Learner Perceptions of EFL
Classroom Technology
James Elwood
Tsukuba University, Japan
George MacLean
Tsukuba University, Japan
JALT 2007
Tokyo
First, some terminology…
Technology
technology = devices including
personal computers, cell phones,
clickers, audio players (MP3, iPod)
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
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
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
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
“Clicker,” you ask?
clicker = a handheld personal
response system (PRS), an electronic,
in-class polling system which
employs radio frequency
PRS RF System Architecture
Remotes
Hub
Host Computer
(Windows/Mac/Linux)
(((
)
))
(3…)
USB link
Our situation (1)
• Tsukuba University: multi-media
classrooms with few computers
• 40-50 students per class
• Face-oriented culture
• Cell phones ubiquitous
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
“Student” profile
In addition…
1. Some difficulties with PowerPoint
2. However, cell phones useful in
completing some of these tasks…
3. Emerging applications such as cell
phones (e.g., with FTP capabilities,
Bluetooth, IR, increased CPU and
data transfer rates)
Research Questions (1)
1. How comfortable are learners using
different kinds of technology?
2. To what extent do learners perceive
anxiety about technology?
3. Where are learners acquiring knowledge
about technology?
4. Do learners teach each other about
technology?
Research Questions (2)
5. Which do learners prefer for various
tasks, tech or non-tech (e.g., paper)?
6. How do learners rate their own
competence / proficiency with various
technological devices?
7. Do learners display willingness to use
technology (WUT)?
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
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
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”
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)
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)
Are students anxious about
tech-related tasks?
• No: touch-typing (2.50)
• No: Internet surfing (2.12)
• Yes, slightly: test-taking (3.03)
It’s really not so complex…
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)
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)
With apologies… some help
from Dr. Seuss
While enjoying some reading….
Suddenly….
A pertinent question….
Do you like technology?
An answer…
Technology!
Technology!
I do not like
technology!
A persistent sort…
Would you
use it in a
box?
Would you
use it with
a fox?
“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!
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)
Willingness to Use Tech (1)
Paper preferred for:
• taking memos (75.13%)
• taking tests (75.20%)
• checking reference material
(55.43%)
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
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%)
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
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
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
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
Implications (2)
• Tech viewed as future-useful, not so much
for specific subjects  properly contrived
task should be effective
• No formal instruction in touchtyping…would behoove us to include that
in curricula
• McCroskey (WUT) implication: students
appear willing to use tech for many types
of tasks
Miscellaneous comments
• Difficulties: software glitches (beta)
• Researchers’ learning curve vis-à-vis
software
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.
Conclusion, Q & A
At this time, we’d be happy to answer
any questions you have 
A shameless plug…
We thank you for your attendance and
attention!