Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 ...rpltl.eap.gr/images/2016/07-01-046-Karkoulia.pdf · Web 2.0. Key words: teachers’ attitudes, Web 2.0 integration, normalisation,

46

ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearningVol.7,No.1,February2016,46-74ISSN:1792-1244Availableonlineathttp://rpltl.eap.grThisarticleisissuedundertheCreativeCommonsLicenseDeed.Attribution3.0Unported(CCBY3.0)

Teachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching

ΗστάσητωνκαθηγητώναπέναντιστηνενσωμάτωσητωνεργαλείωνWeb2.0στηδιδασκαλίατηςΑγγλικήςωςξένηςγλώσσας

Kostoula-ChristinaKARKOULIAThepurposeofthispaperistoinvestigateteachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0 tools in EFL teaching and whether this integration is close to ‘normalisation’. Theresearchaimsat indicatingwhichWeb2.0toolsteachersuse,howoftenandhowtheyusethem.Itinvestigatesthebarriersthatrestrictteachersfromusingtheminclassandpossiblesolutionstoo.Forthepurposesofthisstudyaquestionnairewasdesignedandadministeredto135EFL teachers inGreece.According to the research findings, themajorityof teachershavepositiveattitudes.Theyhaverealisedthatsinceweliveinadigital,multiculturalworld,educationshouldequipstudentswith21stcenturyskills,NewLiteraciesandpromoteCulturalPluralism. Moreover, educators are near ‘normalisation’ and use tools such as YouTube,Google Sites, blogs, andwikis. However, the frequencywithwhich teachers use them, thelack of training/technological equipment in many cases, and the fact that Web 2.0technologies are not part of the syllabus indicate thatWeb 2.0 tools have not taken theirrightfulplaceineducationyet.Teachers’positiveattitudesneedtobecombinedwithaseriesofmeasuresthatwillfacilitatetheuseofWeb2.0tools.

�ΟσκοπόςαυτήςτηςεργασίαςείναιναδιερευνήσειτηστάσητωνκαθηγητώναπέναντιστηνενσωμάτωσητωνεργαλείωνWeb2.0στηδιδασκαλίατηςΑγγλικήςωςξένηςγλώσσαςκαιαναυτή η ενσωμάτωση πλησιάζει την ‘ομαλοποίηση’. Η έρευνα στοχεύει να υποδείξει ποιαεργαλείαχρησιμοποιούνοικαθηγητές,πόσοσυχνάκαιπώςταχρησιμοποιούν.Εξετάζειταεμπόδια που περιορίζουν τους καθηγητές να τα χρησιμοποιούν στη τάξη καθώς επίσηςπιθανές λύσεις. Για τους σκοπούς αυτής της έρευνας σχεδιάστηκε και χορηγήθηκε έναερωτηματολόγιοσε135καθηγητέςτηςΑγγλικήςστηνΕλλάδα.Σύμφωναμεταερευνητικάευρήματα,ηπλειοψηφίατωνκαθηγητώνέχουνθετικήστάση.Έχουνσυνειδητοποιήσειότιαφούζούμεσ’ένανψηφιακό,πολυπολιτισμικόκόσμοηεκπαίδευσηθαπρέπειναεξοπλίσειτουςμαθητέςμεδεξιότητεςτου21ουαιώνα,νέεςμορφέςγραμματισμούκαιναπροωθήσει

Karkoulia/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning7/1(2016)46-74

47

τονπολιτιστικόπλουραλισμό. Επίσης, οι εκπαιδευτικοίπλησιάζουν την ‘ομαλοποίηση’ καιχρησιμοποιούν εργαλεία όπως τα YouTube, Google Sites, blogs και wikis. Ωστόσο, ησυχνότητα με την οποία τα χρησιμοποιούν, η έλλειψη εκπαίδευσης/τεχνολογικούεξοπλισμούσεπολλέςπεριπτώσειςκαιτογεγονόςότιητεχνολογίαWeb2.0δενείναιμέροςτουαναλυτικούπρογράμματοςσπουδώνυποδεικνύουνότιταεργαλείαWeb2.0δενέχουνπάρει ακόμα τη θέση που τους αξίζει στην εκπαίδευση. Η θετική στάση των καθηγητώνπρέπεινασυνδυαστείμεμίασειράμέτρωνπουθαδιευκολύνουντηχρήσητωνεργαλείωνWeb2.0.Keywords: teachers’attitudes,Web2.0 integration,normalisation,21stcenturyskills,newliteracies,culturalpluralism.1.IntroductionOver the last years the rapid growth of technology has affected our life drastically. TheInternet,computers,mobilephones,socialmedia,andalltheothertoolsofthedigitalagehavebecomean integralpartofourdaily life. Especially youngpeople,whowereborn inthis digital age, are increasingly competent with technology and have their own style oflearningandcommunicating(Prensky,2001).Furthermore,thiseraischaracterisednotonlyby the digital revolution but also the rapid growth of multicultural communities. In thedigitalageofculturaldiversitystudentsneedtodevelopseveralskillsanddifferentliteraciestocopewiththeneedsofachangingworld.AretheEFLteachersawareofthisnewrealityandtowhatextentdotheyuseWeb2.0toolstopreparestudentsforthisreality?SeveralstudieshavebeenconductedonWeb2.0toolsandtheinterestintheirpedagogicalvaluekeepsincreasing(Crooket.al.,2008;D’Souza,2007;Katerini,2013;Kontogeorgi,2014;Paroussi,2014).However,teachers’attitudestowardsWeb2.0technologieshavenotbeenwidelyinvestigatedintheGreekEFLcontext.Thepresentresearchattemptstoshedlightonteachers’ attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 tools and explore whether thisintegrationiscloseto‘normalisation’(Bax,2003).

2.21stCenturyEducation2.1.Digitalnatives-digitalimmigrantsAsPrensky(2001,p.1)states ‘ourstudentshavechangedradically.Today’sstudentsarenolonger the people our educational system was designed for’. Nowadays, learners areincreasingly competent with technology. As a result of this situation, learners think andprocess information in a differentway from the students of thepast. Today’s children areknownas ‘DigitalNatives’ since theywereborn inadigitalageandhave theirownuniquestyle of learning and communicating (ibid.). They perceive information very fast and feelcomfortablewhen they are in front of a computer. They like challenging, interesting tasksandprefervisualsbefore text rather than theopposite. Inaddition, theuseof InformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)hasbrokentheworldboundaries.TheWebenablesstudentsto interactwithpeoplefromallovertheworld, joinonlinecommunitiesandhaveaccesstoworldwideliterature,science,musicandotherarts(SleeterandTettagah,2002).


48

In this digital ageof cultural diversity studentsneed todevelop several skills anddifferentliteracies to cope with the needs of a changing world. It is therefore worth investigatingwhetherEFLteachersarepreparedtofacethisrealityandmeetstudents’needs.Educatorsbelong to a more traditional generation. Prensky (2001, p.2) describes them as ‘DigitalImmigrants’ since theywere not born in the digital world butwere familiarisedwith newtechnologiesat some laterpoint in their lives (ibid.). Educatorsare challenged toadjust tothe new reality, change theway they teach and embrace technology in order tomotivatestudents.Activeandcollaborativemethodsofteachingcouldequipstudentswithnecessaryskills for their future professional life such as teamwork and project/problem solving(Cameron,2001;Wang,2010).

2.2.Newliteracies21stcenturyeducationshouldfocusnotonlyonthedevelopmentofthetraditionalliteraciesbutalsoonthenecessaryskillsandliteraciesofthedigitalage.Educatorshavetocaterfortheneedsofpupilslivingandlearninginadigital,multiculturalworldanddevelop‘newliteracies’too (Sylvester and Greenidge, 2009, p.284). New literacies include the skills, stategies, andknowledgenecessary to successfullyuseandadapt to the rapidly changing ICT.This kindofliteracyallowsustocomprehendandinteractwithtechnologyinameaningfulway(Leuetal.,2004;Coiro,2003).Moreover,creativity,challengingallformsofintelligence(Gardner,1993),higher-orderthinking,projectmanagement,collaboration,teamworkandcriticalthinking,arenecessaryskillsofmodernpeople.Morespecifically,21stcenturyskillsarebeingdescribedasthecombinationofdigital,global,technology,visual, informationandmedialiteracy.Robin(2008,p.5)definesdigital literacyas‘theabilitytocommunicatewithanever-expandingcommunitytodiscussissues,gatherinformation,andseekhelp’;global literacy is ‘thecapacitytoread, interpret,respond,andcontextualize messages from a global perspective’; technology literacy is defined as ‘theability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity, andperformance’; visual literacy is ‘the ability to understand, produce, and communicatethrough visual images’ and information literacy is ‘the ability to find, evaluate, andsynthesizeinformation’.Asfarasmedialiteracy isconcerned,KellnerandShare(2007,p.4)arguethat‘itinvolvescultivatingskillsinanalyzingmediacodesandconventions,abilitiestocriticize stereotypes, dominant values, and ideologies, and competencies to interpret themultiplemeaningsandmessagesgeneratedbymediatexts’.Furthermore, Rosenberg (2010) argues that Internet-literate students are aware of thepotentialdangersoftheInternet.TheyrealisethattheInternetnotonlyempowerspeoplebutitmayalsoleadtotheir‘publicrejection,humiliation,contemptandoppression’(ibid.,p.8).PupilsmayusetheInternetinappropriatelyduetoalackofknowledgeregardinghowitworks,who controls it, and the effect that public information,messages, images or videomayhave.Therefore,teachersneedtopreparestudentstousetheInternetas‘asafe,justanddemocraticformofcommunication’(ibid.).

2.3.CulturalpluralismAnotheressentialelementof21stcenturyeducationisthepromotionofCulturalPluralismandthepreparationofstudentstobecomeeffectivecitizensofamulticulturalworld.Worldwidemigrationandglobalisationhavecausedtheincreaseofculturaldiversityinseveralcountriesaroundtheworld,includingGreece(BanksandBanks,2009).Therisingnumberofimmigrants


49

haschanged thecompositionof studentpopulation too (Sakka,2010).Consequently,anewschoolreality,withbothopportunitiesandchallenges,hasemerged.Cultural diversity provides both teachers and students the opportunity to become familiarwithdifferentculturesandopinions(Beckman-Brito,2003).However,culturaldiversitybringschallenges as well. For instance, in multicultural communities discrimination and injusticeoftenarise.Asaresult,theteacherhastheresponsibilitynotonlytoequipstudentswiththebasic language skills but also to manage cultural diversity, address possible conflicts, andintroducechildrento‘theculturalheterogeneitywhichshouldbeencouragedandrespected’(HossainandAydin,2011,p.117).AsBanksandBanks(2009,p.5)argue‘Theworld’sgreatestproblemsdonotresultfrompeoplebeingunabletoreadandwrite.Theyresultfrompeoplein theworld-fromdifferent cultures, races, religions, and nations-being unable to get alongandworktogethertosolvetheworld’sproblems’.Therefore, learnersgrowingand living inmulticultural societieshave todevelopknowledge,values, and skills needed toparticipate in cross-cultural interaction (Hossain&Aydin, 2011;Richards, 2001). Education should prepare pupils to participate in several different culturesand not merely the culture of the dominant social and economic group (Richards, 2001).CulturalPluralismseekstoredressracism,toraisetheself-esteemofminoritygroups,andtohelp learnersappreciatetheviewpointsofotherculturesandreligions(Uhrmacher,1993, inRichards, 2001). Multicultural education aims at producing critical thinkers and activemembersofademocraticsociety(HossainandAydin,2011).

Figure1:Schematicrepresentationoftheliteraturereview


50

3.Web2.0toolsinEFLteaching3.1.NormalisationandCALLComputerassistedlanguagelearning(CALL)couldpreparestudentsforthisrapidlychangingworld (see Figure 1). Web 2.0 technologies are some of the most influential CALLapplicationsthatcanbevaluablepedagogicaltools.However,theyarenotenoughontheirowntoenhanceEFLteaching.Researchintohowteachersdealwiththisinnovationandhowthis operates and becomes integrated into the daily teaching practice is valuable since itcould help CALL become more effective (Chambers and Bax, 2006). If teachers are tomaximise the benefits of Web 2.0 tools, they need to move towards a state of‘normalisation’(Bax,2003,p.13).Bax refers to threeapproaches (2003,p.8): ‘RestrictedCALL’, ‘OpenCALL’,and ‘IntegratedCALL’(seeAppendixII).AccordingtoBax,wehaven’treachedthefinalstagewhichleadsto‘normalisation’. Bax (2003, p.23) defines this concept as ‘the stage when a technology isinvisible,hardlyevenrecognisedasatechnology,takenforgrantedineverydaylife’.BasedonRogers(1995),Baxlistssevenstagesofnormalisation(2003,p.24-25):‘EarlyAdopters’,‘Ignorance/skepticism’, ‘Try once’, ‘Try again’, ‘Fear/awe’, ‘Normalising’, and‘Normalisation’.AsfarastheGreekEFLcontextisconcerned,arecentresearchhasshownthatteachersareinOpenCALLandNormalisingstage(Spiris,2014).Teachersgraduallyviewtechnology as something normal. However, technology is still not embedded in theireverydayteachingpracticeandtherefore,notnormalised(Bax,2003).3.2.UsesandbenefitsofWeb2.0toolsSomeofthemostrecentandinfluentialCALLapplicationsthatcanbeusedineducationandequipstudentswith21stcenturyskillsaretheWeb2.0tools.Overthe lastyearstherehasbeen growing interest in the use ofWeb 2.0 tools and the teachers’ perceptions of theirpedagogical benefits (Yuen and Yuen, 2008). Hundreds of Web 2.0 tools1 have emergedoffering limitless opportunities for creative interaction and their number keeps increasing(Anderson,2007;Tunks,2012).To begin with, the term Web 2.0 was introduced in 2004 by Dale Dougherty during aconference brainstorming session about the Web. He noted that ‘the web was moreimportant than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprisingregularity’ (O’Reilly, 2007, p.1) and thenO’Reilly attempted to clarifywhat theymean byWeb2.0.AccordingtoD’Souza(2007),therehasbeenashiftfromaWorldWideWebthatis‘readonly’,toaWebthatisbeingdescribedasthe‘ReadWriteWeb’.Webcontentusedtobeforthemostpartstaticbutnowusershavetheopportunitytodevelopitcollaboratively.TheWebisevolvingtobecomemorelikeanareaforsocialandideanetworking.More specifically, in the Web 2.0 era the Web has been transformed from a Web pagepublishing venue to a global network community where all users are invited to createcontent (Yuen and Yuen, 2008). This sense of community makes Web 2.0 technologiesvaluable pedagogical tools. Web 2.0 tools attract students’ attention and allow them tolearn as equal members of a community in which they interact with other users, shareknowledge,informationandeditwebcontentfromanywhere,anytime(HossainandAydin,2011).Belonging toa communityof learners createsa senseof trust,anobligation to thegroupanddeterminationthatthegoalscanbeachieved(Parker&Chao,2007;Tunks,2012).


51

Moreover, research has shown that online communities provide a less stressful learningenvironment in which students, especially those who are usually shy or passive in thetraditionalclass,aremotivated toparticipateanddevelopawide rangeof skills (Sumakul,2014).Morespecifically,Web2.0toolsnotonlyincreaselanguageinput/output,butalsodevelopavarietyoflifeskills.Accordingtoresearch,theypromotesharing,collaboration,interaction,socialisation,creativity,autonomy,andtherefore,allowteacherstoempowerstudentsandcreate an active, motivating and exciting learning environment (Kontogeorgi, 2014).Furthermore,Web 2.0 tools promoteNew Literacies and equip learnerswith 21st centuryskills. In particular, they enhance creative and inventive thinking, challenging all forms ofintelligences, higher-order thinking, communication, teamwork, project management(Fleming,2000),researchskills,andenduringunderstandings.Inaddition,Web2.0toolsincreasestudents’motivation.Themoremotivatedstudentsare,the more the chances they will do well in English. Most researches actually confirm thatthere is ahigh correlationbetweenmotivationandachievement (Nunanand Lamb,1996).Learnersaremotivatedsincetheyhavetheopportunitytousedigitaltoolstheyarefamiliarwithandgetinvolvedinauthentictasks.Theyexpresstheirownvoice,creatematerialsandshare them not only with their classmates but also with the whole world. Moreover,communicatingwitharealglobalaudiencemakesstudentsmorecreativeandthoughtfulincontent and structure of an assignment (Godwin-Jones, 2003; Vlachos, 2006;Warschauer,2010).Furthermore,thisopennessandcollaborativenatureofWeb2.0toolsofferunlimitedpossibilities to promote Cultural Pluralism. Web 2.0 tools expose students to differentcultures and promotemutual understanding, tolerance, respect for identities, and culturaldiversity through more effective international communication (Hossain and Aydin, 2011;Richards,2011).ItisevidentthatWeb2.0technologiesarevaluablepedagogicaltoolssincetheycouldequipstudents with all the above mentioned skills and values. However, according to priorresearch, the majority of teachers rarely integrate technology in their teaching practice(Katerini, 2013; Spiris, 2014).When they do, theymainly use Social Networking Sites andespeciallyYouTube (Spiris,2014;Yuenetal.,2011).A smallnumberof teachersuseothertoolssuchasblogs,wikis,GoogleDrive,GoogleSites,andSkype.3.3.Teachers’attitudesAllthebenefitsofWeb2.0toolsthathavebeendiscussedsofarcannotberealisedwithoutconsideringteachers’attitudes.IntegratingICTinteachingisacomplexprocessthatrequirescarefulconsideration.Bullock(2004)arguesthatteachers’positiveornegativeattitudescanserveasenablingordisablingfactorsthataffectthesuccessfulintegrationoftechnologyinEFL teaching. Player-Koro (2007) supports the idea that attitudes guide behaviours.Therefore,teacherswhohavepositiveattitudesaremorelikelytouseWeb2.0toolsinclass(Albirini, 2006). On the contrary, negative attitudes limit the potential of Web 2.0. Forinstance, if teacherssee littleconnectionbetweentechnologiesandtheirpedagogicaluse,theyarehesitanttouseWeb2.0toolsandviewconventionalmethodsofteachingasmoreeffective(Albion,2008,inKaleandGoh,2014).According to prior research, most teachers have positive attitudes towards educationaltechnology(Spiris,2014;Hadjirigas,2012)andparticularlyWeb2.0tools(Crooketal.,2008;


52

Katerini,2013).Crooketal.(2008)foundthat53,9%ofteachersinEnglandagreethatWeb2.0 tools support effective collaborative learning and 58.5%believe that popularWeb2.0toolsshouldbeusedmoreinclass.Furthermore,arecentstudybyKaterini(2013)showedthatthevastmajorityofGreekEFLteachershavepositiveattitudesaswell.TeachersagreethatWeb2.0toolsattractstudents’attention, improvetheir languageskillsandencourageactiveparticipation.Moreover, theybelieve thatweb-based lessonssupportdifferentiatedinstruction,increasestudents’motivationandenhancecollaborationskills.Nevertheless, a small number of teachers are unsure about the above mentionedstatements(ibid.).Furthermore,accordingtoCrookatal.(2008)someteachersbelievethatthe Internet distracts students and generally have a fear that technology has a negativeinfluenceoneducation/society. It isargued that teachers’attitudesbecomemorepositivewith training and experience (Chen et al., 2008, in Yuen et al., 2011). Through trainingteachersincreasetheirabilities,perceivethebenefitsofWeb2.0toolsineducationandareabletopreparestudentsforademanding,digitalworld(Simon,2008, inYuenetal.,2011;Jones,2004).

3.4.BarriersandpossiblesolutionsIt is evident that the integration ofWeb 2.0 tools in EFL teaching is a quite complex andchallengingprocess.Asithasalreadybeenhighlightedteachers’negativeattitudeslimitthepotentialofWeb2.0.However,teachers’resistancetochangecannotbemerelytheresultof their beliefs. Their training, the school equipment, and their working conditions mayaffectthewaytheyviewtechnology.Inotherwords,theirnegativeattitude‘isactuallyonlyasymptomofotherbarrierstotheuseofICT’(Jones,2004,p.17).Accordingtopriorresearch,amajorbarrier isthelackofschoolequipment(Albirini,2006;Crook, 2008; Hadjirigas, 2012; Jones, 2004; Spiris, 2014). More specifically, the lack ofcomputers in the classroom, the restricted access to computer labs, slow or no Internetaccess,technicalproblems,andlackoftechnicalsupportareviewedassignificantproblems(ibid.).Furthermore,timepressureandclassroommanagementproblemsseemtoaffectthesuccessfulintegrationoftechnologyinteaching(Hadjirigas,2013;Jones,2004).Twomoreimportantbarriersthatteachersindicatearetheirlackoftrainingandconfidence.TeacherswhoarenotskilledenoughinusingICTsfeelanxiousaboutusingtheminaclassofstudentswhobelongtoadigitalgenerationandprobablyaremorefamiliarwithtechnologythantheyare.Therefore, theiranxietymakesthem lesswillingtousenewtechnologies inclass(Jones,2004).Takingintoconsiderationalltheabovementionedbarriers,itisevidentthatseveralchangesarenecessaryineducation.Firstofall,allschoolsneedtobetechnologicallyequippedandprovide thenecessary support to students and teachers aswell (Spiris, 2014). In addition,the use ofWeb 2.0 tools should be a part of the syllabus. Consequently, teacherswouldhave the necessary time to use Web 2.0 technology and accept it as a normal part ofteaching.Lastbutnotleast,teachertrainingwouldmaketeachersfeelmoreconfidentandreadytopreparestudentsforachallenging,digitalworld.


53

4.Researchmethodology4.1.TheresearchpurposeThepurposeoftheresearchistoinvestigateteachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0tools inEFLteachingandwhetherthis integration iscloseto ‘normalisation’(Bax,2003).Morespecifically,theresearcherattemptstogiveanswerstothefollowingquestions:

1. WhichWeb2.0toolsteachersuseinEFLteaching?HowoftenandhowdotheyuseWeb2.0tools?

2. What are the teachers’ attitudes towards the integration ofWeb 2.0 tools in EFLteaching?

3. Whatare thebarriers thatmay restrict teachers from integratingWeb2.0 tools inEFLteaching?

4. IstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteachingcloseto‘normalisation’?5. Whatarethepossiblesolutionstoovercomethebarrierstotheeffectiveintegration

ofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching?4.2.TheresearchtoolFor the purposes of this research a questionnaire was designed (see Appendix I). Theresearcherdesignedthequestionnaireaftertakingintoconsiderationtheresearchquestionsandtherelevant literaturereview.Questions11-13and15a-15farebasedonBax’s (2001,p.21) key dimensions regarding ‘Restricted, Open and Integrated CALL’ (see Appendix II).Closed-ended questionnaire items enable the researcher to collect specific information,structured data suited for quantitative, statistical analysis (Dörnyei, 2003; Cohen et al.,2007). Few open-ended clarification questions were included too. The questionnaire waspilot-testedonasmallnumberofteachersbeforetakingitsfinalform.Pilotingisanessentialpart of the questionnaire construction since it increases the reliability2, validity3 andpracticabilityofthequestionnaire(Dörnyei,2003;Cohenetal.,2007).

4.3.Sampleselection,questionnaireadministrationandstatisticalanalysisConcerning the selection of an appropriate sample, the researcher opted for a non-probability sample. ‘A non-probability sample deliberately avoids representing the widerpopulation; itseeksonlytorepresentaparticulargroup,aparticularnamedsectionofthewiderpopulation’(Cohenetal.,2007,p.110).Thequestionnaire link4alongwithacover letterwassent toEFL teachers inGreeceviae-mail. Totally 135 educators (both from public and private sector) participated in theresearch.96teachersansweredthattheyuseWeb2.0toolsinteachingwhile39statedtheopposite.ThedatawereanalysedusingtheStatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences(IBMSPSS19).ItwasimportanttoestimatethereliabilityofeachLikertscalequestionconcerningteachers’ attitudes. Internal consistency reliability, namely ‘the homogeneity of the itemsmaking up the various multi-item scales within the questionnaire’ was measured by theCronbach Alpha coefficient (Dörnyei, 2003, p.85). The degree of contribution of eachquestiontothecoefficientwasestimatedtoo.Thevalueofthecoefficientrangesbetween0and1anddependsonthenumberofquestions(ibid.).Thereliabilitylevelisacceptedifitisabove0.70 (Cohenet al., 2007). The itemsof the fourth sectionof thequestionnairehadhigh internal consistency since theCronbachAlphawas0.889The results are summarisedandpresentedinthefollowingsection.


54

5.Presentationanddiscussionofresearchfindings5.1.WhichWeb2.0toolsteachersuseinEFLteaching?HowoftenandhowdotheyuseWeb2.0tools?According to the findings (see Figure 2), the majority of teachers (71.1%) use YouTube.YouTubehasbeenlistedasthemostpopularWeb2.0toolinpriorresearchtoo(Spiris,2014;Yuen et al., 2011). Teachers have a number of reasons to select YouTube since it is amotivational tool that not only supports language learningbut also enhances 21st centuryskills. It creates a learning community where everyone has a voice, participates, sharesvideos, explores new worlds, and interacts with other users (Duffy, 2007; Mullen &Wedwick, 2008;Watkins&Wilkins, 2011). Teachers also seem to prefer YouTube since itmeetsseveralcriteriathattheyconsiderimportant.Morespecifically,itaddsfun,creativitytothelearningprocess, it isonline,free,easytouseandprovidessecuritythroughprivacyoptions. It is popular among students and provides content appropriate to different agesandlevels.

Figure2:Web2.0toolsinEFLteaching

Moreover,asignificantnumberofteachersreportedthattheyuseGoogleSites,blogs,andwikis.ThereisnorelevantpriorresearchinGoogleSitessinceitisoneofthelatestWeb2.0tools. However, some participants opt for the particular tool. It gives students theopportunitytogetengagedincollaborativeworkandshareknowledge.Onthecontrary,intherecentyearstherehasbeenagrowinginterestinblogsandwikisandasthefindingsofthe present study indicate as well many EFL teachers in Greece are aware of their


55

pedagogical benefits (D’Souza, 2007; Fu et al., 2012; Godwin-Jones, 2003; Kontogeorgi,2014;Parker&Chao,2007;Yang,2009;Paroussi,2014).

Figure3:HowteachersuseWeb2.0toolsintheirteachingcontextAlthough Facebook, Twitter, Google+ are three popular sites among young people andpotentially powerful platforms for EFL teaching (Halvorsen, 2009), only a minority ofteachersstatedthattheyusethem.Nevertheless,21stcenturyeducationneedstoprepareInternet-literatestudentswhouseSNSswisely (Rosenberg,2010). Learnersbecomeawareof thebenefits,potentialdangersandtherefore,criticalof theiruse throughworkingwithsocialmediaundertheguidanceoftheteacher.Furthermore, it is worth noticing that although some new technologies can be powerfuleducational toolsonly fewteachersstated that theyuse them.Acharacteristicexample is


56

GoogleDrive,whichdespitethefactthatitisthehomeofseveralGoogleapplicationsthatallowuserstocreate,editcollaboratively,andsharevarioustypesoffileswithoutspaceandtime limitations, a small number of respondents reported that they integrate it in theirteachingpractice.Thissituationmaybetheresultoflackoftrainingontheuseofdifferentand new kinds ofWeb 2.0 tools. According to the research findings, the majority of therespondentswhoreportedthattheydonotuseICTsinclassaretheteachersthathavenotattended seminars/courses related to the integration of Web 2.0 tools. Therefore, it isevidentthattrainingwouldprepareeducatorstoadjusttothenewdigitalrealityanduseavarietyofWeb2.0tools.Concerningthefrequencywithwhichteachersusetechnology,previousstudiesintheGreekEFLcontext(Katerini,2013;Spiris,2014)haveshownthatmostteachersrarelyintegrateitintheir teaching practice. According to the findings of the present research this situationseems tohavebeen improved. Themajority (41.7%) claimed that theyuseWeb2.0 toolsonceortwiceaweek.However,onlyasmallminorityofteachers(7.8%)usethemeverydayindicating that still technology has not taken its rightful place in education (Bax, 2003;Warchauer&Healey,1998).AsfarastheusesofICTsareconcerned(seeFigure3),therelevantliteraturesupportsthatthere is a variety of ways that teachers can use Web 2.0 to equip students with bothlanguage and life skills (D’Souza, 2007; Godwin-Jones, 2003; Kontogeorgi, 2014; Paroussi,2014; Sumakul, 2014; Yuen&Yuen, 2008).According to the research, themajority of theparticipantsareawareofthesepotentials.Inparticular,mostteachersrespondedthattheyuse Web 2.0 tools to provide extra listening, speaking, reading, and writing practice,authenticonlineresourcesandaspresentationtools.Moreover,manyteachersusevideos,songsandimagesaswritingprompts.Additionally,asignificantnumberoftheparticipantsreportedthattheyuseWeb2.0toolstoexposestudentstodifferentculturesandstimulatemeaningful discussion. In this way, educators try to prepare students to become criticalthinkers and active members of a multicultural, democratic society (Hossain and Aydin,2011).5.2.Whataretheteachers’attitudestowardsthe integrationofWeb2.0tools inEFLteaching?Another finding that supports prior research (Crook et al., 2008; Katerini, 2013) is thatteachershavepositiveattitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching.Tobeginwith, 50.4% of the teachers strongly agree that the use ofWeb 2.0 tools creates amoreinterestingandfunlearningenvironment.Moreover,42.2%agreethatWeb2.0toolspromote sharing, collaboration, interaction, creativity, and socialisation. Most teachers(45.2%) also firmly believe that organising authentic taskswith the help ofWeb 2.0 toolsmotivates students. In addition, almost half of the respondents think thatWeb 2.0 toolsencourage students to actively construct knowledge (48.1%), enhance learner autonomy(44.4%) andmake students more creative and thoughtful in content and structure of anassignment (45.9%). Themajority of teachers (44.4%) also support the idea thatWeb 2.0toolschallengeallformsofintelligencesothatalllearnerscantakeadvantageoftheirownstrengths.Furthermore, 47.4% strongly agree that since we live in a digital world education shouldequip students with 21st century skills and New Literacies through Blended Learning.Additionally, most of the respondents (43%) firmly believe that research skills could bedeveloped through theuseofWeb2.0 toolsandproject-based learning.36.3%agree that


57

Web 2.0 tools give students the opportunity to express their own voice, however, asignificant percentage of teachers do not appear that sure (35.6% neither agree nordisagree). As far as Cultural Pluralism is concerned, 48.9% think that the openness andcollaborative nature of Web 2.0 tools could offer possibilities to promote interculturalawareness.Moreover,themajorityofteachers(47.4%)believethatWeb2.0basedlessonsincreaseL2inputandtheintegrationoflanguageskills.MostoftherespondentsfeelaswellthatWeb2.0toolsdevelopasenseofcommunitywherestudentscommunicatemeaningfully inrealcontexts (43%) and encourage shy students to participate (43.7%). Furthermore, mostteachers(39.3%)expresstheirdisagreementwiththestatementthatWeb2.0toolsdistractstudents.However,asignificantnumberofteachers(31.1%)appeartobeunsureaboutthismatter.Priorresearchsupportsthisfindingtoo(Crooketal.,2008).Undoubtedly,itisanadvantagethateducatorshavefavourableattitudestowardsWeb2.0.AsBullock (2004)argueseducators’positiveattitudes serveasenabling factors thataffectthe successful integration of technology in teaching. In other words, teachers who havepositiveattitudesaremore likely touseWeb2.0 tools (Albirini,2006).Teachers’attitudescould become evenmore positive through training and experience (Chen et al., 2008, inYuenetal.,2011).5.3. What are the barriers thatmay restrict teachers from integratingWeb 2.0toolsinEFLteaching?The integration ofWeb 2.0 tools in teaching is a complex and challenging process whichdoesnotdependonlyonteachers’attitudes.Therearealsoseveralbarriersthatmayhinderintegration (see Figure 4). Most problems that educators identified are similar to thoserevealedinpreviousstudiesconcerningeducationaltechnology(Albirini,2006;Jones,2004;Crook, 2008; Hadjirigas, 2012; Spiris, 2014).More specifically,most respondents considerthe lack of school equipment, time pressure/toomuch course bookmaterial to cover, noInternetaccess,and lackoftrainingandknowledgeasseriousproblems. Inaddition,someteachersclaimedthattheyhesitatetouseICTsbecauseofclassroommanagementproblemsandtheirlackoffreedomtocreatetheirownlessons.5.4.IstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolscloseto‘normalisation’?As far as the issue of ‘normalisation’ is concerned, a previous study (Spiris, 2014) placedmostteachersinthe‘OpenPlus’group.Atendencytowards‘normalisation’wasalsonoticedasmany respondents were classified in the ‘Near Normalisation’ group. According to thepresent research, themajorityof teachers (37)belong to the ‘NearNormalisation’group.5

Theyappear tobe in the ‘normalising stage’ andgradually seeWeb2.0 tools as anormalpart of teaching (Bax, 2003, p.25). 25 teachers are classified in the ‘Open Plus’ group, 22teachers constitute the ‘Integrated’ group and 5 educators belong to the ‘Open Minus’group. It is remarkable that no teacher is classified in the ‘Restricted’ or ‘NearRestricted’groups.Takingintoconsiderationthefindingsofboththepreviousandthepresentresearch,it appears thatas timegoesby the situationgets improvedand teachersmove towardsastateof‘normalisation’.


58

Figure4:Barriers/problemsthatrestrictteachersfromusingWeb2.0toolsinclass

The respondents’ teaching practicesmeetmost of Bax’s criteria (2003). The vastmajority(86.9%)reportedthattheuseofWeb2.0toolsisasmallerpartoftheirlesson.72.5%statedthatwhen theyuseWeb2.0 tools in their lessons there isemphasison the integrationofskills andalmosthalfof them (49.5%) claimed that their students frequently interactwithother students and sometimes with the computer. Additionally, 78% of the respondentsreported that their type of feedback aims at encouraging learners to think, interpret,evaluateandcomment.Asfarastheroleoftheteacherisconcerned,mostteachers(57.4%)claimedthattheytakeuptheroleofmonitorandfacilitator,whereasnoonestatedthattheteachermerelymonitors students.Moreover, 66.3% reported thatWeb2.0based lessonstakeplace intheclassroom.Finally,theoverwhelmingmajority(91.9%)claimedthatwhentheyuseWeb2.0toolstheyfeelneitherfearnorawebecausetheyviewtheuseofWeb2.0toolsasanormalpartofteaching.However, the frequencywithwhich teachersuseWeb2.0 tools, the lackof thenecessaryequipment inmany cases and the fact that 50% of the respondents stated thatWeb 2.0tools are not integrated in the syllabus indicate that technology has not been normalisedyet.Web2.0toolscanbesuccessfullynormalisedonlyiftheyareproperlyintegratedinthesyllabusandteachershavethenecessarytechnicalandpedagogicalsupport(ChambersandBax,2006).


59

5.5. What are the possible solutions to overcome the barriers to the effectiveintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching?Considering the above-mentioned barriers, the participants suggested several possiblesolutions(seeFigure5).Mostofthesesolutionshavebeen identified inpriorresearchtoo(ChambersandBax,2006;Spiris,2014).Tobeginwith,theybelievethattheuseofWeb2.0toolsshouldbeapartofthesyllabus. Inthisway,teacherswilleventuallyacceptICTsasanormal part of their everyday teaching practice (Chambers and Bax, 2006). Teachers alsostatedthattheyshouldbeencouragedtocreatetheirownmaterialsaccordingtostudents’needs.Thiscanbeatime-consumingprocessfortheteacherbutavaluableadditiontothecoursebookthatdoesnotalwaysreflect learners’needs.Furthermore,teachersexpressedtheirdesiretobetrainedontheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching.TheresearchfindingsshowedthattraininginfluencesboththeuseofWeb2.0toolsandtheirpositioninthelesson.Accordingtotheresearchfindings,theuseofWeb2.0toolsdependsonwhethertheteacherhasattendedseminars/coursesrelatedtotheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching. Inparticular,30 teacherswhohavenotbeen trainedonWeb2.0 tools reportedthat they do not use them in class. On the contrary, only 9 teacherswho have attendedseminars stated that they do not integrate Web 2.0 tools in teaching. In addition, thepositionofWeb2.0tools in teachingdependsonwhetherteachershaveattendedrelatedseminars/courses.Forinstance,48teacherswhohavebeentrainedonICTsstatedthattheuseofWeb2.0 tools is a smallerpartof every lesson.On the contrary, the teacherswhoclaimedthesamebuttheyhavenotattendedanyseminars/courseswereless(38).

Figure5:Possiblesolutions


60

However,almosthalfoftherespondentsstatedthattheyhavenotattendedanyseminarsor courses related to ICTs. Therefore, training that focuses both on technical skills andpedagogy is crucial (ibid.). Finally, as far as the technological equipment is concerned,teachers believe thatmeasures need to be taken in order for all students to be providedwithlaptops.6.StudylimitationsandsuggestionsforfurtherresearchTheresearchhasrevealedsomeinterestingandusefulfindings.However,therearecertainlimitationsthatshouldbeconsidered.Questionnaireshavemanyadvantagesbutalsosomedrawbacks that limit the depth of investigation. For instance, the time and effortrespondents are willing to spend on completing the questionnaire is usually quite short.Hasty participantsmay omit to answer somequestions or produce responses that do notalways reflect the truth.Moreover, someparticipants respondaccording towhat theyaresupposed to believe rather than what they actually believe. Others may also have thetendencytoovergeneralisewhentheiroverall impressiononthetopic ispositive(Dörnyei,2003). The researcher could have avoided such drawbacks through combining differentmethods of data, such as interviews and observation of teaching practice. Triangulationwouldhavegivenusabetterunderstandingofteachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb 2.0 tools in EFL teaching, their teaching practices, and the problems they face (Bell,2005;Dörnyei,2003).Furthermore,asmall-scalestudycouldnot target thewholepopulation.Therefore,anon-probabilitysamplewasselectedthatdidnotallowtheresearchertomakegeneralisations.Alarge-scale study involving EFL teachers around Greece would bring more representativeresults (Cohen et al., 2007). Moreover, the number of the participants who work at theprivatesectorwasquite low.Consequently, therewasnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetween the responses of state school teachers and private sector teachers. Furtherresearch can be conducted to investigate whether state school teachers have differentattitudes from those working at foreign language institutes or private schools. Finally, itwould beworth investigating the percentage of syllabi that integrateWeb 2.0 tools on asystematicbasis.

7.Concludingremarks:lookingtothefutureAccording to the research findings, the majority of EFL teachers in Greece have positiveattitudes towards Web 2.0 technologies. They use tools such as YouTube, Google Sites,blogs,andwikistocreateamotivating learningenvironmentwherebothlanguageandlifeskillsarepromoted.Teachersbelongtothe ‘NearNormalisation’groupandgraduallyviewWeb2.0 tools as a normal part of teaching (Bax, 2003).Nevertheless, the frequencywithwhichteachersuseWeb2.0technologies,thelackoftrainingandequipmentinmanycasesaswellasthefactthatICTsarenotintegratedinthesyllabusindicatethatalotofworkstillneedstobedoneuntiltechnologyisnormalised.Inthenearfutureteacherswill inevitablyreachastateof‘normalisation’inwhichICTswillbe successfully integrated in EFL. More specifically, educators will no longer belong to atraditionalgenerationthatwasfamiliarisedwithtechnologyatsomelaterpointintheirlives.Both teachers and students will be digital natives and therefore, equally competent withnew technologies. Theywill share the same style of learning, communicating and sharinginformation. In fact, a new generation of educators, who are in their early twenties, hasalready emerged. The number of digital tools will keep increasing and teachers will view


61

their use not as an innovation but as a normal part both of their daily life and teachingpractice.Withoutadoubt,alleducatorswilleventuallyhavethenecessarytechnicalskillstouseavarietyofdigitaltools.However,technicalskillsarenotenoughontheirownfortheeffectiveintegrationofICTs.Teachersneedtobetrainedoncombiningbothtechnicalskillsandpedagogy.Activeandcollaborativemethodsofteaching,whichencouragelearnersnottoonlytoreceivebutalsoproduceknowledge,shouldbeemployed.Furthermore,newcurriculaareexpectedtopromotetheuseofICTsineducationinamoreeffectiveway.21stcenturycurriculawillhavetoreflectprogressiveideologiesandlanguagetheorieswhichcanbepromotedthroughtheuseofWeb2.0tools.Theyneedtobeflexible,creative, challenging, learner-centered and multicultural. Such curricula will consequentlylead to the creation of syllabi that promote web-based, meaningful lessons. In this way,teachers will have the necessary time to use digital tools in class on a daily basis andeventuallyacceptthemasanessentialpartofEFLteaching.Inaddition,educatorswillhavethefreedomtocreatetheirownactivitiesaccordingtostudents’needsandinterests.As far as the school facilities are concerned, the research has indicated that manyclassroomsinGreecelackthenecessarytechnologicalequipment.Nevertheless,astheyearsgo by the situation will hopefully get improved. The cost of acquiring and maintainingtechnological equipment is likely todecrease. Therefore, itwill gradually becomepossibleforall schools/foreign language institutes toprovidestudentswith thenecessary facilities.Teachers and students may also bring their own technological devices at school.Furthermore, educationwith the help of ICTs,which allowusers to collaborate and shareknowledgewithouttimeorspaceconstraints,isexpectedtoexpandbeyondthelimitsoftheclassroom.Consideringwhathasbeendiscussedsofar,theintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteachingisacomplexandchallengingprocess.However, in thenear future ICTswill inevitably taketheir rightful place in education. Teachers’ positive attitudes combined with a series ofmeasuresthatwillfacilitatetheuseofnewtechnologieswillhopefullyleadtothesuccessfulWeb2.0integration.Inthisway,educatorswillbeabletopreparestudentstocopewiththeneedsofarapidlychangingworld.Notes1. Details about selecting the appropriate tool can be found at the following website:

http://etcjournal.com/2011/12/05/choosing-web-2-0-tools-for-teaching-and-learning/.2. Aresearchisreliablewhenitdemonstratesthat‘ifitweretobecarriedoutonasimilar

groupofrespondentsinasimilarcontext(howeverdefined),thensimilarresultswouldbefound’(Cohenetal.2007,p.146).

3. According to Bell (2005, p.117) validity informs us ‘whether an item or instrumentmeasuresordescribeswhatitissupposedtomeasureordescribe’.Cohenetal.(2007,p.133) argue that ‘validity might be improved through careful sampling, appropriateinstrumentationandappropriatestatisticaltreatmentofthedata’.

4. Questionnaire link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jvMX-0hLAd-PeIp_UP9gXrZk2jQcI3DXHIQdcwcZCxQ/viewform?usp=send_form.

5. Normalisation groups were based on Spiris’ (2014, p.358) classification: ‘RestrictedMinus’ group, ‘Restricted Plus’ group, ‘OpenMinus’ group, ‘Open Plus’ group, ‘NearNormalisation’group,‘Normalisation’group.


62

ReferencesAlbion,P.R.(2008).‘Web2.0inteachereducation:Twoimperativesforaction.’Computers

intheSchools,25/3-4:181–198.Albirini, A. (2006). ‘Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication

technologies:ThecaseofSyrianEFLteachers.’Computers&Education,47/4:373-398.Anderson,P.(2007).‘WhatisWeb2.0?Ideas,technologiesandimplicationsforeducation.’

JISCTechnologyandStandardsWatch,1/1:1-64.Banks,J.A.,&Banks,C.A.M.(Eds.).(2009).Multiculturaleducation:Issuesandperspectives.

JohnWiley&Sons.Bax,S.(2003).‘CALL—past,presentandfuture.’System,31/1:13-28.Beckman-Brito, K. (2003). ‘Classroom Etiquette: A Cross-Cultural Study of Classroom

Behaviors.’ Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition Teaching (SLAT),10/1:17-34.

Bell,J.(2005).DoingyourResearchProject:AGuideforFirst-timeResearchersinEducation,HealthandSocialScience(4thed.).Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Bullock, D. (2004). ‘Moving from theory to practice: an examination of the factors thatpreservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching withtechnology during field placement experiences.’ Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation,12/2:211–237.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006). ‘Making CALLWork: Towards Normalisation.’ System, 34:465-479.

Chen, P., Wan, P. & Son, J.E. (2008). ‘Web 2.0 and Education: Lessons from Teachers’Perspectives.’ InC.Bonketal. (Eds),ProceedingsofWorldConferenceonE-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008. Chesapeake, VA:AssociationfortheAdvancementofComputinginEducation(AACE),2555-2559.

Cohen, L. Manion. L. & Morrison, K., (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.).London:Routlege.

Coiro,J.(2003).‘ExploringliteracyontheInternet.’TheReadingTeacher,56/5:458-464.Crook,C.,Fisher,T.,Graber,R.,Harrison,C.,Lewin,C.,Cummings,J.,&Sharples,M.(2008).

‘Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools: Impacts, barriers and issues’, athttp://www.academia.edu/2111606/Implementing_Web_2.0_in_secondary_schools_Impacts_barriers_and_issues,accessed20August2015.

Dörnyei,Z.(2003).QuestionnairesinSecondLanguageResearch.London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

D’Souza, Q. (2007). ‘Web 2.0 ideas for educators. A Guide to RSS and More’, athttp://www.teachinghacks.com/audio/100ideasWeb2educators.pdf,accessed20August2015.

Duffy,P. (2007). ‘EngagingtheYouTubeGoogle-EyedGeneration:StrategiesforUsingWeb2.0 in Teaching and Learning.’ Paper presented at the European Conference onELearning,ECEL,Copenhagen,Denmark.

Educational technology& change, at http://etcjournal.com/2011/12/05/choosing-web-2-0-tools-for-teaching-and-learning/,accessed20August2015.

Fleming, D. S. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. Charleston, WV.: ERICDatabase,ED469734.

Fu,H.,Chu,S.,&Kang,W.(2013).‘AffordancesandConstraintsofaWikiforPrimary-schoolStudents’GroupProjects.’EducationalTechnology&Society,1/4:85-96.

Gardner,H.(1993).Multiple intelligences:Thetheoryinpractice.UnitedStatesofAmerica:BasicBooks.


63

Godwin-Jones (2003). ‘Emerging technologies, blogs and wikis: Environments for on-linecollaboration.’LanguageLearningandTecnology,7/2:12-16.

Hadjirigas, D. (2012). ‘Investigating Greek EFL public school teachers’ attitudes towardseducational technology and its uses in foreign language teaching.’ Unpublished M.Ed.dissertation,HellenicOpenUniversity.

Halvorsen,A.(2009).‘SocialNetworkingSitesandCriticalLanguageLearning.’InM.Thomas(Ed.),HandbookofresearchonWeb2.0andsecondlanguagelearning.Hershey,USA:IGI,237-258.

Hossain,M.M.,&Aydin,H.(2011).‘AWeb2.0-basedcollaborativemodelformulticulturaleducation.’MulticulturalEducation&TechnologyJournal,5/2:116-128.

Jones, A. (2004). ‘A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT byteachers,’ at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1603/1/becta_2004_barrierstouptake_litrev.pdf ,accessed20August2015.

Kale,U.,&Goh,D. (2014). ‘Teaching style, ICT experience and teachers’ attitudes towardteachingwithWeb2.0.’EducationandInformationTechnologies,19/1:41-60.

Katerini,K. (2013). ‘Designingan insetprogramasaproposal for teacherdevelopmentonWeb2.0toolsintheGreekprimaryeducation.’UnpublishedM.Ed.dissertation,HellenicOpenUniversity.

Kellner,D.,&Share,J.(2007).‘Criticalmedialiteracy,democracy,andthereconstructionofeducation.’ In D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds),Media literacy: A reader. New York:PeterLangPublishing,3-23.

Kontogeorgi,M. (2014). ‘ExploringtheuseofWikis indevelopingstudents’writingskills intheEFLclassroom.’ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning,5/1:123-152.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D.W. (2004). ‘Toward a theory of newliteracies emerging from the Internet and other information and communicationtechnologies.’Theoreticalmodelsandprocessesofreading,5/1:1570-1613.

Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). ‘Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in theclassroom with YouTube, digital stories, and blogs.’ The Clearing House: A Journal ofEducationalStrategies,IssuesandIdeas,82/2:66-69.

Nunan, D. & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning process.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

O'Reilly, T. (2007). ‘What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the nextgenerationofsoftware.’CommunicationsandStrategies,65/1:17-37.

Parker, K. R. & Chao, J. T. (2007). ‘Wiki as a Teaching Tool.’ Interdisciplinary Journal ofKnowledgeandLearningObjects,7:57-72.

Paroussi,M.(2014).‘Blogginginablended-learningpedagogicalmodel,asamediumfortheenhancement of 6th grade primary school learners’ writing skills and e-literacies.’ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning,5/1:181-198.

Player-Koro,C.(2007).‘WhyteachersmakeuseofICTineducation.’Paperpresentedatthe10thPre-ConferenceofJuniorResearchersofEARLI,Budapest,Hungary.

Prensky,M.(2001).‘DigitalNatives,DigitalImmigrants.’OntheHorizon,9/5:1-6.Richards,J.C.(2001).Curriculumdevelopmentinlanguageteaching.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Robin, B. R. (2008). ‘Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century

classroom.’Theoryintopractice,47/3:220-228.Rogers,E.(1995).DiffusionofInnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Rosenberg, A. J. (2010). ‘Multiliteracies and teacher empowerment.’ Critical Literacy:

TheoriesandPractices,4/2:7-15.Sakka, D. (2010). ‘Greek teachers’ cross-cultural awareness and their views on classroom

culturaldiversity.’HellenicJournalofPsychology,7:98-123.


64

Simon, E. (2008). ‘Foreign language faculty in the age ofWeb 2.0.’ EDUCAUSE Quarterly,31/3:6-7.

Sleeter, C., & Tettegah, S. (2002). ‘Technology as a Tool in Multicultural Teaching.’MulticulturalEducation,10/2:3-9.

Spiris, S. (2014). ‘Investigating Normalisation: Do teachers of English in Greece integratetechnology in theireveryday teachingpractice?’ResearchPapers inLanguageTeachingandLearning,5/1:351-373.

Sumakul,D.T.Y.G., (2014). ‘Facebookgroup inanEFLgrammar lesson.’Paperpresentedatthe CELC Symposium - Alternative Pedagogies in the English Language andCommunicationClassroom,Singapore.

Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). ‘Digital storytelling: Extending the potential forstrugglingwriters.’Thereadingteacher,63/4:284-295.

Tunks,K.W. (2012). ‘An IntroductionandGuidetoEnhancingOnline InstructionwithWeb2.0 Tools.’ Journal of Educators Online, 9/2 (July), athttp://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume9Number2/TunksPaper.pdf, accessed 20August2015.

Uhrmacher,P.B.(1993).Englishasasecondlanguage:Curriculumresourcehandbook.Seriesintroduction.NewYork:KrauseInternational.

Vlachos,K.(2006). ‘OnlinenetworkingandtheteachingofEnglishasaforeign languagetoyounglearners:Amethodologicalframework.’HUSSEPapers,ProceedingsoftheseventhbiennialConference.VolumeII,p.618-62:VeszpremHungary.

Wang, M. J. (2010). ‘Online collaboration and offline interaction between students usingasynchronoustoolsinblendedlearning.’AustralasianJournalofEducationalTechnology,26/6:830-846.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). ‘Computers and language learning: An overview.’LanguageTeaching,31:57-71.

Warschauer, M. (2010). ‘Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing.’ LanguageLearning&Technology,14/1:3-8.

Watkins,J.,&Wilkins,M.(2011).‘UsingYouTubeintheEFLClassroom’.LanguageEducationinAsia,2/1:113-119.

Yang, S. H. (2009). ‘Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice.’JournalofEducationalTechnology&Society,12/2:11-21.

Yuen,S.C.Y.&Yuen,P.(2008).‘Web2.0inEducation.’InK.McFerrinetal.(Eds),Proceedingsof Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference2008.Chesapeake,VA:AACE,3227-3228.

Yuen,S.C.Y.,Yaoyuneyong,G.,&Yuen,P.(2011).‘Perceptions,interest,anduse:Teachersand web 2.0 tools in education.’ International Journal of Technology in Teaching andLearning,7/2:109-123.

Kostoula-ChristinaKarkoulia([email protected])holdsaB.A.inEnglishLanguageandLiteraturefromtheUniversityofAthensandanM.Ed.inTeachingEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguagesfromtheHellenicOpenUniversity.SheworksasanEnglishteacherinforeignlanguageinstitutes.

Herresearchinterestfocusesoneducationaltechnology.


65

AppendixI:TheQuestionnaireCoverLetterDearcolleague,MynameisChristinaKarkouliaandIhavebeenworkingasanEFLteachersince2009.Iamcurrentlyworkingonmydissertation for theMaster’sDegree inEducationat theHellenicOpenUniversity.ThetitleofmydissertationisTeachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteaching.Morespecifically,thepurposeofthisresearch isto investigateteachers’attitudestowardstheintegrationofWeb2.0toolsinEFLteachingandwhetherthisintegrationisclosetothestagewhentechnologybecomesunnoticedandistherefore,trulyintegratedinourteachingpractice. The research will explore which tools teachers use, their selection criteria, howoften and how they useWeb 2.0 technologies, the barriers that may restrict them fromintegratingWeb2.0toolsintheirteachingpracticeandpossiblesolutionstoovercomethesebarriers.For thepurposeof this researchaquestionnairehasbeendesigned thataddressesall EFLteachersinGreece.Iwouldbegratefulifyoucouldfollowthelinkbelowandcompletethequestionnaire. It will not take youmore than 15minutes. There are no right and wronganswersandtheinformationprovidedisstrictlyconfidential.If youhaveanyquestionspleasedonothesitate tocontactme.Thankyou inadvance foryourcooperation.Kindregards,ChristinaKarkouliae-mailaddress:[email protected]

Questionnairelink:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jvMX0hLAdPeIp_UP9gXrZk2jQcI3DXHIQdcwcZCxQ/viewform?usp=send_form


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73

Documents

Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 ...rpltl.eap.gr/images/2016/07-01-046-Karkoulia.pdf · Web 2.0. Key words: teachers’ attitudes, Web 2.0 integration, normalisation,