Survey Study Results Report
Electronic Literacy and Media Competence in German Secondary Schools
Prepared by
Dr. Carolin Fuchs, Lecturer
Department of Arts and Humanities
TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program
Teachers College, Columbia University
316A Zankel, Box 66
525 W 120th Street
New York, New York 10027
Phone: (212)678-3713
Fax: (212)678-3428
Email: cf2307@columbia.edu
Earlier versions of this report were presented at the EuroCALL 2007 Conference Mastering
Multimedia: Teaching Languages Through Technology (http://www.eurocall2007.com/) and at
the AAAL 2008 Colloquium Electronic Literacy and Educational Practices: A Global
Perspective (American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Washington, DC, April
1, 2008).
September 24, 2008
1
Abstract:
Large-scale studies in German secondary schools have provided mixed results regarding the
use of technology. Although most German schools seem to use the Internet for foreign language
teaching (Krützer & Probst, 2005), only one third used computers in 2006 compared to an
average of 56% of schools in OECD countries (Vereinigung der Bayrischen Wirtschaft e.V.,
2008). Additionally, little is known about participants’ perspectives on using technology, e.g.,
how teachers and students learn how to use technology (see Kern, 2006), and how they self-rate
their proficiency.
This survey study at five German secondary schools explores participants’ self-rated
electronic literacy skills, the definition of media competence, and teachers’ values, visions, and
challenges regarding technology use. Findings support previous studies in that there appears to be
a gap between theory and praxis (e.g., Fuchs, 2006a; Meskill et al., 2006) regarding the
importance of electronic literacy skills and technology use and a lack thereof in teaching. The
author outlines implications for language teacher education programs and future research
directions.
2
Introduction
The use of technology for teaching foreign languages in German schools is said to have
become increasingly widespread. A recent large-scale study by the German Federal Ministry for
Education and Research reports that 65% of German secondary schools use the Internet for
foreign language teaching (Krützer & Probst, 2005). Media competence and electronic literacy
have been labelled key skills for today’s students (Hamm, 2001) and teachers (Willis, 2001).
Consequently, there have been various initiatives in Germany and in Europe to promote
electronic and media literacy. In 1996, the registered association “Schulen ans Netz” was
founded, and it was the joint goal of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research
and the Deutsche Telekom AG, to hook up every school in Germany to the Internet. By 2001,
34,000 schools were connected; however, the association quickly realized that although
technology was now available, media-pedagogical competence was not. Consequently, since
2006, a new initiative called “Lifelong learning” has focused on the “meaningful use of digital
media” which should not be limited to school but also transferred to other areas.
Another recent initiative, the European Charter for Media Literacy (2006), has aimed at
“rais[ing] public understanding and awareness of media literacy,” “advocat[ing] the importance
of media literacy in the development of educational, cultural, political, social and economic
policy,” and “support[ing] the principle that every European citizen of any age should have
opportunities, in both formal and informal education […]”.
In light of these initiatives, this survey study attempts to shed light on teachers’ perceptions
regarding values, challenges, and visions of technology-enhanced teaching, and participants’ selfrated electronic literacy skills and the importance they assign to such skills.
3
Background and Prior Research
1. The Theory: The Importance of Electronic Literacy and Media Competence
A literature review reveals a wide range of views on what electronic and media literacy
should encompass. For instance, Shetzer and Warschauer support the notion of electronic literacy
as a framework for interpreting and expressing meaning, and the ability to find, organize, and
make use of information (“information literacy,” 2000, p. 173). According to the European
Centre for Media Competence (Europäisches Zentrum für Medienkompetenz), media literacy
refers primarily to digital media (cf. Aufderheide, not dated; Considine, 1995) and contains
competencies such as reflecting on and evaluating the content of offers and services, dealing with
such materials in an effective, creative, and critical way, and actively taking part in responsibly
and consciously dealing with challenges posed by information society (as cited in Hillebrand &
Lange 1996, pp. 35-36). Richards (2000), on the other hand, has argued that electronic literacy is
a “dialogical process” regardless of the mode and medium of communication between author and
audience (p. 73; italics in original).
It has been well established that the use of technology can promote students’ computer and
information literacy skills, which may then enhance self-efficiency and necessary professional
skills. In particular, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) educators and researchers have
stressed the potential of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and Internet-mediated
communication such as telecollaboration for foreign language learning due to an emphasis on
genuine communication, student-centered learning, and learning of language forms for
communicative purposes (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007). Not only can CMC provide unlimited
sources of authentic language use and native-speaker and non-native speaker interaction (e.g.,
Herring, 1996), but CMC can also promote learning contexts for meaningful social interaction
among teachers and peers (see Vygotsky, 1978). These learning environments may result in
4
increased motivation (e.g., Fuchs, 2001; Lee, 2004; LeLoup & Ponterio, 2003), language fluency
(e.g., Kern, 1995), pragmatic knowledge (e.g., Belz, 2007), or intercultural learning (e.g., Belz,
2002; Müller-Hartmann, 1999; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; O‘Dowd, 2003; 2007). Learners can
also develop their own voice and agency when interacting with a range of people, and it has been
demonstrated within the context of a language learner’s chat on the Internet, how this can result
in a “sense of empowerment” (Kramsch, A‘Ness, & Lam, 2000, p. 96). Moreover, focus
discipline research has shown to be more beneficial for developing multiliteracies than other
content-based instruction, and that students need such literacies to succeed beyond the ESL
classroom - namely in academic, social, and professional contexts (Kasper, 2000). Doering and
Beach (2002) report on experiences in using a variety of technologies to support teachers’
acquisition of literacy practices. Findings indicate that using hypermedia in a collaborative
writing project with middle school students helped preservice teachers learn how to model
literacy practices of making intertextual or hypertextual links. Nevertheless, as highlighted in the
next section, there still appears to be a major discrepancy between the possibilities language
teacher educators have today and how they use technology in their classrooms.
2. The Praxis: A Lack of Fostering Electronic Literacy in German Secondary Schools
A recent study attests that schools in Germany use computers less frequently as a tool for
learning compared to any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (OECD): Roughly one third (31%) of the schools in Germany used computers in
2006 compared to an average of 56% in OECD countries (Vereinigung der Bayrischen Wirtschaft
e.V., 2008, pp. 73-74).
Other large-scale survey studies stress that even though 87% of students considered computer
skills important or very important for their professional lives, two-thirds of students in German
5
schools barely worked with computers in class. There is a lack of computer use in schools and
across the curriculum, i.e., computers were primarily used in IT Science as the subject matter for
teaching, not as a means for learning or as a cultural tool (IT-Fitness study, 2007). Moreover,
teacher education and “online competence” were far from being optimized (Internet-ABC study,
2007). According to a study on the future of media-based teaching and learning materials, most
teachers thought highly of new technologies and media and were hoping for more teaching and
learning materials and increasing support. However, this did not necessarily correlate with
teachers’ willingness to use such technologies (Vollstädt, 2003).
Research in the US has also pointed to a mismatch between theory and praxis. Meskill,
Mossop, DiAngelo & Pasquale (2002) call for developing and maintaining a particular conceptual
frame for the potential role of technologies for language and literacy development. Novice
teachers should be educated in thoughtful use of technologies, i.e., through a complex process of
implementing and reflecting supported by experienced practitioners. Accordingly, Murray (2000)
has urged educators to discuss and adopt technologies into their classrooms only after scrutinizing
such technologies critically and from a historic point of view since the outcomes of computerbased literacy are neither unavoidable nor ideologically neutral. She deems it essential for
educators to help shape and create the ideological climate surrounding technology use in order to
avoid that others tell them how to use technology.
Others have looked at how language teachers apply what they learned in CMC or CALL
courses in their own teaching and suggest moving away from isolated CALL coursework to a
succession of situated technology experiences for teachers (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002;
see also Hubbard & Levy, 2006). In a similar vein, Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-Vanstrander,
Tseng &You (2006) compared data from a 1997 New York statewide survey of K-12 ESOL
teachers on if and how they used computers in their language and literacy instruction (Meskill &
6
Mossop, 2000), and similar data from a 2003 survey distributed to New York’s 3,928 schools.
The authors conclude that computer-aided instruction and multimedia were frequently the subject
of research but not frequently used by ESOL teachers.
In order to gain further insight into the apparent mismatch between the high reputation of
technology for teaching and a lack of implementation of technology, this study focused on the
following research questions:
1. How do teachers perceive the role of computer technology in teaching? How do teachers
define media competence? How important do teachers perceive students’ media competence?
How do participants rate their electronic literacy skills?
2. What does the infrastructure at German secondary schools look like with regard to access and
use of computer technology? What kind of technical support and professional development
opportunities do teachers have?
3. How did participants learn to use computer technology?
4. How do secondary-school teachers use technology in their teaching (e.g., with regard to
CMC)? What values, challenges, and visions do teachers assign to using technology for teaching?
Research Design
1. Participants and Demographic Context
The data in this exploratory survey study included 30 all-subject teachers - out of which ten were
teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) -, seven administrators, and 697 students from
five secondary schools in the southwest of Germany. The state of Baden-Württemberg ranks third
regarding number of inhabitants (10.738.753 on December 31, 2006) and area (35.751, 65 km²).
A state with very limited natural resources, Baden-Württemberg is one of the technology leaders
and most successful regions in Europe. The state is strong with regard to export and has a high
7
density of research institutions and a high percentage of employees in the high-tech industry
(http://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/Unser_Land/86235.html).
Table 1 below contains a brief summary of Germany’s three-tier secondary public school
system. The education system is regulated by the 16 Bundesländer (states); hence, there can be
vast differences across the country.
Table 1. Germany’s Three-Tier Secondary Public School System (Grades 5-9/10/12)
Gymnasium
Comprehensive/senior
secondary school
(equivalent to a
grammar school in the
UK or a lycée in France)
Grades 5-13; one-third of
students; have to take one
language starting in grade 5;
can take other languages
later (e.g., English, French,
Latin, Spanish); English
obligatory for all students;
final exam (Abitur)
prerequisite for
matriculation at university
Final English exam:
-Comprehensive written test
(4-5 hrs) with focus on a
piece of classical literature,
text comprehension and
production, translation,
vocabulary;
-Oral exam not mandatory*
(only obligatory when
minimum standards not
met)
Realschule
Middle school/practical
school
Hauptschule
General/junior
secondary school
Grades 5-10; less than onethird of students; have to
take one language, i.e.,
English in grade 5; have the
option of taking additional
languages later
Grades 5-9; less than half
the students; have to take
one language, i.e., English
in grade 5
Final English exam:
-Text comprehension,
translation, production,
vocabulary, representing
information through tables,
diagrams, mind maps;
-Oral exam not mandatory:*
text comprehension,
translating sentences from
German into English, short
dialogue
Final English exam:
-Reading and listening
comprehension, e.g.,
true/false, matching
exercises (approx. 2 hrs);
-Oral exam not mandatory*
*The exam was not mandatory at the point of the study but has since been made mandatory.
The exit mechanism for EFL shows an emphasis on the grammar translation method and a
non-mandatory oral exam at the point of the study. This conflicts with the call for a more
8
communicative curriculum and the integration of CMC. Interestingly, none of the teachers
mentioned this as a curricular constraint or challenge for using technology.
2. Participant Information
The following two tables contain information regarding participating teachers and students.
Table 2. Teachers
Age Ranges
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Number of Female T’s
4
3
1
6
Number of Male T’s
0
5
3
8
As can be seen from Table 2, the male-female distribution is almost equal with 46.7% women
and 53.3% men. In terms of age, 40% of all teachers could be categorized as digital natives, while
60% qualified as digital immigrants. The category of digital natives has been broadly defined as
“anyone under 40” (Rüschoff, 2007), or more precisely as K-college (Prensky, 2001).
Table 3. Students
Total number of Students
678
(Originally: 697)
10-13-year-olds
338
(338)
14+-year-olds
340
(359)
697 10+-year-old students participated out of which 678 students were divided into two age
groups: 10-13-year-olds and 14+-year-olds. All students could be categorized as part of the first
generation of digital natives (Prensky, 2001).
Methodology
1. Data Collection
The researcher (and author) did not limit her investigation to language teachers because she
did not want to exclude volunteering teachers simply because they were not language teachers.
9
Additionally, in order to obtain information from a representative student sample, she could not
just include language teachers and their classes.
The surveys consisted of three parts - 15 items for the teachers (Appendix A), and 12 items
for administrators and students -, including four-level Likert items, multiple choice, and openended questions. The reason for not using a five-level Likert scale was to get a tendency.
The first part of the teacher survey elicited background information regarding personal and
professional information on subjects’ gender, age, country/state of birth, education, and current
and prior teaching experience (e.g., courses, subjects, levels, grades). The second part included
questions on teachers’ computer and Internet skills, access, and use. The third part focused on the
definitions of media competence, rating the importance of students’ media competence, teachers’
technical support and professional development, and their values, challenges, visions with respect
to technology use at their schools. The main issue the researcher came across was the term
“electronic literacy” when translating the original questionnaire into German because the term
has not been used in the German literature, nor does it translate. Instead, the terms “computer
skills,” “media competence,” and “media literacy” have been used. Hence, the researcher decided
to use “media competence” because it appeared to have been the most widely used term among
teachers in Germany.
Prior to administrating the questionnaires in December 2005, the researcher pretested all
instruments (i.e., the teacher questionnaire, the administrator questionnaire, and the student
questionnaire) with a group of language professionals and undergraduate research assistants for
content, clarity, and presentation. This pretesting procedure contributed to face validity and
content validity of the study instruments (e.g., Brown, 2001); however, the instruments were not
separately tested for reliability. Next, the researcher emailed teachers and principals at the
different schools in Germany (Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium) laying out the purpose of
10
the study and asking if they were interested in participating. After all participants had completed
an informed consent, the questionnaires were mailed to the contact person at each participating
school who then distributed the questionnaires to the administrators, and to the teachers and their
respective classes. The researcher chose not to administer the questionnaires online because she
anticipated a lower return rate compared to the in-class administration of the paper-and-pencil
versions. The researcher also did not want to assume that all participants had access to computers
to fill out web-based questionnaires. Moreover, if subjects did not have a flat-rate, there would
have been a by-the-minute charge for filling out the questionnaire online.
2. Data Analysis
Simple tallies were conducted for the Likert and multiple-choice items. For the open-ended
questions, codes and categories were developed as they emerged from the data without trying to
force them into categories already outlined in the existing literature so as to not to impede the
researcher’s development of her own categories. Open coding was done line-by-line or applied to
sentences, paragraphs, or the entire answers and then categorized by grouping them around
phenomena in the data that were related to the research questions. Next, such categories were
linked to abstract codes either taken from the literature, i.e., constructed codes, or taken from the
subjects, i.e., in vivo codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For instance, “to prepare students for their
professional lives” emerged as one category under “other” when teachers were asked how
important they considered students’ media competence.
To compare the younger students (a total of 338 10-13-year-olds) to an equal number of older
students (340 14+-year-olds), some participants’ data had to be excluded from the analysis
(which primarily involved older Gymnasium children). Additionally, the number of subjects
varied for every question due to the fact that some students only partially answered the
11
questionnaire. The main focus of this study was placed on age groups. All results were also
controlled for by school type; however, differences between school types turned out to be
marginal compared to those between age groups. There could be an inflation of the familywise
error rate, yet, this should not be an issue for the purpose of this study since this study was
exploratory in nature and did not seek generalizability of the results beyond the subjects under
scrutiny to a wider population. Separate chi-squares for the 10-13-year-olds and the 14+ year-olds
were conducted in order to determine whether there were differences among school types
(separately for each age group). For the ANOVAS, both age groups were put together into the
same factorial ANOVAs. Full tables, graphs, and statistical analyses are available from the author
upon request.
Results
1. Electronic Literacy Skills
1.1 Teachers’ Definitions of Media Competence
Teachers listed the following top five items to define the term Media Competence.
1.
Use of (various) media (not limited to computers/in different contexts, e.g., topics)
(23.3%)
2.
Meaningful use of (new) media (20%)
3.
Goal-oriented use of media (13.3%)
4.
Competent use of media; responsible use of media; critical use of media;
appropriate/suitable use of media (e.g., subject/theme/living situation/audience) (10%)
5.
Being familiar with (various) media; confident use of (new) media; efficient/effective use
of media (6.7%)
12
1.2 Importance of Students’ Media Competence
64% of all-subject teachers considered students’ media competence “very important,” 10%
considered students’ media competence “important.” 17% thought that media competence was
important to prepare students for their professional lives and as a “long-lasting means for
learning” and to help them decide which media use would be “meaningful” for them.
1.3 Participants’ Self-Rated Electronic Literacy Skills
1.3.1 Teachers’ Self-Rated Electronic Literacy Skills
Teachers rated their skills on a four-point Likert Scale (1 = insufficient to 4 = very good) with
regard to Software Desktop Applications (Word processing, presentation software), Internet
Application Programs (e.g., search engines), and a/synchronous CMC (e.g., Email, Chat). Main
focus of the analysis for the teachers was placed on those applications which teachers used most
frequently in their teaching.
As illustrated in Graph 1 below, teachers rated their CMC skills between 0.8 for MultiObject-Oriented/Multi-Object-Oriented User Domain (MOOs/MUDs) (SD=0.426), 1.03 for
Discussion Forums (SD=0.734), 1.1 for Instant Messenger (IM) (SD=0.77), and 1.2 for Chat
(SD=0.866), and 2.7 for Email (SD=0.95).
13
Graph 1. Teachers’ Self-Rated Electronic Literacy Skills
Likert Scale (1 insufficient 2 satisfactory
3 good 4 very good)
Self-Rated Electronic Literacy Skills
4
3,166
3,5
3
3,03
2,666
2,5
2,5
2,4
2,266
2
1,5
1,166
1,1
1,033
1
0,5
0,8
Ds
s
s/
M
U
m
M
isc
us
si
on
O
O
se
es
fo
ru
ng
e
r
ha
t
C
ta
n
tM
D
Pr
e
In
s
br
se
ow
nt
at
se
io
r
n
so
f tw
ar
e
h
ea
rc
W
eb
ai
l
ne
ts
Em
In
te
r
en
h
ar
c
Se
W
or
d
pr
oc
e
ss
gi
n
in
g
es
0
1.3.2 Students’ Self-Rated Ability in Software and Desktop Applications
Software and Desktop Applications do not require the use of the Internet. Students (N=689)
rated their ability regarding the following items on a 4-point Likert scale (from 1 = insufficient to
4 = very good): Word processing, Spread sheet, Presentation Software, Database, Graphic design
program, Multimedia Software, Games. There was only a marginal interaction between School
Type and Age Group, but there was a main significant effect for age group. The mean score of
2.538 for the 10-13-year-olds was slightly higher than the mean score for the 14+-year-olds of
2.452 (see Tables 8 and 9, Appendix B).
1.3.3 Students’ Self-Rated Ability in Internet Applications
Internet Application Programs require the use of the Internet. Students (N=685) rated their
14
ability regarding the following: Web browser, Search engines, Webdesign software, Info search
on Internet, Downloading programs, Shopping, Online banking. There were no main effects or
interactions. The mean score of 2.585 for the 10-13-year-olds was slightly lower than the mean
score for the 14+-year-olds of 2.640 (see Tables 10 and 11, Appendix B).
1.3.4 Students’ Self-Rated Ability in CMC
CMC encompasses both synchronous and asynchronous means of communication. The
reason CMC was deliberately included separately and not as part of the Internet Applications was
because of the special focus on computer- and Internet-mediated communication in this study
given the immense potential of CMC for language teaching and learning. Students (N=680) rated
their ability regarding the following: Email, Chat, IM, MOOs/MUDs, text messaging (SMS),
Skype, Discussion forums. The mean score for the 10-13-year-olds of 2.27656 was slightly lower
than the mean score for the 14+-year-olds of 2.33221. There was only a marginal main effect for
age group (see Table 12 and 13, Appendix B).
2. Infrastructure at the Schools
2.1 Teachers’ Technology Access and Use at School
18 all-subject teachers were currently using technology for teaching (60%), two did not use
technology (6.7%), two barely used technology (6.7%), and eight did not provide an answer
(26.6%). Five EFL teachers (50%) had used or used computers in their teaching. 28 out of the 30
teachers had spent or spent an average of 0.75 hours per week in the computer room (SD = 0.84).
Furthermore, EFL teachers primarily used commercial software for English language teaching
such as English Tutor, Cornelsen G2000, Klett Ensemble, and Alfons. Additionally, almost all
teachers had access to computers with Internet at their schools (96.7%), and 83.3% could use
15
computers with Internet for their teaching. 10% indicated that they had technical support for
computers for teaching.
2.2 Teachers’ Technical Support and Professional Development
36.7% of the teachers indicated that they had professional development or help through
colleagues in charge, 16.7% said that professional development was offered by the school
agency, 16.7% had help through the network and/or system administrator(s), 10% through the
principal, and 6.7% through a multi-media consultant and 6.7% through information or an
introduction.
3. The Role of Computers and How Participants Learned to Use Computer Technology
3.1 The Role of Computers in Teaching According to Teachers
Table 4.*
Computer as a data source and archive for texts
and visual materials
Computer as a tool
Computer as a useful instrument for
autonomous student practice and drills
Computer as a means for communication
Computer as a surrogate teacher
Other: “Computer as a change”
N=30
25
24
21
8**
1
1
*Adapted from Levy, 1997, p. 234
**Out of which 2 are EFL Teachers
Those teachers who had not used computer technology provided the following reasons:

“Haven’t been teaching long;”

“I’m new at school;”

“The subjects I teach don‘t lend themselves to using technology;”
16

“It doesn‘t make any sense.”
3.2 How Participants Learned to Use Computer Technology
3.2.1 How Teachers Learned to Use Computer Technology
According to Table 5, the majority of teachers had learned how to use computer technology by
themselves.
Table 5.
My own initiative (autodidactic)
Professional development through my school
Through friends/acquaintances outside of work
Professional development outside of school
Through colleagues at work
My prior education
Through my children (daughter/son)
Through students
Other (“Husband”)
N=30
26
19
19
11
10
8
8
1
2
3.2.2 How Students Learned to Use Computer Technology
The majority of the 10-13-year-olds (N= 354) and the 14+-year-olds (N=340) indicated they
had learned how to use computers “by [themselves].” This result was regardless of which school
they attended. Some also listed “through friends and/or acquaintances,” and third “at school” or
“other.”
4. Technology Use for Teaching
4.1 Technology Use for Creating Materials
As can be seen from Table 6, the majority of teachers used technology to design handouts,
create tests/quizzes, search the Internet for texts, and calculate grades.
Table 6. Teachers’ Technology Use for Creating Materials
17
Design handouts
Create tests/quizzes
Search Internet for texts
Calculate grades
Develop tasks/activities
Design websites
N=30
28
27
23
19
5
4
4.2 Technology Use for Teaching
18 teachers reported that they used technology for teaching (60%), two did not use technology
(6.7%), two barely used technology (6.7%), and eight did not provide an answer (26.6%),
according to Table 7 below.
Table 7. Teachers’ Technology Use for Teaching
Use CDRoms for teaching
Conduct online research projects
Use web-based programs
Use MOOs/MUDs
Develop/conduct email projects
Use chats
N = 30
18
12
4
1
0
0
4.3 Values of Technology-Enhanced Teaching According to Teachers
The majority of EFL teachers (N=10) assigned a number of values to using technology for
teaching. For example, they conducted Internet research for student projects. They also regarded
the computer as an additional medium to practice and as an information source (e.g., for project
work) and an additional tool (“computers are used in various cases for Internet research at my
school”). Teachers further liked the fact that the Internet was “up-to-date,” and that students
learned “how to use modern technologies.” Moreover, computer technology constituted an
important means for research and presentations and for acquiring “media competence.” Finally,
“speaking ha[d] the highest priority” in language teaching, and programs for vocabulary and
grammar were regarded as “useful.”
18
4.4 Challenges in Technology-Enhanced Teaching According to Teachers
According to most teachers, the lack of their own knowledge/computer skills (insecurities,
attitude toward computers) was a challenge (26.7%). Second ranked a lack of computers or
computer rooms, and network availability (20%); third were hardware issues such as outdated,
small screens, no headsets, different user interfaces, or no projector (16.7%); fourth were network
problems (e.g., the Internet down) (13.3%); fifth were students' different levels of knowledge
(10%), and sixth was a lack of time (6.7%).
4.5 Teachers’ Visions for Computer Technology Use at Their Schools
16.7% of all teachers listed “software/learning programs” as visions. More specifically, they
thought that software programs should work, that they wanted more of them, and that such
programs were “good for languages.” Other items included teachware (suitable for subjects, the
same for all computers, and downloads from Internet on current topics). 13.3% of teachers
wanted hardware (e.g., better equipment, projector, flat screens, fast network printer), and 10%
computer access or a notebook for every student. Moreover, 6.7% wanted Internet access for
every classroom.
Discussion
1. Electronic Literacy Skills
1.1 Teachers’ Definitions of Media Competence
One of the top five definitions of Media Competence was “meaningful use of (new) media”
(20%). Here, it would have been interesting to ask teacher what they meant by the term
“meaningful.” Teachers’ answers such as “competent,” “responsible,” “critical,” and
19
“meaningful” use of media is also supported by the previously mentioned initiatives “European
Charter for Media Literacy” and “Schulen ans Netz.” In a similar vein, Meskill suggests that
learners should be pushed to critically examine the messages of media and become “mindful,
critical consumers” (2008, p. 104). Additionally, given that negotiation of meaning and modified
interaction and learner involvement in social and purposeful interaction including real audience
have been long been considered essential for target language development (e.g., Long, 1995), it
seems surprising that no CMC was used by any of the teachers – even more so if one takes into
consideration today’s free and easily accessible Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis (see Coiro,
Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2007).
1.2 Importance of Students’ Media Competence
More than half of all teachers considered students’ media competence “very important” and
thought that media competence was important for preparing students for their professional lives
and as a “long-lasting means for learning.” Teachers’ perspectives appear to match those of
students in a recent survey study of 1,001 students which found that 87% of students
acknowledged that they considered computer skills important or very important for their
professional lives (IT-Fitness study, 2007). Yet, these results do not seem to match with how
teachers actually used technology in their teaching. For instance, one of the goals of media
competence was the “ability to use media as a long-lasting means for learning” and “to prepare
students for their professional lives;” however, since the majority of teachers did not use
technology in their teaching, it remains questionable if students are actually taught these skills in
school.
1.3 Participants’ Self-Rated Electronic Literacy Skills
20
It seems evident that using computer technology in teaching was a challenge for most
teachers. On average, teachers rated their electronic literacy skills rather low, especially with
regard to CMC (“insufficient”). The exception here was Email (“good”). Nevertheless, this might
have been the case because teachers most likely had to use email for work-related communication
as this is common practice in most schools and institutions. These findings should be of great
concern since other large-scale survey studies also found that students believed that teachers’
media competence could be improved: Only one-third of the teachers received the grades “good”
(28%) or “very good” (4%) for using computers or the Internet. On average, teachers’ media
competence received a “satisfactory” from their students (IT-Fitness study, 2007).
With regard to the students’ results, there was only a marginal interaction between School
Type and Age Group, but there was a main significant effect for age group. The latter suggests
that 14+-year-olds were less confident in Software/Desktop Applications. Yet, this main effect
may have been due to a higher order interaction, i.e., even though the interaction was only
marginal, the main effect for age was actually caused by children in the Gymnasium only who
were less confident in Software/Desktop Applications. It is striking that students self-rated their
ability rather low (2.49641), i.e., between “satisfactory” and “good.” The mean score for the 1013-year-olds was slightly higher than that of the 14+-year-olds. As could be seen from the
descriptive statistics, students also self-rated their ability in Internet Application Programs rather
low (2.61238), as well as their ability to use CMC (2.27656), i.e., barely above “satisfactory.” It
appears older children in Gymnasium and Realschule were more confident in CMC, whereas
there was no age difference in the Hauptschule. Overall, these results seem startling considering
the fact that all of the students used the computer/Internet on a regular basis and that they were all
digital natives. By the same token, the fact that participants put a low score for specific
21
applications such as “MOOs/MUDs” does not necessarily mean that they were not familiar with
those applications but that they might have been unfamiliar with this terminology.
2. Infrastructure at the Schools
2.1 Technology Access and Use at Schools
All students between the ages of 10-13 and 14+ (N=678) indicated that they had Internet
access with or without computer. The 10-13-year-old students estimated their use at .96 hours per
day and the 14+-year-old students 1.58 hours per day. Children older than 14 years old tended to
spend more hours/day at the computer/on the Internet. This seems not to matter regarding what
type of school they were going to. Additionally, almost all teachers had access to computers with
Internet at their school, and 83.3% were able to use computers with Internet for their teaching.
These findings seem to support another survey study, in which only 18% of interviewees stated
that they did not have the technical prerequisites to provide Internet access in class (Internet-ABC
study, 2007).
It does not seem surprising that almost all participants indicated that they had access to computers
and the Internet given the growing use of the Internet in German schools. Yet, there appears to be
a lack of systematic integration of technology into (language) teaching (cf. Krützer & Probst,
2005). The fact that technology was not used in language teaching other than for teaching
German supports the results of a recent large-scale survey study which also attests a lack of
computer use in schools and across the curriculum. Computers were primarily used in IT Science,
i.e., as the subject matter for teaching, not as a means for learning or as a cultural tool. In
language teaching, computers were used even less frequently (IT-Fitness study, 2007). Similar
results have been documented in other studies. For example, only 37% of parents indicated that
their children’s schools had a conceptual framework for using media (Internet-ABC study, 2007).
22
2.2 Teachers’ Technical Support and Professional Development
The majority of teachers were offered professional development through “colleagues in
charge” (36.7%), through the school agency (16.7%), their network/system administrator/s
(16.7%), or the school’s principal (10%). Yet, only 10% indicated they had technical support for
computers in their teaching. Additionally, teachers also mentioned a couple of institutional
constraints such as dealing with a new learning environment and the time-consuming nature of
using technology. Although there seemed to be some support, it remains unclear what kind of
support the schools provided. Hence, it would be necessary to gather more information on the
schools’ underlying philosophies for using computer technology.
3. The Role of Computers and How Participants Learned to Use Computer Technology
3.1 The Role of Computers in Teaching According to Teachers
Only 26.7% teachers (out of which two were EFL teachers) stated that they considered the
computer “as a means for communication.” Here, the question arises of why the computer was
not considered as a means for communication by more teachers. The connection of how computer
technology and CMC in particular can benefit the purpose of language study especially in foreign
language contexts seems like an obvious one. This result seems especially surprising against the
backdrop of the growing body of research on CMC and Internet-mediated communication (e.g.,
Belz, 2007; Kern, 2006; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). If the primary purpose of computer
technology is to function as a data source, archive, tool, or an instrument for practice and drills, it
would be necessary to ask language teachers about their philosophy of teaching.
3.2 How Participants Learned to Use Computer Technology
23
Most teachers (86.7%) indicated that they had learned how to use computers through their
own initiative (autodidactic). More than half (63.3%) also stated that they had participated in
professional development through their school. Yet, less than half (36.7%) had participated in
professional development outside of school, and only 26.7% had learned how to use computers
through their prior education. This trend seems to confirm another large-scale survey study which
found that 61% of teachers were self-taught, and only 19% had participated in professional
development seminars to learn how to use the Internet (Internet-ABC study, 2007). The majority
of the 10-13-year-olds and the 14+-year-olds indicated that they had learned how to use
computers by themselves regardless of which school they attended. These results support those of
other recent survey studies which found that 58% of students had learned how to use computers
by teaching themselves (IT-Fitness study, 2007), and that almost every other child indicated that
s/he was self-taught with regard to acquiring the essential “online competence,” while only onefourth of students stated they were taught in class (Internet-ABC study, 2007).
4. Technology Use
4.1 Teachers’ Technology Use for Creating Materials
Only half of the EFL teachers indicated that they used technology for teaching. Most teachers
used computers to design handouts (93.3%), to create tests and quizzes (90%), to search the
Internet for texts (76.7%), or to calculate grades (63.3%). Moreover, teachers primarily used
software such as English Tutor, Cornelsen G2000, Klett Ensemble, and Alfons, a learning
software for Math, English, German, for their EFL teaching. With regard to using the Internet for
creating teaching materials, the role of the Internet seemed to be limited to searching for texts,
while only a few teachers used the Internet to develop tasks and activities (16.7%), or to design
websites (13.3%).
24
4.2 Teachers’ Technology Use for Teaching
The majority of teachers used CDRoms (60%) and conducted online research projects (40%).
Few used web-based programs (13.3%), only one person used CMC, and no one conducted email
projects or uses chat. It must be noted that out of the ten EFL teachers, none used any kind of
CMC such as MOOs/MUDs, email, or chat. Interestingly, the one teacher who indicated he used
MOOs/MUDs, was a “digital immigrant” who was very explicit about not seeing any value in
using computer technology for teaching. For instance, his definition of media competence was
“nonsense.” Moreover, the fact that he thought computer technology had “no additional value”
and that computer technologies were “being overrated” seems to be in stark contrast to the use of
MOOs/MUDs.
Although one of the teachers stressed that “speaking ha[d] the highest priority” in language
teaching, it seems that little had been done to assist learners in authentic and meaningful
communication with other speakers and learners of the target language. Of course, one would
need to find out more about how teachers exactly use computers to teach speaking and listening,
e.g., are they focusing on authentic activities? But the question of why computer technology was
not used in a more creative way remains. Although one reason could be due to time constraints, it
must be noted that only one teacher mentioned the “time-consuming nature of using technology”
as a challenge. Overall, the teachers’ answers seem to reflect little enthusiasm about using
technology since no one explicitly stated that they wanted to but that that they could not due to
time or other constraints.
4.3 Challenges in Technology-Enhanced Teaching According to Teachers
The EFL teachers listed a number of challenges when using computer technologies in their
teaching which may partially account for the divergence discussed in 4.2 above. When asked
25
about reasons for not having used or for not using computer technology, teachers indicated that
they had not been teaching long, that they were new at the school, that the subjects they taught
did not lend themselves to using technology, or that using technology did not make any sense to
them. The first couple of reasons (“haven’t been teaching long,” “new at school”) appear to imply
institutional constraints, i.e., that the teacher could not or was not allowed to use technology at
his/her school. In light of the importance that most participants had assigned to technology use,
these answers seem rather surprising. If it takes experience for teacher to use technology (Egbert
et al., 2002; Meskill et al., 2002), it seems that technology in teaching is still considered as
something out of the norm rather than an integral part of teaching. The author agrees with the
authors of the IT-Fitness study (2007) that the goal should be to teach computer skills in schools
systematically, i.e., across the curriculum, and to support teacher education and professional
development. Moreover, it appears surprising that teachers who were new at a school felt that
they could not use technology. The reason “[i]t doesn’t make any sense,” on the other hand,
seems to indicate that the teacher did not want to use technology. Hence, the latter seems to be a
personal choice or preference rather than some institutional constraint.
Teachers also expressed concerns with regard to Internet use because they thought that
students could be overwhelmed by the data and information, and that students could easily access
violent or pornographic websites. These findings confirm those of the Internet-ABC study (2007),
which found that many websites were considered incomprehensible (30%), not user-friendly
(25%), or contained violence or pornography (27%). Here, it would be interesting to investigate
how the filtering system in German secondary schools work, i.e., what websites can be accessed
by whom.
With regard to technical limitations, most teachers considered the lack of computers a
challenge (i.e., too few computers, computers that were not usable, and too small a computer
26
room). Some teachers also mentioned that hardware issues were a challenge. For example, they
complained that the small screens only allowed few students to be at computers at the same time.
Although other large-scale studies in the same geographical area have shown similar findings
(MPFS, 2007), the results seem surprising given the fact that Baden-Württemberg is one of the
wealthiest states in Germany with unemployment at 4.9% compared to an overall unemployment
rate in Germany at 8.4% (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2007).
4.5 Teachers’ Visions for Computer Technology Use at Their Schools
The top items were software and learning programs. Others included hardware, computer
access or a notebook for every student and Internet access for every classroom. Some teachers
were also interested in professional development opportunities, especially “for beginners.” Some
teachers, on the other hand, had visions for restricting technology use. They thought that
“[technology] use [was] sufficient,” and one teacher even asked to “[l]imit it!”
Finally, none of the teachers mentioned that they had any visions regarding institutional
constraints. This seems to be at odds with the challenges that teachers expressed (e.g., dealing
with a new learning environment; the time-consuming nature of integrating technology). One
might have expected teachers to express more visions at the institutional level such as release
time for doing more in-class technology-based projects and an increase in salary.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In sum, teachers listed a number of challenges for using computer technologies in their
teaching, e.g., limited electronic literacy skills, technical hurdles, institutional constraints, and
pedagogical concerns. More specifically, teachers indicated a lack of their own knowledge and
computer skills (i.e., “own shortcomings,” “insecurities,” “own attitude,” “incompetence”) and
27
technical obstacles as main challenges. Only 10% indicated they had technical support for
computers for their teaching. Institutional constraints appeared to be linked to a lack of time and
institutional support (“new at school”). Pedagogical concerns such as the overwhelming data and
information and easy access to violent or pornographic websites were only voiced by two
teachers and referred specifically to students’ skills (or inability) to navigate the Internet. This
seems surprising provided that pedagogy should come first, the curriculum second, and
computers last (van Lier, 1999).
Overall, few teachers used technology or expressed visions for using technology in language
teaching although they ranked the importance of media competence high. This demonstrates a
gap between the importance of technology use and adequately preparing students for their
professional lives. Given that teachers felt that they had not been sufficiently equipped with
electronic literacy skills to use computer technology in their teaching, one might have expected
many more concrete suggestions for how to improve the situation. Real visions could include an
implementation of computer technology across the curriculum, proper initial training, on-going
support at the local and regional levels, and release time to experiment with new applications.
Moreover, the potential of the computer as a “means for communication” had not been
acknowledged yet (cf. Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 2007). Only two of the ten EFL teachers (= 20%)
considered the role of the computer to be that of “a means for communication.” The majority
considered the computer “a source or tool,” and teachers primarily used software for language
teaching. This indicates that technology had been used without making connections to concepts
such as writing for an authentic audience, meaningful communication, or intercultural learning.
Yet, it seems like an obvious connection how computer technology - and CMC in particular -, can
benefit the purpose of language study especially in foreign language contexts (e.g., Hanson-Smith
et al., 2007). However, in order to obtain more information from teachers with regard to how and
28
why they use certain software for teaching, follow-up interviews would need to be conducted.
Moreover, it would be interesting to see what kind of forms of collaborations teachers use. For
instance, using software can prove highly effective if students are put in groups and work
collaboratively at one work station, rather than individually, for the purpose of negotiation. One
would also need to investigate how and why teachers use certain software programs for
vocabulary and grammar. What are some the things that they feel software can do that they could
not accomplish otherwise? Could they imagine alternative uses of the Internet to teach vocabulary
and grammar? For instance, could they imagine having their students create blogs or wikis, or use
chats, and use the transcripts for subsequent linguistic analyses of learner language.
In addition, 50% of the EFL teachers used technology, whereas 0% of the EFL teachers used
any form of CMC. This result seems surprising against the backdrop of the growing body of
research on CMC and telecollaboration, and the potential benefits for language study and
intercultural learning and points to an urgent need to connect theory and practice in teacher
education programs. One way of doing this would be to further promote technology-based
teaching and learning – and computer-mediated collaboration in particular - by focusing on
communities as the overarching theme of the National Educational Standards (Magnan, 2007; see
also Lave & Wenger, 1991). More specifically, teacher educators should support online or
blended learning formats and model the implementation of technology in their seminar formats.
In doing so, teacher educators model “innovative uses of technology” (Willis, 2001, p. 309; see
also Fuchs, 2006b) and provide their student teachers with ample opportunities for experiential
learning. It also seems essential to analyze teacher educators’ perspectives on technologyenhanced language teaching and the topics they cover in their seminars. Conducting longitudinal
follow-up case studies can also help to find out if and how student teachers apply their newly
29
acquired knowledge about using technology in their classroom teaching. These insights can then
feed back into teacher education programs.
Lastly, although exploratory in nature, the findings presented here clearly point to a lack of
use of technology in teaching, and in language teaching in particular. This seems particularly
striking in a region such as Baden-Württemberg, one of the leading high tech regions in Europe.
Follow-up research should include interviews with teachers, administrators, and principals to gain
further insight into this phenomenon.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to thank all students, teachers, and administrators for their kind
support and participation in this survey. I would also like to thank Pat Bolger and Stefan Fuchs
for helping with the quantitative analyses; Rick Kern, John Chipman, Carlton Fong, Chris Skok,
and Adam Myers for helping pilot the questionnaires and for assisting with data entry; and
Barbara Hawkins, Gaby Kahn, Hansun Waring, and two anonymous for their feedback on an
earlier version of this paper.
References
Aufderheide, P. (not dated). General principles in media literacy. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from
http://www.newsreel.org/articles/aufderhe.htm.
Baden-Württemberg Homepage, available online at http://www.badenwuerttemberg.de/
Belz, J.A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2
pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27, 45-75.
Belz, J.A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language
Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
30
Brown, J.D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Press release 061 of September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 28,
2007, from http://www.arbeitsagentur.de/nn_27030/zentralerContent/Pressemeldungen/2007/Presse-07-061.html
Considine, D. (1995). An Introduction to media literacy: The what, why and how to's. The
Journal of Media Literacy, 41(2). Retrieved April 17, 2008, from
http://www.ced.appstate.edu/departments/ci/programs/edmedia/medialit/article.html
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D.J. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Research on New
Literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doering, A., & Beach, R. (2002). Preservice English teachers acquiring literacy practices through
technology tools. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 127-146.
Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (2007). CALL environments: Research, practice, and
critical issues (2nd edition). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T.M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom
computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language
Learning and Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
European Charter for Media Literacy, available online at http://www.euromedialiteracy.eu/.
Fuchs, C. (2001). Munich - Monterey online: Integrating email and chat to foster reading and
writing skills in a distance learning course. In R. D. Y. Saito-Abbott, T.F. Abbott, & P.
Kennedy (Ed.), Digital Stream 2000: Emerging technologies in teaching languages and
cultures (pp. 147-165). San Diego State University, CA: The Language Acquisition Resource
Center (LARC).
31
Fuchs, C. (2006a). Exploring German pre-service teachers’ electronic and professional literacies.
ReCALL, 18(2), 174-192.
Fuchs, C. (2006b). Computer-mediated negotiation across borders: German-American
collaboration in language teacher education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der
Wissenschaften.
Hamm, I. (2001). Medienkompetenz: Wirtschaft, Wissen, Wandel. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann
Stiftung.
Herring, S.C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural
perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hillebrand, A. and Lange, B.P. (1996) Medienkompetenz als gesellschaftliche Aufgabe der
Zukunft. In A. Rein (Ed.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt,
35-36.
Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher Education in CALL. Amsterdam/Netherlands:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Internet-ABC c/o Geschäftsstelle Landesanstalt für Medien NRW. Schule 2.0 noch nicht in Sicht
- Ergebnisse des Internet-ABC-Meinungsbarometers zum Thema "Internet in der Schule."
Press release of November 20, 2007. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from
http://bildungsklick.de/pm/56792/schule-20-noch-nicht-in-sicht/
IT-Fitness-Studie: zu wenig Computereinsatz an Schulen. Press release of November 20, 2007.
Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.itfitness.de/Aktuelles/News/computereinsatz_schulen.aspx
Kasper, L. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: Focus discipline research and ESL learning
communities. Language Learning & Technology 4(2), 105-128.
32
Kern, R. G. (2006). Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers: Effects on
Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4),
457-476.
Kramsch, C. & Thorne, S.L. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative
practice. In: D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching. London:
Routledge, 83-100.
Kramsch, C., A'Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computermediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 78-104.
Krützer, B. & Probst, H. (2005). IT-Ausstattung der allgemein bildenden und berufsbildenden
Schulen in Deutschland. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native
speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology 8(1), 83-100.
LeLoup, J.W. & Ponterio, R. (2003). Second language acquisition and technology: A review of
the research. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved February 15, 2008
from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0311leloup.html.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
33
Magnan, S. (2007). From National Educational Standards to Language Use. Paper presented at
the Berkeley Language Center Spring 2007 Lecture Series, UC Berkeley, CA, February 23,
2007.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest (MPFS): Medienbeschäftigung (2007).
Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.mpfs.de/index.php?id=11
Meskill, C. (2008). Producerly Texts: Some implications of electronic literacy for SLA. Paper
presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Washington D.C.,
April 1, 2008.
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-Vanstrander, S., Tseng, C.-H., & You, J. (2006). CALL: A
Survey of K-12 ESOL Teacher Uses and Preferences. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 439-451.
Meskill, C., Mossop, J., DiAngelo, S., & Pasquale, R.K. (2002). Expert and novice teachers
talking technology: Precepts, concepts, and misconcepts. Language Learning & Technology,
6(3), 46-57.
Müller-Hartmann, A. (1999). Die Integration der neuen Medien in den schulischen
Fremdsprachenunterricht: Interkulturelles Lernen und die Folgen in E-Mail-Projekten.
Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen, 28, 58-79.
Murray, D. (2000). Changing Technologies, Changing Literacy Communities? Language
Learning & Technology, 4(2), 43-58.
O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side:” Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English
e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. NCB University Press, 9(5).
Richards, C. (2000). Hypermedia, internet communication, and the challenge of redefining
literacy in the electronic age. Language Learning & Technology 4(2), 59-77.
34
Rüschoff, B. (2007). Keynote presented at EUROCALL, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, September
5-8, 2007.
Schulen ans Netz e.V., available online at http://www.schulen-ans-netz.de/
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based
language teaching. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice (pp. 171-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. 2nd Edition. London, Thousand
Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Van Lier, L. (1999). Personal communication.
Vereinigung der Bayrischen Wirtschaft e.V. (Eds.). (2008). Bildungsrisiken und -chancen im
Globalisierungsprozess. Jahresgutachten 2008. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften,
GWV Fachverlage GmbH. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://www.aktionsratbildung.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Aktionsrat_Bildung_Jahresgutachten_2008.pdf
Vollstädt, W. (2003). Ergebnisse einer Delphi-Studie der Cornelsen-Stiftung Lehren und Lernen.
In W. Vollstädt (Ed.), Zur Zukunft der Lehr- und Lernmedien in der Schule. Eine DelphiStudie in der Diskussion ( pp.39-84), Leske & Budrich: Opladen.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics
of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27, 1-23.
Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 305-320.
About the Evaluator:
Dr. Carolin Fuchs is Lecturer in the TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program at Teachers College,
35
Columbia University. She teaches Her research interests include technology-based language
teaching and learning, electronic literacies, language play, task/based teaching and learning,
sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment, intercultural learning, pragmatic competence, and
(electronic) portfolios. She was assisted in the data analysis by Patrick Bolger, Assistant
Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton/Canada.
Contact:
Carolin Fuchs
Department of Arts and Humanities
TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program
Teachers College, Columbia University
316A Zankel, Box 66
525 W 120th Street
New York, New York 10027
Phone: (212)678-3713
Fax: (212)678-3428
Email: cf2307@columbia.edu
36
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire for Teachers*
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain data on computer experience, technology access
and use and on electronic literacy in the three state schools in Germany (Hauptschule, Realschule,
Gymnasium).
Please answer the questions below. All data will remain anonymous and will only be used for
research purposes. Please contact me at the address below in case of any questions. Please use a
pen. You may use the reverse side in case you need more space.
Thank you very much for your cooperation!  Carolin Fuchs
Personal and professional information
a) Gender:
b) Age:
c) Country/State of Birth:
d) Employed at following school since:
e) Courses/subjects and levels/grades:
f) Education (key words only, please add year):
g) Prior school-related work experience (i.e. school, previously taught classes/subjects –
please add year):
1. Computer skills and usage
1.1. Please mark all that apply.
o I can type fast.
o I can type somewhat fast.
37
o I type slowly.
o I prefer writing texts with paper and pencil.
o I have a computer (or notebook) at home, but no Internet access.
o I have a computer (or notebook) at home with DSL access.
o I have a computer (or notebook) at home with modem.
o I have access to a computer but no Internet access at my school.
o I have access to a computer with Internet access at my school.
o I can use computers but no Internet for teaching at my school.
o I can use computers with Internet access for teaching at my school.
o I have technical support for using computers for my teaching.
o I have no access to computers at my school.
1.2. Please fill in a number into each gap.
Computer use at home:
I spend:
____ hours per day at the computer/notebook.
____ hours per week at the computer/notebook.
Internet use at home:
I spend:
____ hours per day on the Internet.
____ hours per week on the Internet.
I pay ____________ Euros/per month for Internet access at home.
38
Computer use at work:
I spend:
____ hours per day at the computer/notebook.
____ hours per week at the computer/notebook.
Internet use at work:
I spend:
____ hours per day on the Internet.
____ hours per week on the Internet.
1.3. How do you rate your skills with regard to the following computer applications and Internet
services? Please fill in the appropriate numbers on a scale from 1 (insufficient) to 4 (very good).
1 = insufficient
2 = good
3 = satisfactory
4 = very good
____ Word processing (e.g., Word)
____Spread sheets (e.g., Excel)
____ Email programs (e.g., Outlook)
____Chat (e.g., ICQ)
____ Instant Messenger (e.g., MSN, AIM, Yahoo)
____ MOOs/MUDs (multi-user object-oriented/multi-user dimensions)
____ SMS
____ Web browser (e.g., Internet Explorer)
____ Search engines (e.g., Google)
____ Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint)
____ Database (e.g., Access)
39
____ Graphic design program (e.g., PhotoShop)
____Multimedia software (e.g., Macromedia Director, Mediator)
____Webdesign software (e.g., Netscape Composer, Frontpage, Dreamweaver)
____Information search on the Internet
____Skype
____Discussion forums
____Downloading programs
____Shopping (e.g., Bücher, CD's)
____Online banking
____Games
1.4. I use the computer for the following work-related purposes. Please mark all that apply.
o Design handouts (through word processing program)
o Create tests/quizzes
o Calculate grades (e.g., through Excel)
o Design websites
o Develop tasks and activities (through authoring program)
o Search the Internet for current texts for students
o Develop and conduct email projects
o Use chats
o Use MOOs/MUDs
o Conduct online research projects
o Use CDRoms for my teaching
o Use web-based programs for my teaching
40
1.5. I have learned how to use computer technology through the following. Please mark all that
apply.
o My own initiative (autodidactic)
o Professional development outside of school
o Professional development through my school
o My prior education
o Through friends/acquaintances outside of work
o Through colleagues at work
o Through students
o Through my children (daughter/son)
o Other:_____________________________________
2. Computer technology in teaching
Please comment on the following statements and answer the following questions on computer
technology in teaching. Please use the reverse side in case you need more space. (Key words
suffice.)
2.1 Please mark and fill in a number (if applicable):
o Since ________ I have taught ____ hours per week on average in the computer room.
o I have used the following software programs in my courses:
Course/subject______________ Program__________________Year/Grade_______
Course/subject______________ Program__________________Year/Grade_______
Course/subject______________ Program__________________Year/Grade_______
Course/subject______________ Program__________________Year/Grade_______
Course/subject______________ Program__________________Year/Grade_______
41
o I have not used computer technology for teaching in my courses. (Please provide reasons.)
2.2. How would you define the term media competence?
2.3. How important do you consider students’ media competence in your teaching and why?
2.4. Which role does the computer play for you in teaching? Please mark all that apply.
o Computer as a tool
o Computer as a surrogate teacher
o Computer as a useful instrument for autonomous student practice and drills
o Computer as a data source and archive for texts and visual materials
o Computer as a means for communication
o Other:_______________________________________________________________
2.5. Please describe briefly computer access and use at your school (if you have information on
these issues): How many computer rooms does your school have? Which teachers use them for
which subjects/courses? How often? Are there problems with regard to coordinating the use of
the computer room(s)? What are the priorities for using the computer rooms?
2.6. Please describe briefly the kind of technical support you are provided by your school
administration (if applicable). Which kind of technical support do you have available for using
the computer room? What kind of support at the local or regional level do you have in terms of
conception, design, and implementation? What kind of professional development does your
school offer teachers for computer-assisted teaching (e.g., seminars or workshops)?
42
2.7. What do you consider the values of using computer technologies in teaching (compared to
teaching without computer technologies)? Can you name examples of valuable use of computer
technologies at your school? If yes, which ones?
2.8. What are/have been the main challenges for you in using computer technologies in your
teaching?
2.9. What visions do you have for computer technology use at your school?
2.10. Additional comments:
*This is the English translation of the Teacher Questionnaire, which was given to participants in
its German original. In her translations, the researcher deliberately avoided idiomatic
expressions in order to reflect the German originals as closely as possible.
43
APPENDIX B
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Ability in software and Desktop applications
Std.
School Type
Age Group
Mean
Deviation
N
Gymnasium
10-13
2.56831
.730375
58
14+
2.28180
.584655
73
Total
2.40865
.666049
131
Hauptschule
10-13
2.57302
.568582
141
14+
2.53787
.553998
90
Total
2.55933
.561996
231
Realschule
10-13
2.49529
.608917
156
14+
2.47966
.605674
171
Total
2.48712
.606341
327
Total
10-13
2.53810
.614441
355
14+
2.45210
.593252
334
Total
2.49641
.605353
689
Table 9. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Ability in Software and Desktop Applications
Type III
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
df
Square
F
SchlTyp
1.449
2
.725
2.000
AgeGrp
1.853
1
1.853
5.115
SchlTyp
1.820
2
.910
2.513
AgeGrp
Error
247.427
683
.362
Total
4546.003
689
a R Squared = .946 (Adjusted R Squared = .945)
Sig.
.136
.024
.082
44
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Ability in Internet applications
Std.
School Type
Age Group
Mean
Deviation
Gymnasium
10-13
2.47092
.730471
14+
2.67759
.614855
Total
2.58787
.672683
Hauptschule
10-13
2.63580
.728111
14+
2.56007
.624811
Total
2.60597
.688860
Realschule
10-13
2.58123
.723737
14+
2.66757
.718512
Total
2.62666
.721172
Total
10-13
2.58541
.726633
14+
2.64055
.672231
Total
2.61238
.700589
N
56
73
129
140
91
231
154
171
325
350
335
685
Table 11. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Ability in Internet Application Programs
Type III
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
df
Square
SchlTyp
.252
2
.126
AgeGrp
.761
1
.761
SchlTyp
1.751
2
.876
AgeGrp
Error
333.297
679
.491
Total
5010.517
685
a R Squared = .933 (Adjusted R Squared = .933)
F
.256
1.551
Sig.
.774
.213
1.784
.169
45
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Ability in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Std.
School Type
Age Group
Mean
Deviation
N
Gymnasium
10-13
2.14881
.812172
56
14+
2.37900
.589039
73
Total
2.27907
.701227
129
Hauptschule
10-13
2.24862
.723289
138
14+
2.19028
.695256
90
Total
2.22559
.711385
228
Realschule
10-13
2.22740
.766174
153
14+
2.38727
.724620
170
Total
2.31154
.747715
323
Total
10-13
2.22316
.755671
347
14+
2.33221
.692534
333
Total
2.27656
.726957
680
Table 13. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Ability in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Type III
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
Df
Square
F
Sig.
SchlTyp
1.010
2
.505
.962
.383
AgeGrp
1.765
1
1.765
3.362
.067
SchlTyp
2.191
2
1.095
2.086
.125
AgeGrp
Error
353.918
674
.525
Total
3883.093
680
a R Squared = .909 (Adjusted R Squared = .908)
46