The Use of Technology and Web 2.0 Tools in English Language Teaching and Learning

School of Journalism and Mass Communications Faculty of Economic and Political Sciences

The use of technology and Web 2.0 tools in English Language teaching and learning

BY Sofia Palli

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF DIGITAL MEDIA, COMMUNICATION AND JOURNALISM

Pathway: Digital Media, Culture & Communication

Supervisor: Asst. Professor Marina Tzoannopoulou

January 2020

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………v

AKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………………….v

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………...1

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………….4

1.1. Socio-constructivism Theory……………………………………………………………………4

1.2. Socio-cultural Theory……………………………………………………………………………5

1.3. Behaviorism Theory……………………………………………………………………………..5

1.4. TPACK Model…………………………………………………………………………………….6

1.5. CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning)……………………………………………..7

1.6. NBLT and NBLL………………………………………………………………………………….8

1.7. Technology and English language teaching/learning……………………………………….10

1.8. Information Technology (IT)……………………………………………………………………11

1.8.1. Definition……………………………………………………………………………………….11

1.8.2. Implementation of IT in education…………………………………………………………..11

1.8.3. Implementation of IT in the EFL classroom………………………………………………..12

1.9. Using multimedia technology in the EFL process: Advantages and Disadvantages……12

1.10. Web 2.0…………………………………………………………………………………………15

1.10.1. Definition and characteristics………………………………………………………………15

1.10.2. Web 2.0 tools………………………………………………………………………………...15

1.10.3. Benefits of using Web 2.0 in education…………………………………………………...16

1.10.4. Drawbacks of using Web 2.0 in education………………………………………………..17

1.10.5. Web 2.0 in the Greek educational context………………………………………………..18

1.10.6. The role of the teacher in this context……………………………………………………..19

1.11. The 3 models of language learning through digital technology…………………………...19

1.11.1. The hybrid learning model…………………………………………………………………..20

1.11.2. The distance education model (DEL)……………………………………………………...20

1.11.3. The e-learning model………………………………………………………………………...21

1.12. Digital Literacy…………………………………………………………………………………..22

1.13. Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technology in language education………………24

1.14. Students’ attitudes towards the use of technology in language education……………….25

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………26

2.1. Purpose/Objectives and research questions of the present study………………………….26

2.2. Research Design………………………………………………………………………………....27

2.3. Participants………………………………………………………………………………………..27

2.4. Quantitative instrument: the questionnaire…………………………………………………….28

2.4.1. Questionnaire design…………………………………………………………………………..28

2.4.2. Pilot testing of the questionnaire……………………………………………………………...29

2.4.3. 1st phase of data collection: questionnaire…………………………………………………..30

2.4.4. Data Analysis of questionnaire (SPSS)……………………………………………………...30

2.5. Qualitative instrument: the interview……………………………………………………………31

2.5.1. Design of interview ……………………………………………………………………………..31

2.5.2. Pilot testing of the interview questions……………………………………………………….32

2.5.3. 2nd phase of data collection: interviews………………………………………………………32

iii

2.5.4. Method of interview analysis (thematic analysis)…………………………………………..33

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS……………………………………………………35

3.1. Quantitative results analysis…………………………………………………………………….35

3.2. Qualitative results analysis………………………………………………………………………54

3.2.1. The interviewees’ profiles……………………………………………………………………...55

3.2.2. Attitudes towards the use of technology in EFL…………………………………………….55

3.2.3. Attitudes towards technology integration training…………………………………………..59

3.2.4. Opinions about the Web 2.0 tools and services…………………………………………….60

3.2.5.Thoughts on technology and social media in the English educational context…………..63

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUDING REMARKS…………………………………………………...... 66

4.1. Discussion of the findings of the present research…………………………………………….66

4.2. Limitations of the present study…………………………………………………………………..67

4.3. Implications of the study and recommendations for further research………………………..68

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………………...70

APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………………………….79

APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………………………….85

ABSTRACT

The rapid advancement of digital technologies, multimedia and social networks in the past few years, has dramatically changed our lives. Several researchers (Hwang, Kressler & Francesco, 2004) believe that this digital evolution has had a significantly positive impact on education as well, as it enables students to improve their communication and language skills. The present study examines the importance and the effectiveness of utilizing technology as a means of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) and it, specifically, focuses on the discussion of the different approaches and techniques which can assist English language students to improve their language skills by using technology. Among these techniques are the Web 2.0 tools, which play a vital role in the EFL teaching and learning process when incorporated in the classroom (Golonka et al., 2014). The experimental part of the study, which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative instruments, attempts to identify the attitudes of two groups of Greek secondary school students towards the use of digital technologies in the EFL classroom as well as their teachers’ stance towards these teaching tools. The findings point to a positive stance of both teachers and students regarding the use of technology in the English classroom.

Keywords: technology, EFL, Web 2.0 tools, education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Asst. Professor Marina Tzoannopoulou, whose guidance, support and encouragement has been invaluable throughout this study. I would also like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Fani Galatsopoulou and Dr. Clio Kenterelidou for all of their guidance through this process. The discussion, ideas, and feedback have been helpful and valuable to me. Finally, many thanks to all the participants who took part in the study and enabled this thesis to become possible.

INTRODUCTION

The use of technology has been rising dramatically and expanding globally over the past few years and it has changed our lives completely. This alteration has influenced the field of education, especially the process of learning in many different ways in order to achieve long- lasting knowledge. In today’s world, young people are considered to be digital natives, since technology has become a second nature for them (Godwin-Jones, 2005). Technology now occupies a huge part in the study processes in class, taking into consideration that interactive technologies support the traditional use of audio and films. When it comes to education and especially to second/foreign language acquisition, the new technologies can offer a lot of potential to those who learn another language. As stated by Murray (2005), technology use makes learners more autonomous and motivated as well as forms a strong base for greater collaboration and interaction between teachers and students. The use of digital tools like the Internet, blogs, chats, computers, cell phones and tablets has undeniably become an integral part of the students’ everyday lives. Taking all the above into account, it is important to exploit the materials of modern technology in order to support the objectives of teaching English as a foreign language. EFL students are in need of additional language assistance. They need to exercise their listening, reading, speaking and writing language so as to improve their language skills (Ybarra & Green, 2003). For the purpose of achieving those goals, they need to utilize many tools that will assist them to acquire the English language effortlessly and efficiently. Among these various tools, we can identify the Web 2.0 tools, the social networking platforms which have dominated human life for about a decade now. Generally speaking, social networking sites have become very effective tools for communication, owing to features such as user- friendliness and easy accessibility. It has been a common practice for all age groups and professionals to make use of different social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, to name a few, in order to keep up with friends and the current happenings around the world. However, apart from their apparent uses in everyday life, these means may well serve pedagogical purposes, as in the case of facilitating EFL teaching and learning (Liu et al., 2015).

Aims and Hypotheses Since the subject of analyzing the use of technology in the teaching and learning of English is a broad one, it was considered necessary to carry out a study that would examine the use of technology in EFL in a particular context which, in our case, is the Greek secondary educational context. The main objective of this research is to investigate the Greek teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of technology and its tools in the English classroom from a fresh perspective, namely in relation to the role of English as a foreign language (EFL). By employing both quantitative and qualitative means of investigation, this research aims to give answers to questions that have arisen regarding this issue. Additionally, the objectives of the current research generated three research questions that formed the guide to the study. These questions are as follows: 1. What is the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level? 2. What are the attitudes of English language teachers towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level? 3. What are the attitudes of the students towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level? Finally, a number of practical reasons led to the choice of Greece as the research setting. Firstly, the researcher is Greek and, secondly, she is familiar with how the Greek educational system works.

Outline of the thesis The thesis comprises four chapters (introduction excluded). The first chapter begins by laying out the theoretical background related to the theme of the study. It explores the intertwined notion of technology and its use in the educational context with respect to EFL teaching and learning. In other words, it provides a literature review, as it examines the relevant literature on attitudes and motivation with particular emphasis on studies related to the subject of interest. Chapter 2 describes the methodology used for the present research. First, the aim and objectives of this research are outlined, and then the research questions are posed. This chapter gives an account of and rationale for each of the research methods employed. It, then, presents the data collection procedures and the research instruments. The chapter offers a

2 detailed account of the analysis procedures and methodological frameworks followed throughout this research. Chapter 3 presents, first, the quantitative results that arose from the questionnaire data analysis. It begins with an outline of the respondents’ characteristics and the statistical procedure that was followed and, then, it presents the main results. After that, it proceeds to the presentation of the qualitative results drawn from the analysis of the interviews with the English teachers. It begins with the thematic framework that was produced and introduces the research participants giving an account of the interviewees’ profile. It, then, proceeds with the analysis of the interviews, which are presented in relation to each main theme that emerged from the analysis. Overall, the analysis of the results is followed by comments on the data of our study. Chapter 4 begins with a brief synopsis of the results as discussed in the penultimate chapter of this thesis and draws some conclusions in relation to the study. It also includes a consideration of the limitations and the implications of this study and identifies future areas for further research.

Chapter 1

Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter briefly describes the theoretical background that has led to the production of the present study. It explores the history of technology and how it came to be utilized in the educational context with respect to EFL teaching and learning. Moreover, it provides a literature review, as it delves into relevant literature on attitudes and motivation focusing on studies connected to the subject of interest.

1.1 Socio-constructivism theory Over the past few decades, the pedagogy of education has seen a dramatic change, moving from passive learning to active learning (Sheninger, 2018). In the same direction, the theory of socio-constructivism implies that learners build their learning of their target language by means of social interplay and reflection on their experiences (Simina & Hamel, 2005). More specifically, this theory which is based on theories by Piaget and Vygotsky, suggests that the learning process is developed based on prior learning experiences and knowledge (Kaufman, 2004). Therefore, learning turns into an active constructive procedure where the newly acquired knowledge is absorbed and combined with previous mental conceptions (Kaufman, 2004; Simina & Hamel, 2005). In this sense, learning is learner-oriented and not teacher- oriented. In addition, socio-constructivism puts an emphasis on collaboration and negotiation on thinking and learning. According to Piaget et al. (1984), individual knowledge depends on its social construction of it. Another important theorist named Cobb (1994, pp.13-20) has examined “whether the mind is located in the head or in social action, and argues that both perspectives should be used in concert, as they are each as useful as the other”. What is seen from one viewpoint as reasoning of a gathering of people commonly adapting to each other’s actions can be seen by another as the standards and practices of a classroom community (Cobb, 1998).

1.2 Socio-cultural theory Related to the social aspect of constructivism, there is another socio-educational theory, the socio-cultural theory. The main proponent of the socio-cultural theory is Lev Vygotsky, according to whom the influence of society and cultural environment on the language learning process is essential; social interaction and environment play the major and most important role for language learning process and acquisition. Central features of the socio-cultural theory are the concept of mediation, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), ‘scaffolding’ and collaborative interaction. According to Lantolf (2000), mediation portrays the relation between human beings and the world. People use both physical and psychological tools to build such a relationship, thus language learning becomes a social process, based on a person’s cognitive mediating tools. In an educational framework, during social and collaborative interaction either the teacher or the students provide ‘scaffolding’, support which allows the learner to access the ZPD. As stated by Vygotsky, ZPD is the gap between the learner’s actual developmental level and his/her potential development. Most importantly, language process involves social interaction and collaboration among the learners and the social environment (peers, teacher, and parents), while socio-cultural approaches to mediation and the ZPD facilitate the whole process (Tanaka, 2005).

1.3 Behaviorism theory Behaviorism has its roots in the works of Edward Thorndike (1913) and Pavlov (1927) which were later developed by Skinner (1938). The primary assumption of the theory of behaviorism is that each organism depends on the influences the environment has upon it and as a result its behavior is shaped by external factors. Behaviorists only take into account external factors and ignore any interpretations based on the individuals’ internal mental processes. Furthermore, in the context of language acquisition, learning is defined as the process of changing a student’s behavior through exercises set by the teacher. Effective learning, which is the purpose of teaching, is achieved either through positive reinforcement (remuneration) or through negative reinforcement (punishment). Behaviorism has been very influential during the twentieth century in many educational systems. It has influenced the teaching process by formulating principles for defining and developing pedagogical and teaching goals which have to be very specific and clear. It has also greatly influenced the design and use of Information and Communication Technologies

(ICTs) as this theory was supported by computer-based teaching. Although in recent years behavioral approaches to knowledge and learning are no longer in the forefront of the software design education, having given way to a more constructive and socio-cultural type of education, it is noteworthy to acknowledge their overall contribution to this research area, mainly in the light of a didactic design.

1.4 TPACK model Since technology is continually being implemented into the educational system, more and more educators have to be informed and trained on how to use media tools during their teaching. In that regard, Mishra and Koehler (2006), researchers from Michigan State University, established the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge model (TPACK), in the absence of other sufficient theory to explain or guide effective educational technology integration. The TPACK model is based on Schulman’s (1986) notion of the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Schulman suggested that pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge should not be jointly viewed, but in relation to each other (Schulman, 1986, as cited in Robin, 2008). More specifically, the TPACK framework, which focuses on technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and content knowledge (CK), presents a creative approach to many of the dilemmas that teachers face in implementing educational technology in their classrooms. By making a distinction between these three types of knowledge, the TPACK model describes how content (what is being taught) and pedagogy (how the teacher passes on the content) must form the base for any efficient educational technology integration. This order is quite significant since the technology being implemented must communicate the content and support the pedagogy, so as to improve the students’ learning experience. According to the TPACK framework, specific technological tools (hardware, software, applications, associated information literacy practices, etc.) are best used to instruct and guide students toward a better, stronger understanding of the subject matter. The three types of knowledge – TK, PK, and CK – are thus combined and recombined in various ways within the TPACK model. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) describes relationships and interactions between technological tools and specific pedagogical practices, while pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) describes the same between pedagogical practices and specific learning objectives. Furthermore, technological content knowledge (TCK) describes relationships and intersections among technologies and learning objectives. These three areas

6 then constitute TPACK, which must interact in a meaningful way so to make easier the language teaching and learning process. Since its emergence in 2006, TPACK has become one of the leading theories regarding educational technology integration; research and professional development activities draw from it heavily. Finally, an advantage of the TPACK model is that it leaves room for researchers and practitioners to adapt its framework to different circumstances.

1.5 CALL(Computer-assisted language learning) Computer assisted language learning (CALL) is a term that is applied to technology studies. The initial employment of the term occurred in the 1960s and began in the United States (Thomas, Reinders and Warschauer, 2012). According to Levy (1997, p. 1), Computer Assisted Language Learning is “an approach to language teaching and learning in which computer technology is used as an aid to the presentation, reinforcement and evaluation of material to be learned, that usually includes a substantial interactive element.” Due to the incorporation of portable digital devices in people’s lives, CALL has come to be realized as an advanced subject of literacy (Thomas, Reinders and Warschauer, 2012). In the past 30 years, this term has turned into an essential component of language instruction and research. Currently, due to the appearance of various digital tools and applications, international conferences are held about CALL and assistance is provided by high-profiled worldwide corporations (Thomas, Reinders and Warschauer, 2012). The history of CALL is separated into 3 phases (Stevie, 2011).The first phase appeared in the 1950s and continued all through the 1970s and it was the so-called Structural/ Behaviorist CALL (Warschauer, 1996), where the recurring display to similar materials was seen as useful or sometimes imperative to learning. In particular, Warschauer (1996) points out: The principal characteristic of this approach is that the computer is perfect for practicing repeated drills and that it is also utilized as an instructor, displaying material and evaluation on an individualized ground. In this way, learners move at their own rhythm and have free class time for other exercises. (pp. 3-20) Furthermore, during the 1980s and 1990s the Communicative/Cognitive CALL appeared. Computers at this stage are utilized to encourage conversation, writing or objective judgment (Warschauer, 1996). Students are inspired to produce authentic utterances instead of

7 managing ready-made language. The programs withhold from informing students that they are mistaken and accept a range of answers (Warschauer, 1996). The next and last phase is the Integrative/Sociocognitive/Socioconstructive CALL, which was adopted in the 2000s and continues to exist till today (Warschauer, 2004). This phase combines the characteristics of the past ten years into a technology that has discovered its true potential. The developments of the Internet and hypermedia that combine video and audio streaming, graphic interactive content and virtual worlds have reshaped the way learning is accomplished. This type of CALL creates realistic learning conditions taking advantage of diverse tools, where linguistic abilities are combined with ease and genuine synchronous and asynchronous communication means are supplied. Students can be in correspondence with other foreign learners or native speakers directly, inexpensively, and conveniently at any time and in any place (Warschauer, 2004). Research in the EFL process with the help of CALL has shown that it is an instrument that improves teaching and learning by augmenting input, offering supplementary chances for linguistic exercise, and acting as a platform for intercommunication and activities that are based on assignments (Hoppinager, 2009). As Furstenberg (1997) notes, this tool can also enhance learner-learner interaction. Finally, in a similar line, Kelm (1998) argues that CALL aids students to practice foreign languages in authentic situations, while promoting socialization and communication among them.

1.6 NBLT and NBLL As mentioned above, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) refers extensively to a field of applications (e.g., tutorials, drills, simulations, instructional games, tests, concordances, etc.). After CALL we witnessed the emergence of network-based language teaching (NBLT), which refers to the pedagogical use of computers connected in either local or global networks, giving access to one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many communication. NBLT research delves into what happens when learners are brought together with texts, media, and other speakers of the language in computer-mediated contexts of interaction. NBLT arose at the advent of both technological and educational change. In the 1980s and 1990s, networking technologies and infrastructure developed with dramatic quickness in many industrialized countries, making low-cost connections possible. At the same time, educational theory and practice were to a greater extent affected by social constructivism, which stressed the social and cultural construction of knowledge, the

8 significance of cooperation among individuals and groups, and a learner problem-based approach to education. Along with NBLT came NBLL, that is Network-based language learning (Warschauer and Kern, 2000), which places emphasis on human-to-human communication. More importantly, NBLT’s and NBLL’s main attention lies on the idea of students working on a desktop computer or a laptop, usually in order to deliberately practice or learn a language. With the computer as the core and applications usually centered on purposely practicing languages, it is not hard to see how these alternative acronyms efficiently became no more than spin-offs of CALL as they do not question its defining characteristics. Over the past 20 years, a rich body of research has been conducted on NBLT and NBLL. The accelerating spread of digital media and wireless networks, together with the increased adoption of computer-mediated communication, indicates that both will remain a critical area for teaching and learning. For instance, the first generation of digital natives who have grown up using the Internet and view it as something completely normal is now entering higher education. What’s more, the Internet itself has changed dramatically in recent years, with the rapid advancement of participatory tools and sites that promote social networking, interactive game playing, collaborative writing and editing, and multimodal production. These tools give the students the ability to read, write, communicate, and construct knowledge in a second or a foreign language in ways that are both new and uncharted.

1.7 Technology and English language teaching/learning Technology and English language education are related to each other (Singhal, 1997). In the 1960s and 1970s, various educational institutions were using English language learning laboratories which were composed of small cabinets, equipped with a cassette deck, a microphone and a headphone for each student. Teachers used a central control panel to observe the interplay between the students. One of the advantages of this kind of technology was that the students’ spoken acts enabled them to learn English quickly. Even though the concept of language laboratories was a positive way to link technology with English language teaching and learning, learners found the audio-lingual method to be monotonous and boring (Singhal, 1997). Another problem that contributed to the failure of this learning and teaching technique was that there was minimal interaction between the teacher and the students. Over the past 20 years, with the spread and development of English around the world and it being the first spoken language worldwide, the number of English learners has been

9 dramatically increasing. Due to the continuous advancement of technology, the tradition of English teaching and learning has changed completely. Gradoll (1997) highlights the importance of technology in the spread of the English language: Technology lies at the heart of the globalization process; affecting education work and culture. The use of the English language has increased rapidly after 1960. At present, the role and status of English is that it is the language of social context, political, socio-cultural, business, education, industries, media, library and communication across borders, and key subject in curriculum and language of imparting education. (Graddol, 1997) Technology nowadays provides so many options since it makes the process of English language teaching and learning more interesting and productive in terms of improvement. It is one of the most important drivers of both social and linguistic change. In other words, it offers many opportunities to the English language learners to improve their language learning skills and competences in a systematic manner.

1.8 Information Technology (IT)

1.8.1 Definition

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (n.d.), IT (Information Technology) is “the technology involving the development, maintenance, and use of computer systems, software, and networks for the processing and distribution of data”.

1.8.2 Implementation of IT in education

The Emerging Information Society or according to Castells (2000), the ‘Information Society’, is an ever-changing society that highlights the urgent need to adapt to new social data in all areas, including education, while providing new ways and communication codes. Makrakis (2000) claims that Information Technology (IT) is now established as the dominant cognitive tool in today's society, and as a result, when one is ignorant of its use today, he/she becomes

‘technologically illiterate’. Given the modern education system, emphasis is being placed on the role of education, of which technology is an integral part in the modern era. After all, as Kourtis (2005) has pointed out "education is acquired through collaboration and empowerment, through assimilation of cultural tradition and coherence with cultural developments - technology is part of it - and not through optimization of information processing." Bell defines knowledge as a fundamental source of the post-industrial society (Moutsios, 2003), which at the forefront of education in the 21st century, considers computer knowledge a prerequisite. Chronologically, Komis (2004) and Vosniadou (2006) classify the introduction and integration of IT in education in four important stages: the first phase of educational technology is the period during which an attempt is made to integrate various teaching machines into education and dates back to 1970. The second phase is followed by an attempt to introduce IT as a subject in the school curriculum at all stages of education, a period during which the implementation of the information approach is being piloted, as Komis said and it covers the period of the 70s-80s. In the third phase, computer science is included as a separate school subject in the worldwide educational curriculum (1980 - 1990). This has helped to reduce the cost of computers, which has allowed them to be introduced to schools and used in the educational process. In the fourth phase, dating from 1990 and onwards, IT appears more as a cognitive-exploratory tool in various aspects of the educational activity. With the evolution and convergence of information technology with the new technologies it is gradually being eliminated as a content subject and an integration of IT is attempted throughout the curriculum.

1.8.3 Implementation of IT in the EFL classroom

Information technology is being widely used in foreign language teaching over the last decades (Tzoannopoulou & Maylath, 2018). Nowadays, the use of IT in education is rapidly expanding and is now seen worldwide as both a necessity and opportunity. This vast development provides challenges and opportunities in many aspects of life including education. In the educational field, especially in EFL, the advancement of the use of IT provides a strong demand to bring into reality its applications in the classroom teaching. When learning English, students acquire many skills in the area of writing, listening, reading and speaking. For instance, IT can help them to practice their writing abilities by writing in a blog. A blog is a frequently updated website that often resembles an online journal. Students

11 can write anything they are interested in, edit and publish their work as often as they like, and share it with others. With blogs, learners can find themselves writing for real audiences apart from their teacher, for example their peers, students from other classes, or even other countries, their parents etc. This will encourage them to produce better and more effective pieces of writing and master this linguistic skill. Technology has been identified as having the power to generate effective learning activities in the EFL environment. The contribution of IT in the EFL process has created environments for promoting student participation, as well as generating authentic contexts for interaction and the negotiation of meaning. It has also given the ability to EFL teachers to present individualized instruction. Some EFL teachers have also tried to use general applications as word processors and presentation programs such as PowerPoint. In the present situation, network based language learning has also gained important attention (Kern & Warschauer, 2008). Network based language learning involves the use of computers connected to one another in either local or global networks. Lai and Zhao (2006) claim that computer mediated communication increases the rate at which students notice their own linguistic mistakes and generates explicit forms of negotiation of meaning.

1.9 Using multimedia technology in the EFL process: advantages and disadvantages It is generally thought that the use of multimedia technology in the EFL process allows students to greatly improve their English (Merzifonluoglu, 2018). Nowadays, multimedia technology featuring audio, visual animation effects gives more access to information and offers a sense of reality that greatly cultivates the students’ interest and motivation to study and their involvement in in-class activities. In addition, according to Solanki & Phil (2012), “the traditional teaching has hampered the students’ capacity to comprehend and understand the structure, meaning and function of the English language and has made the students passive recipients of knowledge, making it hard for them to achieve communication skills”. However, with the help of multimedia technology, students can cultivate their positive thinking and communication skills in social practices and are provided with greater incentives through in-class activities such as group discussions, subject discussions, and debates that offer more opportunities for communication among them. What was also mentioned by Solanki and Phil (2012) was that multimedia technology applications can offer students abundant information, more plentiful than textbooks and help

12 them to improve their cultural background with rich content and true-to-life language materials, which are more natural and closer to life. Not only learners improve their listening abilities, but they are also eager to share information among them, thus making them actively participate in class discussions and communication. Furthermore, the appearance of technology in the EFL class breaks the teacher-centered teaching pattern and fundamentally improves class efficiency. More specifically, it goes beyond time and space, creates more vivid, visual, authentic environments for EFL, as it stimulates students’ initiatives and economizes class time while at the same time increasing the distribution of class information. Multimedia teaching stresses the role of students and enhances the importance of interaction between them and the teachers. A major feature of this method is to train and improve the students’ ability to listen and speak and to develop their communicative competence. During this process, the teacher’s role as a facilitator is particularly prominent and students learn not to receive information in a passive way. Finally, multimedia teaching creates a context for language teaching. It makes the class lively and interesting and optimizes the organization of the class. It is apparent that using multimedia in EFL is effective in nurturing the students’ interest in learning English, as well as enhancing the teachers’ interest in English teaching. As Zhang (2006) points out “through multimedia and network technology, we can offer students not only rich sources of authentic learning materials, but also an attractive and a friendly interface, vivid pictures and pleasant sounds, which to a large extent overcomes the lack of authentic language environment and arouses students’ interest in learning English”. Despite the advantages of the application of multimedia technology in the EFL class, there are many problems arising from this type of teaching method, such as the fact that during the teaching process, the teachers can be turned into slaves to the multimedia devices and fail to take the leading role in class. It has been generally observed that a lot of teachers are active when it comes to multimedia technology application in class, however some of them cannot handle this situation confidently. For instance, in class, when they are standing by the computer and talking, their attention is fixed only on the screen and there is no eye contact between them and the students. Therefore, multimedia devices have to be considered as assisting instruments rather than target ones and should not dominate in class. Moreover, even though the introduction of multimedia technology featuring audio, visual, and textual means enhances the students’ interest in learning English, it also has as a result the lack of communication between them and the teachers and the replacement of the teachers’ voice by the computer sound and the teachers’ analysis of the visual image. Consequently, the students’ initiative to think and speak is deeply affected as the English class turns into a place

13 where students are made viewers rather than participants of class activities (Solanki & Phil, 2012). Another important issue is that even though English teachers try to raise impromptu and real-time questions and guide the students to think and cultivate their capacity to discover and solve problems, however, due to over-demonstration and the pre-arranged order of the teaching schedule, the courseware lacks real-time effect and cannot give feedback to the students. It ignores the emphasis and importance given in strengthening their capacity in contemplating and solving problems. In this way, it should be noted that the cultivation of students’ thinking capacity should be the major objective in teaching and the use of multimedia technology should not take up the students’ time for thinking, analyzing and exploring questions. What is more, if the image in students’ mind is merely showed on the screen, their abstract and logical thinking are restricted and are wasted away. At present, decreased reading competence has become a major concern for the reason that, textual words are replaced by sound and image and handwriting by keyboard input. All in all, multimedia technology as an assisting instrument, cannot replace the dominant role of the teachers and it is only considered as an extra part of completing the English language teaching process (Solanki & Phil, 2012).

1.10 Web 2.0

1.10.1 Definition and characteristics

The term Web 2.0 was first coined by DiNucci (1999) and later popularized by O’Reilly and Dougherty in 2004 at a conference, where ideas were discussed about upgrading the existing web. It was observed that the Internet had become very popular and more particularly, certain applications that were based on user interaction had achieved tremendous growth. One possible definition that can be given is by O’Reilly (2004), who claimed that web 2.0 assigns to “the interactive internet applications which allow the user to be more active on the net”.

Thus, Web 2.0 essentially describes a second generation of Internet services, such as social networks, blogs and wiki applications that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among its users. It has been reported that Web 2.0 goes beyond the limits of working on each user's local computer, and allows the collaboration on the worldwide web. Websites have now changed their way of design and promote user interaction. In the past, the internet offered the opportunity to create search and exchange activities. With the evolution of the Internet in the Web 2.0 environment, collaborative tools are offered, that promote instant communication and interaction. An example of a Web 2.0 environment is social networks, which are gaining more and more users as they put more emphasis on interaction than on content. Some of the features that favor interaction are tagging, adding or editing links, searching for content on sites, and finally, in some cases, the ability of the user to intervene completely on a page, modifying its content according to his/her competence (such as Wikipedia). The 2nd generation web architecture proposes the sharing of digital production by groups – individuals.

1.10.2 Web 2.0 tools

With the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, the tools available are innumerable, and are constantly evolving as new applications are added on a daily basis. Therefore, only the major Web 2.0 applications will be presented here: • Blogs: Blogs are websites that constitute a form of expression for any Internet user who wishes to present his/her thoughts online. The publications have the author's personal tone and are listed in a chronological order. The popularity of blogs is due to the fact that each visitor can post comments below the texts, thus offering positive or negative criticism and the fact that creating a blog is free and extremely easy. Some blogging tools are: Blogger, Tumblr, LiveJournal, Edublogs, Wordpress. • RSS: The RSS acronym comes from the words Really Simple Syndication and describes a service that enables its users to keep up-to-date on news, developments and events by sending the content of posts from various websites the user has selected, at the time of their publication. RSS has seen a significant development with the advancement of mobile devices (mobile phones, tablets, ipads) as the user can become informed about what interests

15 him/her without needing a computer. Some additional RSS applications are: Feedburner, GoogleAlerts, FeedJournal. • Social Networks: A Social Network can be considered any website that offers its visitors the ability to create profiles and interact with other users through ‘social links’ within an online community space. Social networks appeared along with the arrival of Web 2.0, while research is being conducted on their use in teaching. They can be categorized into two main groups; vertical social networks which include users with common interests and common goals and horizontal social networks which consist of members with different interests who are usually there simply to communicate, get to know each other and interact. Some examples of social networks include Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn. In addition to the categories mentioned above there are other important categories of Web 2.0 tools such as: chat, co-writing, concept mapping, conferencing, course development, file hosting, image processing, microblogging, mushing up, personal file sharing, podcasting- sound, gaming, presentation, quiz development, recommendation, screencasting, video tools, web site creation and work organization.

1.10.3 Benefits of using Web 2.0 in education

Thanks to Web 2.0, teachers are enabled to approach a new learning and teaching theory that exploits, in contrast to classical platforms, a plethora of information and Internet freedom. This type of technology aims at enhancing creativity, information sharing and collaboration among users (Başal and Aytan, 2014). These three key words in reality illustrate how the above concepts can be utilized in education. Web 2.0 tools can create a learning environment that is centered on the student, since through them students have the ability to create their own knowledge and are not just passive recipients. They can also bring interactivity and dynamism to teaching and learning environments. Additionally, Web 2.0 tools can ameliorate the involvement in the class through the connection between students, teachers and experts from around the world. For instance, with the help of Skype, students can undergo real-time video chats and collaborate despite geographic restrictions. In the meantime, sites used for sharing videos like Vine and YouTube give them the chance to acquire information from professionals about various issues. They also give the opportunity to learners to produce their own research data and to post it on the web pages. Blogs offer the opportunity to encourage learners to communicate their thoughts

16 and feelings and share their individual beliefs. This can enhance learner autonomy (Başal and Aytan, 2014). Windeatt (1986) has discussed the advantages of Web 2.0 tools and argues that computers can manage the demands of people as they boost inspiration, primarily in students that are not motivated on their own and can reduce the differences existing between the lecture room and the outside world. In other words, Web 2.0 tools if used appropriately and correctly by the teacher in agreement with the goals of the class, after a thorough preparation, can positively affect the teaching and learning system (Başal and Aytan, 2014).

1.10.4 Drawbacks of using Web 2.0 in education

There are, however, a few researchers that are opposed to the use of Web 2.0 in education and describe its tools as a "costly luxury that serves corporate interests" (Ellett et al., 1996). At the same time, since the creation of Web 2.0, serious concerns have been raised about the impending exposure of students to dangerous websites that may be caused by frequent Internet access (Wartella & Jennings, 2000). Tardif (2002) emphasizes that various educational activities, if supported by Web 2.0, with the same sequence and method, can be carried out more quickly and efficiently in comparison to traditional teaching. Nevertheless, previous research (Cuban, 2001) has argued that although it is difficult to foresee the evolution of technology and teaching methods that will enter the school in the near future, a lot of efforts have to be made in order for the Web 2.0 tools to bring fundamental changes in the educational process, since they are not a panacea. In addition, it has been found that an accurate and evaluated pedagogical design for new technologies in education has not yet been developed, as well as that there are shortcomings in teacher training (Pantano- Rokou, 2001). Research conducted by Fahandidis et al. (2004) concludes that the majority of teachers, after the end of training, consider their pedagogical training not specialized in the use of technology. In conclusion, it is understood that Web 2.0 is not sufficient for effective learning unless there is a complete curriculum, sufficient training, tailored educational materials and a well-structured social environment surrounding it.

1.10.5 Web 2.0 in the Greek educational context

The massive introduction of computers in education has been a persistent goal of most education systems for the past 15 years. The utilization of information and communication

17 technologies in the teaching process is regarded as a self-evident progressive pedagogical practice (Hawisher & Selfe 1991), leading to easier implementation of modern teaching goals. According to Koutsogiannis (1998), as far as the Greek reality is concerned, in the history of the introduction of computers in the schools three periods can be distinguished. During the first period (1986-1992), the first computer laboratories were gradually established in about 500 junior high schools and high schools in the country. The main feature of this period was the exclusive use of these laboratories in teaching the IT course. The same rationale is repeated in 1992-1996, despite the creation of at least eight hundred more laboratories in schools and the high aspirations for their pedagogical use. The approach followed has changed dramatically in the present period (1996-present) in which instead of a massive introduction of computers into schools, there is a piloting implementation in a small number of junior high schools. These schools have a lab with ten modern workstations that are connected to each other by a local network and have direct internet access. This ensures the possibility of electronic communication between teachers and schools. However, in Greece, even after all these past attempts made for the integration of technology, the educational system still functions in a way that restricts the students to the passive role of the receiver of the materials. For many educators, the term ‘Use of Web 2.0 in education’ is still utopian, as they do not know how to handle it. It has also been observed1 that the majority of teachers are hesitant about the imminent integration of Web 2.0 in the educational process, but without excluding the use of a digital learning community where students will exhibit, discuss, exchange ideas, views and knowledge, while at the same time an informal but individual and collective assessment and feedback will be given by the professor. The majority of Greek teachers seem to feel uncomfortable with the use of computers as they are not sufficiently prepared to use them. In other words, although, Web 2.0 has been researched and proven to be effective, it cannot replace the human presence but it can be rather used as a supplementary tool without completely replacing the traditional classroom teaching.

1.10.6 The role of the teacher in this context

1 1.Meleti episkopisis tis pliroforikis stin Ellada [Computer overview study in Greece] (2006). Hellenic Information Society of Greece, pp. 7-8. Available at: http://www.epe.org.gr/meleth/final/MEP2006-3.pdf

Undoubtedly, the role of the teacher in the technology-oriented educational environment is quite significant. One of the basic requirements is that teachers should ensure that students make a careful use of social networks and the Internet during the educational process so as to avoid any risk or any malicious visitor misleading the students into dangerous information. In addition, in the context of the student community, the teacher should create policies for the use of social media and determine the consequences arising if not adapting to these policies. As a consequence, teachers have to introduce the students to the world of social media by suggesting that they make a modest use of them and not lapse into an unnecessary and long- term use. Furthermore, prior to their use, objectives should be set for the implementation of educational activities so that the means can only be used for the purposes stated. Another factor that has to be taken into careful consideration is how the teacher will evaluate cooperative learning. Arnold and Paulus (2010) found in their research that the tools used to carry out educational activities were not used in the way they were originally designed for but rather differed in many ways from their primary goals. Therefore, the social networks’ terms of use and the privacy policy should be carefully studied by each teacher and student before using them.

1.11 The 3 models of language learning through digital technology When it comes to the case of learning a language through the use of digital devices and networks, there are several educational models that utilize digital and technical means as their basis. These models place huge emphasis on introducing learning materials, the way they are applied and evaluated as well as on the communication between the learners and the teachers. In this thesis only three particular models will be extensively presented which are the following: the hybrid learning model, the distance education learning model (DEL) and the e- learning model.

1.11.1 The hybrid learning model

According to Sorden (2012), hybrid learning “is not a mere combination of face-to-face and online learning. It is a combination of training methodologies, which uses the best delivery method for the successful achievement of the learning objective. It requires not only a flexible and experienced teacher/tutor, but also a self-regulated/autonomous learner”. Harmer (2012)

19 envisages hybrid learning as a methodological way in which students get some of the input from material such as a coursebook, and then expand on it with material and websites on the Internet. For instance, if students read or listen to a text about a very well-known celebrity, they can surf the Internet and see what kind of additional information they can find about this person. Graham (2005) and Khan (2005) have described four main principles of the hybrid learning methodology. The first principle is the “thoughtful integration of face-to-face and fully online instructional components” while the second one is about the “innovative use of technology”. The third law of the hybrid model is the “reconceptualization of the learning paradigm” and the last one is the “sustained assessment and evaluation of hybrid learning”. Generally speaking, the hybrid model has been considered as a significant and contributing factor in education in the past couple of years, since it reinforces more interactive strategies, not only face-to-face teaching (Graham et al., 2003) and it also promotes collaborative learning; students and teachers can work together on projects from anywhere and at any time (Bruffee, 1993).

1.11.2 The distance education model (DEL)

Distance education learning can be defined as the delivery of education using distance media. Μore specifically, Moore & Kearsley (2012) define distance education as “teaching and planned learning in which the teaching normally occurs in a different place from the learning, requiring communication through technologies as well as special institutional organization”. This type of educational model is characterized by teaching and learning being brought about by digital means: students and their teachers do not meet face to face. For example one or more media are used for their interaction and communication, like audio and video recordings, telephone conversations, computer communication and the e-learning materials available to learners can contain text, graphic, images, audio and video. In the DEL process, the distribution of the educational materials and the interaction between the teacher and the learner can take place either in real time or in different times (e.g. utilizing electronic mail). Last but not least, the distance education learning model is a very important method of teaching and learning since it caters for collaborative learning (Hannah, 2004, p. 3).

1.11.3 The e-learning model

The e-learning model was defined by Waterhouse in 2003 “as a medium of computer technology that could be utilized to develop the application of learning and teaching”. Furthermore, the European Commission (2001) also characterized e-learning as “the use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services as well as remote exchanges and collaboration”. According to Rosenberg (2001), the e-learning model gives you the ability to save, share and update data, while Horton (2006) points out that it favors the formation of “learning experiences of information and computer technology”. There are five types of e-learning which are: learner-led, instructor-led, embedded, facilitated, and telementored learning (Horton & Horton, 2003; Ilie & Pavel, 2006; Kokkosis, Charitopoulos, Prekas, & Athanasopoulou, 2006; Gulbahar, 2009). More specifically, the learner-led e-learning model provides course material to students (Horton, 2006 as cited in Esgi, 2013), while the embedded e-learning is when teachers embed videos and web pages to improve students’ learning. Moreover, through the facilitated e-learning model students can take part in discussions via forums and chats that are related to an assignment (Ilie & Pavel, 2006). Last but not least, the telementored e-learning model combines distance learning and the use of technology, with which students can be given printed material for instance, and then the instructors provide them with extra guidance and information about this particular material via video conferences, instant messages and internet phones (Gulbahar, 2009). In other words, the e-learning model is used by educational institutions to enhance teaching and learning and to motivate students’ independent learning, since it focuses mostly on the idea of the student working on his/her own and that in the case of any question coming up, he/she will be able to find answers to his/her questions in the educational material presented. It is mostly used as an optional self-learning material since this type of technology is typically expensive. Generally speaking, e-learning language programs are very common since they are available to students at any time and in any place.

1.12 Digital literacy In the modern age, in the age of the full diffusion of knowledge and information with the contribution of the sophisticated digital media and social media, knowledge acquisition and

21 computer skills are considered to be an essential and indispensable asset (Ala-Mutka, Pioneer & Redecker, 2008). Ιn the past, literate citizens had the skills of reading, writing and numbering but in the age of ICT this type of citizen is someone who effectively handles digital media in a wider communication context. It is now a fact that the knowledge of basic computer programs and applications is not enough for the modern 21st century citizen to ensure a high standard of living and very good working conditions (Ware & Warschauer, 2005). The highly competitive operating environment, in line with the official declarations of European bodies responsible for complying with existing standards, imposes obedience to digital literacy (Junge & Hadjivassiliou, 2007). However, despite the fact that digital literacy has been an urgent need since the last decade of the 20th century, a widely accepted definition has not been given yet (Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006) (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). The inability to clearly define digital literacy can be attributed to two main reasons. First of all, due to the fact that digital literacy, as a term, was born in international organizations by the need for the ‘strong’ to prevail in a relentless labor market in the context of the modern economy. Therefore it lacks a clear theoretical framework for its further interpretation. Second of all, it can be ascribed to the continuous change and rapid technological advancement worldwide, with the introduction and incorporation of new digital media for various uses. The uses of new digital mechanisms are now varied and adapted to the needs of the user, the demands of the domestic and global economy and the expectations of each developed society (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006). The above mentioned reasons are supported by the assumption that, until the mid- 1980s, digital literacy was just centered on the simple understanding and use of computer programs, however, in the era of Web 2.0. and 3.0. (Kennedy et al., 2007), it requires a more critical look at ICT, with the ability to evaluate online resources and with the potential for modern flexibility by the citizen, in the use of computers and digital media (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). The multi-prismatic approach to the concept of digital literacy (Ito et al., 2008) can therefore provide excellent results both at an individual level (the ability to engage the computer in everyday life and work) and at a community level (participation of globalized society in the modern digital age) (Buckingham, 2006). Often, however, even in the second decade of the 21st century, this term is identified with lower-level computer knowledge and skills that modern humans must possess. According to Hargittai (2002), in the clarification of digital literacy, online skills are added, which refer to the ability to handle online information sources through Internet and a large and endless multimedia library. An apt and valid

22 definition of digital literacy that meets modern reality is described by the Norwegian Ministry of Education (2004): Digital literacy is a set of key ICT skills such as reading, writing and numbering through the computer. It refers, however and in more advanced skills, which can make the use of digital tools and media more creative and critically oriented. Technical skills include using software, searching, locating, transferring and controlling information between different digital sources. Creative critical skills refer to the ability to harness and evaluate the various electronic texts and digital media. Digital literacy is therefore a complex skill. Additionally, Erstad (2006) places digital literacy in the learning society and defines it as “the skills, knowledge and attitudes towards digital media that modern humans must possess in order to manage it properly in front of challenges they have to face”. It is understood that the ability of the digital citizen to be able to incorporate new digital media into his daily life, which would be useful intellectual tools for him, requires at least a minimum level of mastered digital literacy (Tzipopoulos, 2010). Therefore, this much- discussed concept is defined, redefined and ultimately adapted to historical and social imperatives. Digital literacy, according to a recent publication of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2012) is a fundamental learning objective for society and education and includes, in addition to the ability to effectively engage with ICT, digital information management skills, checking the credibility of the electronic sources and their relevance to the results of each search (Istance & Kools, 2013).

1.13 Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technology in language education The new technological era calls for educators to be more motivated when it comes to using technology during the language learning and teaching process. Teachers must be experienced in the use of computers and must also know how to establish a digital presence into teaching (Li & Ni, 2011). Zhao, Tan, & Mishra (2001) note that educational technology has long been placing emphasis on helping educators, not learners. In reality, they claim that teachers are taught that technology is a tool to help them teach, which is more focused on transmitting and communicating messages through presentation software instead of enabling learners to

23 acquire knowledge. According to Atkins & Vasu (2000), the teachers’ overall attitudes or concerns towards this topic greatly influence the use of computers in the classroom. What is more, Redmond, Albion, and Maroulis (2005) report that the teachers’ personal backgrounds such as personal confidence, interests in using ICT and eagerness to attempt something different are vital factors that might promote ICT integration in the classroom. Researchers from different parts of the world believe that the use of ICT tools for educational purposes depends upon the attitudes of teachers towards technology (Albirini, 2004; Hamidi et al., 2014; Teo, 2008). In line with this claim, Summers (1990) believes that teachers’ existing attitudes, skills, and working habits can have a great influence on their approval, style of implementation, and effect of using computers for teaching. As noted by Zanguyi (2011), the teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies in the teaching process are mostly positive. Similarly, Dogruer, Eyyam and Menevis (2010) found in their study that teachers think that the use of educational technology has a positive impact on their teaching experience. More importantly, Sharpe (2004) and Tsitouridou & Vryzas (2004) claim that educators see technology adoption as a significant approach for enhancing education. In the same way, in a study conducted by Ozdamlı, Hursen, Ozcinar in 2009, it was found that teacher trainees believe in positive results of educational technology. However, Gillespie and Barr (2002) declare that there are also teachers who trust only the traditional methods of teaching and are negative about the use of the technology in education. Last but not least, this type of educators find the engagement in computer language learning to be meaningless and think that computers will not make their work easier, nor will reduce their workload (Burston, 1999).

1.14 Student’s attitudes towards the use of technology in language education Even though there have been many studies analyzing the attitudes of teachers towards technology (Bancheri, 2006; Love, 2005; McFarlane, Hoffman, & Green, 1997), research on the attitudes of students has been fairly scarce (Aydin, 2011; Conole, 2008). As Blake (2008) states, “since we utilize technology for language learning, we must also focus on how the students use it and on their attitudes that result from the experience they have using the technology”. According to Jaber (1997), utilizing computers and the Internet in the classroom allows students to collaborate, use critical thinking, and work together to find solutions to any problems coming up. Furthermore, in this kind of technology-enhanced classrooms, learners

24 are able to gather information themselves, make decisions, and become more independent (Lam & Lawrence, 2002). There are many studies that mention how technology increases the motivation of students to learn (e.g. Johns and Torrez 2001). Students generally enjoy using the computer and with enjoyment comes motivation. In particular, the presence of computer-based technology changes the way school subjects are being taught. Overall, students are quite positive when it comes to the use of digital tools in the classroom and maybe this is due to their familiarity with technology. In a study conducted by Ayres in 2002, it was found that students feel that computers can’t take the place of the traditional lesson but they can effectively complete it. Technology can help them practice their grammar, writing, listening and vocabulary skills through the use of exercises and tasks found online. Lastly there are also some students who are not at all in favor of technology in education and in this case, Jones (2001) suggests that the teachers should provide learners with an alternative or some incentive to encourage them to use the digital tools in the classroom.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided the relevant literature on the use of technology and Web 2.0 tools in EFL teaching and learning. It focused on the advantages and disadvantages of technology and its tools in education and presented three language learning models through digital technology. Finally, it analyzed the presence of digital technologies in the Greek educational context, as well as the teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of such means in the classroom.

Chapter 2

Methodology

Introduction

This chapter explains the purpose and the research questions of the dissertation. Then, the chapter describes basic methodological issues such as the design of the research, the instruments used, the description of the sample, and the process of data collection and its analysis.

2.1 Purpose/objectives and research questions of the present study

The purpose of this study is to understand whether the implementation and use of digital technologies in the classroom is effective in the EFL teaching and learning process. In order for this realization to be successful, specific objectives have to be involved. More specifically, the research will examine whether students and teachers respond positively or negatively to the use of digital tools in the classroom and will also attempt to propose ideas and recommendations for a better integration of digital technologies in the English teaching and learning process. The objectives of the current research generated three research questions that formed the guide to the study. These questions are as follows: 1. What is the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level? 2. What are the attitudes of English language teachers towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level?

3. What are the attitudes of the students towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level? The next section deals with the general design of the study.

2.2 Research design

Taking into account the above research questions, a research design was the next step in the methodology process. A research design defines which strategy should be followed, within what framework, who and what will be studied and which tools and procedures should be applied to collect and analyze the data (Punch 2005). Furthermore, the present study can be typified as descriptive, since it tends to investigate a specific group’s (junior high students who learn English as a second language and EFL teachers) attitudes, opinions and characteristics through the use of statistical analyses (Nunan, 1992). While designing this study, the main interest was to preserve a connection between previous research and simultaneously getting to a pathway that could offer new perspectives about the topics of interest. There are quite a lot of studies that use only either a qualitative or quantitative approach in their research design. However, the adoption and use of only one method can often lead to limitations in the analysis of data. For this reason, the present study aims to combine and benefit from the strengths and advantages of both forms of research. It adopts a mixed methods research design (Creswell, 2009) with the intention of having access to richer data and diminishing the disadvantages of choosing the one over the other. The mixed methods design makes use of strategies of inquest that include collecting the data through a range of different methods (e.g. questionnaires, interviews, notes, participant observation etc.). Thus, quantitative data was collected via questionnaires distributed to students and qualitative data drawn from interviews with the English teachers. More specifically, a questionnaire was selected as an instrument of research as it ensured an adequate and efficiently analyzable amount of data (Dörnyei, 2003), while the semi-structured interviews were carried out so as to produce an analytical outlook that is closer to the participants’ “own frame of reference” (Nunan, 1992, p.4). The use of different research tools for the collection of data enabled the successful gathering of data with the aim of increasing the validity (Meijer, Verloop, & Beijaard, 2002) (Dörnyei, 2007) and reliability (Hyland, 2002) of the research.

2.3 Participants

The study in general involved 66 people. More specifically, a total of 63 responses were collected from the questionnaires distributed to the students and a total of 3 responses were obtained from the interviews with the English teachers. The participants of the study were mainly composed of two groups of people. The first one was Greek students who are in junior high school and learn English as a second language and the second one was English language teachers who work in Greek private and language schools in the city of Athens. The reason behind the choice of the private educational sector and not the public one is due to the fact that private institutions usually have the appropriate infrastructure and the financial capacity to support educational systems that embed technology. The students who answered the questionnaires were of both sexes and between the ages of 12 to 15 years old. While choosing the age group, the most appropriate target group was thought to be that of junior high school simply because the students of this age have a satisfying level of English, can properly understand and answer the questions and are more familiar with technology than primary school students. The teachers who were interviewed were all female, between the ages of 22 to 59. They are all professional English teachers who have majored in English language and literature and have a lot of educational experience in EFL environments. Last but not least, they are teachers who are fully conversant with technology and are keen on adopting more modern approaches when it comes to the EFL teaching and learning process that takes place in the classroom.

2.4 Quantitative instrument: the questionnaire

As mentioned above the data for this study were collected through the use of two specific means. The first one is the questionnaire created specifically for the students who learn English as a foreign language. This type of research method will be described in detail in the subsections to follow.

2.4.1 Questionnaire design

Generally a questionnaire is the easiest research technique. It is a form consisting of questions, which are addressed to the public that each researcher has chosen for their research. It is one of the most economical solutions to conduct a survey and the most commonly used method of research. Questionnaires can be distributed by the researcher himself to the people involved in his research. The easiest method for gathering data is for the researcher to distribute them oneself, with the participants filling them in subsequently and handing them over to the researcher. Questionnaires are usually completed anonymously. Additionally, the types of questions in the questionnaire are open and closed. In open-ended questions the researcher does not give any possible answers to his questions, but allows the participant to provide his own answer. On the other hand, in closed-ended questions the researcher will give the participants some answers and they will have to choose one or more of these. In particular, the questionnaire (see APPENDIX A) designed for the present study consists of 18 questions, 17 close-ended questions and one open-ended. There are four questions that use a four-point Likert rating scale (1: strongly agree, 2: agree, 3: disagree, 4: strongly disagree), since this scaling technique is widely used and considered to be “simple, versatile, and reliable” (Dörnyei, 2003, p. 36). The questions were created after carefully reviewing the relevant literature on the theoretical underpinnings of the use of technology in EFL environments, with the aim of eliciting the students’ attitudes towards the use of technology in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level. An additional objective was to gather information on the students’ familiarization with technology and social media in general. Furthermore, the questionnaire was constructed in English, and a great attempt was made to make it more reader-friendly, less formal and intimidating by using simple vocabulary, grammar and syntax in the sentences. However, even though students of these age groups have an adequate level of English, they were provided with the Greek translation of a few specific words, so to understand better the meaning of the questions.

2.4.2 Pilot testing of the questionnaire

The accuracy of the questionnaire, in terms of internal consistency, and its validity, i.e. the extent to which the questionnaire “measures what it has been designed to measure” (Dörnyei, 2003, p. 110), were checked in the piloting stage. By pilot testing the questionnaire, the latter is checked for content and linguistic validity so to ensure the quality of the study. The

29 feedback was received from 3 EFL state school teachers who contributed by making changes in the wording, which eventually led to the production of the final version of the questionnaire. In order to make the questionnaire appropriate and coherent in the English language, a few questions were rewritten and carefully adjusted. Due to the fact that these changes were small and related particularly to the wording structure of a few statements, the pilot questionnaires will not be presented here. However, they are included in Appendix A.

2.4.3 1st phase of data collection: questionnaire

After having finished with the pilot-testing process, the final version of the questionnaire was distributed to students in September 2019. They were delivered in a paper-and-pencil mode and a specific procedure was followed. First of all, both of the administrations of the private school and the language school were contacted by email and meetings were scheduled in order to get their authorization for the distribution of the questionnaire during class time. The members of these educational institutions were provided with detailed and extensive information about the study, its aims and methods as well as the duration of the questionnaire completion. They became familiar with its content, which was confirmed not to be harmful or intrusive in any way. Moreover, the anonymity of students was guaranteed. The English teachers introduced the researcher to the students and briefly explained to them what the study is all about, its aims and objectives. Then, the students were given specific instructions for the completion of the questionnaire and their anonymity was reassured once again. The questionnaire was filled out during class time as this was thought to generate a higher response rate; however, the weak points of this kind of action should be also brought up (Cohen et al., 2007). For example, due to the fact that this process can evoke a sense of commitment, it was made clear to the students that they were not obligated at all to fill in the questionnaire but their aid and support would be really appreciated. Thankfully, the students felt very comfortable and seemed to be interested and eager to fill out the questionnaire. Finally, the questionnaire’s completion time lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

2.4.4 Data analysis of questionnaire (SPSS)

The data of the questionnaire were collected, codified and then inserted in a program specialized for statistical analyses. The statistical analysis of the information has been accomplished with the use of the statistical software package called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 24.0, which has been an aid in carrying out the analysis and the consecutive presentation of the results of the research. No names or identifying information were included in the data analysis. Before the analysis was conducted, all data were cleaned to ensure no outliers were present (Dimitrov, 2012). After cleaning the data, the final sample size was 63 participants.

In statistical analysis, usually a question corresponds to a variable. In the present questionnaire, only question number 16, which is of an open type, was not imported in the SPSS program as a variable. The variables of the questionnaire are mainly qualitative, and belong to nominal and ordinal variables but there some quantitative ones as well. There are questions that are addressed to assess the degree the respondents are in agreement or disagreement with the statements within the Likert scale variables that may refer to frequency (question 6, 7) apart from personal beliefs (questions 9, 11, 12, 13). In addition, if a participant has not answered a question for a personal reason, this is documented as missing value and it might be analyzed unless it refers to a quantitative variable. However, this was not the case in the present study, as students have answered all of the questions in the questionnaire.

2.5 Qualitative instrument: the interviews

The second means used to collect data for this study is the interviews with the English teachers. It is a qualitative instrument of research that will be thoroughly analyzed in the subsections to follow.

2.5.1 Design of interviews

Interviews have been an important research instrument for a long time. The interview has been labeled as the main method used in qualitative research (Burnard, 1994) (Doody & Noonan, 2013) (Myers & Newman, 2007) (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2009) (Schultze & Avital, 2011) and "the most direct, research-focused interaction between research and

31 participant" (Kazmer & Xie, 2008). More precisely, interviews are "seen as negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and respondents that are shaped by the contexts and situations in which they take place" (Fontana & Frey, 2000). In addition, they are also often seen as one of the best ways to "enter into the other person's perspective" (Patton, 2002) and cultivate "thick descriptions of a given social world analyzed for cultural patterns and themes" (Warren, 2002). In particular, the interview (see APPENDIX B) designed for the present study consists of 21 questions and was conducted with 3 English teachers. The role of the interviews is of high significance in the research design of this study since they aim to answer two important questions: what is the use of Web 2.0 tools in the Greek EFL environment and which are the attitudes of the teachers towards the use of these tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level. In other words, interviews were used as a flexible research tool, in order, as Nunan (1992) stated, “to produce richer and more insightful data and to overcome the constraints of the more rigidly structured questionnaire”. The interviews were conducted in English as the interviewees are English teachers and they would not feel uncomfortable using this language. Although the interview questions are very specific, we attempted to adopt a more semi-structured style in order to gain “empathic access to the world of the interviewee” (Kvale, 1996, p. 125). A semi-structured interview is “a qualitative data collection strategy in which the researcher asks informants a series of predetermined but open-ended questions” (Given, 2008). Moreover, the interview questions contained more specific terms since the teachers are familiar with the subject matter and can provide accurate and detailed information that is useful for the research.

2.5.2 Pilot testing of the interview questions

In order to ensure the interview’s effectiveness, it had to go through the pilot testing phase just like the questionnaire did. Unfortunately, there was no time to conduct proper interviews and for this reason the pilot testing teachers were sent an email that contained a DOCX file with the questions and they were asked to make any necessary syntactic, grammatical, and lexical changes and corrections, as well as to suggest their own questions if they wanted to. Furthermore, they were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the language used and to pay attention to the order in which questions were asked, since the order of the questions during interviews can oftentimes be violated due to the flexible nature of the interviews. The

32 feedback was received from the same 3 EFL teachers who also pilot tested the questionnaire and contributed to the process of making fundamental changes that led to the production of the final version of the interview design. The pilot tested files are included in APPENDIX B.

2.5.3 2nd phase of data collection: interviews

After having finished with the pilot-testing process, the final version of the interviews took place in September 2019. In most cases, the interviews were taken right after the completion of the student questionnaires, although in some cases, they took place a few hours later, due to the teachers having another class immediately after. All the teachers suggested that the interviews should take place in their offices, so no background noises were detected in the recording files. The time of the interviews was determined by the interviewees according to their schedule. The duration of the interviews was approximately 20 to 25 minutes and this depended on the teachers’ availability and willingness to elaborate on their answers. The interviews were audio-recorded with the recording application of the iPhone 8 Plus after getting the interviewees’ consent. Several prosodic features such as pauses, lengthened segments and laughter were included in the transcriptions since they offered insights that were unlikely to be provided by an analysis of content. Cameron (2001) has claimed that “important contextualizing information may be carried by small details that are easily overlooked because they have little or no referential content”. Areas dealt during the interview included the teachers’ views on the use of technology and web 2.0 tools in the English classroom and on whether this method of teaching has been adopted by them in order to create a more modern and engaging EFL environment for the students. In this respect, the interviews provided the researcher with all the data needed to “set the perspectives heard within the context of personal history or experience; where delicate or complex issues need to be explored at a detailed level, or where it is important to relate different issues to individual personal circumstances” (Lewis, 2003, p. 58). The interviewees were allowed to openly talk about anything they felt that was important regarding the study without being interrupted by the researcher. Lastly, they were even free to ask questions themselves during the interview and introduce topics that were of significance to them. After the completion of the interviewing process, the audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and coded for the purposes of analysis (see APPENDIX B).

2.5.4 Method of interview analysis (thematic analysis)

The data collected from the interviews was analyzed upon the theoretical framework of Braun and Clarke (2006) on thematic analysis. According to Boyatzis (1998) and Roulston (2001), thematic analysis is “a poorly demarcated and rarely-acknowledged, yet widely-used qualitative analytic method” that provides an accessible and theoretically-flexible way of analyzing qualitative data. More specifically, Braun and Clarke (2006) have defined thematic analysis as “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within data” (p.79). Additionally, thematic analysis is the most important qualitative method of analysis since it provides core skills that are beneficial for conducting many other forms of qualitative analysis. Holloway and Todres (2003) describe “thematizing meanings as one of a few shared generic skills across qualitative analysis”. Thus, Boyatzis (1998) defines it not as a particular method but as an instrument to use over different methods. In a like manner, Ryan and Bernard (2000) find thematic coding as a procedure carried out within major analytical traditions rather than a specific approach in its own right. In the analysis of the present study, specific prosodic features were contained in the transcripts since they brought a deep understanding of the participants’ attitudes and identity. Kvale (1996) indicates that “[a] postmodern approach forgoes the search of the true fixed meanings and emphasizes descriptive nuances, differences, and paradoxes” (p. 226). For that reason, prosodic features were elucidated within the specific interplay and were not based on any “known” generalizations about the mechanisms of prosody (Jenkins, 2000). Prosodic features like pauses, laughter, and emphasis gave implications for the teachers’ attitudes. For example, the use of pauses could imply uncertainty and it could mean that the interviewee is concerned about something, while laughter might indicate embarrassment. During the transcription of the recordings, more emphasis was placed on emphatic stresses like loudness and pausing, as more solid evidences of speaker meaning.

Conclusion

This chapter presented the methodology followed for the research of this thesis. It described the purpose and objectives of the study, the methods used to answer the research questions, their design, as well as the instruments used for data collection. Finally, both methods of data

34 analysis were presented in detail. The results that were gathered via the questionnaires and the interviews will be presented and analyzed in the next chapter.

Chapter 3

Analysis of Findings

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the results collected from the questionnaires that were distributed to the students, as well as from the interviews that were conducted with the English teachers. Firstly, the data obtained from the completion of the students’ questionnaire will be presented and analyzed through the SPSS program. In the second phase, the teachers’ interview responses will be examined and interpreted through the means of thematic analysis. This analysis will help determine the attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of technology and its tools in the EFL context.

3.1 Quantitative results analysis

As mentioned in the previous chapter the participants of the qualitative study were 63. More specifically, 42 students attended a private school in the northern suburbs of Athens while 21 students attended an English language center, situated in the same area. According to Table 1 below, which depicts the gender of the participants, 31 were male and 32 were female.

Table 1

Gender

49,20% male 50,80% female

As far as their age is concerned, 44,4% were between the ages of 12 to 13 years old, while the rest 55,6% belonged to the age group of 14-15 years old. It is also worth mentioning that all participants were students of junior high school and their English level was determined according to which class they belonged to. For instance, the students who were either 12 or 13 years old were mainly B1-B2 learners according to CEFR standards, while those who were between the ages of 14 and 15 reached the level of C1-C2.

Table 2

Age

44,40% 12-13 years old 55,60% 14-15 years old

When asked if they have got a computer with Internet at home, 100% of students, which means all of them, said that they do have one at home. This result is quite positive and indicates that they are familiar with the concept of technology.

Table 3

Have you got a computer with Internet at home? 0%

yes no

100%

The next question was about the devices students use when they want to surf the Internet. The given possible answers were the following: mobile-phone, computer, laptop, ipad and tablet. They also had the ability to choose more than one answer. The overwhelming majority of the students (93,7%) replied that their favorite device is the mobile phone. Only 6,3% of the students said they do not use a mobile-phone when they want to surf the Internet and this might imply that they prefer another device when they want to indulge in this kind of activity.

Table 4

What kind of device do you use when you want to surf the Internet?

Mobile phone 6,30%

yes no 93,70%

The second device in order of importance is the computer. Almost 40% of the students use it to surf the Internet.

Table 5

Computer

39,70% yes 60,30% no

In the case of laptop, only 34,9% uses this kind of device, while 65,1% responded negatively. One possible explanation would be that the students just prefer using other devices when they want to surf the net, especially their mobile phones.

Table 6

Laptop

34,90% yes 65,10% no

Regarding the use of ipads and tablets 36,5% of students report using an ipad and 7,9% using a tablet. If we are to compare these two results, the inference would be the following: students are possibly more familiar with the use of ipads simply because the particular school the research was conducted in, provides each student with its own ipad, therefore, making it an essential additional tool inside the classroom.

Table 7

Ipad

36,50% yes

63,50% no

Table 8 Tablet 7,90%

yes no 92,10%

If we take into account the answers of the students so far, it is clear that most of them use their mobile-phones when they want to surf the Internet, which makes sense, since they carry their phones with them all the time as they are easily accessible devices. Then, the students were asked about the kind of class book they prefer. The majority of them (69,8%) seem to prefer the hardcover book, while the remaining 30,2% prefers the online one. This result was surprising as these students have been using digital technology since a young age and are comfortable with the Internet; therefore it was surprising to see them choosing the hardcover book which makes for a traditional teaching tool. A possible explanation would be that they have been using mostly hardcover books during their school life.

Table 9

What kind of class book do you prefer?

30,20% hardcover book online book 69,80%

In the question ‘how often do you use technology in the English class’ 73% reported ‘everyday’, 7,9% ‘once a week’ and 19% ‘twice’ a week. It is worth mentioning that none of the students chose the answers ‘once’ and ‘twice a month’ and this implies that they use technology in class at least on a weekly basis. It is likely that the high percentage of the first answer came from the students who attend the private school, since this particular school attempts to use technology -especially the interactive whiteboard- on a daily basis in the English class. Moreover, the answers of ‘once a week’ and ‘twice a week’ could come from the students who attend the language center, as they have English lessons there only once or twice a week, so the logical outcome is that they infrequently engage in the use of technology.

Table 10 How often do you use technology in the English class? 0% 0%

19% everyday once a week 7,90% twice a week once a month 73% twice a month

The next question was about the frequency in which they need a computer/the Internet for their English homework. As it can be seen from the table number 11, 15,9% chose the ‘everyday’ answer, 20,6% the ‘once a week’ answer, 34,9% the ‘twice a week’ answer and 14,3% said they use it once and twice a month respectively. The above results indicate that most of the students’ homework tasks do not require the use of computer/Internet. Perhaps most of their homework has do to with grammar or vocabulary exercises that can only be found in the books and essay-like activities that are also realized with the traditional method of teaching.

Table 11

How often do you need a computer/the Internet for your English homework?

14,30% 15,90% everyday once a week 14,30% 20,60% twice a week once a month 34,90% twice a month

In the next question, the students were requested to answer how much time it takes them to do their English homework when they use a computer/the Internet. 68,3% reported ‘10 to 25 minutes’, 27% ‘30 to 60 minutes’ and only 4,8% ‘more than one hour’. Without a doubt, it is logical that they only need a short amount of time to do their homework with the help of a computer or the Internet, since these technological means are quite fast and usually the homework assigned there has been created in such a way, that it does not take too long to be completed. It can also be assumed that this particular English homework contains grammar and vocabulary exercises, perhaps in the form of games and this is another reason why it is finished in a short period of time.

Table 12

How much time do you need to do your English homework when you use a computer/the Internet? 4,80%

10-25 minutes 27% 30-60 minutes 68,30% 60+ minutes

In the next question students had to use the Likert scale to express their opinion about this matter. Table 13 shows that the majority (69,8%) agreed that their English teacher does a good job in using technology in class, a fact which illustrates that both the private school and the language center have chosen teachers who are competent users of technology and its tools and know how to properly implement them in the EFL context. Table 13

My English teacher does a good job in using technology in class 1% 0%

I strongly agree 28,60% i agree 69,80% I disagree I strongly disagree

When asked if they feel that they have enough experience in technology and know how to use it, most of the students (88,9%) responded positively. Ιt is understandable that these teenagers grew up with technology and consider it as an essential communication and information tool. They have been used to having mobiles and computers since their early teens or even before, which are almost extensions of their bodies and lives. They are enthusiastic about digital technologies, therefore, it is only natural that they feel confident when they use them.

Table 14

Do you feel that you have enough experience in technology and know how to use it? 9,50% 1,60%

yes no 88,90% not sure

As far as the table below is concerned, over half of the students (55,6) agree with this assertion and 23,8% strongly agree with the fact that using technology in class gives them the opportunity to discuss and share information with their classmates. Technology has helped students gain access to open educational resources which are freely available to anyone over the World-Wide-Web. They share the information found on these resources with their classmates by doing projects like PowerPoint presentations. However, there is a small percentage (20,6%) that believes the opposite. It could be possible that these students think that they do not necessarily need to use technology to discuss and share information with their classmates since they are keener on following more traditional methods.

Table 15

Using technology in class gives me the opportunity to discuss and share information with my classmates 0%

I strongly agree 20,60% 23,80% I agree I disagree 55,60% I strongly disagree

The next questionnaire item deals with the usefulness of technology in the English learning environment where 46% of students agreed and 42,9% strongly agreed with this fact. None of the students strongly disagreed and only 7 of them disagreed. So a large percentage of students stands in for the value of technology in the EFL context and considers it as a tool of great importance in order to cultivate their language skills.

Table 16

I believe that using technology in the classroom is useful for learning English

11,10% 0%

I strongly agree 42,90% I agree I disagree 46% I strongly disagree

The questionnaire item below is the last one of the questionnaire where the respondents had to use the scale so as to choose the appropriate answer. Again the majority was positive about technology helping education. Nowadays, with information being at the tips of everyone’s fingers, learning is boundless and technology can be utilized to improve teaching and learning and help students be successful, since it enhances the learning experience. Of course, technology is not just helpful to learners but to teachers as well.

Table 17

I think technology helps education 6,30% 0%

I strongly agree 46% I agree 47,60% I disagree I srongly disagree

Moving on to the next question, which is about the advantages of using technology in education, students had to choose among five possible answers. In the option of ‘working as a group’ the results were almost 50-50, since 50,8% of students chose this option and 49,2% did not. It seems that they are not entirely sure yet if technology in education makes the process of working together better.

Table 18

What are the advantages of using technology in education?

Working as a group

49,20% yes 50,80% no

The next option which was that of ‘sharing knowledge’ was selected by the majority of students (58,7%) and this corresponds with the previous question found on the questionnaire about the opportunity given by technology to discuss and share information, to which also the students responded positively.

Table 19

Sharing knowledge

41,30% yes 58,70% no

The third possible answer was that of ‘getting to know your classmates’. A big percentage of 88,9% did not choose this option at all. Perhaps, young learners believe that they do not need technology to get to know their classmates since they can interact with them through oral communication.

Table 20

Getting to know your classmates 11,10%

yes no 88,90%

‘Organizing your work better’ was another option for the questionnaire respondents, which was selected by 71,4% of them. Undoubtedly, technology gives them the ability to plan their homework or general school projects in a specific way through the use of electronic calendars or apps for taking notes etc.

Table 21

Organizing your work better

28,60% yes no 71,40%

Finally, the last option was that of ‘other’ and it represented other possible advantages that might exist when it comes to using technology in education. However, this answer was ticked only by 25,4% of students who did not elaborate on their answer. What can be assumed for those who did not select ‘other’ is that they were satisfied with the other options.

Table 22

Other

25,40% yes no 74,60%

The next question is about the disadvantages of using technology in education. There are three possible alternatives given that are the following: ‘danger for your private life’, ‘feeling of pressure by your environment’ and ‘loss of spontaneity’. The first option was chosen by more than half of the students (52,4%), therefore, we could draw the conclusion that young people are somewhat intimidated when using technology and its tools, like social media, because they expose themselves daily by sharing their personal information, uploading photos/videos etc.

Table 23 What are the disadvantages of using technology in education?

Danger for your private life

47,60% yes 52,40% no

The next option referred to ‘the feeling of pressure by their environment’, to which most of the students responded mostly negatively, thus confirming that they are not influenced by external factors when utilizing technology in the educational context.

Table 24

Feeling of pressure by your environment

22,20%

yes no 77,80%

The final answer was ‘loss of spontaneity/freedom’, which was picked by 25 students (39,7%). Presumably, the people that fall into this category might feel that technology puts a lid on them, maybe because they cannot express themselves in the way they want to and instead they have to maintain a certain attitude online which makes them feel constrained.

Table 25

Loss of spontaneity/freedom

39,70% yes 60,30% no

In the question ‘Has your English teacher suggested a technology tool to help you with your homework’, the students had to choose either yes or no. However, those who would respond in a positive way also had to mention one type of technological tool suggested by their teacher, whether that would be an app, a program or a website.

Table 26

Has your English teacher suggested a technology tool to help you with your homework? 4,80%

yes no 95,20%

The overwhelming majority of the students (95,2%) reported using many different technological means that facilitate their homework. Such tools are e-languages, edu4schools and LMS, which are platforms specifically designed to contain the students’ syllabus, along with exercises and activities that are either for homework or that need to be done in class. In addition, 9,5% specifically referred to the Oxford Dictionary, 11,1% the Thesaurus and 19% the Wordreference website. All three tools are online dictionaries that learners look up to during their homework process, especially when they do not understand the meaning of a word or when they want to search for a synonym/antonym etc. Another website that was brought up by the majority of students (30,2%) is that of Quizlet in which students can learn new vocabulary and grammar through the form of a quiz, which is quite an easy way to memorize things.

Table 27

If yes, which one? 35,00% 30,20% 30,00% 25,00% 19% 20,00% 15,90% 15,00% 11,10% 9,50% 7,90% 10,00% 6,40% 5,00% If yes, which one? 0,00%

It should also be noted that there were three respondents who left the answer blank since they have chosen the ‘no’ answer. Perhaps they could not remember at this particular moment a technology tool. Overall, the point is that students use technology instruments when they do their homework. Proceeding to the next question, in which students were asked to say how much time they spend on social media per week, 44,4% claimed to spend 5-10 hours per week, while 33,3% stated that they spend more than ten hours on social media. Another 20,6% chose the ‘less than five hours’ answer. It is understandable that these results are intuitive, since kids at this age are hooked on social media platforms and spend much of their time there. In addition, what must also be noted here is that there was one student who ticked the ‘none’ answer and it was later confirmed that he/she did not use social media at all. Therefore, out of 63 students, only one does not have social media accounts, thus leading us to the conclusion that social media is a vital component of young people’s everyday lives.

Table 28

How much time do you spend on social media in a week? 1,60%

20,60% less than 5 hours 33,30% 5-10 hours more than 10 hours 44,40% none

Last but not least, the young learners were asked to state the reasons why they use social media. They were free to choose more than one answer. More particularly, most of them affirmed that they use social media to communicate with friends and family (93,7%), to learn about news and events (65,1%) and to spend their free time (73%). They also claimed that they use it in order to find funny or entertaining content (79,4%) and to share photos/videos with others (54%). Their answers are quite reasonable since these functions are the most common and basic ones when addressing social media use. Moreover, the students are not old enough to utilize these technology tools for other purposes yet (like promoting a business etc.).

Table 29 Why do you use social media?

To communicate with friends 6,30%

yes no 93,70%

Table 30

To learn about news and events

34,90% yes no 65,10%

Table 31

To meet new people

34,90% yes 65,10% no

Table 32

To spend free time

27% yes no 73%

Table 33

To find funny or entertaining content

20,60% yes no 79,40%

Table 34

To share photos/videos with others

46% yes 54% no

Table 35

Other

23,80% yes no 76,20%

3.2 Qualitative results analysis

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the method of analysis of the interviews is a qualitative approach of thematic analysis. More specifically, during the analysis of the interviews certain themes were identified and a thematic analysis framework was produced, with emerging themes including ‘attitudes towards the use of technology in EFL’, ‘attitudes towards technology integration training’, ‘opinions about the Web 2.0 tools and services’ and ‘thoughts on technology and social media in the English educational context’.

3.2.1 The interviewees’ profiles

The participants that took part in the interviews were 3 female English teachers. The first teacher belonged to the 22-30 age group, the second one to the 46-59 group and the third one was between the ages of 31 to 45 years old. All three of them have a Bachelor degree in English Language and Literature and one has completed a Master’s Degree in Management of English Language Learning. Two of them have been teaching all levels of English for more than 20 years while the first interviewee has limited teaching experience, being quite young. Finally, the first and the second interviewee work in the same private language center and the third one teaches in a well-known private school in the Northern suburbs of Athens.

3.2.2 Attitudes towards the use of technology in EFL

The teachers were asked a few specific questions in order to determine their attitudes towards the use of technology in EFL. The first question was if they use technology and social media in the classroom, in which they all responded positively, as it can be seen from the table below.

Table 36 Do you use technology and social media in the classroom?

1st interviewee: “Of course yes, because I think that it is very important to use um… technology

and all the types of social media in the classroom.”

2nd interviewee: “Yes, we use technology and social media in the classroom.”

3rd interviewee: “Yes, we use mainly ipads, ehh…each student has their own ipad, uhh…we use the

interactive whiteboard, the LMS (Learning Management System).”

Then, they were requested to say for how long they have been using technology in their teaching (see table 37). The two of them claimed to have been using technology since they first started teaching English while the third interviewee said it was about a decade more or less. Still, all 3 teachers have been using technology for quite some time now, which proves their positive attitude towards its integration in the EFL class.

Table 37 How long have you been using technology in your teaching?

1st interviewee: “Eh since I started.”

2nd interviewee: “Ever since I opened the school in 1990.”

3 rd interviewee: “Well, it’s for about ten years, it might be nine but maximum ten.”

In addition, the interviewer wanted to also know which technology tools and types they prefer to use and how often, in which the teachers’ answers were the following ones:

Table 38 Which technology tools and types do you prefer to use and how often?

1st interviewee: “Okay, uhh…I use the smartboard of course, tablets, some platforms like

edu4schools, okay so and uh…I try to use them on a daily basis.”

2nd interviewee: “Technology tools, we use computers, we use interactive whiteboards, um…on a

daily basis. We also have platforms which we use on a daily basis.”

rd 3 interviewee: “Ehh…ok, we use the ipads a lot, um…especially the students, I use the computer, my laptop more frequently. More specifically, we use mind maps, we use sites for vocabulary practice, we use videos and presentations, the interactive whiteboard, the social PowerPoint media, sometimes.”

What is noticeable is that the teachers use pretty much the same technological tools in the class, on a daily basis. They all make use of interactive whiteboards, portable devices like tablets and ipads and they also use specific digital educational platforms where the students practice their English skills. The above question is in accordance with another question that was asked during the interview that had to do with the teachers’ preference for dedicated (e-book, interactive whiteboard etc.) or non-dedicated (e-mail services, blogging, Skype calls, etc.) technological tools.

Table 39 Do you prefer using dedicated (E-book, interactive whiteboard, etc) or non-dedicated (e- mail services, blogging, Skype calls, etc) technological tools?

1st interviewee: “I prefer using dedicated, just like e-books, interactive whiteboard and all of them, tablets of course.”

2nd interviewee: “Well, I use mainly dedicated but we have engaged in non-dedicated uhh…technological tools. For example, skype calls, talking with other classrooms in other cities of

Greece or all over the world but more often the dedicated.”

3rd interviewee: “Well, to tell you the truth, dedicated mainly. We use non-dedicated ones occasionally like Skype or e-mail services, uhh…blogging-no I wouldn’t say that we use blogging,

Skype yes, we use it, we have um…contacted other schools abroad or ehh…there are cases in which we had a student who was absent for long and then we had an interaction through Skype .”

It is clear from the above statements that they prefer to use dedicated technological tools. Of course this doesn’t mean that they have excluded non-dedicated tools from their teaching, just that they use them more rarely, like in the case of communicating with students from abroad through Skype. It is quite possible that the dedicated technological tools have been proved to be more effective and this is why EFL teachers choose them to include in their teaching process. Moreover, a question of great importance was why teachers use technology-based tools in their EFL teaching context, to which they replied: Table 40 Why do you use technology-based tools in your English teaching context?

nd 2 interviewee: “I believe technology helps to make learning more comprehensive and it actually helps in recycling uhh…in the English language teaching-uhh…it helps you recycle vocabulary, hear authentic people speaking in real situations so it’s a window to the world in the classroom I would say.”

3rd interviewee: “Well, actually it is a way to motivate students and to engage them. It also saves time ehh…because the material that appears on the interactive whiteboard, well there is a specific tool that you can show the answers of the questions just by pressing a button and without writing them, so it saves a lot of

time.”

In the opinion of these three teachers, technology can dramatically – and oftentimes instantly –increase student engagement. It has the ability to transform even the most mundane lesson into one that is powerful and thought-provoking by making difficult tasks quick and easy. Thus, it is apparent that EFL teachers understand the major role that motivation plays in the success of language acquisition and are continuously seeking ways to increase the students’ engagement and attention. The last question that falls into the category of defining the teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technology in the EFL context is about the students’ feedback when they are assigned tasks that require the use of technology. Their answers are demonstrated in table 41 below.

Table 41 Do you assign to your students tasks that require the use of technology? If so, how would you describe their feedback?

1st interviewee: “Yes of course. Here in this language center, uhh…we have a platform edu4schools ,uhh…so…uhh…many times we ask our students to um…visit this platform and of course to do

some exercises, to watch a video and I think that they like it very much, all this process.”

2nd interviewee: “Oh yes. They are very motivated, they are uhh…I do ask them um…we also have as I said a platform where I have ehh…material on the platform, uhh…they do their activities and the feedback is very good.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, we have ehh…we use sites like Quizlet or Mindmaps and I assign um…I use links for articles so that they can read ehh…I ask them to make research for their projects, they

make PowerPoint presentations as well and uhh…they are actually excited when they have to do something that involves computers and technology, they are excited. It’s something that comes

naturally to them, it’s something that they were raised with so…”

From the teachers’ responses, which are quite similar, it is evident that students often have to do tasks that need the assistance of technology. They are requested to either use certain sites and platforms that include exercises and activities or they have to do research online about a topic and present what they found in class, sometimes in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. It is very logical that their feedback is positive since they find technology to be exciting and fascinating as it makes the teaching and learning process more fun and engaging.

Overall, the 3 interviewees are in favor of the use of technology in the EFL environment and thus they have incorporated all the necessary and appropriate tools and services in their teaching methods so to have effective learning results.

3.2.3 Attitudes towards technology integration training

The second theme that arose from the method of thematic analysis had to do with the teachers’ attitudes on technology integration training. More particularly, they were asked to say if they have ever been officially trained in the integration of technology in EFL. If their answer was affirmative, they also had to state whether this was due to a personal choice, an obligation or due to an employer’s encouragement. Table 42 depicts their answers.

Table 42 Have you ever been officially trained in the integration of technology in EFL? If yes, was it a personal choice, an obligation or was it due to an employer’s encouragement?

st 1 interviewee: “No, uhh…I haven’t but I have attended uhh…some um seminars.”

2nd interviewee: “Well, I have actually graduated from-I have done studies in mathematical and computer sciences, so I have got two bachelors, so that’s mainly helped me but when I studied that was back in the late 1980s, technology was different then but I have been keeping up to date on my own because of my interest in technology, because I have got two bachelors, I have finished English Lit in Australia and in Greece I have finished Maths specializing in computer programming.

Uhh…that’s the reason why since I opened the school in 1990 I have always had computers in the school for students’ use and I have been keeping up to date following seminars, keeping up with the trends through internet of course, so that is what I do; I surf on the net, find how I can integrate um…technology within our EFL. So for me it was a personal choice, nobody obliged me since I have been doing it since 1990.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, yes I have been officially trained in my Master Degree and well, uhh…it was actually a combination of personal choice and obligation let’s say, due to the employer’s encouragement. Well, it all started when uhh…the school decided to um…integrate technology in

teaching, ehh…so I thought that I had to do something because I was left-well I used my computer but only for personal reasons and not in the classroom, ehh…so I thought that it was a good chance, opportunity to do something so my MA included integrating technology.”

What stems from their answers, is that only one teacher has been officially trained in the integration of technology in EFL and it was mostly because the school she works in decided a few years back to incorporate technology in its educational system, so she had to keep up somehow. Nevertheless, the other two try to keep themselves up to date through seminars, which is a good way to get informed about this topic of interest. In relation to this question, they were also asked if they plan to start/continue being officially trained in integrating technology in their teaching and what they had to say was this:

Table 43 Do you plan to start/continue being officially trained in integrating technology in your teaching? 1st interviewee: “Of course, I am very interested in technology and in new technological applications because I think that it’s very important to use them when we teach.”

ahead of the times because we are teaching the future generations, so we cannot teach with past techniques only. We can combine, keep the good techniques of the past and combine them with the future trends but we have got to be very very selective and make them interesting…”

3rd interviewee: “Yes we do it, okay quite frequently I would say. Well, there are seminars every

year, we try to keep up to date so…”

Therefore, teachers have begun to understand the importance of technology and are willing to constantly get informed about what is new, since using technology in the class constitutes a modern method for teaching new generations. It is vital for them to follow this path, however without forgetting the traditional way of teaching, as there are different ways to combine the old and the new and achieve the best possible result.

3.2.4 Opinions about the Web 2.0 tools and services

In order to get a better understanding of the teachers’ opinions about the Web 2.0 tools and services, they were asked to share their thoughts on the implementation of these tools and services in the Greek school context. Here is what they had to say:

Table 44 What’s your opinion about the implementation of the Web 2.0 tools and services in the Greek school context?

st 1 interviewee: “I think it is very useful.”

2nd interviewee: “Well, I don’t think they are implemented in the public Greek school context but in the private sector yes, we do implement them.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, that’s a huge discussion. It’s useful generally, uhh…it is really motivating as long as you can have the necessary equipment, so generally speaking, students have become very competent users of technology but to tell you the truth, you cannot rely exclusively on technology. I think there should be a balance between traditional methods and modern ones. So from my experience,

I think that it has a lot of advantages-using technology has a lot of advantages- but uhh…I think you need to use it wisely ehh…in order to have a positive effect on students.”

First of all, they are all in favor of the application of technological means in the school context and consider it as a very useful educational approach. However, as the second interviewee mentions, these tools and services are only implemented in the Greek private sector and not in the public one, as the latter lacks the necessary infrastructures and financial background to support such advancement. In the next question, they had to express their opinion about the educational value of the Web 2.0 tools and services. Their answers, which were similar to the previous questions, are presented in table 45. Table 45 What’s your opinion about the educational value of the Web 2.0 tools and services?

1st interviewee: “I think it is valuable, it is veryyy um…useful okay, and it has educational value because students can learn uhh…by using them.”

nd 2 interviewee: “I am obviously for all these-I am in favor of the tools, any tools that help technology in the classroom.”

rd 3 interviewee: “Well, as I said before they are very useful as long as they are used appropriately and wisely, so due to the fact that there is a huge amount of material ehh…on the web and generally you have a lot of tools –electronic tools-, you have to be selective, you have to always check the reliability

of the tools and services, umm..so you should always try and choose ehh…you have to-to choose the appropriate tools for every classroom, I mean not everything applies to all classes, okay so…”

Without a doubt, it is clear that they all agree with the fact that the Web 2.0 tools and services have a highly significant educational value, since they are very useful. According to the third interviewee, what should not be forgotten is that these technological means should be used wisely and teachers must check their reliability, in order to determine which ones are appropriate for every educational instance. Again, what is proven is that these teachers are very much informed when it comes to the use of technology in the language classroom and recognize the importance of choosing only the tools that suit better their teaching methods, while at the same time attempting to combine both modern and traditional educational techniques. An additional piece of information that could contribute to the research findings came from the next question, which was about whether the teachers need the help of an expert user to handle the Web 2.0 tools and services, to which they replied: Table 46 Do you need the help of an expert user to handle the Web 2.0 tools and services?

1st interviewee: “Yes, I think that I need um…some help from an expert but uhh…sometimes I can

use them, it depends on the tool of course.”

2n interviewee: “No no, I uhh…usually google, when I don’t know how to use something I google

how to do this, how to install, how to use so…it is very helpful. For example today, I wanted to do something on my Facebook, so um…I just googled how to blah blah blah and I found it in five

minutes and I did it.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, I would say that I have become quite a- [laughs], ehh…well I can solve problems to a great extent, um…so there is a technical support department in our school, of course we consult them and we call them when something comes up but generally speaking, I think that I uhh…feel confident.”

The only one who is not so sure of how to use technological tools in the classroom is the first interviewee, which is something to be expected since she is very young and does not have enough experience yet. The other two English teachers appeared to be more confident and as they stated, when a problem comes up, they either search online for a solution or seek the help of a technical expert. Of course this depends on the tool, since there are some tools that are more difficult to handle than other ones. Consequently, the three interviewees positively appraise the implementation of the Web 2.0 tools and services and extol their prominent educational value. Most of the times, they feel

63 certain when they have to use technology in the English classroom, however if a big technical problem comes up, they will ask for help if they fail to solve it themselves.

3.2.5 Thoughts on technology and social media in the English educational context

In this thematic phase, teachers were asked to identify the roles that technology and social media can play in developing English language education and what they had to say was the following:

Table 47 What roles do you think technology and social media can play in developing English language education?

nd 2 interviewee: “It’s what I said before, it’s the window in the classroom to the real world, actually bring with interactive whiteboard connected to uhh…Google, um…and social media you can bring

the world in the classroom.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, great role, ehh…um…nowadays with the help of technology, actually students have access to authentic material and they can interact with native speakers of English, so all these videos and social media eh…and blogs help them improve their performance in all four skills-reading, speaking, writing and listening- and they can also practice on areas like grammar

ehh…however again we have to be careful with the-the quality of the material.”

From their point of view, technology and social media play a fundamental role in developing English language education, since they help to bring the world in the classroom. Nowadays, students are constantly exposed online to real pieces of information and with the assistance of technology; they have the ability to improve their language skills tremendously through multiple tasks. In the last question, the teachers had to express their thoughts on which are the main advantages and disadvantages of using technology and social media to teach and learn English in the classroom. Their answers are presented in the table below.

Table 48 In your opinion, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of using technology and social media to teach and learn English in the classroom?

1st interviewee: “Uhh…i think that um…using technology and social media in the classroom has a lot of advantages because you can learn to the students new things, new ways to learn and we can attract um…the attention of uhh…some students that are weaker than other ones, okay. Of course there are a lot of disadvantages because many of them get hooked on technology and all these technological means…okay, they don’t know how to write an essay for example or a short paragraph, because the most important thing for them is to use their tablet and this is the most important and basic value in order to learn something.”

2 nd interviewee: “Well, I would say the only disadvantages here if there is uhh…if your computer crashes, if you have got technical problems, I think that’s the other disadvantage, ehh…when we focus on a topic we never look at one source, this is what I tell my students, when we searched for material about today’s topic we actually found sources in five different uhh…sites so I try to ehh…the disadvantages of fake news which is obviously a disadvantage, we try to divert this by finding let’s say topics on five, ten different sites.”

3rd interviewee: “Okay, definitely its engagement, it engages students. Ehh…it prepares them for their professional career, their studies at universities and um…they become independent learners, uhh…it helps um…you know…ehh…become more ehh… [long pause] cooperative. They also learn useful life skills like how to manage social media, pages, research skills, ehh…how to send emails, it saves time as I said before, and you have access to authentic material, again something that I mentioned before.

Now, the disadvantages is that because there is not a… you know… they don’t always use it wisely, they uhh…can be easily distracted, uhh…they tend to play games everytime they have the chance, so this is something that you need to work before a lot, before you start…you know…the uhh…actual lesson…you know… and I think it takes time, not everybody is ready.”

What can be inferred from these answers is that there is a plethora of advantages and disadvantages regarding the use of technology and social media in EFL teaching and learning. The most important advantages came from the third interviewee, who mentioned that technology activates students’ engagement and sets the basic principles for their academic and professional future. It also enables them to become digitally literate and to be able to choose information from more than one sources. However, students tend to get distracted by technology and its tools and as a result they cannot focus on the lesson. This is why teachers need to be aware of the proper way to let students use their devices during class time.

To summarize, the interviewees acknowledge the vital role that technology and social media play in developing English language education and are very much aware of the advantages and disadvantages of these tools, especially when used in the EFL context.

Conclusion

The present chapter dealt with the presentation of the findings derived from the students’ questionnaires and the teachers’ interviews. The data was presented and analyzed following a specific process and method of analysis and certain conclusions were drawn from the results collected. The findings will be further discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 4

Concluding Remarks

Introduction

The final chapter of this thesis highlights the key findings of the present research and draws on the main conclusions. Moreover, the limitations of the study are considered, leading to the implications of the study and recommendations for further research. The chapter ends with a few concluding remarks.

4.1 Discussion of the findings of the present research

Based on the findings of the present study, we can reach the conclusion that the incorporation of technology and its tools into the EFL educational system seems to have a positive effect on both students and teachers. For example, some benefits include enhancing the students' motivation, skills and knowledge. More specifically, the results show that the use of new technologies has become a daily routine in the lives of both students and teachers. English teachers have reported that they use technology widely in their teaching mainly to gather information, organize their material and present the syllabus in a more interesting way. In the same manner, students claim to use the Internet and new technologies for educational purposes apart from entertaining ones. On the whole, EFL teachers working in the Greek private educational sector foster positive attitudes towards the implementation of technology and its tools in the classroom. Even though the teachers that were interviewed differed in age, teaching experience and academic training, they all were open to innovative ideas which accounts for their favorable attitudes towards the topic of the present research. It is evident from the findings that teachers who adopt an optimistic stance on the integration of technology in the Greek schools also translate their positive outlook into appropriate classroom practices. In relation to the three research questions we can identify the following main points. Τhe objective of the first research question was to identify the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level, which was realized

67 through the use of the students’ questionnaires and the teachers’ interviews. What transpires from the finding is that over the past couple of years, Greek private educational authorities have made attempts to incorporate the use of technology and its tools in the teaching and learning process and have even taken pivotal decisions in order to successfully reach this goal. The aim of the second research question was to determine the attitudes of the students towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Greek secondary educational level. The results came from the questionnaire completed by 63 junior high school students who seem to have a positive stance on the use of technology inside the English class. They claim to use technology in class very often and sometimes they also use it when doing their homework. The students think technology has helped them develop their English skills and they even utilize certain websites, applications and platforms so to practice and test their language abilities. Lastly, the attitudes of English language teachers were also investigated, mostly through the interviews conducted with three English teachers. In more detail, they are in favor of the use of technology in the EFL context and have incorporated all the necessary and appropriate tools and services in their teaching methods in order to obtain effective learning results. They are also aware of the significant education value that technology and Web 2.0 tools possess and their vital role in developing English language education. By getting trained or informed about the new technological advancements, they are able to recognize the advantages and disadvantages that the implementation of IT has to offer and this is why they do not rely exclusively on technology but attempt to combine the new ways of teaching with the traditional ones in order to create a well-balanced educational environment.

4.2 Limitations of the present study

A very important limitation that needs to be taken into consideration is that this study only applies to the private educational sector and not to the public one. It was mentioned by one teacher in the interviews that the Greek public sector is very much behind when it comes to the use of technology in the classroom. The Greek public schools lack the necessary and required financial background to support such services. In other words, it is important to keep in mind that if this study involved students and teachers from the public sector, perhaps the results of the research would be quite different from the ones already obtained.

In addition, another limiting factor is the number of the teachers that were interviewed. The three interviews yielded a number of interesting findings regarding the teachers' behavior and attitudes towards the use of technology and its tools in the English classroom. However, a larger number of interviewees would make the study more valid.

4.3 Implications of the study and recommendations for further research

The advancement of technology and of Web 2.0 tools has had different effects on almost every discipline in the 21st century and education is not an exception. What this study has highlighted is that educators are now encouraged to include digital media tools in teaching and learning tasks, particularly in the EFL learning context. As far as the Greek educational system is concerned, this study has also shown that English instructors have begun to understand that technology and Web 2.0 tools can cultivate and advance their students’ learning. Nevertheless, it is critical for the teachers to select the suitable tools carefully and to integrate them appropriately into their EFL classrooms. A future area of research could be a case study that would involve classroom observation and assessment of materials used for EFL courses in Greek schools. That would provide richer insights into the actual learning experience of students in the Greek educational context and would help to acquire a better understanding on how technology and its tools help students learn English. Moreover, a longitudinal study of the implementation of technology in Greek schools could also be carried out, in order to enhance the understanding of students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technology and to discover its effect on student learning over a longer period of time. For instance, future work could involve the exploration of attitudes of the same interviewees for two or three consecutive times following the first interview. According to Mauranen and Hynninen (2010), “attitude measurement does not capture speakers’ immediate experience or reflection on a recently ended or still ongoing situation; talking to people in the middle of their courses, whether they are students or teachers taps their experience while it is still fresh”. At last, as it was mentioned in the previous section, this study referred only to the Greek private sector, therefore future research could be conducted that would involve the public one as well. It would be really interesting to see the participants’ reaction and to define their attitude in a technology-centered environment.

In light of the above, it is important that teachers create a technology program that favors integration plans of action including obtaining choices (Gilakjani, Leong, & Hairul, 2013). Furthermore, the technology plan has to follow the curriculum objectives meticulously. Teachers have to be aware of which pedagogical method would be the utmost efficient when implementing Web 2.0 tools in the classroom (Gilakjani, Leong, & Hairul, 2013).

Conclusion

In this chapter some concluding remarks were offered, based upon the findings of the research. It included a short discussion of the research results, the limitations of the present study and a number of recommendations for further research. Arne Duncan, a US secretary of education, once said: “Technology alone isn’t going to improve student achievement. The best combination is great teachers working with technology to engage students in the pursuit of the learning they need”. Looking at this research through the prism of this phrase, I hope that it will act as a step or food for thought for English teachers who work in Greek schools, to become more subjective when it comes to the use of technology in the classroom.

Bibliography

Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y. & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital competence for lifelong learning. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), European Commission. Albirini, A. A. (2004). An exploration of the factors associated with the attitudes of high school EFL teachers in Syria toward information and communication technology (Unpublished master’s thesis). The Ohio State University. Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. M. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The internet and higher education. 13(4): 188-196. Atkins, N. E., & Vasu, E. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279-302. Aviram, A. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: three scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of open, distance and eLearning, 1. Aydin, S. (2011). Internet anxiety among foreign language learners. TechTrends, 55(2), 46- 53. Ayres, R. (2002) Learner Attitudes Towards the Use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning 15 (3):241-249. Bancheri, S. (2006). A language teacher's perspective on effective courseware. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp.31- 47). London, England: Routledge. Basal, A. & Aytan, T. (2014). Using Web 2.0 Tools in English Language Teaching. Retrieved from https://conference.pixel-online.net/ICT4LL/files/ict4ll/ed0007/FP/1314-ICL807-FP- ICT4LL7.pdf Blake, R. J. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming quantitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Buckingham, D. (2006). Is there a digital generation? Digital generations: Children, young people and new media, 1-13.

Burnard, P. (1994). The telephone interview as a data collection method. Nurse Education Today, 14, 67-72.

Burston, J. (1996) ‘CALL at the crossroads: myths, realities, promises, and challenges. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19 (2):27-36. 71

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage publications. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society, The British Journal of Sociology. Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 5–24, March 2000. Available at: http://red.pucp.edu.pe/ridei/files/2011/08/33.pdf Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007013

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1998). A Constructivist Perspective on the Culture of the Mathematics Classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The ever changing landscape of technology use for language students. ReCALL Journal, 20(2), 124-140. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cuban L., (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Language Learning & Technology, Vol. 7 (3),pp.42-45. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/pdf/review4.pdf

Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print Magazine, 4, 32. Retrieved from http://darcyd.com/fragmented_future.pdf

Dogruer, N., Eyyam, R., Menevis, I. (2010). The attitudes of English preparatory school instructors towards the use of instructional technology in their classes. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 15(2): 5095- 5099. Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2013). Preparing and Conducting Interviews to Collect Data. Nurse Researcher, 20, 28-32.https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.05.20.5.28.e327

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellett, C.D., Ellett, A.J., Kelley, B.L., & Noble, D.N. (1996). A statewide study of child welfare personal needs: Who stays? Who leaves? Who cares? Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Planning Meeting of the Council of Social Work Education, Washington, D.C.

Erstad, O. (2006). A new direction? Digital literacy, student participation and curriculum reform in Norway. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3), 415–429.

Esgi, N. (2013). Comparison of Effects of E-Learning Types Designed. International Journal of Academic Research, 5, 443- 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-5/B.69

European Commission (2001).The E-Learning Action Plan: Designing Tomorrow’s Education (p. 20), Brussels.

Fahantidis, Ν., Christophorou, V., & Pnevmatikos, Α. (2004). Antilipsis ekpedeftikon meta ti vasiki tehnologiki epimorfosi [ Teachers’ perceptions after basic technology training], 4th Conference ETPE, 29 september – 3 october, Athens. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Furstenberg, G. (1997). Teaching with technology: What is at stake? ADFL Bulletin, 28 (3), 21-25.

Gilakjani, A.P., Leong, L., & Ismail, H.N. (2013). Teachers’ Use of Technology and Constructivism.

Gillespie, J., Barr, D. (2002) Resistance, reluctance and radicalism: A study of staff reaction to the adoption of CALL/C&IT in modern languages departments. ReCALL 14(1):120-132.

Given, L. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2005). Emerging Technologies, Messaging, Gaming, Peer-to-Peer Sharing: Language Learning Strategies and Tools for the Millenial Generation. Language Learning and Technology, 1:17-22. Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Frank, V., Richardson, D. and Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), pp.70-105. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: British Council. Graham, C.R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning:global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Graham, C. R. et al. (2003). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology I-V. Hershey, PA: idea Group Inc. Gulbahar, Y. (2009). E-Learning. Turkey: Pegem Academy Publishing. Hannah, C. A. (2004). A message from the dean. Graduate School Catalogue. Adelphi: University of Maryland University College.

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4), 1-20. Available at: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7 4/hargittai/index.html

Harmer, J. (2012). Essential teacher knowledge. Core concepts in English language teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hawisher, G. & Selfe, S. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication.42(1): 55-66. Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794103033004

Hoppinager, D. (2009). Best Practices in Technology and Language Teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.1, pp 222-233.

Horton, W. (2006). E-Learning by Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Horton, W. and Horton, K. (2003). E-Learning Tools and Technologies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Hwang, A., Kressler, E.H. & Francesco, A.M. (2004). Student networking behavior, culture, and grade performance: an empirical study and pedagogical recommendations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 139-150.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Ilie, S. M., & Pavel, C. (2006). E-Learning Techniques to Study Dynamics of Mechanism. Research Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education. http://era.teipir.gr/era1/b.4.teleeducation_session/abstracts/b.4.8.doc

Istance, D. & Kools, M. (2013). OECD Work on technology and education: innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43-57.

Jaber, W. (1997). A survey of factors which influence teachers’ use of computer-based technology. Dissertation Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an International language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johns, K.M., & Tórrez, N.M. (2001). Helping ESL learners succeed. Phi Delta Kappa, 484, 7- 49.

Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT Journal Volume 55(4):360-367.

Junge, K. & Hadjivassiliou (2007). What are the EU and member states doing to address digital literacy?. Available at: www.elearningpapers.eu

Kaufman, D. (2004). 14. Constructivist Issues in Language Learning and Teaching. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 303-319.

Kavalier, B. R. & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: literacy of the 21th century. Educause Quarterly, 29(2). Kazmer, MM., & Xie, B. (2008).Qualitative interviewing in Internet studies: Playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Communication & Society. 11(2):257–278. doi: 10.1080/13691180801946333

Kelm, O. (1998). The use of electronic mail in foreign language classes. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.) Language Learning Online: Theory and Practice in the ESL and L2 Computer Classroom (pp. 141-153). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.

Kennedy, G. E., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S. J., Maton, K. A., Krause, K., Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchwood, A. (2007). The Net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: preliminary findings. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds.), Annual Conference of the Australasian society for computers in learning in Tertiary Education. Singapore: Nanyang Technology University, 517- 525.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Network‐based language teaching Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1374-1385): Springer. Khan, B. H. (2005). E-learning quick checklist. London.

Kokkosis, Α., Charitopoulos, A., Prekas, C., & Athanasopoulou, L. (2006). E-Learning Present and Future in Greece. http://era.teipir.gr/era1/b.4.tele-education_session/full_papers /b.4.8.doc

Komis, Ι. V. (2004). Isagogi stis ekpedeftikes efarmoges ton Tehnologion tis Pliroforias ke ton Epikinonion [ Introduction to the educational applications of Information and Communication Technologies], Athens: ed. Νew Technologies. Kourtis. (2005).I pedia stin simerini kinonia tis pliroforias, Pedagogiki Epitheorisi[Education in today’s information society, Pedagogical Review], 39, pp. 9-16. Koutsoyiannis, D. (1998). Perithoria dimiourgikis axiopiisis ton ilektronikon ipologiston sti didaskalia tou graptou logou: erevna se mathites A gimnasiou [Laptops for creative use of computer literacy teaching: research in first junior high school students]PhD Thesis: Department of Linguistics, School of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120. Lam, Y., & Lawrence, G. (2002). Teacher-student role redefinition during a computer based second language project: Are computers catalysts for empowering change?. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 1.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, J. (2003). Design issues. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 47-76). London: Sage Publications.

Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL teachers’ technology use in China: Patterns and perceptions. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 42(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390783

Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers' call knowledge and competencies:In-service program perspectives. Language, Learning and Technology, 19(1):119-138.

Love, K. (2005). Online discussion in secondary English: Shaping interactive practice for ESL students. In C. Davison (Ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education (pp. 149-171). Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP. Makrakis, V. (2000). Ipermesa stin Ekpedefsi. Mia kinoniko-epikodomistiki prosegisi.[Hypermedia in Education.A socio-constructive approach ]Athens: Metaixmio. Martin, A. & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-267. Mauranen, A., & Hynninen, N. ( 2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. In : English for Specific Purposes. 29, 3, p. 183-190.

McFarlane, T. A., Hoffman, E. R., & Green, K. E. (1997). Teachers' attitudes toward technology: Psychometric evaluation of the technology attitude survey. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED411279).

Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-Method Triangulation in a Qualitative Study on Teachers’ Practical Knowledge: An Attempt to Increase Internal Validity. Quality & Quantity, 36, 145–167.

Merriam-webster.com. (1978). Definition of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. [online] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information%20technology

Merzifonluoglu, A. (2018). Review of Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory, and practice. Language Learning & Technology, Vol. 22 (1): 65-68.

Ministry of Education. (2004). Culture for learning. White paper, No. 30 (2003- 2004). Oslo: Ministry of Education. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Moutsios, S. (2003). Knowledge Production and Transmission in the Information and Knowledge Society. Published in: Makednon, No. 11. Murray, G. (2005). Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Myers, MD., & Newman, M.( 2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft, Information and Organization, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2012). Connected minds: technology and today’s learners. Paris: OECD Publishing. O'Reilly, T. (2004). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation-of-Software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Ozdamli, F., Hursen, C., Ozcinar, Z.(2009). Teacher candidates’ attitudes towards the instructional technologies. Procedia Social and Behavioral sciences. 1(1): 455-463.

Pantano-Rokou, F. Μ. (2001). Pedagogika montela yia tin exapostaseos ekpedefsi me hrisi ton neon tehnologion: Apopsis ke provlimatismi yia tin anikti ke ex apostaseos ekpedefsi.[Pedagogical models for distance education with the use of new technologies: Opinions and concerns for open and distance education] Athens:Propompos, pp. 189-225.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Inc.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Translated and Edited by G. V. Anrep. London: Oxford University Press.

Piaget, J.,Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.

Redmond, P., Albion, P. R., & Maroulis, J. (2005). Intentions and Reality: Pre-service teachers’ ICT Integration during Professional Experience. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 2005), Phoenix, USA.

Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220-228. Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7587/is_200910/ai_n42041564/?tag=content;col1

Roulston, K. (2001). Data analysis and 'theorizing as ideology'. Qualitative Research,1(3),279-302.

Ryan, GW., & Bernanrd, HR. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Edition). pp. 769-802.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007) Step by step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing. 16 (12): 738-44.

Schultze, U. & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), pp.1-16.

Sharpe, M. (2004). Chapter 3: The computer in school. Russian Education and Society, 46(6), 56-82.

Sheninger, E. (2018). Shifting from Passive to Active Learning. [online] Esheninger.blogspot.com. Available at: http://esheninger.blogspot.com/2018/04/shifting- from-passive-to-active-learning.html Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Simina, V., & Hamel, M. J. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 217-228. Singhal, M. (1997). The internet and foreign language education: Benefits and challenges. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(6). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal- Internet.html Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century. Solanki, S. & Phil, M. (2012). Use of technology in English language teaching and learning: An analysis. 2012 International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture IPEDR vol. 33(2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore. 150-156. Sorden, S. (2012). Emerging trends in foreign language teaching with information and communication technologies. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ssorden/emerging- trends-in-foreign-language-teaching-with-ict. Stevie, D. (2011). Teachers on CALL: What Educators Must Know About Computer Assisted Language Learning. Retrieved from https://www.fluentu.com/blog/educator/what-is- computer-assisted-language-learning/ Summers, M. (1990). New student teachers and computers: An investigation of experiences and feelings. Educational Review, 42(3), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191900420304

Tanaka, N. (2005). Collaborative interaction as the process of task completion in task-based CALL classrooms. The JALT CALL Journal, 1(2), 21-40.

Tardif, J. (2002). Strategic thinking: the contribution of cognitive psychology. Montreal: Logic Editions. Thomas, M., Reinders, H. and Warschauer, M. (2012). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning: The role of digital media and incremental change. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders and M. Warschauer, Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, pp 21-31.

Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Education Psychology: briefer course. New York: Routledge.

Tsitouridou, M., & Vryzas, K. (2004). The prospect of integrating ICT into the education of young children: The views of Greek early childhood teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976042000211838

Τzifopoulos, Μ. (2010). Psifiakos gramatismos ipopsifion ekpedeftikon: sinthikes ke prooptikes[Digital literacy of prospective teachers: conditions and prospects]. Thessaloniki: Bros. Kiriakidi. Tzoannopoulou, M. and Maylath B. (2018). Virtual Networks in English-for-Specific- Purposes Education: A Translation-Reviewing/Editing Model. In B. Mousten, S. Vandepitte, E. Arno-Macia & B. Maylath (eds.) Handbook of Research on Multilingual Writing and Pedagogical Cooperation in Virtual Learning Environments (pp. 318-343). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Vosniadou, S. (2006).Pedia,sholia kai ipologistes.[Children, schools and computers], Athens: Gutenberg, pp.31- 32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2005). Hybrid literacy texts and practices in technology- intensive environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(7), 432-445. Warren, Carol A.B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp.83-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: an introduction. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/call.html

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wartella E. & Jennings N. (2000). Children and Computers: New Technology. Old Concerns. The Future of Children, 10(2), 31-43. Waterhouse, S. (2003). The Power of E-Learning the Past, the Present, and the Future. http://ritim.cba.uri.edu/wp2003/pdf_format/Wiley-Encycl-Internet-Diffusion-v12.pdf Windeatt, S. (1986).Observing CALL in action.In Leech, G. &Candlin, Ch. N. (Ed.).Computers in English language teaching and research. Longman, London.

Ybarra, R., & Green T. (2003). Using technology to help ESL/EFL students develop language skills. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ybarra- Technology.html Zanguyi, S. (2011). Review of teachers' attitudes towards the use of educational technology in teaching process. Educational Technology. 6: 165-159. Zhang, F. (2006). Using multimedia and network technology to reform CET in the teaching of new horizon college English. Teaching English in China, 29(3), 111-114. Zhao, Y., Hueyshan Tan, S. & Mishra, P. (2001). Technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 348-355.

Appendix A

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATIONS

ΜA in DIGITAL MEDIA, COMMUNICATION & JOURNALISM

Students’ questionnaire

Please fill in the following questionnaire: 1. Gender

฀ Male ฀ Female

2. Age

฀ 12-13 years old ฀ 14-15 years old

3. Have you got a computer with Internet at home?

฀ Yes ฀ No

4. What kind of device do you use when you want to surf the Internet? (you can choose more than one answer)

฀ Mobile-phone

฀ Computer ฀ Laptop ฀ ipad ฀ Tablet

5. What kind of class book do you prefer?

฀ Hardcover book (κανονικό βιβλίο) ฀ Online book (ψηφιακό βιβλίο)

6. How often do you use technology (διαδραστικός πίνακας, τάμπλετ, προτζέκτορας κτλ) in the English class?

฀ Everyday ฀ Once a week ฀ Twice a week ฀ Once a month ฀ Twice a month

7. How often do you need a computer/the Internet for your English homework?

฀ Everyday ฀ Once a week ฀ Twice a week ฀ Once a month ฀ Twice a month

8. How much time do you need to do your English homework when you use a computer/the Internet?

฀ 10-25 minutes ฀ 30-60 minutes ฀ 60+ minutes

9. My English teacher does a good job in using technology in class.

฀ Ι Strongly agree (συμφωνώ απόλυτα)

฀ Ι Agree (συμφωνώ) ฀ Ι Disagree (διαφωνώ) ฀ Ι Strongly disagree (διαφωνώ κάθετα)

10. Do you feel that you have enough experience in technology and know how to use it?

฀ Yes ฀ No ฀ Not sure

11. Using technology in class gives me the opportunity to discuss and share information with my classmates.

฀ Ι strongly agree (συμφωνώ απόλυτα) ฀ Ι agree (συμφωνώ) ฀ Ι disagree (διαφωνώ) ฀ Ι strongly disagree (διαφωνώ κάθετα)

12. I believe that using technology in the classroom is useful for learning English.

฀ Ι strongly agree (συμφωνώ απόλυτα) ฀ Ι agree (συμφωνώ) ฀ Ι disagree (διαφωνώ) ฀ Ι strongly disagree (διαφωνώ κάθετα)

13. I think technology helps education.

฀ Ι strongly agree (συμφωνώ απόλυτα) ฀ Ι agree (συμφωνώ) ฀ Ι disagree (διαφωνώ) ฀ Ι strongly disagree (διαφωνώ κάθετα)

14. What are the advantages (πλεονεκτήματα) of using technology in education? (you can choose more than one answer)

฀ Working as a group ฀ Sharing knowledge ฀ Getting to know your classmates ฀ Organizing your work better ฀ Other

15. What are the disadvantages (μειονεκτήματα) of using technology in education? (you can choose more than one answer)

฀ Danger for your private life ฀ Feeling of pressure by your environment ฀ Loss of spontaneity/freedom (έλλειψη αυθορμητισμού/ελευθερίας)

16. Has your English teacher suggested (προτείνει) a technology tool (an app, a program or a website) to help you with your homework?

฀ Yes (which one?) ______฀ No 17. How much time do you spend on social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snaptchat, Youtube etc.) in a week?

฀ Less than five hours ฀ 5-10 hours ฀ More than 10 hours ฀ None

18. Why do you use social media? (you can choose more than one answer)

฀ To communicate with friends and family ฀ To learn about news and events ฀ To meet new people ฀ To spend free time ฀ To find funny or entertaining content (photos, videos) ฀ To share photos/videos with others ฀ Other

Thank you!!!

Students’ questionnaire (pilot testing)

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age: 12-13 years old 14-15 years old

3. Do you have access to a computer with Internet at home? Do you have a computer with Internet at home? Yes No

4. Which type of device do you use to access the Internet? What kind of device do you use when you want to surf the Internet? Mobile-phone Computer Laptop ipad Tablet

5. Which type of textbook do you prefer? What kind of book do you prefer? Hardcover book Online book

6. How often do you use technology in the English class? Everyday Once a week Twice a week Once a month Twice a month

7. How often does your English homework require a computer/Internet? How often do you need a computer/the Internet when doing your English homework? Everyday Once a week Twice a week Once a month Twice a month

8. When your homework does require a computer/Internet, how much time does your assignment take? How much time do you need to do your homework when you use a computer/the Internet? 10 – 25 minutes 30 – 60 minutes 60 + minutes

9. My English teacher does a good job in including technology into the lesson. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. Do you feel that you have enough experience and knowledge to properly use and adapt to changes in technology? Do you think that you have enough experience in technology and know how to use it? Yes No Not sure

11. Using technology in English class gives me the opportunity to discuss and exchange information with my classmates. Using technology in English class offers me the chance to discuss and share information with my classmates. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. I believe that using technology in the English classroom is a useful learning tool. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. How much do you think technology contributes to education? Do you think technology helps education? Not at all A Little Pretty Much Too Much

14. What are the benefits of technology in education? (you can choose more than one answer) What are the advantages of using technology in education? Group Feeling Knowledge Sharing Opportunity Getting to Know Your Classmates Organization Other Teamwork

15. What do you think are the challenges of using technology in education? (you can choose more than one answer) What are the disadvantages of using technology in education? Privacy Policy Expectations (pressure) Loss of spontaneity Other You don’t have privacy You feel pressured by your environment You don’t feel free

16. Has your English teacher suggested a technology tool to help with your homework? Yes (which one?)______No

17. How much time do you spend on social media ( Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snaptchat, YouTube etc.) in a week? None Less than 5 hours 5-10 hours More than 10 hours

18. Why are you using social media? (you can choose more than one answer) Why do you use social media? To communicate with friends and family To learn about news and events To meet new people To fill up spare time To find funny or entertaining content To share photos/videos with others

Appendix B

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATIONS

ΜA in DIGITAL MEDIA, COMMUNICATION &JOURNALISM

Questions for teachers 1. Gender 2. What is your age group? 22-30 31-45 46-59 60+ 3. What is the level of your studies? 4. How many years have you been teaching English? 5. What levels do you teach? 6. In which sector do you currently work? 7. Do you use technology and social media in the classroom? 8. How long have you been using technology in your teaching? 9. Which technology tools and types do you prefer to use and how often? 10. Why do you use technology-based tools in your English teaching context? 11. How do you integrate technology in your teaching? 12. Do you prefer using dedicated (E-book, interactive whiteboard, etc) or non-dedicated (e-mail services, blogging, Skype calls, etc) technological tools? 13. Have you ever been officially trained in integration of technology in EFL? If yes, was it a personal choice, an obligation or was it due to an employer's encouragement? 14. Do you plan to start/continue being officially trained in integrating technology in your teaching? 15. What’s your opinion about the implementation of the Web 2.0 tools and services in the Greek school context?

16. Do you need the help of an expert user to handle the Web 2.0 tools and services? 17. What’s your opinion about the educational value of the Web 2.0 tools and services? 18. What roles do you think technology and social media can play in developing English language education? 19. In your opinion, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of using technology and social media to teach and learn English in the classroom? 20. Do you assign to your students tasks that require the use of technology? If so, how would you describe their feedback? 21. Do you get informed about the integration of technology in Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)?

Teachers’ questions (pilot testing)

1. Gender 2. What is your age group? 22-30 31-45 46-59 60+ 3. What is the level of your studies? 4. How many years have you been teaching English? 5. What linguistic levels do you teach? 6. In which sector do you currently work? 7. Do you use technology and social media in the classroom? If so, how often? 8. For how long have you been using technology in your teaching? 9. Which technology tools and types do you prefer to use and how often? 10. Why do you use technology-based tools in your English teaching context? 11. How do you integrate technology in your teaching? 12. Do you prefer using dedicated (E-book, interactive whiteboard, etc) or non-dedicated (e-mail services, blogging, skype calls, etc) technological tools? 13. Have you ever been officially trained in integration of technology in EFL? If yes, was it a personal choice, an obligation or was it due to an employer's encouragement? 14. Do you plan to start/continue being officially trained in integrating technology in your teaching? 15. What’s your opinion about the implementation of the Web 2.0 tools and services in the Greek school context? 16. Do you need the help of an expert user to handle the Web 2.0 tools and services? 17. What’s your opinion about the educational value of the Web 2.0 tools and services? 18. What roles do you think technology and social media can play in developing English language education? 19. In your opinion, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of using technology and social media to learn English in the classroom? 20. Do you assign to your students tasks that require the use of technology? If so, how would you describe their feedback? 21. Do you get informed about the integration of technology in Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)? 22. Do you use sites or apps that are specifically designed for teaching and learning English? If yes, which ones?

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATIONS

ΜA in DIGITAL MEDIA, COMMUNICATION & JOURNALISM

Transcript of interviews with teachers

1. Gender

1st interviewee: Female 2nd interviewee: Female 3rd interviewee: Female

2. What is your age group? 22-30 31-45 46-59 60+

1st interviewee: 22-30 2nd interviewee: 46-59 3rd interviewee: 31-45

3. What is the level of your studies?

1st interviewee: “Okay, I um…have studied English literature and um…Language here in Athens [laughs] in Philosophi- sorry in the school of Philosophy actually.” 2nd interviewee: “University graduate, bachelor degree.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, I have done my Bachelor in English Language and Literature and my Master is again in Management of English Language Learning.”

4. How many years have you been teaching English?

1st interviewee: “Okay, uhh…I have been teaching English um…for five years.” 2nd interviewee: “Over thirty years.” 3rd interviewee: “For nineteen years.”

5. What levels do you teach?

1st interviewee: “I teach um…from A1 level and pre-junior level uhh…to C2 level.” 2nd interviewee: “All levels, from beginners right up to IELs, GRE, university students and so on.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, actually all levels, from beginners up to C2 level.”

6. In which sector do you currently work?

1st interviewee: “Okay, I am in a language center here in Athens and um… it is a private center.” 2nd interviewee: “In the private sector, I have a business, a language school.” 3rd interviewee: “I work at a private secondary school.”

7. Do you use technology and social media in the classroom?

1st interviewee: “Of course yes, because I think that it is very important to use um… technology and all the types of social media in the classroom.” 2nd interviewee: “Yes, we use technology and social media in the classroom.” 3rd interviewee: “Yes, we use mainly ipads, ehh…each student has their own ipad, uhh…we use the interactive whiteboard, the LMS(Learning Management System).”

8. How long have you been using technology in your teaching?

1st interviewee: “Eh since I started.” 2nd interviewee: “Ever since I opened the school in 1990.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, it’s for about ten years, it might be nine but maximum ten.”

9. Which technology tools and types do you prefer to use and how often?

1st interviewee: “Okay, uhh…I use the smartboard of course, tablets, some platforms like edu4schools, okay so and uh…I try to use them on a daily basis.”

2nd interviewee: “Technology tools, we use computers, we use interactive whiteboards, um…on a daily basis. We also have platforms which we use on a daily basis.” 3rd interviewee: “Ehh…ok, we use the ipads a lot, um…especially the students, I use the computer, my laptop more frequently. More specifically, we use mind maps, we use sites for vocabulary practice, we use videos and PowerPoint presentations, the interactive whiteboard, the social media, sometimes.”

10. Why do you use technology-based tools in your English teaching context?

1st interviewee: “Um…in order to uhh…attract the students’ attention, okay this is the most important thing of course in order to uh… teach them ehh…new vocabulary okay, or we usually use the smartboard to play games. Through these games they learn how to use the language in a correct way.” 2nd interviewee: “I believe technology helps to make learning more comprehensive and it actually helps in recycling uhh…in the English language teaching-uhh…it helps you recycle vocabulary, hear authentic people speaking in real situations so it’s a window to the world in the classroom I would say.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, actually it is a way to motivate students and to engage them. It also saves time ehh…because the material that appears on the interactive whiteboard, well there is a specific tool that you can show the answers of the questions just by pressing a button and without writing them, so it saves a lot of time.”

11. How do you integrate technology in your teaching?

1st interviewee: “Oh well, ehh…every book that um…we usually um…use ehh…it has its own material uhh…digital material and more particularly, e-books. Okay, um…then we usually use here in this language center some tablets ehh…that have some extra activities, extra stories, so okay we try to use uhh…all these aids and all these tools in every lesson.” 2nd interviewee: “Ehh…via social media as we said, I upload many interesting videos and articles on my Facebook and Instagram, we have a school Facebook and I often use it in the classroom to show them a small video but not only that, we also show different videos from Youtube. Also, BBC and CNN are part of our classroom; today for example, we discussed with the proficiency class the reasons why Turkey has invaded Siria. So, the students uhh…watched three videos, two from BBC and one from CNN and they were really interested, motivated. What I am going to do with these videos is that I upload them on our platform, students have access to this platform and as an assignment they will watch the videos again over the weekend and I have asked them to write an article on Turkey’s invasion, so it really helps integrate what’s happening out there with my classes cause learning a language is not just from school books. Language is everywhere.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, as I said before, students have their own ipads, they can take notes um…they have the book in an electronic form so they can take notes on it, I ask them to find documents on the LMS-I upload documents on the LMs- we can start conversations in this platform, I also use videos a lot and PowerPoint presentations, so it’s pretty much it.”

12. Do you prefer using dedicated (E-book, interactive whiteboard, etc) or non-dedicated (e-mail services, blogging, Skype calls, etc) technological tools?

1st interviewee: “I prefer using dedicated, like e-books, interactive whiteboard, tablets of course.” 2nd interviewee: “Well, I use mainly dedicated but we have engaged in non-dedicated uhh…technological tools. For example, skype calls, talking with other classrooms in other cities of Greece or all over the world but more often the dedicated.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, to tell you the truth, dedicated mainly. We use non-dedicated ones occasionally like Skype or e-mail services, uhh…blogging-no I wouldn’t say that we use blogging, Skype yes, we use it, we have um…contacted other schools abroad or ehh…there are cases in which we had a student who was absent for long and then we had an interaction through Skype.”

13. Have you ever been officially trained in integration of technology in EFL? If yes, was it a personal choice, an obligation or was it due to an employer's encouragement?

1st interviewee: “No, uhh…I haven’t but I have attended uhh…some um seminars.” 2nd interviewee: “Well, I have actually graduated from-I have done studies in mathematical and computer sciences, so I have got two bachelors, so that’s mainly helped me but when I studied that was back in the late 1980s, technology was different then but I have been keeping up to date on my own because of my interest in technology, because I have got two bachelors, I have finished English Lit in Australia and in Greece I have finished Maths specializing in computer programming. Uhh…that’s the reason why since I opened the school in 1990 I have always had computers in the school for students’ use and I have been keeping up to date following seminars, keeping up with the trends through internet of course, so that is what I do; I surf on the net, find how I can integrate um…technology within our EFL. So for me it was a personal choice, nobody obliged me since I have been doing it since 1990.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, yes I have been officially trained in my Master Degree and well, uhh…it was actually a combination of personal choice and obligation let’s say, due to the employer’s encouragement. Well, it all started when uhh…the school decided to um…integrate technology in teaching, ehh…so I thought that I had to do something because I was left-well I used my computer but only for personal reasons and not in the classroom, ehh…so I thought that it was a good chance, opportunity to do something so my MA included integrating technology.”

14. Do you plan to start/continue being officially trained in integrating technology in your teaching?

1st interviewee: “Of course, I am very interested in technology and in new technological applications because I think that it’s very important to use them when we teach.”

2nd interviewee: “Of course, we never stop learning so we get trained cause I am interested in integrating, I attend seminars whenever I can, which is about integrating technology in teaching but also I am so interested in um…revolutionary teaching let’s say, I want to be different, I want to be ahead of the times because we are teaching the future generations, so we cannot teach with past techniques only. We can combine, keep the good techniques of the past and combine them with the future trends but we have got to be very very selective and make them interesting. When I see my students’ interest falling because we have to finish certain activities in the grammar or certain vocab exercises which they find boring, I have to put some magic in the classroom and this is when I go and find something on the spur of the moment because through the lesson we might come up with the word war and then I would say ‘ok there is a war happening now in Siria, could one of you on your smartphones google CNN and BBC and let’s find it and let’s watch it.’ That’s what happened today, okay, I don’t believe in lesson plans, I do believe in looking at your students, looking at their faces and seeing what motivates them and what not, because we could write a lesson plan that students do not like and they are not learning cause they are not happy and automatically I saw my class sooo focused and so involved and when I asked them to write a 300 word article on Turkey’s invasion in Siria they were happy to do it. If you are to give your students a normal essay, a topic they say ‘oh my god I don’t want to do this’ that’s what I mean, you gotta bring magic in the classroom and I believe technology helps in that so…” 3rd interviewee: “Yes we do it, okay quite frequently I would say. Well, there are seminars every year, we try to keep up to date so…”

15. What’s your opinion about the implementation of the Web 2.0 tools and services in the Greek school context?

1st interviewee: “I think it is very useful.” 2nd interviewee: “Well, I don’t think they are implemented in the public Greek school context but in the private sector yes, we do implement them.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, that’s a huge discussion. It’s useful generally, uhh…it is really motivating as long as you can have the necessary equipment, so generally speaking, students have become very competent users of technology but to tell you the truth, you cannot rely exclusively on technology. I think there should be a balance between traditional methods and modern ones. So from my experience, I think that it has a lot of advantages-using technology has a lot of advantages- but uhh…I think you need to use it wisely ehh…in order to have a positive effect on students.”

16. Do you need the help of an expert user to handle the Web 2.0 tools and services?

1st interviewee: “Yes, I think that I need um…some help from an expert but uhh…sometimes I can use them, it depends on the tool of course.” 2n interviewee: “No no, I uhh…usually google, when I don’t know how to use something I google how to do this, how to install, how to use so…it is very helpful. For example today, I wanted to do something on my Facebook, so um…I just googled how to blah blah blah and I found it in five minutes and I did it.”

17. What’s your opinion about the educational value of the Web 2.0 tools and services?

1st interviewee: “I think it is valuable, it is veryyy um…useful okay, and it has educational value because students can learn uhh…by using them.” 2nd interviewee: “I am obviously for all these-I am in favor of the tools, any tools that help technology in the classroom.” 3rd interviewee: “Well, as I said before they are very useful as long as they are used appropriately and wisely, so due to the fact that there is a huge amount of material ehh…on the web and generally you have a lot of tools –electronic tools-, you have to be selective, you have to always check the reliability of the tools and services, umm..so you should always try and choose ehh…you have to-to choose the appropriate tools for every classroom, I mean not everything applies to all classes, okay so…”

18. What roles do you think technology and social media can play in developing English language education?

1st interviewee: “I think that ehh…technology and all the social media can play a very vital role because all the students use technologi-uhh…technology in their everyday life, so I think it is very important to umm…use them and try to teach them through them.” 2nd interviewee: “It’s what I said before, it’s the window in the classroom to the real world, actually bring with interactive whiteboard connected to uhh…Google, um…and social media you can bring the world in the classroom.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, great role, ehh…um…nowadays with the help of technology, actually students have access to authentic material and they can interact with native speakers of English, so all these videos and social media eh…and blogs help them improve their performance in all four skills-reading, speaking, writing and listening- and they can also practice on areas like grammar ehh…however again we have to be careful with the-the quality of the material.”

19. In your opinion, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of using technology and social media to teach and learn English in the classroom?

know how to write an essay for example or a short paragraph, because the most important thing for them is to use their tablet and this is the most important and basic value in order to learn something.” 2nd interviewee: “Well, I would say the only disadvantages here if there is uhh…if your computer crashes, if you have got technical problems, I think that’s the other disadvantage, ehh…when we focus on a topic we never look at one source, this is what I tell my students, when we searched for material about today’s topic we actually found sources in five different uhh…sites so I try to ehh…the disadvantages of fake news which is obviously a disadvantage, we try to divert this by finding let’s say topics on five, ten different sites.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, definitely its engagement, it engages students. Ehh…it prepares them for their professional career, their studies at universities and um…they become independent learners, uhh…it helps um…you know…ehh…become more ehh… [long pause] cooperative. They also learn useful life skills like how to manage social media, pages, research skills, ehh…how to send emails, it saves time as I said before, and you have access to authentic material, again something that I mentioned before. Now, the disadvantages is that because there is not a… you know… they don’t always use it wisely, they uhh…can be easily distracted, uhh…they tend to play games everytime they have the chance, so this is something that you need to work before a lot, before you start…you know…the uhh…actual lesson…you know… and I think it takes time, not everybody is ready.”

20. Do you assign to your students tasks that require the use of technology? If so, how would you describe their feedback?

1st interviewee: “Yes of course. Here in this language center, uhh…we have a platform edu4schools ,uhh…so…uhh…many times we ask our students to um…visit this platform and of course to do some exercises, to watch a video and I think that they like it very much, all this process.” 2nd interviewee: “Oh yes. They are very motivated, they are uhh…I do ask them um…we also have as I said a platform where I have ehh…material on the platform, uhh…they do their activities and the feedback is very good.” 3rd interviewee: “Okay, we have ehh…we use sites like Quizlet or Mindmaps and I assign um…I use links for articles so that they can read ehh…I ask them to make research for their projects, they make PowerPoint presentations as well and uhh…they are actually excited when they have to do something that involves computers and technology, they are excited. It’s something that comes naturally to them, it’s something that they were raised with so…”

21. Do you get informed about the integration of technology in Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)?

1st interviewee: “Yes of course, I try to attend some seminars in order to uhh…get informed, uhh…so I think it is very important to get informed in new ways of using technology in the classroom.”

2nd interviewee: “Obviously yes. Most of the time um…in my free time I do get informed, uhh…either through social media or searching. Seminars yes as well, but they are mainly not conducted in Greece. Greece is behind, very much behind and what we do, we do it in the private sector, um…I feel that even the university students, because I have a platform and I have material on, the IELs courses for example, I have found that only two out of ten use my platform and that really surprises me. University graduates, I had to push them in saying that ‘I am not going to correct your test, you do it on the platform’, I threatened them, which I find somehow the Greek students-the Greek um…people in education are afraid to use it. I think it is due to their lack of being informed.” 3rd interviewee: “Yes, mainly through seminars, webinars and our uhh…school is also a Microsoft School, so we have access to a lot of Microsoft tools, they uhh…we have training and we see how they can be integrated in the EFL classes…so yes. This year we introduced the Teams application if you are aware of that. It has something that has everything, it’s like uhh…instamessaging, it has ehh…it’s a combination of an LMS, instamessaging…ehh…um…you can write, you can upload videos, you can actually- yes it’s a platform- you can actually do everything there.”