


27/34

their students are using the Internet at all. Clearly, in a time when

using the Internet has taken such a primary focus not only in

society, but also in the educational context, this low usage warrants

further investigation. The investment in computer technology is

not only an investment in the computers themselves, but also an

investment in the network that allows virtually all of the computers

at Pacoima Skills Center to have some type of Internet access, be it

wired or wireless. Further investigation should focus on why the

instructors at Pacoima Skills Center are not giving students more

opportunities to use the Internet for language learning activities.

While the previously discussed results do confirm that

instructors are using computers and also having students use

computers, it is interesting to note that 83% of the respondents

state that they never use an LCD projector. Since class sizes at

Pacoima Skills Center must be larger than 25 students per class

minimum, and often have 30 to 50 students attending, this result is

quite curious. Further research is necessary to see just how

instructors are teaching the students how to use the computers and

software without a presentation device like an LCD projector

(Pacoima Skills Center does not have television monitors for use as

presentation devices).

22


28/34

Regarding the use of printers, 67% of the instructors report

that they do not have students use the printers at all.

Administrators who are interested in controlling expenses should

find that result heartening, as it might indicate that instructors are

very aware of the potential for runaway costs of ink and paper if

students are given access to printing.

One result that points to a need for further investigation is

that 92% instructors state that they never use a digital camera.

One wonders about this, as the use of imagery as a prompt for

language learning is quite established. Taking pictures of a

location or object and writing about the pictures or using pictures to

illustrate a writing assignment are certainly not new ideas. In

previous years, however, teachers had to wait for film to be

developed before students could use the images. Digital cameras

allow for almost instantaneous use of photos in computer-based

documents. Their ease of use would seem to indicate that ESL

teachers would jump at the opportunity to incorporate them into

instruction, yet obviously they are not being used. Further study is

necessary to determine why.

Finally, another possible area for a follow-up study to focus

on would be to have instructors specifically identify and describe

23


29/34

activities that they do in the categories where they have indicated

that they either use the technology themselves or have students

use the technology. Open-ended questions giving the instructor

the opportunity to elaborate on actual activities would give

administrators, the ESL coordinator, and trainers a clearer picture

of where future trainings could concentrate.

24


30/34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Investing in People, Not Just Flashy Gadgets. Jane Averill, EveChambers, and Maria Dantas-Whitney. In Technology EnhancedLearning Environments, Elizabeth Hanson-Smith, Editory, pps 85-98, Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series. Jill Burton, SeriesEditor.2000, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,Inc.

Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers andclassrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. RetrievedDecember 15, 2004, from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/compclss.pdf(Adobe Reader PDF 979 KB)

How Teachers Learn Technology Best By Jamie McKenzie Collectedat From Now On, The Educational Technology Journal Vol 10|No 6|March|2001http://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html

Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998, A National Survey ofSchools and Teachers. , Teachers Survey, Combined Version 1-4,Collected at http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/questionnaires.html

Teachers Learning Technology by Design, Matthew J. Koehler andPunya Mishra.,Collected at Journal of Computing in TeacherEducation, Volume 21, Number 3, Spring 2005,www.iste.org/.../SIGTE_Teacher_Educators_/JCTE/Past_Issues2/Volume_21/Number_3_Spring_2005/te213094koe.pdf

25
ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/compclss.pdfhttp://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.htmlhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/questionnaires.htmlftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/compclss.pdfhttp://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.htmlhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/questionnaires.html


31/34

APPENDIX A


32/34

APPENDIX B


33/34

APPENDIX C


34/34

Research Report Educational Research Methods American Intercontinental University

Documents

Transcript of Research Report Educational Research Methods American Intercontinental University