MALAYSIAN TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS AND USES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN
ENGLISH WRITING INSTRUCTION: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY
By
Abu Bakar Mohamed Razali

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
MALAYSIAN TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS AND USES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN
ENGLISH WRITING INSTRUCTION: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY
By
Abu Bakar Mohamed Razali
Very little is known about how teachers’ conceptualizations of digital technology and
their uses of the technology evolve and relate. Yet knowing about and understanding teachers’
conceptions and uses of digital technology are essential for learning how teachers integrate it
effectively for student learning. By applying sociocognitive and sociocultural (i.e., the New
Literacies Studies approach) perspectives to the study of digital technology use in classrooms,
this study examine the conceptions about and uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction among three teachers in Malaysia. Three questions framed the study: (1) How do
Malaysian teachers conceptualize digital technology and its use in English writing instruction?
(2) How do Malaysian teachers use digital technology in English writing instruction? (3) How do
Malaysian teachers’ conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect their use of
digital technology in English writing instruction?
Working within the tradition of descriptive and exploratory qualitative research, this
study employed a multiple case study approach. Three teachers from suburban/rural secondary
schools in an economically-underdeveloped state in Malaysia were participants. The teachers
were surveyed, interviewed, and observed about their conceptualizations and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. Artifacts from their English writing instruction were
collected, analyzed, and triangulated with the survey, interview, and observational data. The data
were analyzed using within-case analysis, cross-case analysis, narrative discourse analysis, and
constant-comparative analysis.

Results of the study indicate that while digital technology was found to be helpful and
convenient, teachers reported contested conceptions of and ongoing concerns about the use of
digital technology and its effectiveness in English writing instruction. In all, the teachers were
balancing their contested conceptions of digital technology in order to use fully the advantages
(i.e., affordances) and minimize the disadvantages (i.e., constraints) of digital technology in their
English instruction. These contested conceptions were not only central to their psychological
aspects, such as their personal values on and experiences with digital technology, but also the
social and contextual aspects, such as their students’ high proficiency with digital technology
tools’ (and their misuse of them) and the schools’ access to or restraints from digital technology
tools and support. These psychological and social contexts created a web of conundrums made of
strings of affordances and constraints, access and restraints, and dual identities as digital natives
and digital immigrants that the teachers had to consider carefully in their uses of digital
technology in their English writing instruction.
These contested visions offer great significance to Malaysian education, especially with
the role of the English language and with digital technology as a culture and important mediating
tools for education. As I discuss about these contested visions in the Malaysian education in
general, and in English writing instruction in particular, I also discuss the efforts that should be
put forth in enhancing their advantages and in limiting their disadvantages. In doing so, I provide
suggestions for the social implications of digital technology and English/literacy instruction;
implications for the educational system and its policies; implications for instructional pedagogy;
implications for future research; and implications for research methodology.

DEDICATION
To my parents,
Mohamed Razali Abdullah and Jarah Ismail
To my brothers and sisters,
Jasleen, Hasmein, Hakeem, Nurhani, Rafeeq, and Nurzafirah
To all the teachers who participated in this study

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you Allah, for He said, “Verily, when He intends a thing, His command is, ‘Be.
And it is’” (Qur’an, 36: 82). Thank you, Allah, for willing me to finish this dissertation research
and for giving me strength to complete my doctoral studies. Thank you, Allah, for showing me
grace in the people that you surround me with.
Thank you, Prof. Dr. Douglas K. Hartman, for being my academic adviser and
dissertation chair; for meeting me every so often during this past two years to help me with my
dissertation research and other matters in my studies; for guiding and supporting me with not
only knowledge, but grace and confidence; and for being a mentor, and also a friend. Thank you,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Douglas Campbell, for advising and supporting me in my practicum research;
for continuing to support me in my dissertation research as a committee member; and for having
read, commented on, and advised me on pages and pages of drafts of my writing. Thank you,
Prof. Dr. Susan Florio-Ruane, for supporting and believing in me from the first time we met until
now. Little did you know that the continuous support and trust you showed gave me strength to
continue my doctoral studies. Thank you, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dorothea Anagnostopoulos, for your
support and guidance in my dissertation research. Even though we have known each other for a
short while, it was very important for me to have somebody who I can trust and who is helpful in
my studies.
I am thankful to all four of you, my dissertation committee, for your guidance and
support in pushing me to fulfill what little potential that I have, especially in conducting my
dissertation research. I have had the pleasure of a professional and collegial relationship with all
of you, which I am constantly inspired by, forever indebted to, and will continue to learn from.

v

Thank you to the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysian (MOHE), the University Putra
of Malaysia (UPM), and to the Teacher Education Department, College of Education, Michigan
State University for supporting financially in my doctoral studies. To the many friends that I
have made here at the College of Education—Laura Jimenez and Erica Wainwright Hamilton,
who helped me immensely with the development of my data collection tools; Emily Nai-Cheng
Kuo and Afshan Huma, who helped me greatly with my comprehensive examination; and
Giovanna Moreano, Rachel Ayieko, Sophia Hyun-Seung Kwak, Justin Jung Jin Kang, Kaliamma
Ponnan, Amal Ibourk, Zainin Bidin, and Sarifah Azzah Syed Anuar—all of whom have provided
great collegiality and support. All of these people, during these five years, seem more like family
than friends—and for that I thank you.
I am thankful to my family. I have spent five years being away from my family. Within
these five years, so many things have happened within my family, and I am most sad that I was
not able to be part of those many things, either in good times or in bad times. My journey here
has come to an end, and now I look forward to go back to Malaysia to be with my family and to
serve my country.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3
Rationale for the Research ...................................................................................................6
Significance of the Research ................................................................................................7
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................................................9
Education in Malaysia..........................................................................................................9
English Language and Writing Instruction in Malaysia ....................................................12
English as a Second/Foreign Language .................................................................12
English Education ..................................................................................................13
English Writing Instruction....................................................................................15
Issues with Malaysian Students’ English Writing .................................................18
Digital Technology in Malaysian Education .....................................................................21
Development of Digital Technology in Malaysian Education ..............................21
Malaysian Smart School ............................................................................22
Digital Technology in Teacher Education and Professional Development ...........24
Teachers’ Attitudes, Competencies, Uses, and Concerns with Digital Technology in
English Education and English Writing Instruction ..........................................................26
Teachers’ Attitudes towards Digital Technology ..................................................27
Teachers’ Digital Technology Competency ..........................................................29
Teachers’ Use of Digital Technology ....................................................................32
Teachers’ Concerns with Digital Technology .......................................................36
Gaps in Current Literature .................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................45
Sociocognitive Approach ...................................................................................................46
Sociocultural Approach .....................................................................................................49
New Literacies Studies Approach ..........................................................................50
Sociocognitive + Sociocultural Framework: Web of Conundrums ...................................54
Web of Conundrums ..............................................................................................57
Binary relationships ...................................................................................57
Connections between binary elements .......................................................62
Web of Conundrums ..................................................................................67
vii

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHOD.................................................................................................................69
Entry into Research ............................................................................................................70
Research Setting.................................................................................................................71
Research Participants .........................................................................................................73
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................76
Survey ....................................................................................................................76
Interview Sessions .................................................................................................77
Observation Sessions .............................................................................................78
Field Notes .............................................................................................................80
Collection of Lesson Materials ..............................................................................81
Data Analysis and Coding Process ....................................................................................81
Report of Research .............................................................................................................85
CHAPTER 5
MRS. WONG.................................................................................................................................87
The School: Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School (Salahuddin) ......................................87
Salahuddin’s Background ......................................................................................87
Salahuddin’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment ..................89
Salahuddin’s Digital Technology Amenities .........................................................94
The Teacher: Mrs. Wong ...................................................................................................98
Mrs. Wong’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds ..........................................98
Mrs. Wong as a person and as a professional ............................................98
Mrs. Wong as a teacher at Salahuddin .....................................................101
Mrs. Wong’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction ........105
Mrs. Wong’s conceptions of English writing instruction ........................105
English is fun + English is important...........................................106
Instruction for examination + good English writing ....................107
Infusing moral values ...................................................................110
Mrs. Wong’s practices in English writing instruction .............................111
Mrs. Wong’s lesson preparation ..................................................111
Mrs. Wong’s English writing instruction.....................................113
Mrs. Wong’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing
Instruction ............................................................................................................120
Mrs. Wong’s uses of and education in digital technology .......................121
How did Mrs. Wong conceptualize digital technology in English
writing instruction? ..................................................................................122
How did Mrs. Wong use digital technology in English writing
instruction? ...............................................................................................128
How did Mrs. Wong’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate
to and affect her use of digital technology in English writing
instruction? ...............................................................................................137

viii

CHAPTER 6
MRS. ALMA ...............................................................................................................................143
The School: Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School (Mohamad) ..........................143
Mohamad’s Background ......................................................................................143
Mohamad’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment ..................145
Mohamad’s Digital Technology Amenities .........................................................149
The Teacher: Mrs. Alma ..................................................................................................153
Mrs. Alma’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds .........................................153
Mrs. Alma as a person and as a professional ...........................................153
Mrs. Alma as a teacher at Mohamad .......................................................155
Mrs. Alma’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction .........157
Mrs. Alma’s conceptions of English writing instruction .........................157
English is important .....................................................................157
Instruction for examination ..........................................................158
Good English writing ...................................................................159
Teaching English writing is difficult ...........................................161
Mrs. Alma’s Practices in English writing instruction ..............................163
Mrs. Alma’s lesson preparation ...................................................163
Mrs. Alma’s English writing instruction .....................................165
Mrs. Alma’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing
Instruction ............................................................................................................176
Mrs. Alma’s uses of and education in digital technology........................176
How did Mrs. Alma conceptualize digital technology in English
writing instruction? ..................................................................................177
How did Mrs. Alma use digital technology in English writing
instruction? ...............................................................................................182
How did Mrs. Alma’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate
to and affect her use of digital technology in English writing
instruction? ...............................................................................................193
CHAPTER 7
MRS. SALINA ............................................................................................................................201
The School: Bright Bay Science High School (Bright Bay)............................................201
Bright Bay’s Background ....................................................................................201
Bright Bay’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment ................202
Bright Bay’s Digital Technology Amenities .......................................................206
The Teacher: Mrs. Salina .................................................................................................210
Mrs. Salina’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds ........................................210
Mrs. Salina as a person and as a professional ..........................................210
Mrs. Salina as a teacher at Bright Bay .....................................................212
Mrs. Salina’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction........215
Mrs. Salina’s conceptions of English writing instruction ........................215
English is fun + English is important...........................................215
Instruction for examination + good English writing ....................217
English education is transactional ................................................218
Mrs. Salina’s Practices in English writing instruction .............................222
ix

Mrs. Salina’s Lesson preparation .................................................223
Mrs. Salina’s English writing instruction ....................................225
Mrs. Salina’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing
Instruction ............................................................................................................235
Mrs. Salina’s uses of and education on digital technology......................235
How did Mrs. Salina conceptualize digital technology in English
writing instruction? ..................................................................................240
How did Mrs. Salina use digital technology in English writing
Instruction? ..............................................................................................248
How did Mrs. Salina’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate
to and affect her use of digital technology in English writing
instruction? ...............................................................................................258
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .........................................................................................266
How Did Malaysian Teachers Conceptualize Digital Technology in English Writing
Instruction? ......................................................................................................................267
Positive Conceptions of Digital Technology .......................................................270
Negative Conceptions of Digital Technology......................................................276
How Did Malaysian Teachers Use Digital Technology in English Writing
Instruction? ......................................................................................................................284
Digital Technology in Lesson Preparation ..........................................................285
Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction .............................................287
How Did Malaysian Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Digital Technology Relate to
and Affect Their Use of Digital Technology in English Writing instruction? ................300
Psychological Realm: Balancing Promises and Compromises of Digital
Technology ..........................................................................................................302
Social Realm: Living to Expectations and Attaining Access/Support on
Digital Technology ..............................................................................................305
Conclusion: Balancing on a Web of Social and Psychological Conundrums .................308
CHAPTER 9
IMPLICATIONS .........................................................................................................................319
Introduction ......................................................................................................................319
Digital Technology and Literacy Instruction ...................................................................320
Attending to Social and Cultural Changes ...........................................................320
Changing Paradigms of Instruction .....................................................................322
Implications for Education Systems and Policies ............................................................324
Re-Envisioning the Education System.................................................................324
Providing Access and Equity ...............................................................................325
Converging Mindsets for Digital Technology in Education ................................328
Teacher Professional Development .....................................................................329
Implications for Instructional Pedagogy ..........................................................................330
Enhancing the Role of the Teacher ......................................................................330
Knowing Students, Their Literacy Practices, and Their Interests .......................332
Constructing Communities of Practice and Teacher-Student Collaboration .......334
x

Bridging Formal and Informal Learning and Integrating In- and Out-ofSchool Literacy Practices .....................................................................................336
Implications for Future Research .....................................................................................339
Digital Technology and Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political Contexts ......340
Understanding New Literacies .............................................................................340
Call for New and Potential Research Areas .........................................................342
English (Writing) Instruction in Malaysia ...........................................................343
Implementation of Digital Technology in Malaysian Education .........................346
Implications for Research Methodology..........................................................................348
Impactful Research ..............................................................................................348
Employing Diverse Research Methods and Research Paradigms .......................349
Employing Diverse Theoretical Approaches .......................................................350
Diverse Research Settings and Participants .........................................................350
Parting Words ..................................................................................................................352

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................353
Appendix A: Letter of Informed Consent (District Education Office) ............................354
Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent (School Principal) .........................................357
Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent (Teachers) ......................................................360
Appendix D: Survey Questionnaires ..............................................................................363
Appendix E: Semi-Structured Interview Questions .........................................................367
Appendix F: Ideal Classroom to Use ICT in English Writing Instruction ......................373
Appendix G: Classroom Physical Environment and Digital Technology .......................374
Appendix H: Uses of Digital Technology in Writing Instruction....................................375
Appendix I: Formal/Informal Uses of Digital Technology .............................................376
Appendix J: Mrs. Wong’s Notes and Exercise on SPM Examination Question .............377
Appendix K: Mrs. Wong’s Sample of Good Writing ......................................................383
Appendix L: Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Narrative/Descriptive Essay............384
Appendix M: Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Argumentative Essay .....................396
Appendix N: Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing .................................................399

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................403

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Salahuddin’s School Amenities ........................................................................................91
Table 2 Salahuddin’s Digital Technology Amenities ....................................................................95
Table 3 Mohamad’s School Amenities ........................................................................................147
Table 4 Mohamad’s Digital Technology Amenities ....................................................................151
Table 5 Bright Bay’s School Amenities ......................................................................................204
Table 6 Bright Bay’s Digital Technology Amenities ..................................................................208
Table 7 Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (1) ......................................396
Table 8 Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (2) ......................................397
Table 9 Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (3) ......................................398
Table 10 Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing (1) ..............................................................401
Table 11 Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing (2) ..............................................................402

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Binary relationships ........................................................................................................58
Figure 2. Connections between binary elements ...........................................................................64
Figure 3. Web of Conundrums.......................................................................................................68
Figure 4. Mrs. Wong’s position in the Web of Conundrums.......................................................142
Figure 5. Mrs. Alma’s position in the Web of Conundrums .......................................................200
Figure 6. Mrs. Salina’s position in the Web of Conundrums ......................................................266
Figure 7. Teachers’ positions in the Web of Conundrums ..........................................................314
Figure 8. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (1) ............................377
Figure 9. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (2) ............................378
Figure 10. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (3) ..........................379
Figure 11. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (4) ..........................380
Figure 12. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (5) ..........................381
Figure 13. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (6) ..........................382
Figure 14. Mrs. Wong’s sample of good writing .........................................................................383
Figure 15. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (1) ..........................384
Figure 16. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (2) ..........................385
Figure 17. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (3) ..........................386
Figure 18. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (4) ..........................387
Figure 19. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (5) ..........................388
Figure 20. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (6) ..........................389
Figure 21. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (7) ..........................390
Figure 22. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (8) ..........................391
xiii

Figure 23. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (9) ..........................392
Figure 24. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (10) ........................393
Figure 25. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (11) ........................394
Figure 26. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (12) ........................395
Figure 27. Mrs. Salina’s notes and exercises on argumentative essay ........................................396
Figure 28. Mrs. Salina’s notes on summary writing (1) ..............................................................399
Figure 29. Mrs. Salina’s notes on summary writing (2) ..............................................................400

xiv

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

DT…………………………………………………………………………….. Digital Technology
EFL……………………………………………………………….. English as a Foreign Language
ESL……………………………………………………………...… English as a Second Language
ICT………………………………………………... Information and Communication Technology
MOE…………………………………………………………….. Ministry of Education Malaysia
PDF…………………………………………………………………… Portable Document Format
PMR……………………….. Penilaian Menengah Rendah (National Middle School Assessment)
PPSMI……………………………………………. English in Teaching Mathematics and Science
SPM………………….. Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Malaysian National Certification of Education)
TESL…………………………………………………… Teaching English as a Second Language
UPSR……………… Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (National Elementary School Assessment)

xv

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
The advances of the Internet and information and communication technology (ICT) in
recent decades have stimulated a big push for using digital technology in Malaysia. This push
was formally articulated in the Malaysian national plan, Vision 2020, which is a nationwide
governmental initiative to advance Malaysia into being a developed nation by the year 2020,
with citizens who are democratic, knowledgeable, progressive, and productive in contributing to
the development of Malaysia as a self-sufficient industrialized nation (Bakar & Mohamed,
2006). The goals in Vision 2020 are to be achieved through increased and widespread use of
information and communication technology (ICT). In particular, ICT is to be integrated into the
national health system, the economy, commerce, and, most importantly, the Malaysian education
system (Government of Malaysia, 2006). The plan also renews emphasis on mastery of the
English language, which is also the national second language, as the dominant language of
communication for global, economic, political, and social exchange in the digital age. Hence, the
role of English education in Malaysian education is instrumental in realizing Malaysia’s goal to
produce technologically capable knowledge workers in the age of ICT (Abdul Aziz, 2008).
In view of this, and as part of national development, there is inherently a high press by
the Malaysian government for the implementation of digital technology in teaching and learning
the English language, especially due to its role as the important language of communication
within the globalized society (Government of Malaysia, 2006; Md Yunus, 2007). However, even
with the nation-wide implementation of digital technology, currently Malaysian students’
English language proficiency, especially writing proficiency, is in decline (Chan & Abdullah,
2005; Darus & Subramaniam, 2009; Foo & Richards, 2004; Hussin, 2008; Mukundan & Ahour,

1

2008; Thang & Kumarasamy, 2006). This decline is most evident in economicallyunderdeveloped states, especially in ethnically-homogeneous suburban and rural areas (David et
al., 2009; Hussin, 2008), in which the residents tend to be those from middle to low socioeconomic status. Within these settings, the English language is very rarely used in social
contexts, and students demonstrate low achievement in English in national assessments (Darus &
Subramaniam, 2009; Md Nordin & Mohammad, 2006).
Furthermore, studies indicate very low use of digital technology in Malaysian schools, in
particular in teaching the English language (Chan & Han, 2005; Chong et al., 2011; Pandian,
2003). Studies also report Malaysian English teachers’ low levels of competency and concerns
with using digital technology in teaching, citing lack of resources and lack of training to use
digital technology in English instruction (Abdul Razak et al., 2009; Badusah & Hussain, 2000;
Lau & Sim, 2008; Md Yunus, 2007; Roslan & Tan, 2005; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006; Samuel
& Abu Bakar, 2007; Thang et al., 2010; Zain et al., 2004), as well as low motivation, fear of
technology, and concerns about changing their teaching styles and methods (Roslan & Tan,
2005; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006; Wong & Teo, 2009).
Apart from the few studies of Malaysian English teachers’ self-perceived competency
and concerns with using information and communication technology (ICT) (Abdul Razak &
Embi, 2004; Abdul Razak et al., 2009; Mahmud & Hj. Ismail, 2010; Sa’ari et al., 2005), there are
fewer studies on English teachers’ conceptions pertaining to how they use digital technology in
English education. While studies of English teachers’ general attitudes, perceptions, views,
competency levels, and uses of digital technology have been very helpful, there have been few
studies that have reported teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing
in particular, especially their rationalizations of how and why they use digital technology to

2

teach writing (Hussin, 2004; Kabilan, 2003; Ngah & Yeoh, 2005; Kumar et al., 2008; Wong &
Teo, 2009). Most studies of Malaysian teachers’ perceptions and uses of digital technology in
English writing instruction also fail to address the larger sociocultural contexts (e.g., historical,
social, cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts, etc.) of the use of digital technology in
teaching English that may enhance or restrict their access to, experiences with, and uses of
digital technology.
Given the fact that English education, in particular English writing, carries a huge
significance in the success of learning English and its practice in the Malaysian social context—
especially as the national second language, and for college entry and employment—and the fact
that the implementation of digital technology in Malaysian education is carried nationwide in all
educational institutions in Malaysia, the study of teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction is crucial. The notions of teachers’ conceptions and
personal beliefs about digital technology and English writing instruction and the larger
sociocultural aspects are important to study because they affect the way teachers conceptualize
their uses of digital technology and their actual teaching of English writing. Therefore, studies of
teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in teaching English writing are important
because they can contribute to understanding the relationships between teachers’ conceptions
and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction.
Statement of the Problem
Malaysian people in general accept and acknowledge the role of English as the national
second language in Malaysia and its important role as a language of communication within the
globalized society (Government of Malaysia, 2006). Malaysian educators also positively
embrace the national commitment of having digital technology assist them in their work, in

3

particular in teaching English (Abu Bakar & Mickan, 2005; Chong et al., 2011; De Rycker &
Ponnudurai, 2011; Hamzah et al., 2010; Ng, 2007; Tan, 2009). Evidence indicates that
Malaysian English teachers who have used digital technology report the benefits and usefulness
of digital technology in English instruction (Kabilan, 2003; Ngah & Yeoh, 2005; Kumar et al.,
2008; Wong & Teo, 2009). However, there is reported to be very little actual use of digital
technology in Malaysian schools, in particular in English instruction (Chan & Han, 2005; Chong
et al., 2011; Pandian, 2003), and there are many technical, personal, professional, and
administrative concerns about the use of digital technology in instruction (Abdul Razak et al.,
2009; Badusah & Hussain, 2000; Lau & Sim, 2008; Md Yunus, 2007; Roslan & Tan, 2005;
Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2007; Thang et al., 2010; Zain et al., 2004).
More importantly, despite the increasing attention given to the English language in recent years,
and despite the fact that Malaysian schools are provided with computers and other digital
technology tools, Malaysian students are still not proficient in English and are still not
performing well in the English subject in national assessments, in particular in the writing
section, which counts the most for passing or failing the subject (Chong et al., 2011; Md Nordin
& Mohammad, 2006; Subramaniam, 2009).
A review of related literature shows that there has been very little in-depth and
descriptive research on Malaysian English teachers’ conceptions about how to use digital
technology in English writing instruction, and there are few reports of their actual uses of digital
technology (i.e., their descriptions of and rationales for using digital technology in such ways).
This is quite problematic considering that teachers’ conceptions of and actual uses of digital
technology are related to one another very closely, and they inform one another in ensuring
success in teaching and learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Furthermore, teachers’ uses of

4

technology for instructional purposes also differ depending on the contexts and content of their
pedagogical objectives (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This is also problematic given that the
implementation of digital technology in Malaysian education has not only been long (i.e., since
the 1990s until now), but also very extensive (i.e., digital technology implementation in all
public educational institutions in Malaysia). Also, most of these studies have been done using
quantitative approaches (i.e., survey questionnaires), which—while very helpful in describing
teachers’ general perceptions of digital technology—do not provide more in-depth information
on teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, uses, and issues with digital technology in English education
and in English writing instruction.
Teachers’ conceptions and belief systems are difficult to extrapolate and measure, but
they are very important to learn about because they influence teachers’ instructional practices,
and thus the quality of education for students (Borg, 2003; Brindley & Schneider, 2002; Edwards
et al., 2010; Kennedy, 2008a, 2008b). In the case of English education, teachers’ conceptions and
beliefs influence teachers’ teaching conduct, the topics that they choose to teach, the approaches
they take when teaching, the materials they use (e.g., digital technology tools), and their
adaptations to the curriculum and to state and national standards (Borg, 2003; Brindley &
Schneider, 2002; Pajares, 1992). Teachers also have diverse conceptions about teaching and
learning, exhibit a wide range of knowledge and competence in digital technology, and vary in
their motivation to use certain technologies in instruction (Abdullah et al., 2006).
Regardless of how enthused policymakers and the Malaysian government may be about
digital technology in education, because of these differences among teachers, they will vary in
actually using digital technology (Abdullah et al., 2006). Conversely, while the implementation
of information and communication technology (ICT) depends on English teachers’ readiness and

5

willingness to accept and utilize digital technology, without the proper support by schools and
other administrative bodies these intended technological innovations may not yield ideal results
or even a lasting presence in English education (Abdul Aziz, 2008), including English writing
instruction. The efforts to provide and implement digital technology in English education, and in
particular in English writing instruction, must go beyond the provision of technological
infrastructure and technical training in ICT (Abdul Aziz, 2008).
Rationale for the Research
Knowing about and understanding teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in
teaching English writing are essential for stakeholders in the field of education who aim to assist
teachers with their integration of digital technology in English writing instruction. There is a dire
need for research that can explore and understand the conceptions, beliefs, uses, and concerns
(i.e., composite representations of their feelings, preoccupations, perceptions, thoughts, and
considerations) that Malaysian teachers have pertaining to the adoption and practice of digital
technology in English writing instruction. Descriptive qualitative studies, such as case studies,
can address in great depth teachers’ thinking about digital technology and English instruction;
their actual implementation of digital technology in English writing instruction; and their
rationales for doing so. Furthermore, these studies must be done while also taking into
consideration sociocultural elements that influence teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in writing instruction.
Studies of teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about their own instruction are very
important in that teachers’ awareness of their own teaching styles and uses of instructional
materials (i.e., digital technology) will help them be more effective, because they will then be
able to adjust their teaching styles so as to accommodate the diverse learning styles of their

6

students (Thang & Wong, 2005). In the context of the Malaysian education system—and given
the status and promise of English education in Malaysia, the role of writing as an important part
of that education, and the role of digital technology in education—Malaysian teachers’
conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction need to be studied. In
meeting this challenge, I employed a multiple case study approach that is deep, descriptive, and
exploratory in order to learn about the conceptions and uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction in Malaysia, and how these conceptions and uses of digital technology relate
to and affect one another.
Significance of the Research
This study carries a lot of significance in the field of education, in particular the role of
digital technology in English education and in English writing instruction in Malaysia. From the
literature, most studies in Malaysia focus on studying the successes and/or failures of certain
strategies, techniques, and approaches to using certain kinds of digital technology in English
education in general (and not specifically in writing instruction). These studies tend to be
conducted with large scale quantitative approaches (i.e., general surveys), or they are small scale
studies focusing on isolated and unique phenomena. Furthermore, there is a good amount of
studies that report the social and political implications of digital technology in English language
instruction in Malaysia, done from the perspectives of school students, undergraduates, teacher
educators, policy-makers, and university professors. However, there is little research describing
school teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology when teaching English writing that is
crucial to learn about and understand how teacher perceive and practice digital technology in
order to help them in their future uses and alleviate their concerns about digital technology in
instruction.

7

In all, there is a lack of research on teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology
in English writing instruction. That said, the descriptive and exploratory nature of this multiple
case study is important to inform future researchers, teacher educators, policy-makers,
curriculum developers, and other teachers on the use of digital technology in English writing
instruction in Malaysia, and its applicability to the current needs of Malaysian teachers and
students when it comes to digital technology in English writing instruction.
Research Questions
This study describes Malaysian English teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. In particular, it examined their views about digital
technology use and how they prepare lessons for teaching English writing with the use of digital
technology, as well as why they teach the way they do, within what premises, and for whom. The
study focused on three questions:
1. How do Malaysian teachers conceptualize digital technology and its use in English
writing instruction?
2. How do Malaysian teachers use digital technology in English writing instruction?
3. How do Malaysian teachers conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect
their use of digital technology in English writing instruction?
Using these questions, this multiple case study describes in detail how digital technology
is conceptualized and used in English writing instructions by teachers in suburban and rural
secondary school settings in a state on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.

8

CHAPTER 2:
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In order to understand Malaysian teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in
English writing instruction, it is important to identify the social, historical, political, cultural,
geographical, linguistic, and educational contexts that inform the Malaysian education system
and digital technology use in English writing instruction. It is also important to address the recent
literature on Malaysian teachers’ views, conceptions, and uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction. In this section, I review four areas of related literature: (1) education in
Malaysia; (2) the role of English as a second language and current English writing instruction in
Malaysia; (3) the role of digital technology in Malaysian education; and (4) the perceptions,
attitudes, uses, and concerns of digital technology in English education and English writing
instruction in Malaysia. From the review of these four areas of related literature, I identify the
gaps in the current literature pertaining the conceptions and uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction.
Education in Malaysia
The first area of literature focuses on the development and nature of the education system
in Malaysia. During British colonization (i.e., 1824 to 1957), the education system was heavily
based on the British education system (Had Salleh, 2003). However, while still based on the
traditional British education system, the current education system in Malaysia has adopted
notions of modern and progressive education in meeting the needs of people and in developing
Malaysia as a nation. In fulfilling the needs of the multiethnic societies in Malaysia, the
education system is centralized in how national public schools (i.e., elementary and secondary
schools) receive educational funding, supplies, and other support directly from the government

9

(Had Salleh, 2003). This centrality also means that teachers, school administrators, and other
personnel in the public schools are employed by the national government. Meanwhile, future
teachers are required to undergo teacher education under government certified teacher education
programs in certified teacher education institutions. Moreover, textbooks, syllabi, and curricula
are also prepared and disseminated by the national government, by way of the Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MOE) (Haji Ahmad, 1998). In addition, all schools (both public and
private) are required to have their students take the Malaysian national assessments at the end of
elementary school, middle school, and secondary school, with the high school national
assessment, i.e., National Certificate of Malaysian Education (SPM), being the most important
for purposes of admission to higher level education (college entry) and for employment.
Since the education system in Malaysia is centralized, the Ministry of Education
Malaysia (MOE) is also responsible for the development of curricula, i.e., the Integrated
Elementary School Curriculum (i.e., Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah, or the KBSR) and
the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (i.e., Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah, or
the KBSM). The Integrated Elementary School Curriculum (KBSR) and the Integrated
Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM) for English education focus on providing a strong
foundation in the English language for elementary and secondary school students. In the KBSR,
the four language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing are taught by incorporating
the use of grammar, the English sound system, and vocabulary (Foo & Richards, 2004).
However, the role of the KBSM is much more complex and diverse (Hassan & Fauzee Selamat,
2002). The English language KBSM syllabus was crafted to equip students with
communicational ability and competency to perform language functions using correct language
forms and structures (Thang & Kumarasamy, 2006). The KBSM was also developed with an

10

implied purpose of preparing students for the national examinations. The English language
KBSM syllabus focuses mainly on two language skills, writing and reading, with another major
focus being grammar. Since the syllabus was developed this way, teachers and students have
been teaching and learning mainly as preparation for the national examinations (Hassan &
Fauzee Selamat, 2002).
Additionally, and because of the influence of the British education system, Malaysia, like
most Commonwealth countries, employs a traditional, product-oriented, examination-centered
approach, with a strong emphasis on form and structure in English language education (Mansor,
2008). Malaysian teachers tend to focus on assessments, especially for students who are sitting
for national examinations, such as the National Middle School Assessment (PMR) and the
National Certificate of Malaysian Education (SPM) (Hassan & Fauzee Selamat, 2002).
Malaysians treat examinations very seriously, with teachers paying close attention to their
students who are sitting for national examinations, and training students to be “test-wise” (Tan,
2006, p. 25).
Schools often go to great lengths to provide seminars and camps to train students on
examination techniques and strategies by analyzing past examination questions and improving
students’ memory skills (Tan, 2006). It is common to find teachers in the classroom using “drills,
rote learning, memorizing of model answers, and homework” (Tan, 2006, p. 26). Manan (2002)
reported that the extraordinary focus on national assessments leaves teachers reverting to a
traditional way of teaching by using the product-based approach, in which the teacher is regarded
as the authority, disseminating truth-knowledge to be consumed by students, without prejudice or
question.

11

English Language and Writing Instruction in Malaysia
The second area of literature focuses on the status and teaching of the English language
in Malaysia, i.e., the role of English as a second language, current English language instruction,
current English writing instruction, and issues with Malaysian students’ English writing.
English as a Second/Foreign Language
The perception, status, and teaching of the English language in Malaysia are heavily
influenced by the traditional British education system. Before Malaysia’s independence in 1957,
the English language was widely used and was considered as important as the national language,
i.e., the Malay language (Hussin, 2008). During this time, most Malaysians were bilingual
because the language of instruction and the learning materials in schools were in English.
After achieving its independence from the British in 1957, Malaysia adopted the English
language as its second language, i.e., the second official language next to the national Malay
language (Crismore, 2005; Had Salleh, 2003). During this time, English was also regarded as the
formal second language for instruction, until 1975, when a new language policy was introduced
that the medium of instruction in all schools should be only the Malay language (David et al.,
2009). The new language policy was developed for purposes of nation building and fostering
national unity, as well as part of the efforts of the Malaysian government to distinguish Malaysia
as an independent country with a national identity (David et al., 2009). The way this was done
was through mandating a standard curriculum in which the role and status of English were
radically reduced, from being the language of instruction to being a second language subject
taught in schools (David et al., 2009). Even though the English language was still considered as a
formal second language, English education was given less priority.

12

For the next 30 years, English was perceived as a foreign language rather than a second
language to the Malay language, especially in economically underdeveloped settings in
Malaysia, where there are homogenous ethnic group populations and very little social and
environmental exposure to the English language (Hussin, 2008). However, in the larger
Malaysian geographical setting, especially in the economically-developed and ethnically-diverse
West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia settings, English is still regarded as the second language and
as a language of unity in the multiethnic Malaysian society. Furthermore, due to the current push
for and reach of the Internet and information and communication technology (ICT), English is
seen as the language of knowledge and power. As such, the English education is a very important
subject in the Malaysian education system, in particular English writing. This is because of the
emphasis on writing skills in state and national assessments, for university entrance, and also for
employment (Mansor, 2008; Tan, 2006).
English Education
Malaysian students are typically exposed to eleven years of formal English education,
i.e., six years in elementary school and five years in secondary school (Darus & Subramaniam,
2009). In addition, the teaching of English in Malaysian education starts as early as kindergarten
and/or pre-school. Hence, Malaysian children are introduced to formal English education as early
as five or six years old (Jalaludin et al., 2008), and they are basically taught four language skills
in English, i.e., reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Tan et al., 2009). On average, an
English teacher usually teaches about three to five classes in one academic year, with the number
in one class reaching up to 30 students (Vengadasamy, 2006).
Given these circumstances (i.e., syllabi catered to national assessment, the large number
of students in classrooms, and the schools’ and parents’ expectations for students’ success in the

13

assessments), most English language instruction is very content-based, with the content centered
on the syllabus (Thang & Kumarasamy, 2006). The way this is implemented is by structuring
English instruction around topics or themes within the syllabi, with the topics forming the
structure for classroom instruction by which these topics are taken from various areas, such as
from the discipline of science, or from current issues (e.g., prominent/historical figures,
technological advancements, interesting places, etc.) (Abu Bakar, 2007).
Due to the implementation of content-based instruction and the large number of students,
Malaysian classrooms have been traditionally teacher-centered (Gaudart, 1999). However, this
approach has been found to be appreciated by students (Al-Tamimi & Shuib, 2009; Ali & Md
Yunus, 2005; Thang & Alias, 2007; Vengadasamy, 2006). Thang and Alias (2007) reported that
Malaysian learners expect the teacher to be an authoritative figure in the classroom—with
teachers viewed as the source of knowledge, as an important asset to students, and with students
displaying reliance on the teacher as a symbol of respect (Thang & Alias, 2007).
This display of high respect for teachers is a reflection of Asian culture, and also a result
of the traditional approach of the British educational system (Al-Tamimi & Shuib, 2009; Thang
& Alias, 2007). Malaysian students believe that it is necessary to have formal, traditional
teaching to learn English, and a majority of them prefer their teachers to be in-charge by guiding
and motivating them (Thang, 2010). Overall, Malaysian students tend to rely on their teachers to
explain everything to them and to guide them closely in their learning. Teachers are also seen as
the resource to point out and correct their mistakes (Ali & Md Yunus, 2005; Thang & Alias,
2007; Vengadasamy, 2006).

14

English Writing Instruction
Writing is an important component of the English syllabus in that at the end of secondary
school, students are expected to be able to write and understand written English in school and in
real life situations outside of school (Ministry of Education, 1991). In terms of teaching English
writing, Malaysian teachers use a variety of methods. Writing at the upper secondary school
level, in particular, covers a variety of text types, most of which are confined to examination
genres. Writing tasks include, for example, a 350-word narrative essay or expository essay, a
formal letter of complaint, and a guided essay based on a given outline (Tan et al., 2009).
Malaysian teachers teach writing to students by discussing the content of writing, focusing on
specific topics. This is where teachers and students engage in brainstorming sessions to
determine the ideas or facts that can be incorporated into their writing. The results of ideas from
the brainstorming sessions are then referred to and used attentively in their writing (Md Rashid
& Md Yunus, 2008). Such is the impact of this strategy in secondary level English writing that it
is carried into tertiary level English writing. For instance, Chan and Han (2005), in their study of
tertiary level students’ writing, documented that college students’ most preferred method for
generating ideas is to use a detailed outline as a guide, as opposed to free writing or process
writing (Chan & Han, 2005).
Another conventional way to teach writing is to provide students with exemplary essays
(Chan & Abdullah, 2005 & 2008; Pilus, 1993). In order to provide students with a clear view of
form and content before writing, the teacher provides exemplary essays (or model essays) for
their work, and students are expected to refer to them throughout the writing process, hence
coming up with a product of writing that is similar in structure, format, and quality to the
exemplary essays (Pilus, 1993). Another popular method in teaching secondary level English

15

writing is formulaic writing, which includes (1) the introduction, (2) the body (content of the
essay), and (3) the conclusion (Chan & Abdullah, 2005), which is a version of the traditional
five-paragraph essay format. This method is still being broadly practiced today throughout
secondary level education, because it is easily taught by teachers, mostly preferred by students,
and widely agreed as the best instructional method in preparing students for the middle and high
school national assessments (Chan & Abdullah, 2008).
Because the teaching of writing in Malaysia, especially at the secondary education level,
focuses very much on preparation for national assessments, Mukundan and colleagues (2005)
argued that many English language teachers treat writing as a mechanical process, with the
purpose of writing assignments being viewed “for the sole purpose of testing the mastery of
specific grammatical structures” (p. 48). In addition, Tan (2006) found that many English
teachers believe that writing is best taught through strategies, such as guided or parallel writing
and model essays, one needs to know for the national assessments. Writing is concerned with
knowledge about the structure of language, and writing development is mainly the result of the
imitation of exemplary texts provided by the teacher (Md Nordin & Mohammad, 2006).
Focusing on the content of the written product, teachers highlight grammatical rules, and the
emphasis is on rhetorical drills, with their response to students’ writings being mostly on form
and structure, with very little attention to content and creativity (Md Nordin & Mohammad,
2006; Vengadasamy, 2002a; Vengadasamy, 2006).
The teaching of English writing in Malaysian secondary schools also tends to involve
teachers giving corrective feedback on students’ grammatical structure and on their general
performance on the current writing assignment (Othman, 2005). From his study on the writing
feedback of secondary school teachers, Othman (2005) found that the amount of comments given

16

by writing teachers differed, depending on what scoring methods they used. However, most
teachers tended to give simple and corrective comments or feedback, accompanied by grades, for
students’ writing. Teachers also tended to give feedback by showing examples of good writing
(i.e., for students to follow closely the format provided) and by producing rationales for good
grades on those particular writings (Othman, 2005). Nevertheless, research indicates that
regardless of the lack of feedback on content and meaning, students value teachers’ corrective
comments, especially when comments are given on form (i.e., grammar and structure), and the
written comments indicate good and weak points in their writing (Ali & Md Yunus, 2005).
Students are highly dependent on their teachers to provide them with all the necessary directions
and strategies to learn English, and they seldom attempt to learn the English language on their
own. The perception of teachers as authorities in the English language is so thoroughly
embedded in students’ minds that they tend to follow closely the directions and instructions of
their teachers (Chan, 2005; Choy & Troudi, 2006).
In terms of evaluating and assessing students’ English writing, Mukundan & Ahour
(2008) found that the main reason for Malaysian teachers’ assessment of students’ writing is to
identify their strengths and weaknesses. However, the majority of Malaysian school teachers use
different ways and methods to assess their students’ writing (Othman, 2005). Some teachers use
analytic scoring assessments, by which they analyze students’ papers and give critiques of the
organization and content of the paper, and occasionally give individual coaching to students by
identifying their strengths and weaknesses (Othman, 2005). Some teachers tend to use holistic
scoring methods, i.e., to give general comments about students’ performance in their writing
(Othman, 2005). Meanwhile, some teachers use criterion-based scoring and state the scoring
criteria explicitly to students, in the hope that this will assist the students to “find out the

17

problematic areas on which they should practice more to reach the required standards”
(Mukundan & Ahour, 2008, p. 15). Many teachers reveal their scoring schemes to their students
so that they know what to expect the teachers’ scoring will look like (Othman, 2005). Students
also learn that school essays are judged against a set of criteria (similar to the ones used in the
national examinations) that include grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, content, length,
style, and organization in their essays.
Having students familiarize themselves with examination scoring rubrics is seen as a
necessity for students facing the national examinations. Tan (2006) argued that this “discourse of
examinations” (p. 30) shapes the students' construction of writing in that they are made to learn
that good writing is accomplished “with the awareness of meeting the requirements of a scoring
system” (p. 31). In fact, scoring schemes are so heavily emphasized in writing classes that many
extreme measures are taken when it comes to ensuring students know how writing is evaluated,
especially when it comes to the national assessments such as the PMR (i.e., National Middle
School Assessment) and the SPM (i.e., National Certificate of Malaysian Education). An
example of an extreme measure taken by teachers and schools to prepare for the national
examination is the following:
Normally, secondary school ESL teachers in Malaysia invite the SPM national raters who
are considered as the expert raters to come to their schools to conduct seminars and
workshops for their students before they sit for the national examination… so that
students would get the same exposure about the national raters’ expectations when they
assess their written product in the national level examination. The national raters are
trained by the Malaysian Examination Board on how to assess the English Language
Papers in the SPM examination. (Othman, 2005, p. 11)
Issues with Malaysian Students’ English Writing
Even though English language teaching in Malaysia is currently focused on learning
various language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking, grammar, and literature), and

18

despite having to learn English formally in the elementary and secondary levels for eleven years,
English language proficiency and English education achievement among Malaysian children is
on the decline. Malaysian students are still weak in English, especially in their writing skills
(Darus & Subramaniam, 2009; Md Nordin & Mohammad, 2006). Analyses of the written works
of Malaysian English learners have shown that their writings are full of mistakes, such as
grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, wrong use of prepositions, confusing use of structural
verbs and tenses, and improper use of subject-verb agreement (Darus & Subramaniam, 2009;
Hakim & Dillah, 2007; Jalaludin et al., 2008).
Vengadasamy (2002b) argued that these aforementioned issues are prevalent due to
teachers’ lack of training in their teacher education program. He found that many in-service
English teachers hardly received any training on how to respond effectively to student writing.
Vengadasamy (2002b) also noted that teacher educators may not have considered teacher
response or teacher feedback as an essential component in the training module of teachers, hence
abandoning this crucial aspect in writing instruction. Vengadasamy (2002b) found that even for
those who do try to give feedback on students’ writing, their “comments on content, already few
in number, usually take the form of vague and abstract descriptions that students find difficult to
interpret” (p. 11). He continued to report that the teachers tend not to make any clear attempts to
vary their responses when responding to students of different language ability, whereas teachers’
responses appear to be more “effective for students of high and average levels of proficiency, but
not for weaker students” (p. 5). In reiteration of this, Johari (2006) stated that teachers of writing
tend not to give “sufficient attention to the extended expression of ideas” (p. 101).
Those who live in the suburban and rural areas (especially in economicallyunderdeveloped states in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia) show the worst decline in

19

English language proficiency (Md Nordin & Mohammad, 2006). Researchers have noted many
possible factors that might be responsible for the decline in the standards of English language use
in Malaysia, such as the failure of suburban and rural school students and those living in low
socio-economic settings to learn and use the English language properly; teachers’ inability to
give proper feedback on students’ written works; the focus on examination-oriented education;
and even the education system as a whole.
Some of the more popular critiques have been made against teachers and teacher
educators. Chan and Abdullah (2005) argued that Malaysian English teachers have not shown a
sense of commitment towards writing development. They pointed to the need for the
“establishment of a strong base structure for the cultivation of writing skills at the elementary
and secondary levels in order to prepare English language writers to meet the demands of tertiary
writing” (p. 9). Razali (1992) suggested that the teacher training curriculum prepare prospective
Malaysian English teachers with the sociolinguistic awareness necessary for their future teaching
encounters (especially given the fact that Malaysian is a multiethnic country). He warned that
Malaysian English language teachers cannot just rely on methods and textbooks alone in their
teaching; they also have to be “versatile and resourceful in order to be commended by the
community they serve” (Razali, 1992, p. 5).
Meanwhile, Choy and Troudi (2006) urged a change in the manner by which English is
taught to students; they argued for a “de-emphasis on examinations,” and for English education
to be more tailored to meet students’ needs (p. 129). Choy and Troudi (2006) also argued for a
change in the way English writing is perceived by Malaysian students, by restructuring the
method of English writing instruction.

20

Digital Technology in Malaysian Education
The third area of literature focuses on the development and implementation of digital
technology in the Malaysian education system. In particular, this section discusses the
development of digital technology in Malaysian education, such as the implementation of the
Malaysian Smart School, and the role of digital technology in Malaysian teacher education and
professional development.
Development of Digital Technology in Malaysian Education
The implementation of digital technology in Malaysia started in the early 1990s. Some of
the earliest projects on computer technology in Malaysian education included the Computer in
Education program in 1992, which was done to enhance computer literacy among Malaysian
teachers and students (Abdul Razak et al., 2009); the Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)
project, which was launched in 1994 to help raise the achievement level of pupils in Arithmetic
and English in primary schools (Chan et al., 2008); and the ComIL computer integrated learning
and electronic library system in secondary schools (Chan et al., 2008). Hence, the
implementation of computers in Malaysian education is not new (Abu Bakar, 2007).
However, a larger, more rigorous implementation of digital technology in Malaysian
education—as mentioned earlier in the introduction section—started with the Vision 2020
project, which is Malaysia’s national plan to enhance the growth of the country in commerce,
health, and education, and which calls for sustained, productivity-driven growth, believed to be
achievable only with a technologically literate, critically thinking workforce which participates
st

fully in the global economy of the 21 century (Government of Malaysia, 2006). Through Vision
2020, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia (MOE) initiated the transformation of the nation’s
educational system, so that information and communication technology (ICT) became a central
21

concept (Bakar & Mohamed, 2008). The concept of ICT is seen as a system that enables
information gathering, management, manipulation, access, and communication in various forms
(Government of Malaysia, 2006). The three main policies in Vision 2020’s ICT in education are
1. ICT is for all students (i.e., ICT is used as an enabler to reduce the digital gap between
the schools);
2. ICT is used as a teaching and learning tool, as part of a subject, and as a subject itself;
3. ICT is to be used to increase efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness of the
management system. (Government of Malaysia, 2006, p. 6)
In relation to these policies, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia (MOE) is providing
schools with computer laboratories and Internet connections (Bakar & Mohamed, 2008). In
addition, there are many information and communication technology-related projects, such as the
training of teachers, school administrators, and other school staff on ICT courses, and also
instructional projects, such as the use of electronic books and computer learning tools (Bakar &
Mohamed, 2008; Chan, 2002). The Ministry of Education of Malaysia (MOE) is also providing
ICT learning materials to all public schools in order to assist teachers and students in the
teaching and learning process. In the case of English education, for example, English textbooks
come with CD-ROMs that are tailor-made to meet the students’ needs—such is also the case
with English literature texts/lesson materials—and they are designed to allow students to develop
self-directed learning of the four essential language skills, i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and
writing (Ng, 2007).
Malaysian Smart School. One project that was introduced in 1996—and still being
carried out to this date—as a large component to Vision 2020 and ICT implementation in
Malaysian schools is the Malaysian Smart School project. The Malaysian Smart School project is

22

a large national project systemically to reinvent learning institutions (i.e., secondary school) in
terms of teaching/learning practices and school management, to prepare students for the digital
age (Abu Bakar, 2007).
The most distinctive feature of the Smart School is its alignment of curriculum,
pedagogy, assessment, and teaching–learning materials to meet the Malaysian government’s
objectives of preparing students for the information age, i.e., Vision 2020 (Bakar & Mohamed,
2008). The Smart School project involves a wide range of inter-related initiatives, including
improvement of school technology infrastructure, training for teachers and school administrators,
and a national school management system to link schools and the communities they serve (Abdul
Kader, 2007). To ensure the success of the Smart School project, teachers are provided training
by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) to enhance their knowledge, competence, and
efficiency in using ICT in teaching and learning, and this training is normally held at government
certified public teacher education institutions (Thang et al., 2010).
The key idea in the Smart School program is to provide teaching and learning approaches
that are suitable for students’ academic levels by integrating different strategies into teaching and
learning practices (Abu Bakar, 2007). The key concept is that learning is to be self-directed,
individually-paced, contextualized, and reflective, while using computer technology as a prime
enabler (Abdul Razak et al., 2009). The first step in the Smart School initiative was the
introduction of computers, related applications, software, and courseware into schools,
classrooms, and the teaching and learning processes (Abdul Kader, 2007). In his report on the
history and progress of the Smart School project, Abdul Kader (2007) informed that teaching and
learning materials in a Smart School include 1,494 items of courseware and printed matter for
four subject areas: Malay language, English language arts (i.e., including English literature),

23

science, and mathematics. There is also integrated software for managing and administering
student enrolment, educational resources, school finances, human resources, external resources,
school amenities, and hostel facilities (Abdul Kader, 2007).
As many as 87 secondary schools in Malaysia were selected to be included in this pilot
project before all schools in Malaysia were to be converted into Smart Schools by the year 2010
(Abdul Kader, 2007; Bakar & Mohamed, 2008; Government of Malaysia, 2006). Currently the
Malaysian Smart Schools still consist of the same 87 schools; however, the vision to have all
schools in Malaysia be Smart Schools, especially in relation to the Vision 2020 nationwide
project, has yet to be achieved (Chong et al., 2011).
In fact, while the Vision 2020 project is still being carried out by the government of
Malaysia, there has recently been a revision of the project. Due to changing global and economic
conditions, notably the Malaysian financial crisis during years 2007 to 2010, the Prime Minister
of Malaysia announced the re-visioning of Vision 2020, in that instead of achieving the goal of
becoming a developed nation by the year 2020, Malaysia is expected to become a developed
nation by the year 2030 (Pakiam & Adam, 2009; Zalkapli, 2009). Even with the Vision 2020
project under review, the integration and implementation of information and communication
technology (ICT) into Malaysian education system are still being actively carried out in the
forms of digital technology-based teaching and learning practices, provision of digital
technology-based lesson materials and resources, and further development of digital technology
as part of school infrastructure.
Digital Technology in Teacher Education and Professional Development
Due to the push for digital technology in education, the Ministry of Education Malaysia
(MOE) has provided various training and courses on information and communication technology

24

(ICT) to in-service and pre-service teachers. For example, there are numerous and continuous
computer courses, Smart School teacher training courses, and basic computer literacy to inservice teachers held nationwide (Government of Malaysia, 2006). In addition, teacher education
institutions and various agencies within and outside of the Ministry of Education Malaysia
(MOE) have been providing on-going training to educational personnel (Bakar & Mohamed,
2008; Jamil et al., 2011). ICT-related certifications (e.g., a one-year special teacher certificate
course in Information Technology and a 14-week in-service course in Computer Education and
Computer in Education) are also offered to in-service teachers (Mahmud & Hj. Ismail, 2010). Inservice teachers are also provided with short term courses and workshops on basic ICT skills
(Mahmud & Hj. Ismail, 2010).
Meanwhile, for pre-service teachers, training on information and communication
technology (ICT) in education is given through courses by institutions of higher learning; ICT is
taught as a core course in all teacher training programs (Mahmud & Hj. Ismail, 2010). In
addition, all pre-service teacher education programs in the English language in public teacher
education institutions include several courses specifically focusing on the acquisition of the new
electronic literacies that include not only computer or technology literacy (i.e., technological
know-how), but also multimedia, online, and computer-mediated communication literacies
(Abdul Aziz, 2008).
Apart from government-implemented in-service training that is normally done twice
within an academic year, schools are encouraged to conduct in-house training programs to
develop and enhance teacher information and communication technology (ICT) knowledge
(Jamil et al., 2011). Various agencies within the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) conduct
this training. For instance, orientation courses on computer technology are conducted by the

25

Teacher Education Division, the Educational Technology Division, and the Examinations
Syndicate (Chan, 2002). The Curriculum Development Centre also trains teachers exclusively in
ICT literacy and in getting teachers to use ICT in the classroom (Chan, 2002). In addition, the
Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) also collaborates with other agencies on a number of
initiatives in training basic computer knowledge, effective management with ICT, and strategic
ICT leadership to develop and empower school administrators to adopt and adapt ICT (Jamil et
al., 2011). Also, in terms of ICT training, Malaysian schools at the state and district levels use a
cascade model to educate teachers. This is where expert teachers undergo training, and they pass
on this training to selected teachers, who in turn educate their colleagues at school (Chan, 2002).
Teachers’ Attitudes, Competencies, Uses, and Concerns with Digital Technology
in English Education and English Writing Instruction
The fourth area of literature focuses on recent and relevant studies that have been done so
far on Malaysian teachers’ attitudes, competency levels, actual uses (or lack thereof), and
concerns about the use of digital technology in English education in Malaysia.
Teachers play an important role in the implementation of digital technology in order to
ensure success in the learning process (see Abu Bakar & Mickan, 2005; De Rycker &
Ponnudurai, 2011; Ng, 2007). However, learning English by using digital technology in
Malaysia currently has a low priority. Pandian (2003), in his survey of Malaysian English
teachers’ computer literacy, found that only 19.2% of randomly selected teachers in public
schools in the state of Penang, Malaysia (n=376), said that they used the computer for learning
English. Badusah and Hussin (2000), in their survey of secondary school teachers in Selangor,
Malaysia, reported that the use of computers and the Internet among Malaysian public school
teachers is still at a low level. Their survey shows that 56.3% of the teachers have never used the

26

Internet, 59% of the schools do not have internet access, and 39% of the teachers who use the
Internet do not have any formal training on how to use the Internet (Badusah & Hussin, 2000).
Abu Bakar (2007) conducted a case study to investigate how computer-based activities
and non-computer-based activities were organized and integrated in a classroom in a Smart
School. She found that students and teachers used computers basically for the purpose of
searching for reading materials and as a presentation tool (Abu Bakar, 2007). In addition, Chong
and colleagues (2011) found that computer applications are limited to teachers using PowerPoint
presentations or presenting an instructional unit on the CD-ROMs provided by the Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MOE). These findings are quite alarming due to the fact that these studies
were conducted at Smart Schools, which were equipped with rich and up-to-date digital
technology. Given the alarmingly low rate of teacher use of digital technology in schools, there
have been many studies to describe Malaysian English teachers’ perceptions and attitudes,
competency levels, uses (or lack thereof), and concerns with the use of digital technology in
English (writing) instruction.
Teachers’ Attitudes towards Digital Technology
In their quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire) of 160 secondary school teachers’
attitudes and perceived competency towards information and communication technology (ICT),
Sa’ari and colleagues (2005) found that most teachers possessed positive attitudes towards ICT
in that they believed that using computers would actually enhance their job performance, and
they reported great confidence in their ability to use computers. In another quantitative study
(i.e., survey), which investigated computer anxiety among 93 in-service teachers doing their
graduate studies in a public teacher education institution in Malaysia, Roslan and Tan (2005)
found that most respondents were generally confident with using computers, and most

27

respondents showed a positive attitude towards the use of computers in teaching. Meanwhile, in
a mixed-method study of 62 English teachers from 12 schools in a selected district in Malaysia,
which focused on their attitudes and motivation in the use of computers for teaching English,
Abdullah and colleague (2006) found that the majority of the teachers had a positive attitude,
were highly motivated towards the use of computers to teach English, and actually used them for
teaching and learning purposes. They cited that intrinsic rewards, such as responsibilities and a
sense of self-worth and accomplishments, played an important role in enhancing their positive
attitude and motivation (Abdullah et al., 2006).
Mahmud and Hj. Ismail’s (2010) survey of Malaysian teachers’ basic information and
communication technology (ICT) literacy also found that the majority of teachers perceived ICT
positively, and that their formal ICT training and experience in using ICT positively influenced
and contributed to teachers’ ICT literacy significantly. The notion of teachers’ positive attitude
towards ICT in education was also reiterated by Md Yunus (2007), who found that there was a
very positive attitude among the majority of English teachers about using ICT in their language
teaching because ICT in language teaching helps their students understand English better,
motivates their students, enables them to facilitate students’ learning, provides authentic use of
language, and provides greater teaching satisfaction. She also mentioned that most teachers feel
competent in the personal use of computers, and they reported having computers at home (Md
Yunus, 2007). In addition to teachers’ attitudes, Zain and colleagues (2004), in their quantitative
study (i.e., survey questionnaire) of 36 Smart Schools’ principals and school administrators on
the impact of ICT on management practices, yielded positive findings, citing the enrichment of
the ICT culture among students and teachers, more efficient student and teacher administration,
better accessibility to information, and a higher utilization of school resources.

28

Furthermore, studies of pre-service teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards digital
technology in education also yielded positive results. Pang and colleagues (2005), in their
quantitative study of 324 undergraduate pre-service teachers across majors (including English
education majors) at a teacher education institution in Malaysia, focusing on their perceptions of
online English learning, reported that student-teachers felt online learning helped to supplement
their teaching and learning. Online learning was also perceived to be a better learning experience
compared to face-to-face learning (Pang et al., 2005). Meanwhile, in a quantitative study which
analyzed written diary entries and a survey questionnaire of 60 pre-service English teachers’
views of the practicability of WebQuest (i.e., a database for English learning lessons and
activities), Nordin, Arshad, and Razali (2007) found that student-teachers were receptive to the
idea of using the WebQuest to teach and learn English, citing that WebQuest could be
meaningful for providing authentic learning experiences, for encouraging higher order thinking
and cooperative learning, and for providing motivating challenges (Nordin et al., 2007).
Teachers’ Digital Technology Competency
Due to the limited use of digital technology in teaching English (as reported by Abu
Bakar, 2007; Badusah & Hussin, 2000; and Pandian, 2003), quite a number of studies have been
conducted to investigate pre-service and in-service English teachers’ (and other teachers’) level
of digital literacy and computer competency.
Interestingly, many studies of pre-service teachers’ competency levels and experiences
with digital technology across education subject fields have yielded positive results. For
example, in a qualitative study (i.e., analysis of diary entries) of seven student teachers’
experiences in working collaboratively with researchers and programmers to develop a webbased collaborative learning tool, the student teachers felt that the experience of developing and

29

collaborating on a web-based learning tool was very relevant to their professional development
(Raja Hussain, 2004). The experience taught them valuable skills they needed to identify sound
educational websites, provided them a chance to apply their knowledge and expertise (i.e.,
knowledge of instructional design and the formative evaluation of products for web-based
learning), and gave them the confidence that the technology knowledge would be useful in their
future professional development (Raja Hussain, 2004). Moreover, in Bakar and Mohamed’s
(2008) quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire) of 675 trainee teachers’ ability to integrate
and use digital technology in education, they found that student teachers across various education
subject fields (including the English education) were quite confident with their ability to
integrate technology in instruction. In particular, they found that male student teachers who had
experience teaching in schools and student teachers who were in vocational education were more
confident with their ability to integrate ICT into their teaching (Bakar & Mohamed, 2008).
However, studies of in-service teachers’ ICT competency levels tended to yield more
negative results. For example, Abdul Razak and Embi (2004) conducted a survey with a total of
1,123 in-service secondary English teachers from 274 schools in Malaysia to determine the
teachers’ digital technology competence. They found that English teachers felt that they were not
competent in handling the new computing skills, especially those related to computer mediated
communication and web-based teaching and learning. These English teachers perceived
themselves as far from ready and not competent in handling computer tasks, and majority of
them felt that they had not acquired the new skills, especially those related to online teaching and
learning. More than half of them perceived themselves at the low competency level when it came
to computer skills (Abdul Razak & Embi, 2004).

30

In another study, Abdul Razak and colleagues (2009) found that English teachers have
some reservations in using technology in teaching due to the fact that they are not familiar with
digital technology, and they are concerned that digital technology will change their teaching
methods and styles. In a quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire) by Sa’ari and colleagues
(2005) on three public secondary schools in a state on the west coast of Malaysia, they too found
that most teachers across subject fields (n=160) had only moderate levels of information and
communication technology (ICT) competency, and they still lacked the appropriate skills to
integrate the technology into the teaching and learning process. Reiterating teachers’ lack of ICT
competency, Mahmud and Hj. Ismail (2010) surveyed 303 randomly selected teachers of the
teachers’ who were teaching various subjects in Malaysian secondary schools (including English
teachers) on their basic ICT literacy (i.e., ICT knowledge, skills, and attitude). They also found
that the majority of the teachers had only moderate basic ICT knowledge and skills.
In a recent quantitative study (i.e., self-reported survey) of 56 English language teachers
from fourteen vocational schools about their level of information and communication technology
(ICT) competency, Abdul Razak and colleagues (2009) found that the majority of English
teachers in Malaysian vocational schools were still novice users of digital technology. Some of
the reasons were reported to be their low level of computer competency, lack of focus on the new
computing skills, limited training programs, fear of technology, limited infrastructure and
support, and high levels of anxiety. The results were quite surprising, given that almost half of
them reported receiving ICT education during their teacher preparation years and throughout
their careers (i.e., in-service and professional development training).
Overall, from the studies of the teachers’ levels of competency of digital technology, it is
understood that most studies were done using quantitative approaches (i.e., surveys), which,

31

while useful, did not describe in-depth the underlying reasons behind the teachers’ varying levels
of digital technology competency. Many of these studies were done on teachers from various
subject fields; and while many did include English teachers within their surveys, only a few
studies were focused specifically on English teachers’ levels of competency in using digital
technology (e.g., Abdul Razak & Embi, 2004; Abdul Razak et al, 2009).
Teachers’ Use of Digital Technology
Kumar and colleagues (2008) conducted a quantitative study (i.e., self-administered
survey questionnaire) of 318 mathematics, science, and English language Malaysian teachers
from 65 secondary schools in the state of Selangor, in order to study teachers’ use of computers.
They found that there were five variables that significantly predicted Malaysian teachers’ use of
computers, i.e., perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness, job relevance, computer
compatibility, and attitude. Kumar and colleagues (2008) found that perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness were important perceptions that determined use of computers. Teachers
believed that the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness were an integral part of the
process of using computers because teachers believed computer technology should be easy to use
in order to be particularly useful and beneficial in their lessons. In addition, the use of computers
was seen by teachers only to increase their job requirements, and teachers did not find these tools
to be job relevant unless they were easy to use (Kumar et al., 2008).
Wong and Teo (2009) reported similar findings in their descriptive quantitative study
(i.e., survey questionnaire) of 245 Malaysian student teachers’ acceptance of and intentions to
use computers in instruction. They found pre-service teachers’ perceived usefulness of computer
technology, perceived ease of use, and attitudes towards computer use were significant
determinants of their intentions to use computers. Wong and Teo (2009) found that perceived

32

ease of use significantly influenced perceived usefulness (highest significance); both perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use significantly influenced attitudes towards computer use; and
both perceived usefulness and attitudes towards computer use significantly influenced intentions
to use computers.
Hussin (2004) conducted a survey questionnaire of 20 in-service language teachers who
were enrolled in a post-graduate Masters in English Language Studies program and their
development and use of web-based programming activities. He found teachers’ use of
information and communication technology (ICT) to be quite positive. He reported that these
teachers were accessing websites (70 %), using e-mail facilities (70 %), and sending/receiving
files via e-mail (50 %) for educational purposes. They were also engaged in specific data or
information gathering, reading news, and seeking entertainment (i.e., songs and movies) for their
own personal uses. Furthermore, Hussin (2004) reported that these teachers had integrated the
Internet in their language teaching practice (e.g., asking students to gather information from the
Internet, do language exercises on the Internet, send homework and communicate via e-mail, and
join online forums or chat networks), even though it had not been exploited maximally.
In another instance, Ngah and Yeoh (2005) conducted a quantitative study of 39 inservice teachers’ experiences using an online discussion group in a college course to provide
support for other in-service teachers to discuss current issues, give opinions and suggestions, and
exchange information. They found that both affective and learning support were present during
the online discussion. Furthermore, the teachers felt that the online discussion group allowed
them to feel connected, and that they were able to discuss ideas and problems faced in achieving
their teaching goals (Ngah & Yeoh, 2005).

33

Kabilan (2003) conducted an ethnographic case study of collaborative practices that were
carried out by Malaysian English language teachers in an unmediated public online forum.
Kabilan (2003) participated in this online forum and analyzed 184 forum postings; he found that
there were collaborative efforts among the teachers in attempting to enhance their professional
development. There were also indications that the teachers were seeking, sharing, and
exchanging ideas with the intention of helping each other in their instruction. They were
achieving similar educational goals; and they were sharing their knowledge, practices, and
experiences with others, thus confirming their beliefs and views of what ideal practices of
teaching should be. There were also discussions on current issues relating to education and
English language teaching (Kabilan, 2003).
Apart from positive findings of the Malaysian teachers’ attitudes and uses of information
and communication technology (ICT) in English education, there have also been many studies
that yielded very positive benefits on the use of ICT in English education for Malaysian students.
For example, a descriptive quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire) of the impact of
technology on 365 students in 12 Smart Schools, by Hamzah and colleagues (2010), found that
the majority of students had access to a computer and the Internet at home, and they frequently
used the computers at school for at least one hour per week. Hamzah and colleagues (2010) also
found that students had very positive views towards the use of computers. In another study,
Chong and colleagues (2011) conducted a case study of a group of 23 urban secondary school
students’ use of Wiki to co-write a science dictionary. Through interviews, a survey
questionnaire, and observations, Chong and colleagues (2011) found that students who actively
participated in the project perceived Wiki positively. Also, active students who were weak in

34

both digital technology skills and the English language skills had the most to gain because they
improved in both areas by the end of the project (Chong et al., 2011).
In their qualitative study (i.e., observation of writing lessons and discourse analysis of
students’ written documents), Tan and colleagues (2009) reported on the in- and out-of-school
English writing practices of a group of 31 high school students in an urban school in a state in
the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Tan and colleagues (2009) found there were diverse
writings for formal and informal settings, and students switched routinely between the various
forms of writing while being fully aware of the purposes each served for them. They also found
that by using online social networking sites, these students interacted not only among themselves
for English language homework (e.g., essay writing, reports, etc.), but also with those outside
their circle (e.g., online discussion forums about online games and gaming).
Meanwhile, Abu Bakar and Mickan (2005), in their ethnographic study of middle school
(i.e., Smart School) students’ use of computers in writing activities, found that computer-based
learning environments offered opportunities for students to develop the English language skills
in different social situations. However, they also found that the effective use of computers
depended on the nature of the tasks and the integration of challenging computer-based activities
into the English program (Abu Bakar & Mickan, 2005), which normally fell on the shoulders of
teachers.
In a mixed methods study of students’ degree of autonomy when using computer assisted
language learning (CALL) technology to learn speaking and writing skills, Ng (2007) reported
students’ positive attitudes, citing convenience and feelings of independence as reasons for using
computers to learn English. Ng (2007) also found that by using email, students were more aware
of the shortcomings of their English language writing skills in that email provides opportunities

35

for language improvement through real life interactive communication and increasing awareness
of language shortcomings. Also, the students found it useful to correct writing errors, which
enabled them to write autonomously. However, students also indicated a preference for learning
English in a face-to-face environment, because they still preferred to have the teacher available
for guidance (Ng, 2007).
In De Rycker and Ponnudurai’s (2011) quasi-experimental study, in which they analyzed
90 essays to determine which of the interactive online reading or print-based reading modes
helped Malaysian students write better argumentative essays, they found that the interactive
online reading condition yielded superior task performance, and it also produced proportionately
more essays with better thesis statements. However, they also mentioned that there were other
pedagogic interventions, such as the role of teachers, which helped students better to utilize
online reading modes to help them write (De Rycker & Ponnudurai, 2011).
Teachers’ Concerns with Digital Technology
While Malaysian English teachers report good attitudes and positive perceptions of
digital technology, and while studies have found that teachers and students benefit from using
digital technology for professional development and in instruction, there are also studies that
report teachers’ ongoing concerns with the use of digital technology in English instruction. Many
studies report a lack of digital technology resources at schools and teachers’ lack of education in
using digital technology in English education and English writing instruction.
For example, Abdullah and colleagues (2006) reported teachers’ concerns with the lack
of access to computers, time factors in using computers in instruction, and lack of computer
skills as major factors in their lack of use of information and communication technology (ICT) in
English instruction. In another study of the factors that affect the use of ICT, perceptions of skills

36

in ICT, and attitudes and challenges among Malaysian English teachers in 75 vocational
secondary schools across the nation, Md Yunus (2007) found that ICT was not widely used in
teaching English, and there were some variations in the use of ICT in English teaching at these
schools. She also reported that there were many challenges that limited the use of ICT in
teaching, especially in terms of lack of access and lack of education to use ICT in English
instruction. In particular, teachers complained of low quality hardware, such as outdated
computers; lack of technical support; lack of time to gain computer skills; and lack of computer
education (Md Yunus, 2007).
In a more recent study of the experiences of three secondary school teachers who were
given laptops for instruction in a pilot project by the Ministry of Education Malaysia, Khambari
and colleagues (2009) found that none of the teachers reported receiving hardly any information
and communication technology (ICT) education prior to receiving the laptops. The only
education they received was long after receiving the laptops, and was unsatisfactorily inadequate
(Khambari et al., 2009). Furthermore, they lamented the fact that there were no ICT technicians
available in their school to alleviate their concerns with using the laptops provided to them (i.e.,
malfunctioned laptops, virus attacks, etc.) (Khambari et al., 2009).
Conversely, Abdul Aziz (2008) conducted a quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire)
of 518 English teachers in 59 secondary schools in an economically underdeveloped state in
Malaysia and reported more than 60 % of the teachers had adopted technological innovations in
their English instruction, but experienced concerns in their use of digital technology (Abdul
Aziz, 2008). She also found that there was no significant effect between years of technology
adoption experience in English instruction and the teachers’ concerns of its use. The concerns
about technology education and use that were reported were on the relevance and

37

appropriateness of technology education programs, and the depth of technology use in
instructional practices. As such, she argued that the teachers’ experience and education on
information and communication technology (ICT) did not have positive outcomes in alleviating
English teachers’ concerns (Abdul Aziz, 2008).
Roslan and Tan (2005), in their quantitative study (i.e., survey questionnaire) of computer
anxiety among 93 in-service teachers who were doing their graduate studies in a public teacher
education institution in Malaysia, revealed damage anxiety (i.e., fear of causing damage to the
computer, losing important information, etc.) as the highest source of anxiety. They also found
significant relationships of sources of anxiety and anxiety level with task anxiety (i.e., anxiety of
the inability to perform computer-related tasks effectively). This finding was supported by the
study by Khambari and colleagues (2009), whose participants reported having concerns about
their own credibility in handling ICT equipment; they were often frustrated because they could
not realize the pedagogical potential of using these digital technology tools.
Samuel and Abu Bakar (2006) conducted a survey of 30 English teachers from three
secondary schools in a state in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia to study their use of
information and communication technology (ICT) in English instruction, their ICT skills, and the
obstacles faced in ICT integration. They reported that English teachers found the computer
laboratories in their schools inadequate, because they were always heavily booked by other
teachers. They also found ICT technology maintenance very poor and allocation of funds from
the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) very slow. In addition, there were many technical
issues, such as computers and laptops being out of order, outdated software, computer virus
attacks, archaic cabling/wiring system, and computer labs not connected to the central server,
making it difficult to access the school’s database.

38

They also lamented insufficient courses and education on how to use ICT in instruction,
citing only a handful of teachers being given a course on ICT integration in teaching and
learning, in spite of the government-mandated changes and plans for professional development.
In fact, many cited not being provided any computer training at all, regardless of the amount of
years they have been teaching, and almost two-thirds of the teachers reported having poor level
of ICT skills. Furthermore, these teachers reported that the ICT materials provided by the MOE
had not been used, citing lack of time to use them, and even being unaware of their existence.
Moreover, they complained that the computer laboratory technicians were not skillful enough in
solving technical computer issues faced by teachers. They also reported poor support from
school administrators. In addition, these teachers also admitted to not being willing to learn or
improve ICT skills on their own (Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006).
In the following year, Samuel and Abu Bakar (2007) conducted the same survey in
different schools in other parts of the same state on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, but
with a larger dataset (i.e., 109 elementary and secondary school English language teachers). In
addition, they also interviewed ten heads of English language departments (i.e., educational
experts) at the teacher education institutions in Malaysia to determine the availability of
information and communication technology (ICT) resources, teachers’ level of ICT skills, and
teachers’ integration of ICT in teaching and learning the English language. They found that a
fairly large number of these teachers had the basic and necessary ICT skills (i.e., surfing the
Internet, using multimedia presentation tools, using e-mail, using scanners and printers, etc.); and
they reported that their schools were equipped with computer laboratories. However, almost half
of the teachers had yet to utilize the ICT resources in English language teaching and learning.
Similar to the results of their study in 2006, the obstacles to ICT use were reported to be lack of

39

ICT resources, ICT tools’ maintenance being slow, Internet and wireless broadband facilities not
being stable, and lack of collaboration with other teachers.
In another study, and from the perspective of school administrators, Zain and colleagues
(2004) conducted a survey of 36 Smart School principals and senior school administrators on the
impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on school management in Smart
Schools. The survey yielded positive perceptions on the use of ICT in instruction, but also
reported concerns that school administrators had in terms of using digital technology in
instruction. The school administrators cited issues of time constraints, higher administrative
costs, negative acceptance/support from untrained staff, abuse of ICT facilities, and problems
related to the imposed rigid procedural requirements (Zain et al., 2004).
Gaps in the Current Literature
Given the history and development of the Malaysian education system, the status of the
English language, English education, English writing instruction, and the push for digital
technology in Malaysian education, teachers’ perceptions and uses of digital technology in
English (writing) instruction have been colorful and interesting. To summarize, there are many
studies that indicate positive attitudes and perceptions among in-service and pre-service teachers
on the use of digital technology in teaching and learning in elementary, secondary, and tertiary
levels of education, as well as in teacher professional development (e.g., Abdul Aziz, 2008;
Abdul Razak & embi, 2004; Abdul Razak et al., 2009; Abdullah et al., 2006; Bakar & Mohamed,
2008; Kabilan, 2003; Khambari et al., 2009; Lau & Sim, 2008; Md Yunus, 2007; Md Yunus et
al., 2010; Nordin et al., 2007; Pang, 2005; Raja Hussain, 2004; Wong, 2009). Furthermore,
studies of teacher attitudes about digital technology tend to yield positive results, citing increases
in teachers’ digital technology competency levels, frequency of use, and positive experiences

40

(e.g., Kabilan, 2003; Khambari et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2008; Lau et al., 2010; Mahmud & Hj.
Ismail, 2010; Sa’ari et al., 2005; Zain et al., 2009). Furthermore, there are studies that report the
usefulness of digital technology in teaching and learning the English language, but also cite the
importance of teachers as guides and facilitators when using digital technology (e.g., Abdullah &
Abbas, 2006; Chong et al., 2011; Hussin, 2008; Ng, 2007; Ngah & Yeoh, 2005).
Conversely, there are also studies that yield negative findings, citing teachers’ negative
attitudes and perceptions of digital technology. Specifically, teachers reported frustration with
lack of education and lack of resources for using digital technology (e.g., Lau & Sim, 2008;
Roslan & Tan, 2005; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2007; Thang et al.,
2010); anxiety and fear over the use of digital technology (e.g., Roslan & Tan, 2005);
unwillingness to try and/or learn new skills or new forms of digital technology (e.g., Samuel &
Abu Bakar, 2006); and negative perceptions of the usefulness and impact of digital technology
on teaching (e.g., Wong & Teo, 2009). Many studies that yielded teachers’ negative attitudes and
their lack of use of digital technology in English instruction also mentioned their frustration with
resources, education, and the inefficient administration of information and communication
technology (ICT) (e.g., Abdul Razak et al., 2009; Badusah & Hussain, 2000; Lau & Sim, 2008;
Md Yunus, 2007; Roslan & Tan, 2005; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2006; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2007;
Thang et al., 2010; Zain et al., 2004). At the same time, a study from the perspective of school
administrators found that they acknowledged the benefits of digital technology in education, but
were more concerned about financial and administrative efforts to implement digital technology
in school and to educate teachers to use them in instruction (e.g., Zain et al., 2004).
Upon close inspection, the focus of these studies—while important and beneficial to learn
from—is mostly on teachers’ general perceptions of, attitudes towards, and perceived levels of

41

competence, as well as their acceptance of and concerns with using digital technology in English
education. By contrast, there is very little in-depth and descriptive research on Malaysian English
teachers’ conceptions (i.e., thinking about how to use digital technology in English writing
instruction) and their actual uses of digital technology (i.e., the descriptions of and rationales for
using such technologies in such ways). This is problematic given that the implementation of
digital technology in Malaysian education has been long (i.e., since late 1990s until now) and
extensive (i.e., implementation of digital technology in all educational institutions in Malaysia).
Furthermore, the progression towards the implementation of digital technology into the Malaysia
education field is growing bigger and wider, especially with the very recently introduced
Malaysian government’s plan to provide Chromebook tablet computers and educational Google
applications to all 5.5 million elementary and secondary students in Malaysia (Lin, 2013).
Second, while there are a number of studies that have investigated Malaysian teachers
levels of competency in using digital technology in instruction, only two studies were found to
be done specifically with English teachers (e.g., Abdul Razak & Embi, 2004; Abdul Razak et al.,
2009), while others investigated teachers teaching other courses, such as mathematics and
science (e.g., Mahmud & Hj. Ismail, 2010; Raja Hussain, 1004; Sa’ari et al., 2005), and one
study investigated pre-service teachers from various other majors (Bakar & Mohamed, 2008).
This is quite problematic, considering that teachers’ conceptions about English instruction and
the lesson materials they use (e.g., digital technology tools) are related to one another very
closely, and they inform one another in ensuring success in teaching and learning (Koehler &
Mishra, 2009). Furthermore, their uses of technology also differ according to the contexts and
content of their instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

42

Third, it has been found that most studies of English teachers’ perceptions and uses of
digital technology tend to be conducted in Smart Schools, perhaps due to the rich digital
technology resources in this particular setting. However, these studies still yield mixed findings,
citing teachers’ positive attitudes towards the use of digital technology in English education (e.g.,
Abdul Aziz, 2008; Abdullah & Abbas, 2006; Abu Bakar & Mickan, 2005; Abu Bakar, 2007;
Aris et al., 2008; Hamzah et al., 2010; Zain et al., 2004), but also their concerns for the lack of
education, resources, opportunities, and other pedagogical and technical concerns about using
digital technology (e.g., Abdul Aziz, 2008; Abu Bakar & Mickan, 2005; Thang et al., 2010; Zain
et al., 2004).
The fact that most studies on the use of digital technology in instruction tend to be
conducted at Smart Schools is quite alarming, because the calls for and implementation of digital
technology are made in all educational institutions (i.e., public schools) in Malaysia, not only in
Smart Schools. The Smart School is a controlled setting in that it is provided with rich digital
technology resources and teachers with (arguably) trained computer skills. Hence, the positive
and negative results for English teachers’ perceptions and uses of digital technology might not be
equivalent or relevant to the more general population in Malaysia (e.g., public school teachers).
Even though the public school setting is also equipped with digital technology resources
(although not as completely as the Smart School setting), very little research has been done on
English teachers’ uses of digital technology in public school. Studies within a more realistic, less
controlled setting (i.e., public schools) would yield more generative results on Malaysian English
teachers’ conceptions and actual uses of digital technology. This is because this setting is much
more complex and diversified in terms of its access to and resources of technology, teachers’

43

levels of technology competency and computer literacy, and the challenges to teaching English
writing using technology, where studies would yield more rich and descriptive findings.
Last, most of these studies have been done using quantitative approaches, and while such
studies are very helpful in describing teachers’ perceptions and uses of digital technology, they
do not provide in-depth information as compared to what a descriptive qualitative study can
yield. Most of these studies tended to use surveys to describe teachers’ general perceptions of the
use of digital technology, and not to describe in depth their actual uses of digital technology in
teaching English. Furthermore, these studies tended to describe teachers’ general attitudes,
perceptions, competency levels, and views of digital technology as well as their concerns when
using them. They do not, however, explain how and why Malaysian English teachers perceive
digital technology in such a way. In addition, there are also several mixed method studies (e.g.,
Abdullah et al., 2006; Amir et al, 2011; Liaw, 2009), but while beneficial to the field, the
qualitative data report (i.e., interviews and observations) was not in-depth or descriptive enough
to explain teachers’ uses of digital technology and their rationales for doing so.

44

CHAPTER 3:
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Given the nature of the research problem, the relevant literature, and the gaps within the
literature, there is great need for a well-informed qualitative and descriptive study that can
examine teachers’ psychological elements and belief systems (in particular their conceptions)
about digital technology, and their actual implementations of digital technology in English
writing instruction. The study should also take into consideration the historical, social,
geographical, and linguistic elements that construct teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in writing instruction. In meeting this challenge, I used several interrelated theories
and concepts, namely sociocognitive ideas about beliefs and conceptions (Borg, 2003; Pajares,
1992; Rokeach, 1968), and the sociocultural perspectives of the New Literacies Studies approach
(Coiro et al., 2008; Leu et al., 2008). By merging sociocognitive ideas about beliefs and
conceptions with sociocultural ideas about literacy and digital technology, I investigated the
teachers’ conceptions and personal belief systems, the technological advances that influenced
their definitions and practices of literacy, and the larger sociocultural contexts that shaped their
notions of teaching and learning English writing in the Malaysian education context.
Given the complex relationship of the sociocultural aspects that direct and shape English
education, the advances of digital technology that impact definitions and practices of literacy,
and the sociocognitive aspects that guide teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices, the
embedding of multiple theories and concepts is important to capture the rich, complex, and
varied conceptions and practices of digital technology in English writing instruction. These
theories and concepts shaped my analysis, evaluation, and critique of the conceptions,
experiences, teaching/learning practices, and pedagogies associated with digital technology

45

because they encouraged critical engagement with culture, language, technology, and education
(Snyder & Bulfin, 2008). These theoretical perspectives were useful in explaining not only the
production and use of the new multimodal textual formations and literacy practices, but also the
learning of, conceptions about, and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction that
have implications for curriculum and pedagogical practices (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008).
Sociocognitive Approach
Sociocognitive perspectives primarily draw concepts from sociolinguistics, contextual
studies, and cognitive psychology. In the context of this study, sociocognitive perspectives were
used to focus on teachers’ personal belief systems, i.e., conceptions, and their connections to
teachers’ instructional practices (Pajares, 1992; Raths, 2001; Rokeach, 1968; Shulman, 1987).
From a sociocognitive perspective, teachers’ conceptions of digital technology and digital
literacy practices are pertinent aspects of context that influence teachers’ instruction. Pajares
(1992) defined conceptions as personal constructs that provide an understanding of a teacher’s
practice. Drawing on the notion of teacher cognition, teachers’ conceptions are influenced by
their teacher education, teaching experience, professional coursework, contextual factors, and
classroom practices (Borg, 2003), as well as their competency with digital technology (Mishra &
Koehler, 2008). Teachers’ conceptions are also shaped by the historical events in their lives in
that their previous experiences with and education in digital technology “create images or
perspectives about, and influence their personal knowledge of appropriate classroom practice”
(Brindley & Schneider, 2002, p. 328). In the context of digital technology and literacy
instruction, these historical events in their lives include their education on, exposure to,
experience with, and familiarity with digital technology, especially with regards to its use in
literacy instruction (Borg, 2003; Brindley & Schneider, 2002). Within their relationships, these

46

elements of teacher conceptions shape what teachers do in the classroom, including their uses of
digital technology in instruction (or lack thereof), which in turn shape the experiences that
teachers accumulate throughout their personal and professional lives (Borg, 2003).
Teachers’ conceptions and their instructional practices are dependent upon one another
(Brindley & Schneider, 2002; Pajares, 1992). Teachers’ conceptions represent the rich
knowledge that teachers have that guide and affect their planning of lessons, thoughts, and
classroom practices (Brindley & Schneider, 2002; Pajares, 1992). This “symbiotic relationship”
(Borg, 2003, p. 91) between conceptions and practice is shaped by a wide range of interacting
and sometimes conflicting factors in a teacher’s classroom practices (Borg, 2003). The beliefs or
conceptions that teachers have influence their judgements and decision-making skills in
instruction, which in return affect their behaviour in the classroom (Pajares, 1992). Teachers’
conceptions about what students need to learn also affect what they choose to emphasize during
instruction (Edwards, et al., 2010). Also, subject-specific conceptions, or what Pajares (1992)
referred to as “educational beliefs” (p. 325), are substructures of more central beliefs, and they
influence and are influenced by other substructures of conceptions in one’s central belief system
due to their inter-connections (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).
Pajares (1992) argued that teachers’ subject-specific conceptions are key to
understanding the intricacies of how teachers teach and how students learn. In terms of English
writing instruction, teachers’ conceptions can influence teachers’ preparation and practices in
writing instruction (Borg, 2003). Brindley and Schneider (2002) argued that English teachers’
conceptions about writing reflect “their attitudes toward, knowledge of, and ability to implement
writing development and instruction” (p. 330). Furthermore, English teachers teach following
their theoretical beliefs, which may result in differences in the nature of their literacy instruction

47

because their theoretical conceptions may stem from the methodological approaches that were
prominent when they began teaching English, or during their teacher education (Borg, 2003).
Teachers’ conceptions are also guided and influenced by the circumstances or contexts in
which they teach. Pajares (1992) noted teachers’ conceptions are “context-specific” in that “a
teacher’s attitude about a particular educational issue may include beliefs connected to attitudes
about the nature of society, the community, race, and even family” (p. 319). Borg (2003)
explained that teachers’ conceptions and their instructional practices mutually inform one
another, “with contextual factors playing an important role in determining the extent to which
teachers are able to implement instruction congruent with their cognitions” (p. 81). Further,
teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions are also shaped by the social, psychological,
and environmental elements of the school and classroom. These factors include (but are not
limited to) parents, teaching requirements, schooling institutions, society, curriculum mandates,
classroom and school layout, school policies, colleagues, standardized tests, and the availability
of resources (Borg, 2003; Brindley & Schneider, 2002; Pajares, 1992).
As part of the social and cultural contexts, the advances of technology and its impact on
literacy perspectives and practices, the accessibility to, conceptions about, and uses of digital
technology—along with the aforementioned sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects of digital
technology use in education (i.e., educational policies, curricula, and syllabi)—also shape how
teachers teach (Moje, 2000; New Literacies Studies Group, 2008; New London Group, 1996).
While they help, these factors may also hinder teachers’ ability to adopt practices which reflect
their beliefs or conceptions (Borg, 2003). Hence, these contextual factors are central to deeper
insights into relationships between cognition and practice as they shape what teachers do in their
planning and instructional practice (Borg, 2003).

48

Sociocultural Approach
Sociocultural perspectives on language and literacy see literacy as a socially situated
practice within social and historical contexts (Black, 20008a; Coiro et al., 2008; Leu et al.,
2004). Sociocultural perspectives posit that throughout history, literacy and literacy instruction
have changed due to changing social contexts and the development of technologies.
Sociocultural perspectives on language and literacy also focus on the individuals who are present
during these acts of literacy (i.e., their social partners), historical traditions and materials, as well
as the physical environment where the literate practices take place (Cole, 1995; Kelly & Chen,
1999; Tobin et al., 2005). As such, sociocultural perspectives on literacy posit that literacy
practices describe the ways in which individuals use literacy as a set of tools for specific
purposes and within specific contexts; the literacy practices contain both structure and meaning
and are also the basis for transformations in structure and meaning (Cole, 1995). Literacy
practices also serve as tools for engaging in activities to foster “identity building and
positionality within and across a variety of contexts” (Moje, 2000, p. 660).
In the context of current technological advances, those who espouse sociocultural
perspectives on literacy believe “definitions of literacy must change to include electronic
environments… and acknowledge the expanded presence of multimedia” (Leu et al., 2004, p.
1584). The idea of digital literacy and digital technology practices is an important one in
understanding literacy and learning as embodied activities, such as the deployment of certain
skills or ways to read and write within a social context—practices that are often enacted without
awareness but in accordance with the resources available, e.g., online/digital reading and writing
(Moje, 2000; New London Group, 1996; New Literacies Studies Group, 2008). Sociocultural
concepts are useful for understanding how the “patterns of participation in informal online

49

learning spaces might be linked to larger shifts in our increasingly globalized society” (Black,
2008a p. 29). This is because sociocultural approaches view literacy practices as social activities
deeply connected to both content and context in that what a teacher or student can do in a setting
is related to what he/she can access and activate in that setting and understand about the content
and rules for participation (Kelly & Chen, 1999; Tobin et al., 2005). From this standpoint, the
use of digital technology in literacy learning, as an embodied activity, is not just about what
learners know, but also how what they know is part of a larger system of activity, feeling, value,
and performance. Learning English using digital technology involves not only “learning digital
technology skills and English language content/skills,” but also “learning how to participate in
digital and English related communities” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 203).
New Literacies Studies Approach
Heavily adopting from and a part of the sociocultural perspectives, a new and nuanced
theoretical approach informing studies of literacy and digital technology is the New Literacies
Studies approach. New Literacies Studies (NLS) refers to a new way of looking at literacy in
which new literacies are associated with new communication and information technologies
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). The NLS approach argues that the nature of literacy and learning is
rapidly changing and transforming as new technologies emerge (Coiro et al., 2008). The NLS
approach is “a new stance that recognizes literate practices as dependent on the integration of
visual (including both print and image), performed, oral/aural, and embodied forms of
representation” (Moje, 2009, p. 352). An idea pertinent to the NLS approach is the notion of
literacy as a social practice that moves away from autonomous models of language teaching
(Black, 2008b). This notion is important in the NLS approach because it argues for the relevance
of “various literacies or discourses to the literacy users’ personal, social, cultural, historical, and

50

economic lives,” and “how individuals, as active, agentive literacy users, take up forms of
literacy and refashion them to suit the needs and perspectives of local contexts” (Black, 2008b, p.
585). Also pertinent to the NLS approach is the need to broaden our understanding of literacy,
and to view the multitude of literacies as a range of social practices affected by social factors,
such as socioeconomic status, race, or gender, and linked to broader social goals (Schwartz &
Rubinstein-Avila, 2006).
Complementary to the New Literacies Studies approach is the social semiotic theory of
Multimodality, which is concerned primarily with communication in its widest sense—visual,
oral, gestural, linguistic, musical, kinaesthetic, and digital (Alvermann, 2009). The
Multimodality approach explains the central role people play in making meaning—how they use
“various (resources) signs that are available to them in representing through different modes
what they wish to communicate to others” (Alvermann, 2009, p. 17). An important notion of the
Multimodality approach in online and digital technology is the use of “image plus language in
increasingly complex ways” (Brown, 2006, p. 12). This is a profound relation that has
consequences for representation and communication of online and digital technology, where the
“means for making meanings are the resources of spatial and simultaneous representation”
(Kress, 2005, p. 14). In the context of online literacy and digital technology, the emphasis placed
on crossing sign systems helps learners recast their knowing and gain new perspectives on the
texts they read or write, by “moving semiotic theory from the margins to the center of theorizing
literacy” (Siegel, 2006, p. 72). The simultaneity of the resources of space and changes in society
and representation change literacy practices in that writing or reading may be central—or not—
depending on the reader’s/writer’s intention and purpose for reading/writing (Kress, 2005).

51

Another important concept in the New Literacies Studies approach is the notion of
affordances, or what is generally referred to as the advantages or benefits of using digital
technology in literacy education. For instance, digital technology tools are new tools that are
faster and more efficient, and they are significant in the dissemination of culture and in global
economic interdependence (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008); if properly integrated with instruction, they
may enhance teaching and learning processes (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009). The ability
to use such technologies for communication and learning has the important educational outcome
of students developing new skills, being considered literate, and participating fully in a
democratic society (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009). Furthermore, through the use of
digital technology, students can obtain new skills, strategies, dispositions, and social practices
required by new technologies of information. They can be exposed to new types of literacies and
new literacy practices that are multifaceted (i.e., have multiple modes, mediums, and aspects of
media) and are from multiple points of view (Leu et al., 2010).
Conversely, there are also constraints in the use of digital technology in the forms of
limitations, disadvantages, and challenges in using digital technology within the educational
setting. These constraints or limitations of digital technology mostly come from the very nature
of digital technology itself and the literacy practices involved when using these tools, such as the
deviation from the correct use of English grammar, spelling, and writing schemes; the focus on
writing using acronyms and hieroglyphics (e.g., emoticons); and the disregard for traditional
reading and writing formats. In this view, digital technology is perceived to change the
experience, cognitive processes, and culture of reading and writing negatively (Bell, 2005, Carr,
2005). As such, these rebellious natures and characteristics of digital technology and new online
literacy practices stand in the way of state- and nationally-sponsored assessments, and that also

52

comes from the incompatibility of institutionalized structures of schools with the purposes and
enactments of digital technology (O’Brien & Scharber, 2008).
There are also issues pertaining to the agency and structure of online and digital
technology in literacy education and the transfer from informal to formal learning that scholars
argue may retard literacy education (Bell, 2005, Carr, 2005). An important issue is the notion of
the digital divide, which, in general, refers to the gap in access to educational technology—
between those who are socially and economically affluent and those who are socially and
economically disadvantaged (Bennett et al., 2008; Coiro et al., 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003;
O’Brien & Scharber, 2008; Rhodes & Robnolt, 2009; Warschauer, 2002, 2004). Furthermore,
there is an inherent complexity to the digital divide in that while limitation of access to digital
technology is problematic, such is also the case when access is readily available but without
proper guidance on how to use it, especially due to the nature of digital technology, i.e., rapidly
moving, ever changing, and constantly evolving (D. Hartman, personal communication, May
2011).
Another important argument in debates on the digital divide is the notions of digital
natives and digital immigrants. These terms are used to refer to the generation of people born
during the emergence of digital technology, and claimed to be highly familiar with and greatly
dependent upon digital technology in their lives (i.e., digital natives); and those who were not
born during the digital age, and thus struggle to use and adapt to the implementation of digital
technology in their lives (i.e., digital immigrants). The term digital natives, Lankshear and
Knobel (2003) explained, is also often used when discussing the divide between competing
mindsets—those who were born and grew up in the digital age (i.e., digital natives), and those
who did not (i.e., digital immigrants or digital non-natives). In similar vein with Lankshear and

53

Knobel’s (2003) view of the terms digital natives and digital immigrants, and in the specific
context of this study, these terms also explain the duality of the teachers’ identities in their uses
of digital technology. The term digital natives is in reference to the teachers’ competent and
confident use of digital technology in their own personal lives, especially due to the current reach
and accessibility of digital technology, as well as the teachers’ reliance to use them in daily lives.
The term digital immigrants explains their feeling of inadequacy within the specific context of
English writing instruction or English education per se, especially due to the different
conceptions and uses of digital technology that teachers have as opposed to the conceptions and
practices of digital technology of their students.
Overall, due to the affordances of, constraints from, access to (or lack thereof), and the
dualities of identities in the use of digital technology in education, there is polarization at two
extremes: “those who either attempt to engage youth in school by mapping the most appealing
aspects of digital literacies onto the curriculum,” or those who think of “positioning digital
practices as not only ineffective but even detrimental to schooling” (O’Brien & Scharber, 2008,
p. 67). Considering that particular digital technology tools have their own propensities,
potentials, affordances, and constraints that make them more suitable for certain tasks than
others, this presents new challenges to teachers who are struggling to use digital technology in
their teaching (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Sociocognitive + Sociocultural Framework: Web of Conundrums
By using these theoretical and conceptual ideas, as well as the research findings as bases
to my guiding conceptual research framework, I took into consideration (1) teachers’ cognitions
and personal belief systems for the definitions and practices of digital technology and literacy
instruction; (2) the extensive notions of the sociocultural and technological influences on

54

definitions and practices of literacy (i.e., New Literacies Studies approach); and (3) the inner and
outer workings of larger sociocultural contexts (i.e., social, cultural, political, economic,
geographical, linguistic, religious contexts, etc.). From these psychological and social
elements—all of which I learned from the theoretical readings and my data collection and data
analysis processes—I managed to bind or relate them with three strands of binaries, i.e., the
affordances and constraints of digital technology; the intellectual and technical access to and
restraints from digital technology; and the dual identities or positions of digital natives and
digital immigrants. Using these elements, I developed a conceptual framework that encompasses
all of these psychological and social elements called the Sociocognitive + Sociocultural
Framework, in particular the idea of Web of Conundrums.
Pertinent to teachers’ instruction is the teachers’ sociocognitive or personal belief system,
which informs their conceptions about technology, pedagogy, literacy, and literacy education,
specifically English writing instruction. In line with Pajares (1992), I argue that because
teachers’ conceptions are abstract and complex, they cannot be measured directly. However, they
can be inferred from what teachers say and do. This can be done by taking into account the
“congruence among individuals’ belief statements, the intentionality to behave in a predisposed
manner, and the behavior related to the belief in question” (Rokeach, 1968, p. 326). Rokeach
(1968) suggested that inferences about teachers’ conceptions can be understood by taking into
account the ways individuals present evidence of their conceptions, such as statements,
intentions to behave in a certain predisposed manner, and behavior, as actions that can be seen in
their instructional preparations and in their actual practices related to the conceptions being
investigated.

55

Sociocultural technological advances—or the rapid and extensive dissemination of digital
technology (that affect the definitions and practices of literacy)—also play a large role in the
construction of teachers’ instructional knowledge. This is where the New Literacies Studies
(NLS) approach and concepts of interactivity, multimodality, affordances, constraints, identities
as digital natives and digital immigrants, and the access/divide encourage educators to “examine
the range of literacy practices that people engage in to mediate and make meaning of their lives
outside the context of formal schooling” (Schwartz & Rubinstein-Avila, 2006, p. 42-43). These
theoretical approaches expand notions of literacy beyond discrete, rule-governed decoding and
encoding skills, to include consideration of many shifting forms of semiotic and textual meaningmaking practices, such as those that “develop in tandem with new technologies, contexts, and
intentions of individual and collective literacy users” (Black, 2008a, p. 24). The NLS approach is
ideal “for looking at the everyday use of emerging ICTs in online spaces, and for relating such
work to teaching and learning both in and outside of formal education settings” (Black, 2008b, p.
586). Meanwhile, the concepts of multimodality and affordances play central roles in explaining
the integration of various designs such as visual, linguistic, and audio into one text (ChandlerOlcott & Mahar, 2003), and in explaining the many different modes available in online and
digital texts (Kress, 2005; Street, 2005).
When combined into a mutually constructive and supportive framework, these notions of
sociocognitive personal belief systems and technological advances are intertwined with the
larger sociocultural contexts (e.g., social structure, racial differences, education system, access to
digital technology, geographical setting, English as a second/foreign language and dialectal
differences, and religious beliefs) that inform, influence, and shape one another. By integrating
these multiple theoretical perspectives, the Sociocognitive + Sociocultural Framework,

56

especially the idea of Web of Conundrums—which encompasses both the sociocognitive and
sociocultural elements—served as a comprehensive framework that provided greater explanatory
power for my study than any stand-alone theoretical framework. The idea of Web of
Conundrums, in particular, enabled me to describe and analyse the uniqueness and complexities
of the binaries in Malaysian teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction.
Web of Conundrums
The core of the idea of Web of Conundrums is the the complex binary relationships
between six elements that describe and inform the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology within their social and psychological realms. These six elements are made of the
three binaries in which each binary relate to one another (i.e., elements of affordances and
constraints, access and restraints, and dual identities as digital natives and digital immigrants)
that teachers have in their conceptions and uses of digital technology in instruction, especially
their relations to the social and psychological strands that all of these elements are connected to.
Binary relationships. The first binary on the Web of Conundrums is the relationship
between the affordances and constraints of digital technology in the educational setting. With
regard to affordances, digital technology can bring many benefits and advantages to the
educational setting, especially the notions interactivity and multimodality in digital technology
that the teachers and students can utilize and exploit in their teaching and learning of English
language, and in this case, English writing instruction. There is abundance of lesson materials
from the Internet with specific English proficiency levels that teachers and students can find and
use in the learning sessions. There is also the notion of attraction that digital technology can
bring into education due to the nature and appeal of digital technology and their impressions to

57

students and teachers. The fact that most students are interested and are accustomed with digital
technology also points to the relevance and importance that digital technology has in the lives of
students. Apart from that, there is the notion of convenience that digital technology can bring
into education in that it can help students with their learning and mastery of the education
subject, such as the interactivity of learning websites, the portability of digital technology, the
rapidity to which students and teachers can attain lesson resources, and the widespread
accessibility to share these lesson resources. Many studies have also attested to the effectiveness
of using digital technology in educational settings when it is used properly (please see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Binary relationships
However, there is also a direct contrast in the use of digital technology, especially in the
education setting, i.e., the constraints that it can bring to the teachers and students. While digital
technology can be helpful to the teachers and beneficial to the students, teachers may find
difficulties in implementing digital technology in the education setting if they lack digital
58

technology proficiency (especially as opposed to their students’ level of digital technology
proficiency)—and they may experience low self-esteem or confidence in using it, especially in
meeting their students expectations. Teachers also face constraints in terms of time and effort in
adapting the lesson materials obtained from these digital technology tools in order to
accommodate to their students’ varied levels of English proficiency and varied levels of digital
technology proficiency. Teachers also have to consider the different classroom management
skills that need to be applied when using digital technology, especially when accommodating
students with varying levels of digital technology proficiency. Apart from that, when using
lesson materials that are obtained from the Internet (i.e., which are mostly from English speaking
countries), teachers also have to take into consideration the different social and contextual
aspects that might be ill-suited to the students in different social and geographical settings, such
as suburban/rural settings in Malaysia. In all, the notions of affordances and constraints of digital
technology are very closely linked together, thus creating a conundrum in the teachers’
conceptions and uses of digital technology in the educational setting.
The second binary on the Web of Conundrums is the relationship between the access to
and restraints from digital technology (please see Figure 1). The elements of access and
restraints are more of social circumstances leading to the teachers’ ability (or inability) to use
digital technology. In terms of access, in the case of this study, for example, teachers are
provided by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) and the schools (or even from their
education in the teacher education institution) with the knowledge about, support on, and
technical provision to use digital technology in instruction. For example, public schools in
Malaysia are equipped with basic/adequate digital technology, such as computer laboratories and
technological tools to be used in instruction. Each public school in Malaysia is also assigned one

59

computer technician, whose job specification includes overseeing and managing digital
technology tools, as well as assisting teachers with using digital technology in their instruction.
Malaysian schools are also required to send teachers to go to professional development courses
to develop their knowledge about digital technology in instruction. Within the school setting,
teachers are also encouraged to support one another in their uses of digital technology in
instruction by way of peer support and professional development.
However, within the access to the knowledge and use of digital technology in their
instruction, there are also restraints imposed on them—especially if provision of the knowledge
and use of digital technology is in short order. For example, while schools are equipped with
basic/adequate digital technology tools, these tools might not be well-catered for all of the
teachers and students to use, especially if the number of teachers and students surpasses
extensively the number of digital technology tools available. Because of this limitation of digital
technology tools, schools impose bureaucratic procedures or protocols, and enforce strict school
policies in using these digital technology tools so that all teachers and students will have fair
chances to use them in their lessons. In this sense, access to using these digital technology tools
is somewhat restrained from the teachers; even though these tools are accessible, the teachers
must not only go through certain procedures to access them, but also vie against other teachers in
accessing them. In a similar vein, the lack of access to digital technology also restrains the
teachers from the opportunity to be familiar with and learn about how to use effectively digital
technology in their lessons.
Similarly, teachers might also not have the same access to knowledge on using digital
technology tools as their students, who might be more accustomed to using them in their lives.
Even though schools are responsible to send their teachers for professional development and

60

seminars/workshops on digital technology in education, many teachers may not have the chance
to go to these professional development courses and seminars/workshops. This may be due to
certain school policies and social circumstances in the school setting, such as priority of such
training according to teachers’ level of seniority, and lack of funding to send teachers to go to
1

such training. The cascade education model (Chan, 2002) that Malaysian schools practice for
their teachers’ professional development might also not be enough for enhancement of teachers’
professionalism due to the teachers’ workload and job specifications. There is also the case that
some of the seminars/workshops that teachers undergo might not be adequately done, or wellaligned with how they envision using digital technology in their lessons due to their different
teaching styles and preferences. Overall, similar with the notions of affordances and constraints,
the notions of access to and restraints from digital technology are also very closely linked
together, thus creating another conundrum in the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in the educational setting.
The third binary in the Web of Conundrums is the teachers’ identities as digital
technology users in that they see themselves as either digital natives (i.e., experts) or digital
immigrants (i.e., novices) in using digital technology in the educational setting (please see Figure
1). Due to the vast and rapid reach of digital technology, the teachers may have great exposure
to, experiences with, and education in digital technology. Teachers who have great support from
their peers on the use of digital technology, for example, may have more knowledge about and
be more comfortable in using digital technology, and thus may see themselves as experts on
digital technology, or digital natives. Such is the case with teachers who are more exposed and

1

The cascade education model is an education in which schools send several teachers who are
proficient in digital technology to go to digital technology seminars/workshops so that they can
then come back and educate their peers at school (Chan, 2002).
61

familiar with digital technology in their lives so that they depend on it for their daily chores, and
thus might be able to transfer their knowledge about digital technology into the educational
setting.
At the same time, because teachers may have different experiences with, exposures to,
and education in digital technology, their knowledge about digital technology may differ from
one another, and thus they may have different levels of digital technology proficiency. Teachers
who may not have vast exposure to, confidence in, and competence with digital technology due
to their own psychological positions or even the social circumstance they are in, may see
themselves as more of novices, or digital immigrants, in using digital technology (especially in
the educational setting). Furthermore, their knowledge about digital technology may not transfer
into the educational setting. Taking into consideration the different social settings in which their
personal and professional uses of digital technology take place (i.e., educational settings),
teachers who are proficient in digital technology (i.e., digital natives) may also become novices
(i.e., digital immigrants) when using digital technology in the classroom. This may be due to the
lack of pedagogical skills these teachers need to fully utilize digital technology, especially
certain classroom management skills, and the varying levels of their students’ digital technology
proficiency that they need to take into account. Similar to the other two binary relationships, the
notions of digital natives and digital immigrants are very closely linked together, thus also
creating a conundrum in the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in the
educational setting.
Connections between binary elements. All the six elements in the three binaries
aforementioned are related to and affect one another, either due to the social circumstances that
teachers are situated in, or to their own psychological positions that they have in using digital

62

technology in the educational setting. These six elements that make the three binaries are also
closely related to and affect one another. Between the elements of digital natives (i.e., experts)
and access there is the notion of intellectual access, which is the teachers’ exposure to,
experience with, education on, and knowledge about digital technology that they have gaine,
either in their personal of professional lives (please see Figure 2). The notion of intellectual
access also refers to the intellectual support that teachers receive in their uses of digital
technology in their personal and professional lives, such as intellectual support from other
teachers, friends, families, and others. Intellectual access also refers to their own efforts in
learning about digital technology, such as by experimenting, exploring, and formally learning
about digital technology on their own. By having the notion of intellectual access, teachers can
link between the elements of digital natives and access, in that they can see themselves as having
the intellectual know-how to use digital technology, and the resources to learn about it, and thus
they manage to identify themselves as digital natives.
Meanwhile, between the elements of access and affordances is the notion of technical
access, which is the access to digital technology that teachers have at the school, at home, and
from other social or educational institutions which they can use either for personal or
professional purposes. Teachers are provided with digital technology in schools, in the forms of
computer laboratory and other educational technological tools; as part of the educational
curricula, they are also required to use these tools in their instruction. Apart from that, due to the
vast and rapid reach of digital technology, teachers may also have access to digital technology
tools at their homes, and thus use them for personal purposes. Due to their exposure to and uses
of these digital technology tools in their lives, either at home or at school, and having understood
the nature and appeal of digital technology (e.g., convenience, portability, rapidity, etc.), they

63

would be able to see the benefits of digital technology in the classroom (please see Figure 2).
Furthermore, having given access to use these digital technology tools in their instruction at their
schools, teachers may want to exploit the benefits (or affordances) of digital technology in their
instruction, especially in view of their students’ interest in digital technology in their lives.

Figure 2. Connections between binaries
The teachers’ ability to see the affordances of digital technology in educational setting
points to another notion between the elements of affordances and digital immigrants, which is
the promises and potentials of digital technology in education (please see Figure 2). As teachers
experience the benefits and affordances of digital technology in their lives, and knowing that
digital technology plays an important role in their students’ lives, teachers are able to see the
promise and potentials of digital technology in education, especially in English language
education in which there are many literacy skills that can be developed using digital technology.
However, because teachers may not be as familiar with digital technology as their students,
64

especially the new literacy practices that their students engage in, teachers may not know how
exactly to use digital technology in education effectively or according to their students’
expectations. Even though teachers are supposedly given education and professional
development training by the schools, it is evident from the review of the literature that these
courses were insufficient, and some were not well-conducted, and have thus not helped teachers
much in utilizing digital technology in their instruction. In this respect, regardless of the fact that
teachers may be very well-versed with digital technology, in the educational setting they may not
be well-prepared to use digital technology, especially if they lack the knowledge and classroom
management skills needed when using digital technology in instruction.
This points to the next notion, intellectual restraints, which is found between the
elements of digital natives and restraints (please see Figure 2). In relation to the teachers’ feeling
inadequately proficient to use digital technology in their instruction, regardless of the fact they
experienced and understood the promise and potentials (i.e., affordances) of digital technology,
teachers become intellectually restrained from using digital technology in that they lack
confidence or the competence to use digital technology in the educational setting. The fact that
their students are better versed with digital technology as compared to them also imposes a sense
of low self-esteem on the teachers, especially for fear that they may lose the students’ respect,
and for fear that they might not be able to live up to their students’ expectations when using
digital technology in their instruction. In essence, they become frustrated because their wanting
to use digital technology becomes stunted due to their knowing the promises and potentials of
digital technology in education, but feeling they lack the proper education to use digital
technology in education and their inability to match their students’ level of digital technology
proficiency.

65

In this regard, the teachers’ notion of being intellectually restrained is also related to the
notion of technical restraint, which is situated between the elements of restraints and constraints
(please see Figure 2). To explain, even though schools are provided with fairly adequate digital
technology tools, the lack of access to use them impinge on the teachers’ ability to use digital
technology in their instruction. This lack of technical access is due to the fact that these digital
technology tools are often not sufficiently provided to all teachers and students (i.e., especially in
schools with large number of teachers/students), and the fact that many digital technology tools
in schools are not well-maintained by the schools. Furthermore, teachers are also subject to many
bureaucracies, protocols, and school policies that they must adhere to in order to use digital
technology. In essence, not only do teachers lack intellectual knowledge about digital
technology, they also lack technical support and access to using digital technology—all of which
distort their familiarity with digital technology in the educational setting and thus wane their
beliefs about the promises and potentials (i.e., affordances) of digital technology in the
educational setting.
The teachers’ positive conceptions of the promises and potentials of digital technology
(i.e., affordances) are also challenged due to notion of compromise that digital technology can
impose on their instruction. This notion of compromise is located between the elements of
constraints and digital natives, and is informed by the professional and personal experiences with
digital technology in the educational setting (please see Figure 2). Due to the teachers’ personal
and professional experiences with using digital technology in their lives and/or in their lessons,
they may also see the constraints, or disadvantages, of digital technology in education. Through
their informed uses of digital technology, either at home or in their lessons, teachers might be
hard-pressed to hand their students digital technology tools, due to the possibilities that students

66

can [mis]use these tools for purposes that are not related to the instruction. In this regard, the
teachers also may experience difficulty in managing the classroom when digital technology is in
use, especially if they are in the hands of students, and thus might not be used properly, thus
damaging them, or worse, they are used with ill-intent, e.g., illegal gambling, pornography, etc.

Figure 3. Web of Conundrums
Web of Conundrums. All of these binary relationships between affordances and
constraints, access and restraints, and identities as digital natives and digital immigrants are
connected to one another and thus create a web of conundrums in the teachers’ conceptions and
uses of digital technology in the educational setting (please see Figure 3). These interconnected
elements that are made from strings of binaries between affordances and constraints, access and
67

restraints, and digital natives and digital immigrants, also affect each other, in that all these
elements connect with and depend on one another, i.e., intellectual and technical accesses;
intellectual and technical restraints; and the promises and compromises of digital technology in
the educational setting. More importantly, these interconnected elements are also informed by
social and psychological aspects in relation to English writing instruction and digital technology
that the teachers developed within their psyche or imposed on them through the social constructs
that they are situated in. Their social and psychological elements also shape and inform teachers’
conceptions and uses of digital technology in writing instruction in both positive and negative
ways. How teachers position and balance themselves to accommodate their own psychology, i.e.,
positive and negative conceptions of digital technology, and how they position and balance
themselves to accommodate the social constructs, can enhance or impinge their conceptions of
digital technology, and can thus a play major role in their uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction.

68

CHAPTER 4:
RESEARCH METHOD
Given the nature of the research problem, the relevant literature, and the guiding
conceptual framework, there is great need for in-depth, descriptive, qualitative studies that can
examine teachers’ conceptions about digital technology, their actual implementations of digital
technology in English writing instruction, and their rationales for doing so, while also taking into
consideration the social, historical, geographical, and linguistic elements that construct teachers’
conceptions and uses of digital technology in writing instruction. To address this need, I
conducted a multiple case study of Malaysian teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction in Malaysia. To reiterate, the research questions
guiding this study were:
1. How do Malaysian teachers conceptualize digital technology and its use in English
writing instruction?
2. How do Malaysian teachers use digital technology in English writing instruction?
3. How do Malaysian teachers’ conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect
their use of digital technology in English writing instruction?
The multiple case study approach is an in-depth examination of instances of a
phenomenon in its real life contexts that reflects the perspective of the participants involved in
the phenomenon (Gall et al., 2006). The purpose of the multiple case study approach is “to
produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible explanations of it, and to
evaluate the phenomenon” (Gall et al., 2006, p. 451). Through the multiple case study approach I
explored “multiple bounded systems,” or “cases,” in this instance, the teacher-participants, over
time through detailed data collection involving “multiple sources of information” (Creswell,

69

2007, p. 73), by way of surveys, interviews, observations, and the collection of printed and
digital lesson materials.
By using purposeful sampling (i.e., a chain-sampling approach) in choosing the teacherparticipants, and Yin’s (2006) logic of replication (i.e., replicating the data collection procedures
for each teacher-participant), I engaged in within-case analyses for each teacher-participant (i.e.,
providing detailed description of each case and categories and themes within the case), followed
by cross-case analysis across the teacher-participants (i.e., categorical and thematic analysis
across cases) to show similar and different perspectives on the phenomenon of study (Creswell,
2007). To give further depth, I employed Edwards’ (1999) narrative discourse analysis approach,
specifically in presenting each teacher’s “pictures of events” and “pictures of minds” (p. 272). I
also engaged in constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), by constantly and
continuously comparing the analyses and findings of each participant to each other throughout
the data corpus, in order to come up with tangible and reliable interpretations. These analytic
approaches will be described in detail in the Data Analysis and Coding Process section.
Entry into Research
The initial communication to conduct the study started in May, 2012. In gaining access to
schools, I sent out letters to the District Education Office to ask for permission to conduct this
study at three schools in a state on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (please see Appendix A
– Letter of Informed Consent (District Education Office)). I also contacted the District Education
Office to follow up on my request to do research in these schools. Upon permission from the
District Education Office, I later proceeded to send letters to the principals of these schools—as
required by the District Education Office—requesting permission to conduct research (please see
Appendix B – Letter of Informed Consent (Principals)).

70

After my letters of request were sent to these schools, I called these respective schools to
follow up on my request. I set up meetings with either the schools’ principals, vice principals, or
heads of the English language department of each school, to inform them formally about and ask
permission to conduct research at their schools. Upon meeting with either the schools’ principals,
vice principals, or heads of the English language department, I explained the background of the
research and the commitment required from the schools, particularly from the teachers who
would be studied. These school administrators gave their permission and full cooperation in
giving me access to their schools and in identifying possible candidates as my research
participants. Each school administrator also helped in initiating my interactions with and setting
up times for me to meet with the identified teachers.
Research Setting
The research was conducted at three secondary schools in a state on the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia. The majority of the population in this state is people of Malay ethnicity.
Even though this state is a developing city and is boasting in tourism, it is considered a
homogeneously-populated and economically-underdeveloped state, and the English language is
not as widely spoken or used in daily lives (Gaudart, 1999). The concentration of the Malay
ethnic group, and the lack of other ethnic groups, has also limited the use of the English language
(David et al., 2009). This is because the Malay ethnic group tends to communicate among
themselves with the Malay language, using the east coast Malay dialect.
The rationale for this study to be conducted in a state on the East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia was that students within this state, as well a few other states on the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia, are often reported to have low English language proficiency in general, and
in English writing in particular, and they are reported to have low to intermediate scores on the

71

middle and high school English language national examinations (Ali & Md Yunus, 2005; Chan
et al., 2008; Crismore et al., 1996; Darus & Subramaniam, 2009; Jalaluddin et al., 2008; Mat
Daud et al 2005; Mukundan et al, 2005; Tan et al., 2005; Vengadasamy, 2006). Because the
implementation of digital technology in Malaysian schools is being carried out nationwide (i.e.,
in all of the states in Malaysia) to enhance teaching and learning (Bakar & Mohamed, 2008;
Government of Malaysia, 2003), the choice of an economically-underdeveloped and
homogenously-populated eastern state is important in order to see if digital technology has
served its purpose to help English teaching and learning (in particular English writing). This is
especially because students in the states on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia are known to
have very poor English proficiency and poor achievement in national assessments. If digital
technology has indeed served its purpose to enhance the teaching and learning of the English
language, this setting is an ideal place to see if this is true.
The three schools were selected from a number of secondary schools in the
suburban/rural area outside the densely populated city center and the state capital. The choice of
the suburban area was due to the complex notions of access, exposure, and expertise that the
teachers and students have in the use of digital technology in their daily lives. Among these are
(1) a wide range of socio-economic statuses of teachers and students in the suburban setting; (2)
related to socio-economic status, a differential among both students and teachers, in particular to
the digital technology they have at home and in their neighborhood (or if they have access to
digital technology at all); (3) the exposure they have to digital technology, either from early in
their lives or later on; and (4) the level of expertise teachers and students thus bring with them to
school. These features of context and participants’ experiences are part of the depth and breadth

72

of participants’ uses of digital technology in their everyday lives, and hence affect their
conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction in school.
The choice of this suburban/rural school setting enabled me to see how teachers teach
students who range considerably in their competency in digital technology, especially at a time
when these students are also exposed to the knowledge of digital technology at school and
through other sources of information, such as the mass media (i.e., television, radio, text media,
etc.) and their peers, even though some of them might not have access to digital technology in
their homes, or as conveniently as their peers. The use of digital technology in English writing
instruction within this demographic also enabled me to see issues and complexities faced by
teachers that point to possible factors contributing to the low level of English language
proficiency and the slump in English course national assessment results that have been reported
from this setting. The description and contexts of these three schools will be discussed further in
the coming chapters alongside the three teacher-participants.
Research Participants
In recruiting the teacher-participants for the study, I developed a list of criteria to be met
by the teacher-participants. I also employed pre-meditated and descriptive selection processes,
namely, the nomination process (i.e., chain sampling approach), and my own orientation in the
research settings, as well as initial interaction with participants.
In selecting the teachers, I created a list of selection criteria. In adherence to the selection
criteria, I selected teachers who had a fair amount of teaching experience, specifically those who
had more than five years of experience in teaching the English language in Malaysia. These
teachers also had similar teacher education backgrounds and nationally approved teaching
certification from the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). Furthermore, these teachers were

73

perceived by their superiors and peers as confident and comfortable with the use of digital
technology. These selection criteria were important to be met in that teachers who have a good
teaching experience, teacher education background, and competence in using digital technology
could contribute to the study in that they would be able to inform me not only of their current
instructional practices, but also their past instructional experiences. The choice of having
teachers who met all these selection criteria was also important because these selection criteria
helped identify the themes these teachers had in their conceptions and uses of digital technology
when teaching English writing, and thus helped me present an in-depth picture of the similarities
(and differences) in their conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction, even though they had different personalities as teachers and individuals.
The selection processes were done in the initial stage of the study, which were the first
few weeks in the schools. In the nomination process, I employed a chain-sampling approach
(Creswell, 2005) in identifying potential teachers-participants. This meant that, upon being
granted access into the schools, I discussed in-depth with the heads of the English language
department in each school my criteria for the participant selection process, and I sought their
help in identifying the teacher-participants for my study. It is important to note that even though
given suggestions by these heads of English language departments on teachers to recruit, I did
not base my selection solely on their suggestions. I engaged in a second phase of the participant
selection (i.e., orientation into schools and initial interaction with teachers), during which I
observed and interacted with teachers suggested by the schools’ heads of English language
departments and other English teachers to finalize the recruitment process.
After going through these stages of pre-meditated and descriptive selection processes, I
managed to identify ten teachers from three schools who met all my selection criteria. Upon

74

identification of these teachers, I asked each of them to participate in my study. In doing so, I
individually met with each identified teacher from each school, and I gave them an adequate
explanation of the purpose and direction of the study as well as the scope of their participation in
the study. Apart from my verbal explanation, I also presented to each of them a consent letter
that included adequate and comprehensive description of the study for them to read and
understand (please see Appendix C – Letter of Informed Consent (Teachers)). These consent
letters were given to them so that they could indicate their written agreement. They were also
given time to listen, read, and understand the study before agreeing or declining to participate,
and they were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time they wished. All ten
teachers from these three schools agreed and gave their verbal consent to participate in the study.
However, as the study progressed, only six consent letters were filled out and returned,
and only five teachers committed to the study. These five teachers were one teacher from Sultan
Salahuddin Secondary School (a pseudonym), one teacher from Sultan Mohamad Science
Secondary School (a pseudonym), and three teachers from Bright Bay Science High School (a
pseudonym). These teachers were selected from different schools in order to provide
opportunities for comparison and contrast in their conceptions and uses of digital technology in
relation to the contexts in which they were situated. These contexts included their access to
digital technology, their education on using digital technology, the professional support from
their peers or from the schools’ computer technicians in their uses of digital technology in
English instruction, and also their experiences with their students’ varied levels of proficiency
with and uses of digital technology in their instruction. Five other teachers who initially agreed
to participate in the study were not able to commit to the study due to either personal or
professional reasons.

75

Data Collection
In the beginning of the study each teacher-participant was given a survey to complete
individually. After the surveys were collected, each of them was also interviewed individually at
the beginning, the middle, and the end of the study. On average, four to five lessons taught by
these teachers were observed. At least once during these observation sessions, each teacher’s
lesson was video-recorded. I took field notes during these interview and lesson observation
sessions. I also collected printed and digital lesson materials for each lesson observed. Apart
from that, I also had telephone and email interactions with these teachers pertaining to matters
regarding the study. Since this study utilized a multiple case study approach, the data collection
procedures were replicated for each participant using Yin’s (2006) replication logic, in which I
used similar approaches, techniques, and data collection tools and methods for all the teachers
who participated in this study. In addition, I also did Internet research and document analysis to
find out about the schools’ backgrounds, to help with data analysis and my research report.
Furthermore, observational notes and pictures of each school’s amenities and infrastructure
(especially their digital technology amenities) were recorded. These observational notes and
pictures included the classrooms settings, computer laboratories, school libraries, lecture halls,
and other amenities. The data collection was conducted for about three months. Each data
collection procedure is explained in detail below.
Survey
After the teacher-participants agreed to participate in the study, a survey was conducted
at the beginning of the study (please see Appendix D – Survey Questionnaires). Each of the
teachers who participated in this study was required to complete individually the survey and
return it to me prior to the first interview session. Through this survey the teachers provided their

76

personal and professional backgrounds, contact information, and current teaching assignments
(i.e., grade levels and educational subjects taught). Apart from that, based on a four-level Likert
scale questionnaire (i.e., 1-Very Seldom; 2-Seldom; 3-Often; and 4-Very Often), they stated their
access to and frequency of using digital technology at their homes and at school. Moreover,
based on a four-level Likert scale questionnaire (i.e., 1-Strongly Disagree; 2-Disagree; 3-Agree;
and 4-Strongly Agree), they stated their responses concerning their personal digital technology
use, digital technology training for English writing instruction, instructional use of digital
technology (i.e., in English writing instruction), their professional development with regards to
digital technology and English writing instruction, and their concerns about the use of digital
technology in English writing instruction. The survey served as a reference and a jumping-off
point to the more in-depth questions that were asked in the three interview sessions later in the
study (i.e., Pre-Instruction Interview, During-Instruction Interview, and Post-Instruction
Interview). The survey also served as a source of data to triangulate the findings from the main
data sources (i.e., interview and instructional observation data).
Interview Sessions
Adapting Seidman’s (2006) interview protocol, three interview sessions were conducted
with each teacher. These interview sessions were conducted individually with each teacher
participant at the beginning of the study, in the middle of the study, and at end of the study—all
of which participants were required to answer a series of semi-structured questions. Each
interview session was designed to ask each participant about their conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. I piloted the interview questions with several doctoral
colleagues and with several English teachers in Malaysia before going into the research setting,
so as to refine these questions (i.e., edit, include additional questions, and/or exclude irrelevant

77

ones) before I used them in the actual interview sessions with the teacher-participants (please see
Appendix E – Semi-Structured Interview Questions)
The first interview session (i.e., Pre-Instruction Interview) was done with each teacher
prior to the instructional observation session. In this interview session I learned about the
teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction, with respect
to their personal and professional backgrounds, English writing instruction practices, and general
uses of digital technology in their daily lives. The second interview session (i.e., DuringInstruction Interview) was done with each teacher in the middle of the study, after I observed
each teacher-participants’ instructions for about 2-3 times (out of the 4-5 instructional
observation sessions). In this interview session, I asked about their preparation for English
writing instruction, their education on the use of digital technology in English instruction, and
their conceptions of the use of digital technology in the teaching of English writing. The third
interview session (i.e., Post-Instruction Interview) was done with each teacher towards the end of
the study, after I had adequately observed each teacher’s instruction (i.e., four to five times) and
collected the lesson materials from them. In this interview session, I asked each teacher about
their specific uses of digital technology in English writing instruction (or lack thereof) and their
rationales for its use; their concerns for the use of digital technology in English instruction; and
their reflections on their conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction.
Observation Sessions
I observed the writing instruction of each teacher at least four to five times throughout the
entire period of the study. I observed their uses of digital technology to teach expository writing
(i.e., informational, summary, or report writing), creative writing (i.e., descriptive and narrative

78

writing), argumentative or persuasive writing, English literature, and English grammar
instruction. The purpose in observing their uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction was to describe their instruction and later to see if there were any similarities and/or
differences between the teachers’ conceptions and their actual uses of digital technology in
writing instruction. To do so, I looked closely at their general uses of digital technology in
writing instruction, in which I focused on the more general aspects of each teacher’s instruction,
such as the topic of the lesson and the tasks, activities, and kinds of digital technology tools used
throughout each lesson. I also observed closely their specific uses of digital technology,
including each teacher’s more focused uses of digital technology in writing instruction. In
addition, instructional observations were conducted on teachers’ instruction without the use of
digital technology. This was to see and compare whether their conceptions about and practices in
English writing instruction without the presence of digital technology differed as compared to
when they did use digital technology.
Observational notes on the schools’ basic amenities, digital technology amenities, the
availability of digital technology in the classroom, and the physical conditions of the classroom
and other places in which the writing instructions took place were collected. These notes
recorded the availability of digital technology tools, classroom infrastructure, physical settings
(i.e., seating arrangements), and other educational aids within the education vicinity that teachers
occupied during their writing instruction (please see Appendix G – Classroom Physical
Environment and Digital Technology). Pictures of the classroom and other learning settings,
such as the computer laboratories, the lecture rooms, and other rooms in which the lessons took
place—and were deemed relevant to the study—were also taken with the permission of the
teachers and school administrators.

79

Field Notes
Field notes were taken to record the teachers’ explicit and implicit conceptions and uses
of digital technology, most especially during the interview and the instructional observation
sessions. Field notes served as an important tool in recording elements of the teachers’
instruction (i.e., lesson stages, digital technology, classroom seating arrangement, resources,
facilities, teaching aids, student attendances, etc.) that contributed to or impinged on the
teachers’ instruction (please see Appendix H – Uses of Digital Technology in Writing
Instruction). I took field notes to compare what I actually saw during the instructional
observations with what was said by the teachers in their interview sessions, and also with what
was included in their lesson plans and lesson materials. Field notes on the teachers’ informal uses
and interactions with digital technology were also taken to record their conceptions and uses of
digital technology in their personal and professional lives (please see Appendix I –
Formal/Informal Uses of Digital Technology).
These field notes served to complement, compare, and contrast the survey, interview,
observation, and lesson material data. Field notes were important tools to record elements of the
teachers’ personal and professional activities, circumstances, events, and interactions that were
deemed to be relevant to the study. Following Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) approach, the field
notes also acted as my own think-aloud memos in helping me recall the contexts to and content
of the data collected (i.e., from the survey, interviews, observations, and interactions with the
teachers) and to help analyze the data rigorously and more in-depth. By taking these field notes, I
managed to compare and contrast the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology from
the interview data and the observation data in order to clarify and verify (as well as to contest)

80

their conceptions about digital technology in comparison to their formal and informal uses of
digital technology in English writing instruction.
Collection of Lesson Materials
I served as a non-participant observer in each class over a period of four months. During
this time, the lesson materials (i.e., lesson plans, digital and print teaching materials, textbooks,
etc.) used throughout each instructional session that was observed were collected from each
teacher-participant. These lesson materials (both digital and print) were mostly collected prior to
or during each teaching session. The purpose of collecting these lesson materials was that they
served to triangulate the main data (i.e., interview and observation data). This is where I crossanalyzed the teachers’ lesson materials with their conceptions and uses of digital technology in
English language writing instruction, as revealed in the interview sessions, and with their
instructional practices as identified from the instructional observations.
Data Analysis and Coding Process
The main data for this study were generated from the interview sessions, the instructional
observation sessions, the observational notes, and field notes. However, these particular data
were supplemented through triangulation by data from other sources (Yin, 2006), such as the
teachers’ survey responses and their lesson materials. The data set provided multiple kinds of
data on which to build interpretations, answers to research questions, and conclusions. These
data could be deepened, checked, or changed by means of triangulation (Yin, 2006), or taking
multiple perspectives on the same event through the different data collected (Johnstone, 2008).
The data corpus was analyzed using within-case analysis, cross-case analysis, constant
comparative analysis, and narrative discourse analysis. In engaging with these data analysis
procedures, I first identified six categories from the data corpus (i.e., personal and professional

81

backgrounds; teacher education and professional development; instructional contexts;
conceptions and practices in English writing instruction; conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction; and concerns, frustrations, and challenges). These
categories were identified based on the emerging patterns through which direct responses and
instances alluding to these categories were numerously mentioned by the teachers in their survey
responses and interview sessions, and through the actions that were observed in their
instructional and daily activities. These categories were also identified due to the guiding
information that aligned well with the research questions (that ask about their conceptions and
uses of digital technology) and the conceptual framework that focuses on sociocultural and
sociocognitive aspects pertaining to their conceptions and uses of digital technology.
The data corpus was coded into idea units, and these idea units were further coded into
two levels, i.e., the general level codes, which reflected the purpose of the unit, and the specific
level codes, which captured the gist of each idea unit (Posner et al., 1982). The codes (i.e.,
derived from the idea units) were later compiled in Microsoft Word and Excel files. To identify
themes or similarities, coded units were sorted and separated by the six categories identified
initially from the data corpus. By coding the data into idea units and into two levels of codes, and
by compiling them in Microsoft Word and Excel files, I managed to sort the data from the survey
responses, interviews, instructional observations, and field notes according to the main topic of
the discussion and/or observation in relation to the research questions, and thus I saw the
similarities and/or differences (i.e., themes and patterns) between the teachers’ conceptions and
uses of digital technology in the context of English writing instruction.
Later, findings from each teacher-participant (i.e., case) were within- and cross-analyzed
in order to describe, compare, and contrast each teacher’s conceptions and uses of digital

82

technology in English writing instruction. In the within-case analysis, I provided detailed and indepth description (Ayres et al., 2003) of each teacher-participant based on the categories and
themes initially developed in the emergent coding process. In the cross-case analysis, I analyzed
analytically and critically similar and different themes and units of analyses across teacherparticipants (Ayres et al., 2003). Then, systematic, rigorous, open-ended narrative discourse
analysis was done with the data corpus for a more in-depth analysis (Johnstone, 2008).
Following Jaworski and Coupland’s (1999) approach, I engaged in discourse analysis as a way
of “linking up the analysis of local characteristics of communication to the analysis of broader
social characteristics,” in order to see how “macro-structures are carried through microstructures” (p. 11). In doing so, I relied not only on the interview data but also on the other data
sets as discourse in this sense involves patterns of beliefs and habitual actions as well as patterns
of language (Johnstone, 2008). This is where the six categories (from the constant comparative
analysis) were considered in connection with any instances or discourses from the data corpus
(Johnstone, 2008).
Unlike William Labov or James Paul Gee, whose approach to narrative discourse
analysis focuses on the plot (i.e., orientation, complicating action, resolution, evaluation, and
coda) and linguistic features of the narrative (i.e., parts, strophes, stanzas, lines, idea units, etc.),
my approach to narrative discourse analysis is based on Edwards’ (1999) ideas about “pictures of
events” and “pictures of mind” (p. 227) of the participants. In picturing the events, I collected
stories about and descriptions of the topic beyond the talk—which included the common-sense
practices in ordinary talk, texts, and classrooms by which discourse about English writing
instruction is produced—as a way of telling and finding out about writing instruction (Edwards,
1999). In picturing the mind, I went back to the events from the data collected, and I took a more

83

psychological interest in the participants as I deeply analyzed their discourse (both in talk and
action) as individuals (Edwards, 1999).
In presenting pictures of events and pictures of mind, I took the stories from the data
corpus out of the interactional (and rhetorical) contexts of their production, and formulated
check-list categories of their structural components to obtain an idealized notion of how they
worked (Edwards, 1999). Also, I used quotations from participants’ talk as illustrations of
summaries, generalizations, and glosses of their writing instruction; I also provided my
interpretations to tie these elements together and to determine how the data provided evidence
for my interpretations of the narrative (Edwards, 1999). Examples of pictures of events included
narratives that the teachers provided me, such as their first experience using digital technology in
their lives; their first experience using digital technology in teaching English writing; and their
most memorable experience of using digital technology in English writing instruction. Examples
of pictures of minds included the teachers’ presentation of a digital technology tool that they
perceived as best representing their thinking about and use of digital technology in English
writing instruction, and their descriptions of an ideal classroom equipped with digital technology.
Throughout the study, I employed the constant comparative analysis technique through
which I constantly and iteratively checked my data analyses against the data corpus, and I went
back and forth between findings, research questions, research design, and analytical procedures
to ensure rigor and depth in my analysis of the data. To ensure further rigor for the findings, I
also had a series of discussions with the Primary Investigator, who is also my dissertation chair,
Prof. Dr. Douglas Hartman, and also other members of my dissertation committee, to consult on
the categories, sub-categories, idea units, codes, themes, and strategies for reporting the findings
from the data collected.

84

Report of Research
From the remaining five teachers who agreed to stay and commit to the study, only three
teachers were chosen to be reported, namely Mrs. Wong, from Sultan Salahuddin Secondary
School; Mrs. Alma, from Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School; and Mrs. Salina, from
Bright Bay Science High School. For the sake of protecting the teacher-participants and the
schools, and as part of the Institutional Review Board requirement, I use pseudonyms for all the
teachers and the schools throughout this report.
Even though these three teachers have different personalities as teachers and individuals,
they were chosen given the depth and breadth of the data that they provided, especially the
strong emerging themes across teachers with regards to their conceptions about, uses of, and
concerns with using digital technology in English writing instruction. They were also chosen due
to their personal and professional characteristics that best informed and aligned with the
descriptions I sought from the participants in the study as listed in the selection criteria. They
were also chosen due to the professional relationship that we developed with our mutual interests
in enhancing each other’s professionalism as teachers and scholars.
In my presentation of these teacher-participants, I report on each teacher in three different
chapters (i.e., Chapter 5 – Mrs. Wong; Chapter 6 – Mrs. Alma; and Chapter 7 – Mrs. Salina). I
report on each teacher by discussing their personal and professional backgrounds; their
conceptions about digital technology and English writing instruction; and their uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. I also descriptively and analytically present the
categories and themes across the teachers in discussing their conceptions about digital
technology and English writing instruction; their uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction; and their concerns about the use of digital technology in English writing instruction.

85

Moreover, I include participants’ quotes and illustrations from the interviews, as well as some
parts of their lesson materials, to justify my descriptions and interpretations of their conceptions
and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction.
After presenting and summarizing each case in their respective chapters (i.e., chapters 5
to 7), I present my cross-case analysis, in which I identify and discuss the findings and the
themes that were most prevalent across teacher-participants, in Chapter 8, Discussion and
Conclusion. In particular, this chapter reports on the cross-case analysis of and conclusions about
similar themes and the sociological and psychological aspects that influenced, related to, and
affected teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction. In
the final chapter of this dissertation report, Chapter 9, on Implications, I provide suggestions for
the relationship of digital technology and literacy education; implications for education systems
and policies; implications for instructional pedagogy; implications for future research; and
implications for research methodology.

86

CHAPTER 5:
MRS. WONG
The findings in this chapter are presented in two sections. The first section, The School:
Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School (Salahuddin), describes the research setting, in particular
the background of the school, basic school amenities, digital technology amenities, and the
classroom physical environment. In the second section, The Teacher: Mrs. Wong, I describe the
first research participant, and I provide detailed accounts of Mrs. Wong’s personal and
professional backgrounds; her conceptions and practices in English writing instruction; her
conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction; and how her
conceptions of digital technology relate to and affect her uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction.
The School: Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School (Salahuddin)
Salahuddin’s Background
Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School (i.e., Salahuddin) is a public secondary school in the
suburbs of the city capital of an economically-underdeveloped state on the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia. Salahuddin is quite a large school; it is about 44 acres, and it is able to
accommodate 2,000 people. Like most public secondary schools in Malaysia, Salahuddin
combines middle and high schools into one secondary school. Named after one of the kings of
the state and founded in 1895 by the then British government, Salahuddin is known as one of the
first and oldest schools in Malaysia. Salahuddin is also popular among people of the state due to
its history and close connection to the state royal family; many princes and princesses of the
royal family attended the school due to the proximity of the school and the royal palace. Also,

87

the school is very active in sports in that it is always involved with district, state, and national
school level sporting events such as track, soccer, field hockey, and rugby.
At the time of the study, there were approximately 85 teachers at this school, with 14 of
them English language teachers. There were eleven school administrative personnel, which
included the school principal, vice principals, and heads of education departments, among others.
Unlike schools in the United States, where school administrators differ in their job specifications
from teachers (in that they mostly administer and deal with the administrative matters of the
school), the administrators in Malaysian public schools are also responsible for instructional
duties (i.e., instruction, assessment, grading, etc.). However, school administrators in Malaysian
schools are given fewer instructional responsibilities (i.e., fewer classes and/or courses to teach),
in order to accommodate their administrative responsibilities. This applies to school
administrators in Salahuddin too. Furthermore, there were 25 non-academic staff in the school,
which included clerks, laboratory technicians, and a computer technician or digital technology
personnel, among others.
Salahuddin was also home to 1,343 students from form one (similar to grade eight) to
2

form five (similar to grade twelve), and also lower and upper form six students. Due to its large
population, Salahuddin offers boarding hostels to students who are under-privileged or from low
socio-economic backgrounds, and to those who are active in the school’s sporting events. The
number of classrooms for each form (i.e., grade) varies from four to seven, depending on the
number of students in each form. Salahuddin offers science, management, and liberal arts
education majors. However, students apply and are tracked into education majors when they

2

Form six is an alternative two-year pre-university level certification program for students who
have passed the Malaysian Certificate of Education Assessment, i.e., Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia
(SPM), to prepare them for the university.
88

enter high school level education (i.e., forms four and five). This education major tracking is
done based on their academic achievements and on students’ personal choices and interests.
Because Salahuddin is located between the dense city capital and the suburbs, it is a
strategic place for parents from both the city and the suburbs to take their children to school
before they go to work. Due to the fact that Salahuddin is a large public school (i.e., accessible
for public enrollment), it is home to students from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds
(i.e., low to high socio-economic backgrounds). While majority of these students are of Malay
ethnicity and practice Islamic belief, the school is also attended by a number of students from
Chinese and Indian ethnicities. Mrs. Wong herself used to send her three daughters to this
school. Due to the influx of students, Salahuddin limits its enrollment to students who have done
well in the National Elementary School Assessment (UPSR) and the National Middle School
Assessment (PMR) examinations. Hence, the students in the school are mostly those who have
done adequately well in academics, even though their level of English proficiency and
achievement in the English language course is on par with, if not slightly better than, other
secondary school students on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (i.e., low to intermediate
level).
Salahuddin’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment
Due to its large size, Salahuddin has sufficient amenities to accommodate the school’s
administrators, teachers, staff, and students. These amenities include offices for the school
administrators and non-academic staff; two rooms to store media-based teaching and learning
materials; eight rooms to accommodate teaching and learning sessions for special needs students;
ten science laboratories to accommodate science education courses such as physics, chemistry,
and biology; one access room that is used for curricular and extra-curricular purposes (i.e.,

89

equipped with desktop computers with a secured Internet connection, printers, and scanners); one
counseling room; one examination or assessment room to store district, state, and national
examination question papers; one large school hall that can accommodate about 1,500 people;
two school libraries located in two separate sections of the school; two student boarding hostels,
one for male students and one for female students; three dining halls, two of which are located in
the school compound, and one is located close by the boarding hostels; one heads of education
departments room, with cubicles for each head of education department; one computer
laboratory; one meeting room; and three teachers’ rooms (i.e., two rooms for female teachers and
one room for male teachers). Mrs. Wong’s desk was located in one of the two female teachers’
room, next to a science teacher. Other school amenities include two convenience stores; one
mosque; one basketball court; two netball courts; one school gymnasium; and one very large
multipurpose sports field that is used for track, soccer, rugby, and field hockey. The school also
has two full-size buses and one full-size van. (Please see Table 1.)
Table 1
Salahuddin’s School Amenities
School Amenities

No.

Main administrative office

2

Media room

2

Special education room

8

Science laboratory

10

Access room

1

Counseling room

1

Examination/Assessment room

1

90

Table 1 (cont’d)
School hall

1

School library

2

Dining hall

3

Meeting room

1

Teachers’ room

3

Prefects’ room

2

Heads of education room

1

Computer laboratory

1

Convenient store

2

Student boarding hostel

2

Mosque

1

Basketball court

1

Netball court

2

Gymnasium

1

Multipurpose sports field (i.e., track, soccer, rugby, field hockey, etc.)

1

Full-size bus

2

Full-size van

1

Meanwhile, the classrooms in Salahuddin share similar features with other public school
classrooms throughout Malaysia. Each classroom in Salahuddin is able to accommodate 35-40
students (even though normally there are only about 25-30 students per classroom). Also, in
Salahuddin (as in other Malaysian public schools), students stay in their designated classrooms,

91

and the teachers are required to go into the classrooms for instruction, rather than the students
needing to move from classroom to classroom. Exceptions are made for courses that require
students to do hands-on activities, such as scientific experiments or physical exercises, in which
case they are required to go to the science laboratories or school gymnasium or multipurpose
sports field.
In these classrooms, the teacher’s desk and chair are normally placed in the front of the
classroom, at the far corner and across from the entrance. However, the students’ seating
arrangements vary throughout the classrooms. This variation is mostly due to the preference or
consideration of the assigned classroom teacher who is responsible for the organization and
maintenance of the classroom, as well as the well-being of its students. From my observations,
most classrooms are arranged traditionally, with students seated in pairs (or threes) across and
throughout the classroom. There are usually three or four columns of paired tables and chairs,
arranged in rows of four or five, depending on the number of students.
Normally, male and female students are mixed together in the seating arrangements;
however, there are a few classes in which the female students are seated separately from the male
students, either at the back or on the left/right side of classroom. This is perhaps done due to
certain religious values espoused by the classroom teachers, or due to the teacher’s own
preference in seating arrangements. It must be noted that these seating arrangements change from
time to time, especially during certain subjects that require students to move more freely, or
engage more closely with other students (e.g., horse-shoe formation, circle formation, block
formation, etc.). Hence, from time to time, and depending on the individual teacher’s
instructions, the seating arrangements change to accommodate the lessons and activities the
teacher plans for the class. In particular regard to Mrs. Wong’s classroom, the seating

92

arrangement that she had was the traditional setting, with male and female students were usually
seated together in pairs or threes, in rows or four or five, and in columns of three or four.
Generally, a classroom in Salahuddin is equipped with a whiteboard placed on the front
wall. There are also notice boards or bulletin boards placed on the front and back walls of the
classroom. These boards are for students and teachers to post notices, time tables, duty rosters
(e.g., maintaining classroom cleanliness and classroom duties), and especially notes on academic
subjects. For example, for the English language subject, there are notes, tips, sample essays,
and/or formats of writing genres posted on them. Normally, there are visual aids in the form of
pictures, posters, charts, figures, and graphs that are pasted on the classroom walls or
noticeboards. In the case of Mrs. Wong’s classrooms, there were usually notes on writing genres,
such as the formats, questions from past years’ examination, and samples of good writing on
certain writing genres. She also had notes on other aspects of English education, such as English
literary works, reading comprehension skills, and English grammar rules.
Other materials that can be found in a classroom are a wall clock (usually located on the
front class wall, above the whiteboard) and cleaning materials such as brooms, mops, and feather
dusters, which students use to clean the classroom. Occasionally, there are also a cupboard
present for students to store their exercise books and learning modules or other learning
materials, such as cardboards, manila cards, posters, newspapers, and so on. Reading/writing
corners and desks or spaces designated for collaborative work are rarely observed, although in a
few classrooms they are present. Moreover, students bring their own reading, writing, and
calculating materials. There are few or no instructional technology aids in these classrooms.
Apart from the occasional computer projector screens that can be found in a few classrooms (in
some cases they are broken, i.e., unsecured hinges, torn screen, etc.), there are no computers,

93

television sets, video projectors, or audio/video players in any of the classrooms. Regardless of
that, there are a few power outlets on the classroom walls for teachers to use when they want to
use radios, laptops, or computer projectors when they teach.
Salahuddin’s Digital Technology Amenities
Salahuddin is also adequately equipped with digital technology amenities throughout the
whole school. In the office rooms occupied by the school administrators and non-academic staff,
desktop computers with secured Internet connections, scanners, printers, facsimile machines, and
copier machines are provided. In each teacher’s room, there are one or two desktop computers
with secured Internet connections, along with scanners and printers that are shared among
teachers. Other rooms across the school buildings, such as the heads of departments’ room, the
counseling room, and the resource room, are also provided with at least one desktop computer
with a secured Internet connection, a scanner, and a printer in each room. The school’s meeting
room is equipped with an LCD projector and a projector screen. The school hall is also equipped
with an LCD projector and a large projector screen, as well as with audio system (i.e., public
address system). The school’s resource room, for which the school stores teaching and learning
resources such as books, modules, and other lesson materials, is equipped with a desktop
computer with a secured Internet connection, a printer, and a scanner. In the audio and visual
room, i.e., a room to store audio and visual teaching materials, there is a desktop computer with a
secured Internet connection, a printer, a scanner, and a lot of educational CDs for various
courses. Each of the two school libraries is equipped with four desktops in the students’ section
and two desktop computers with a printer, a scanner, and secured Internet connections in the
school’s librarian’s room. (Please see Table 2.)

94

Table 2
Salahuddin’s Digital Technology Amenities
Venues
Main administrative office

Digital Technology Amenities
Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, facsimile machines, and copier machines

Media room

Desktop computer, projector screen, printer, scanner, radiocassette/CD players, television sets, DVD players, and
over-head projectors

Access room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
projector screen, printers, scanners, laptops, and portable
LCD projectors

Educational resource room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Audio-visual room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, and educational CDs

Science laboratory

Projector screen

Counseling room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Examination/Assessment room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

School hall

LCD projector and projector screen

School library

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

95

Table 2 (cont’d)
Meeting room

LCD projector and projector screen

Teachers’ room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Heads of education room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Computer laboratory

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections), a
portable LCD projector, projector screen, printer, scanner,
over-head projector, audio system, and educational CDs

School compound

Wireless internet network

The rooms in which the digital technology amenities are most prominent are the media
room, the access room, and the computer laboratory. The media room is equipped with one
desktop computer, projector screen, printer, and scanner. This room is not for instruction
sessions, but to store media-based teaching and learning materials such as radio-cassette/CD
players, television sets, DVD players, and over-head projectors. Similarly, the access room is
also used to store teaching and learning materials, but mostly digital technology-based lesson
materials, such as laptops and portable LCD projectors. The access room, however, is equipped
with 20 desktop computers with secured Internet connections and several printers and scanners.
At the time of the study, only 16 desktop computers were fully working. This room, unlike the
media room, can and is used over time for lessons, for which teachers must first to reserve the
room in advance. This room is managed and attended by the school’s only computer technician
or digital technology person. Her responsibilities include managing digital technology tools,

96

attending to teachers’ and students’ requests for assistance with digital or other technological
tools, and even fixing broken digital technology tools. It is important to note that although
Salahuddin is also equipped with a secured wireless Internet connection for the teachers and
student to use, the Internet connection is very unstable.
Among the three settings, the computer laboratory is the setting that is most equipped
with digital technology. For one, the computer laboratory is not a room, but a recently built
building with the specific purpose of instruction using digital technology. Similar to the access
room, teachers who wish to use the computer laboratory for instruction need to reserve it in
advance. Mrs. Wong herself had used this computer laboratory quite often, even though she
lamented the procedures that she had to go through to reserve and use this room. The computer
laboratory is equipped with desktop computers with secured Internet connections (i.e., 20-25
working desktop computers), and a portable LCD projector, projector screen, printer, scanner,
over-head projector, audio system, and educational CDs stored in cupboards or cabinets. The
computer laboratory is also equipped with traditional teaching materials, such as whiteboards,
noticeboards, book shelves, cupboards, and visual aids (i.e., posters, pictures, etc.). The computer
laboratory is quite large; it can accommodate about 50 students. The seating is traditionally
arranged, with the teacher’s desk placed in front and far right of the laboratory, opposite the
entrance. The students’ are also seated in the traditional classroom arrangement of two columns
and five rows, of about 40 seats in total. There are about ten large student desks, each of which is
provided with two or three computers, for which, depending on the size of the class, the students
can use a computer individually or with a friend(s).
In all, it is within these contexts of the school setting, the school community, the basic
school amenities, the classroom physical environment, and the digital technology amenities that

97

Mrs. Wong accommodates herself as an English teacher, prepares her lesson, and teaches her
English lessons.
The Teacher: Mrs. Wong
In this section, I describe the research participant, Mrs. Wong, I provide detailed accounts
of her personal background, professional background, and her teaching contexts at Salahuddin;
her conceptions and practices in English writing instruction; her conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction; and how her conceptions of digital technology relate
to and affect her uses of digital technology in English writing instruction.
Mrs. Wong’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds
In this section, I describe Mrs. Wong’s personal and professional backgrounds, and her
teaching at Salahuddin, all of which were important in the development and role of Mrs. Wong
as an English teacher, especially in the setting of the school, Salahuddin.
Mrs. Wong as a person and as a professional. Mrs. Wong is a 49-year old teacher from
an economically developed and ethnically diverse state in the south part of Peninsular Malaysia.
She was born into a small Chinese family from a low socio-economic background. Her father
worked as a low-ranked army officer, and her mother was a housewife. She is married, and her
husband is also an English teacher at a secondary school in the city capital. They have three
daughters. Two of their daughters are in college, and their youngest daughter is in middle school.
Because she grew up in an ethnically diverse society, Mrs. Wong is able to speak fluently
and understand several languages, including Mandarin (i.e., her first language), Cantonese,
English, and the Malay language. However, what is impressive is her learning to master the
English language. Mrs. Wong claimed to have always had a very positive impression of those
who can speak English well, especially during her college years when she was constantly

98

impressed by her college friends who could speak English very fluently with professors. Wanting
to be fluent in speaking English, she taught herself to master the English language by constantly
reading English books and magazines, and by practicing speaking English with her friends and
professors who were fluent in English. Her positive impression of the English language is
prominent even now, in that she, her husband, and all their children prefer to speak English with
one another, even though all of them can speak Mandarin, Cantonese, and Malay. Mrs. Wong’s
linguistic abilities are also astounding in that, having stayed in this state for more than 20 years,
she managed to pick up the east coast Malay dialect, which is known to be a very difficult dialect
for somebody from other parts of Malaysia to even understand, let alone be able to speak.
Mrs. Wong is very active in the Rotary Club, in which she has been a staunch member
for almost ten years. Her involvement in the Rotary Club has also helped her with her active
participation in the school’s extra-curricular activities. This is where, through the help of the
Rotary Club, she founded and was president of the Interact Club at Salahuddin. The Interact
Club promoted personal development and social welfare activities for students. In this club,
students learned about professional development, such as leadership, making professional
connections, and social awareness. The club also promoted social welfare activities, such as
coming up with cancer awareness activities, conducting charity events, and volunteering for
social welfare events. However, due to certain circumstances, the Interact Club was abolished by
the school. Even though so, Mrs. Wong is still active in the Rotary Club.
Mrs. Wong is also active in sports. This is where, apart from her weekday activities of
swimming, jogging, and exercising, she also rides her bicycle with her husband on the weekends.
She informed me that she once joined a bicycling program with the Rotary club, in which she
and her husband, as well as some other Rotary club members, cycled with the state

99

representative to raise funds for a cancer awareness program. At the time of the study, Mrs.
Wong was also practicing for a marathon that she was participating in.
Mrs. Wong’s journey into teaching and becoming an English teacher is rather
unconventional—one that displays strong ethnic roots, strong will, a desire for self-development,
and a remarkably positive attitude that started in her role as a daughter, as a wife/mother, and
ultimately as a teacher. Mrs. Wong got into teaching as advised by her parents, whose strong
Asian/Chinese heritage led them to believe that teaching was a more suitable and more stable job
for their daughter. Not wanting to disappoint her parents, Mrs. Wong abided by their wishes, and
she abandoned her own wishes to be an army officer and serve in the Malaysian Royal army like
her father. She confided,
Ok, actually my ambition was not to be a teacher. I never thought that I want to be a
teacher, but my parents, they said, “Since you’re a girl, and, you know, teaching
profession is more suitable for a girl, there are more holidays and all these things.” So, I
applied, and I didn’t think that I could get it. And then I got it, I got the offer to go into
teaching. That’s how I end up as a teacher.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
In the early 1980s, Mrs. Wong underwent an education certification program at a public
university in Malaysia, in which she majored in social studies education and minored in sports
science education (i.e., kinesiology). She graduated in the year 1987, and upon her graduation,
she taught social studies at a secondary school on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. She
later got married to her husband, who is also an English teacher. At the request of her husband,
she applied for a transfer to a school in the state where her husband was teaching (i.e., an
economically-underdeveloped and homogeneously-populated state, which is also where this
study was conducted). Her application was approved, and she was transferred to a school in a
suburban/rural setting close to where her husband was teaching. At this school, she was
requested by the school principal to teach English instead of social studies, due to the shortage of
100

English teachers at that time. Even though she was not educated to teach English, and she was
quite nervous to do so, she abided by the principal’s wish. However, rather than ruing her time at
this suburban/rural school having to teach English instead of social studies, she now reminisces
fondly about this time, citing the camaraderie and partnership that she developed, especially with
the English teachers at this school.
After a few years teaching at this suburban/rural school, Mrs. Wong asked for another
transfer in order to be even closer to her husband’s school and closer to their then recently
bought home, which is in the city capital. Her request was granted, and she was transferred to
Salahuddin, where she was once again asked to teach English. Once again, rather than ruing her
not being able to teach social studies, she abided by the request of the principal, taking it as a
challenge instead of a burden. Her decision was also due to the fact that she had developed an
affinity for teaching English, especially due to her fond memories of teaching English at the
previous school.
Apart from being a busy school teacher, Mrs. Wong also owns a prep school, located in
the city capital, in which she is principal and an English teacher. In this prep school, Mrs. Wong
and her colleagues from Salahuddin and several teachers from other schools prepare high school
students for the national Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) examination for English,
mathematics, science, and several other courses. Mrs. Wong also underwent rigorous training
and was appointed as a nationally certified English course grader for the SPM examination. She
has been working as a certified SPM English grader for 17 years, in order to have extra income
by grading students’ examination papers during the long year-end school holidays.
Mrs. Wong as a teacher at Salahuddin. As of now, Mrs. Wong has been in this state
for more than 20 years, and she has been teaching at Salahuddin for 18 years. At the time of the

101

study, Mrs. Wong was teaching high school English for several form four and form five classes
(i.e., similar to grades ten and eleven, respectively). Her students ranged from those who had low
to intermediate English language proficiency. Interestingly, during the time of the study, she was
also assigned to teach Civics education for one form five class.
Mrs. Wong is acknowledged by the school administration, her teaching colleagues, and
her students as a friendly, helpful, and motivating person. She is well-received and respected by
the teachers and staff in the school due to her friendliness and good nature. She is especially
revered by parents, due to her students’ success in the Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM)
examination. From my interactions with her, I learned that she is very approachable by and
sociable with almost everybody in the school. She interacts not only with other teachers, but also
with the administrative and janitorial staff, the students, and the parents. Her presence was
always welcome, even though her ethnicity, religion, and linguistic background differ from many
of those in this school, who are mostly eastern-dialect-speaking Malay-Muslims from the East
Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
She also had a very good relationship with her students. From my observation of her
interaction with students, either in the classroom or outside, they seemed very comfortable
around her. On many occasions, students came to her office to ask her questions, either on
academic or non-academic matters, or even just to have friendly conversations. Also, she always
made jokes and entertained her students with stories whenever they came to visit her. She
encouraged them to do charity work and to be involved in social awareness and social welfare
activities, such as the cancer awareness program by the Rotary Club. In essence, Mrs. Wong is
the kind of teacher that students visit after they graduate from school to catch up with, give

102

thanks to, and seek further guidance from—all of which were, in fact, attested in the interview
and observation sessions as well as throughout my interactions with her.
More importantly, Mrs. Wong was a very successful English teacher in the sense that
most of the students that she taught tended to achieve good results in the national examinations.
She informed me that in the year 2011, all of her students who were sitting for the Malaysian
Certificate of Education (SPM) examination passed the English course examination, and 70% of
her students got either ‘A’ or ‘A+’ for the course examination, which was an exceptional feat.
Her success in attaining good achievement scores on the national examination had gained
acknowledgement from the principal, the school administration, the students, and parents; the
school community seemed to regard her as a school asset.
Unfortunately, even though she was acknowledged and well-liked by most teachers and
students in the school, she once confided in me to have felt an implicit sense of hostility,
particularly from the other English teachers in the school and from the principal. She informed
me of her efforts throughout her time here to reach out to other English teachers by offering to
share her teaching materials and asking for guidance, only to receive frosty responses. She
presumed that this sense of hostility was because of her education major (i.e., social studies
education), meaning that she was not educated to teach English education like the other English
teachers, many of whom graduated from oversea universities and were very proud of their
English education backgrounds. While her presumption rings true, my inclination about this
hostility is also her success with students’ English achievement, and her activeness in both
curricular and extra-curricular activities, which make other English teachers seem less
successful.

103

She also alluded to me that her active involvement with the Rotary Club—which led to
her setting up the school’s Interact Club—was another factor contributing to her strained
relationship with the principal and some English teachers at the school. She recalled that some of
the more religiously-motivated English teachers at the school reported to the principal that the
Rotary Club was a front for a Freemason group trying to instill their beliefs in the students, the
majority of whom were of Muslim backgrounds. This resulted with the Interact Club being
abolished from the school extra-curricular clubs, even though it was received very warmly by
students due to the interesting and meaningful activities the club promoted (e.g., social
awareness events, personal development and leadership activities, etc.). In a rather distasteful
effort, despite being a politically correct move, the school administration instead assigned Mrs.
Wong to teach civics education so that she could teach students about social awareness. In
addition to this particular event, Mrs. Wong also recounted several incidents where the principal
was against her active involvement in sports (e.g., participating in marathons), asking her to
come up with make-up classes on the weekends to prepare students for the examinations.
Regardless of these unpleasant events in the school, Mrs. Wong admitted that she still
enjoyed teaching at Salahuddin, mostly because of the students whom she felt most love from.
Also, after teaching for 25 years, Mrs. Wong proudly identified herself as an English teacher as
opposed to a social studies teacher. She admitted that she enjoyed teaching English so much due
to the fact that she saw teaching English as a way for her to improve herself, in that she learns
from students as she teaches them. This was in part due to the fact that her English instruction
approach has always been hands-on and relevant to student lives, and that she learned so much
about the current events in her students’ lives as well as their interests and aspirations.

104

In summary, prominent through her journey of becoming an English teacher are her
constant self-sacrifice, for the sake of her family (i.e., to become a teacher instead of an army
officer); her self-sacrifice for her husband and family (i.e., to move to an economicallyunderdeveloped and ethnically-homogeneous state); her self-sacrifice to take on the request to
teach English instead of her preferred social studies education; and her sacrifice in withstanding
the implicit hostility that she receives from the principal and other English teachers at the school.
One might interpret these instances of her sacrifices as a portrayal of obedience or cowardice.
However, I believe these are the milestones that she journeyed to and through, by which she
ultimately sacrifices herself for the sake of her loved ones (i.e., her family, her husband, and her
students). These are also reminders of her strength, tenacity, and endurance in meeting these
challenges. More importantly, these sacrifices were made in garnering a beautiful family that
she is very proud of, her success in the teaching profession, and constant adoration from her
students and other teachers, even at the cost of isolation from her English teaching peers, as well
as constantly having issues with the principal.
Mrs. Wong’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction
Mrs. Wong had several prominent conceptions of the English language in general, and
the teaching of English writing in particular. These conceptions were interchangeably carried out
and dependent on each other, and they ultimately informed and shaped her English writing
instruction in profound ways.
Mrs. Wong’s conceptions of English writing instruction. The conceptions that Mrs.
Wong had in her English writing instruction were the notions of English is fun, i.e., fun, easy,
practical to be taught and learned; English is important, i.e., mastery of English is important for
the high stakes examination, college entrance, employment, and personal and social

105

development; instruction for examination, i.e., English writing is an important aspect in the
English examination, and thus for college entrance and employment; good English writing, i.e.,
good writing is based on mastery of form and function (e.g., no grammatical mistakes, correct
spelling, and correct formats for writing genres) and beautiful writing (e.g., to use original ideas,
interesting English expressions, and varied vocabulary); and infusing moral values, i.e., the role
of education is to instill moral values and awareness into students to make them socially aware
and well-rounded human beings.
English is fun + English is important. Mrs. Wong had a very good impression of the
English language and those who are fluent with English. From my interaction with her and my
observation of her English writing instruction, her positive impression of the English language
was informed by two main conceptions, which are her believing that English is important and
English is fun. Mrs. Wong strongly believed that the English language was very important to
learn due to its role as the second national language in Malaysia, and more importantly to open
the doors of opportunity to students in terms of getting a better education and better employment,
as well as to improve them personally and socially. In essence, she conceptualized English as
important because it empowers the students in their lives.
Mrs. Wong also believed that English is fun in that English is fun to learn and to be
taught. This is in terms that she perceived her teaching of English as fun, easy, and practical.
This conception is evident in the topics she chose to teach, which were hands-on and were made
to be relevant to students’ lives, and she made sure that the students learned and practiced
English in authentic ways. This conception of English is fun enabled her to enjoy teaching
English, to learn along with the students as she taught them, and in essence to act as the catalyst
to her personal growth as an English teacher. This conception of English is fun was quite

106

prominent in her teaching in that she described the most important aspect in her vision of an
ideal lesson as the lesson being fun and filled with meaningful and productive activities. She
described the ideal English writing lesson as:
Ok, it should be fun! That’s one thing. It should be fun. Students [should be] able to
participate in the lesson and they are able to, you know, work in a group and then present
what we have taught. And then, the best is, they are able to write! You know, the essay,
or writing, or write the situation, according to the lessons we have planned. If, let’s say,
like, describing people, you teach them how to describe these things, like physical
appearance, and characteristics and all, and at the end of the lesson, they are able to write
an essay based on the topic “Describe the person that I admire most.” If students are able
to write that, that means you have achieved your lessons’ [objectives].
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
Instruction for examination + good English writing. However, above these two
concepts (i.e., English is important and English is fun), a more defining conception to Mrs.
Wong’s English writing instruction was the concept of instruction for examination. Mrs. Wong
believed that her main role as an English teacher was to prepare students for the high stakes
national examination that would thus open doors of opportunities for them for college entrance
and employment. Mrs. Wong’s conception of instruction for examination was so strong that she
rued the fact that at times she had to compromise her other conceptions, notably the conception
of English is fun, to accommodate her conception of instruction for examination. Mrs. Wong
admitted,
But, sad to say, sometimes we are short of time, and then we have to rush over some
things, and then, you know, we have examination to think of. So, the lesson cannot be
always fun, sometimes, we have to be like, monotonous, because we have to train the
students to be ready for exam. Just now, the lesson is like, a bit monotonous. It’s not that
fun, actually. But, it’s very important for them to know, for exam.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
The conception of instruction for examination was also very strong, because Mrs. Wong
taught her students to prepare for the national examination even though they were not sitting for
the examination in that particular year or grade level. She also admitted that she based her
107

teaching approaches, goals, and lesson objectives on preparing her students’ for the national
examination. Interestingly, most of her lesson materials also strongly reflected her conception of
teaching English writing as instruction for examination, in that her reference books were mostly
on the past years’ English SPM examination questions, books on sample answers to these
examination questions, and books on model compositions for students to refer to and replicate.
Mrs. Wong explained that this conception was the most prominent in her instruction due to the
nature of the Malaysian education system, and the school’s, students’, and parents’ expectations
to have students excel in the national examination. Mrs. Wong explained,
And most important of all is to prepare them to sit for their SPM exam. And then,
nowadays, schools emphasize on grades, on performance, and even the whole
government, the whole system is emphasizing on ‘A’, ‘A+’, and all this, students must
excel. So, so much so, it would affect our teaching. So, like me, I would be thinking,
“How I would help my students to excel?” So, that means most of the time I will, like,
teach them, and then guide them towards examination, so, how to answer well in exam.
So, that is my main concern.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
The conception of instruction for examination also defined Mrs. Wong’s sense of success
in her instruction. This was strengthened by the fact that Mrs. Wong was one of the few teachers
in the school who had a very high percentage of students not only passing the national
examination, but excelling in it. In two different interview sessions, she proudly informed me of
her students’ success in the national examination, which ultimately portrayed her success as well;
and she also reiterated her conception of English instruction, i.e., instruction for examination:
3

But, so far I think it’s quite good ‘lah ’, the classes I’ve been teaching, I did my own
survey, I notice that, like, the percentage of students getting ‘A’ are, like, 70 percent, 70
percent getting ‘A!’ [And] mostly all pass!
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)

3

The expression ‘lah’ is a Malay filler-word that is used in various ways to express various
ranges of expressions. It is notably similar to the English language word ‘like,’ used especially
by Americans.
108

My target is to give them ‘A’, not to make them pass, [but] give them ‘A’. So, 44 out of
59 of the form five students [got ‘A’]. I had two classes of form five, last year, two
classes of form four. So, I think this is why I feel satisfied. After all, I mean, the classes
that I’ve been teaching, after two years or one year, they are able to produce good results.
That’s why, I say that I’m satisfied, I am satisfied, these, 44 [students getting ‘A’], the
record!
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Mrs. Wong’s conception of instruction for examination was also informed by her identity
as a certified Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) examination English course grader, in
which she had been active for almost 17 years. Her identity as an certified examination grader
also influenced her preference to teach English writing instead of other aspects of the English
language (i.e., reading, grammar, literature, listening, and speaking), due to the high allocation of
points for the writing section in the SPM English examination. As such, Mrs. Wong admitted
that she heavily used her experience and expertise as an SPM examination grader to help with
her English writing instruction.
In using her expertise and experience as a certified SPM examination English paper
grader, Mrs. Wong conveyed another important conception to her English writing instruction, in
view of instruction for examination, which was the notion of good English writing. This
conception of good English writing was implicitly espoused and promoted in the SPM English
paper evaluation grading scheme. In her espousal of her conception of good English writing, she
believed that good writing is attained from mastery of form and function, such as students not
making grammatical mistakes in their writing and using the correct spelling as well as the correct
formats for genres of writing. This concept of good English writing is also attained from the
notion of beautiful writing, in which to show good writing students must use original ideas,
interesting English expressions, and varied vocabulary to show that they are well-read, have
maturity in writing/thinking, and have a wide range of English vocabulary.

109

Infusing moral values. Given her active involvement in the Rotary Club and her
background in social studies, it is no surprise that Mrs. Wong’s English writing instruction was
also heavily influenced by her drive to infuse moral values in her students. This was constantly
seen in her instruction, such as her choices of lesson topics and discussion of those topics in the
classroom, and her interaction with students outside of the classroom, during which she always
encouraged them to participate in social awareness programs and charity events to build their
personal and social character. Her conception or goal of infusing moral values into her students
was even more prominent before the abolishment of the Interact Club that she founded in the
school with the help of the Rotary Club. However, even though the Interact Club is no longer,
she admitted, and evident from her instruction sessions, she always tried to infuse social
consciousness and moral values into her students in the hope to develop her students into wellrounded persons. Mrs. Wong admitted that infusing moral values into her students was one of
her main instructional goals:
I also want to, you know, create an awareness among them, so that, they, as individuals,
they are, actually, they are able to contribute to something to the world. It would be more
meaningful instead of just me, [their] family, and SPM [examination], alright. So, there
are so many other things in the world that people are doing that the students do not know.
So, through the lessons, you know, the topics that we are teaching, in a way we can
channel all these ideas. I want them to see, [that it can] reflect in their writing, and they
would be able to show me their own ideas [so that] I can create awareness among them.
And then from there, they can show me what they think, their own opinion of the topic.
It’s more for them to [be able] to see things better. For example, some of the boys just
now, they were humming, “We Are the World”, they were singing. So, at least there is
something there. It opened up their eyes, actually, opened up their eyes. Because
language can be very flexible, so, it can be songs, it can be singing and all. So, not only
I’m guiding them to write essay, but in another way they also learn, they learn to be a
better person, to do charity, to, you know, understand, [and] have the world
understanding and so on.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
All of these conceptions of English education and English writing instruction were very
prominent in her instruction. However, rather than being carried out independent of one another,
110

Mrs. Wong managed to assimilate these conceptions in contingent ways. She conducted her
English writing lessons using varied teaching approaches in which she had her students actively
participating in the lessons, working/collaborating in groups or pairs, presenting/sharing their
written works, and also having herself engaged in active classroom management in which she
constantly assisted, monitored, and motivated students in her lessons.
Mrs. Wong’s practices in English writing instruction. Mrs. Wong had prominent
conceptions of English writing instruction and understood its importance in the personal and
social development of her students and herself. She also had a larger notion to education, which
was to infuse moral values in her students. In attending to her conceptions, Mrs. Wong
meticulously prepared her lessons and developed various instructional practices to juggle and
accommodate her conceptions and hopes pertaining to English education in general and English
writing instruction in particular.
Mrs. Wong’s lesson preparation. Mrs. Wong was quite conventional and well-organized
in planning her lessons. She followed the school curriculum and the English education syllabus
very religiously, attending to each theme and topic from the syllabus as well as the duration of
time suggested for each theme and topic. She sometimes planned a lesson two to three days
ahead of the class, especially if she wanted to go into new topics or when using new lesson
materials. In another light, portraying a flexible teacher, she also admitted to sometimes
preparing the lessons impromptu before class. She was able to do this due to her extensive
experience as a teacher, and her familiarity with the syllabus and topics as she had taught them
for over 20 years. However, and more critically, she described planning her lessons closely to the
syllabus because the examination topics would be based on those in the syllabus. She described
her rationale to following the syllabus closely:

111

Ok. So, as a teacher here, I’m teaching form 4 and 5. First thing is [that] we have to finish
our syllabus, ok. We have to cover the syllabus for secondary school form 4, form 5, and
then we have to also cover the literature component stuff and all, because this is
important to prepare them to sit for their SPM exam.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
Mrs. Wong confessed that her priorities when planning a lesson were attending to
students’ interests and needs, all while she closely followed the syllabus. In doing so, she always
engaged with her students by asking them about their interests in music, sports, celebrities, and
whatever other topics they were interested in, as long as these interests aligned with the topics or
themes in the syllabus. In doing so, she chose the topics of interest to students, integrated with
her own objectives that she had for her students, all the while following closely the objectives of
the curriculum and the English education syllabus. She explained,
Ok, the most important thing, before, is the objective of my lesson. Ok, with the objective
in mind, I have to know how to convey the lesson to the students interestingly. And then,
during the lesson, is that I try to make my objective clear, alright. When my objectives
are clear, the students will be able to comprehend, and they will be able to write it out. By
the end of the lesson, I would like to see my objective is reflected in their writing.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
In a distinct way, her choices of topics and goals for instruction also reflected her
conceptions of teaching English writing alluded before, which are instruction for examination,
infusing moral values, English is important, and English is fun. For example, in a few
instructional observations, she chose to teach directed writing (i.e., letter writing), under the topic
of writing a letter to seek or give advice to friends who were not focused on sitting for the SPM
examination (i.e., infusing moral values and instruction for examination); argumentative writing,
under the topic of buying a present for a loved one using online shopping websites (i.e., English
is fun and infusing moral values); writing a formal letter of complaint on the school’s cleanliness
to the school administration (i.e., infusing moral values and English is important); and also an

112

argumentative writing on making the world a better place, such as helping those who are in need,
doing charity events, and social awareness programs (i.e., infusing moral values).
Mrs. Wong’s English writing instruction. Mrs. Wong did not like teaching in a
monotonous way or using the same materials from previous years. She tried to vary her teaching
styles and lesson materials as much as she could, depending on her students’ reception of her
teaching styles and materials. Her extensive experience as an English teacher allowed her to do
this because she had a variety of teaching styles (i.e., for students with different levels of
proficiency), coupled with her extensive collection of lesson materials.
Throughout the study, I witnessed Mrs. Wong using basic lesson materials, such as the
whiteboard, printed handouts, reference books, and newspapers, and to the more advanced digital
technology tools, such as the school’s laptops and LCD projectors to project notes from
Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents, the Internet to search for information to be used in
the writing task, and email to send in their written works. At times, she also used educational
CDs in her instruction; and she planned to apply to the school for an image enhancer for teachers
to use in the school. Mrs. Wong also relied heavily on digital technology for lesson preparation
as well as for her lesson materials. She admitted that the Internet was her main resource for
lesson materials in that she found notes, exercises, reading materials, past year’s examination
questions, and sample answers for those questions for her English instruction in general and
English writing instruction in particular. On her use of varied lesson materials, Mrs. Wong
explained,
So, I noticed that, every year I will try to change my lessons [materials]. I don’t stick to
the same lessons, unless those lessons are good, then I’ll stick to it. Many, many times I’ll
try to change, I’ll do different things. So, if you are my student, if you were my student, I
won’t be like last year, [like] I would teach the same thing this year. I try not [to], I try
not [to], because I feel bored teaching the same thing. I also feel bored myself. So, I try to
change and like always, like, trial and error, trial and error. So, even this year, I am more
113

to, like, group works, and also use a lot of newspaper, and then, sometimes [I use] ICT,
and then now also I start making use of the mailbox, I try to reduce on the paperwork by
asking the students to send their homework by email.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
From my observations of Mrs. Wong’s instructions, I learned that she had a range of
teaching approaches that she used interchangeably across and during her lessons, and depending
on the needs, interests, and levels of English language proficiency of her students. The most
prominent teaching approach that I saw Mrs. Wong utilize in her writing instruction was the
more student-centered approach, in which she constantly had students brainstorm or discuss the
writing task/activity in groups or pairs. In almost all of my observations of her instructions, she
also never failed to have students present and share their written work to the whole class. After
the students’ presentation session, Mrs. Wong would lead the class discussion and encourage the
students in the class to ask questions, share information, and give feedback to their friends’
writing, such as on their ideas, uses of words/phrases, and interest values.
Mrs. Wong also used a communicative approach in her English writing instruction
sessions. This is where she constantly communicated with the students as they performed the
writing tasks, or when they were engaging in whole-class discussions or group/pair works or
discussions of the writing task. Apart from that, she also gave immediate feedback on or
evaluations of students’ written works as they engaged in the writing tasks. Her communication
with students also extended to her constantly encouraging students to ask her questions as well as
to communicate with their peers to tackle the writing tasks given to them, and also exercising
diplomacy in her instruction, by which she negotiated the flow of her instruction with her
students’ requests or needs, e.g., extension of time limits, change of writing topics, and so on.
Throughout her lessons, Mrs. Wong also practiced a constructive approach to teaching
English writing, which was by giving her students writing tasks based on the English writing
114

skills that they had learned previously and on topics that they were familiar with or had deep
interest in. As such, she also constantly gave constructive feedback, positive reinforcement, and
constant motivation to her students, either when they met her for a writing conference or when
they were presenting their written works in front of the class. This was done to develop their
sense of confidence and their sense of belief in their writing.
Apart from these three main teaching approaches, Mrs. Wong also practiced a problemsolving or task-based approach in teaching English writing. She presented tasks for students to
overcome by using the knowledge of writing that they had learned from the lesson that day. This
approach was usually done after the students had learned through either a communicative,
constructive, or student-centered approach, in which they did the follow-up writing tasks in
smaller groups (e.g., pairs), or as individual homework. In addition, she also engaged in the more
traditional teacher-centered approach, where she took on a more direct role in instruction and
explicitly explained her notes on the writing genres or the writing tasks. Also, at times she took a
demonstrative approach, in which she demonstrated certain techniques, skills, or strategies to
write an essay, as well as provided samples of well written essays for students to replicate.
Within all of these teaching approaches, Mrs. Wong was always seen to be actively
managing her class by constantly assisting and monitoring the students while they were engaged
in the writing task and by promoting them to participate in whole-class or group discussion
during the lessons. She never stayed put in front of the classroom or anywhere around the
classroom to explain her notes or to lecture. Instead, she was always moving around, assisting
and monitoring. This activeness, I believe, was due to her personality as an active person in
sports and extra-curricular activities. In addition to that, she was also sensitive to students’ needs;
many times I observed her code-switch between the English language and the students’ first

115

language (i.e., either Malay or Mandarin) to accommodate students who had an especially low
level of English proficiency and were not able/comfortable to speak English.
Within these many teaching approaches, what remained prominent were Mrs. Wong’s
efforts to prepare her students for the national Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM)
examination, specifically her practice of the conception of instruction for examination. In
practicing this conception, she also engaged the conception of English is important, i.e., for
furthering studies, employment, and personal development, and the conception of good English
writing, which is portrayed through mastery in the form and function of English writing and
ability to produce beautiful writing. These conceptions were prominently evident under the
notion of instruction for examination, in which there were several ways that Mrs. Wong
approached her instruction.
Mrs. Wong’s belief in teaching to prepare her students for the national examination can
be seen in her selection of the topics of writing lessons. This is where she focused mostly on
topics/genres of writing that are asked in the national examination, which are the continuous
writing genre (e.g., persuasive, argumentative, and narrative essays) and the directed writing
genre (e.g., letter writing, report writing, and summary writing). In addition to choosing these
specific genres of writing to be taught, Mrs. Wong also subtly intimidated her students about the
examination, by informing them from time to time about the importance and the popularity of
these writing genres. Furthermore, Mrs. Wong also deliberately chose the past years’ SPM
English writing examination questions to be discussed with and practiced by the students in her
writing lessons. This is where she would use similar questions that were asked in the previous
examinations to prepare her students for similar questions to be asked again in the upcoming

116

examinations (please see Appendix K – Mrs. Wong’s Notes and Exercise on SPM Examination
Question).
Towards the end of the lesson, Mrs. Wong never failed to engage in immediate
discussion or evaluation of her students’ writing. In doing so, she would ask them to present their
writing (as much as they had done on that day), and to discuss it with the whole class. In doing
so, she would use the SPM evaluation grading scheme to evaluate or grade the students’ writing,
which in a way informed the students of their standing in the actual examination had they
submitted such writing. Whenever students submitted full essays to her, she would also choose
several essays and give a whole-class discussion of students’ errors in their writing, either on
their ideas, grammatical errors, sentence structures, and so on, and then continue to grade it using
the SPM evaluation grading scheme. In addition to that, she also focused on the conception of
good English writing, in that she would give positive or constructive feedback on the notion of
form and function (i.e., no grammatical mistakes, correct spelling, and correct format), and the
notion of beautiful writing (i.e., original ideas, interesting English expressions, and varied use of
English vocabulary), which the essays were or would be.
In espousing the conceptions of instruction for examination and good English writing—
including the notions of form and function and beautiful writing—Mrs. Wong would also
provide writing strategies, techniques, and tips for coming up with good essays in the actual
examination (e.g., avoiding mistakes from past papers, following the correct format for specific
genres of writing, anticipating specific examination questions, and so on). Furthermore, Mrs.
Wong would provide samples of very good pieces of writing on similar (or identical) questions
that were written either by Mrs. Wong herself, or were from her previous students who gave
permission to share their essays with Mrs. Wong’s current students. Through provision of these

117

samples of good writing, Mrs. Wong again stressed the notions of good English writing—
including the notions of form and function and beautiful writing—by way of a deep analysis,
almost dissecting the positive points of an essay. This was where Mrs. Wong explicitly described
the grading and points given to each section in the writing, using the SPM evaluation grading
scheme, so that students would know how the good essays were graded, and so that they could
learn from them and later replicate them in their own writing (please see Appendix L – Mrs.
Wong’s Sample of Good Writing).
Even though Mrs. Wong showed great expertise and experience as an English teacher,
she confessed that she had a concern over her teaching of English writing, particularly her
students’ varied levels of English proficiency. Due to the wide range of levels of English
proficiency among her students, especially those with low socio-economic backgrounds (i.e.,
who were rarely exposed to or used the English language), as opposed to those from higher
socio-economic backgrounds, Mrs. Wong noticed self-esteem issues within some of her students.
For example, while they acknowledged the importance of learning the English language and
were genuinely motivated to learn English, her students who had low level English proficiency
lacked motivation to practice English with her or other students in the school. These students
also showed a rebellious attitude in learning English, in that apart from refusing to communicate
in English, they sometimes mocked those who tried to do so, especially if they made mistakes
(e.g., ungrammatical sentences, incorrect pronunciation, etc.). They also tended to be passive in
class, and they did not want to participate in her lessons or activities, especially those that
required them to present their written work in English, for fear of making mistakes in
speaking/writing English. Mrs. Wong explained,
I think [it’s] because of the environment, because of the environment in schools, is not
conducive for English speaking. The students among them, they are, you know, awkward
118

when you start speaking English, their friends would be laughing at them. So, they don’t
have the environment. But those students who are from English speaking background,
they are ok, they can speak! They can speak, because they are so used to speaking
English at home, and when they come [to school], they can speak at ease. Those who are
not, they are very shy to, shy to make mistakes.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
On the other hand, Mrs. Wong also had concerns about her students with high English
language proficiency in that they could be a challenge to her instruction. Mrs. Wong also showed
her own lack of self-esteem, especially given her lack of education in teaching English due to her
background as a social studies education major. She worried about her lack of education on
teaching certain genres of writing (e.g., argumentative and persuasive essays), and her lack of
English vocabulary and knowledge of English grammatical rules. More specifically, she
explained that she sometimes felt challenged to teach students who had a high level of
proficiency in English, for fear that she might not meet their expectations, and also the extra
work she had to put in to ensure a good education for them. In this conflict of concerns for selfesteem, for both herself and her students’, Mrs. Wong explained,
And another one would be students [being] too passive [that] I cannot make them
cooperate with me. I can’t make them to express, you know, their ideas, even orally or in
writing, ok. Some [of them] are just too passive, ok. So, these are some of my concerns.
And another thing is that the students are too good, too good, too good, better than me!
So, I am worried that they can outsmart me, with the questions they ask, you know,
sometimes they may ask certain questions, or maybe they will write essay with a lot of
difficult words that I have to take time to refer to dictionary and check whether it is
suitable for them to use the words in their essay. So these are my concerns. If the students
are too good, then it is some kind of a challenge for me. It’s a challenge for me. So, that
means I must be better than the students, because it’s always, like, the teacher must be
better than the students. So, if the student is better than me, then there is no point for me
to teach the students anymore… [This is in] English teaching [and also] during marking
of the essay. If the essay is too good for me, you know, higher level than my language,
then, I will have to spend a lot of time, checking, thinking, of the correct marks to give.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)

Mrs. Wong’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction

119

Within Mrs. Wong’s conceptions and practices of English writing instruction, she also
had particular conceptions and uses of digital technology in her English writing instruction.
These conceptions of digital technology were interchangeably carried out within the contexts of
and dependent upon her conceptions of English writing instruction. These conceptions appeared
to shape and inform her uses of digital technology in teaching English writing instruction. To
explain, even though she had little formal training in digital technology, Mrs. Wong had
generally positive conceptions of digital technology and its use in English writing instruction,
citing that it promoted convenience, attraction, relevance, and efficacy in instruction. However,
she also mentioned concerns about the use of digital technology in that it can sometimes
compromise the teaching and learning process. In balancing her conceptions of digital
technology in her English writing instruction, Mrs. Wong utilized digital technology in quite
innovative and creative ways that did not forsake her main conceptions of English writing
instruction (e.g., instruction for examination, infusing moral values, English is important,
English is fun and good English writing), yet also enhanced the promise and potential of digital
technology. This was done by her focusing on lesson topics and online learning materials that
attracted students’ attention into the lessons, and by her using her students’ expertise in digital
technology in her writing lessons.
In this section, I describe Mrs. Wong’s use of and education in digital technology (which
is important to learn about to understand her coming to use digital technology in education), her
conceptions of digital technology, her uses of digital technology in English writing instruction,
and how her conceptions of digital technology related to and affected her uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction.

120

Mrs. Wong’s uses of and education in digital technology. Mrs. Wong highly depended
on digital technology in her personal and professional lives. She used them for communicating
with her friends, family, and students; doing daily chores, such as online banking, and online
shopping; and getting the latest news and information. She also admitted to being highly
dependent on digital technology for her instruction, especially in terms of looking for lesson
materials in the online world, and using digital technology in the process of coming up with
lesson materials through the use of software such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint. At home,
she had a desktop computer that was accompanied by a printer, a scanner, and Internet
connection that she shared with her husband and her daughters. She reported that she was quite
comfortable and competent in using these digital technology tools. However, when she had some
technical difficulties with them, she would ask for help from her husband and her daughters.
Having graduated from a teacher education institution in 1987, Mrs. Wong never had any
formal training in using digital technology for instruction when she was in the university,
because digital technology was not yet fully implemented in Malaysian universities at that time.
However, she confessed that her first use of digital technology in instruction was in fact in
teaching English. This is where, upon the introduction of digital technology in schools between
the late 1990s and early 2000s, Mrs. Wong started to learn to use the LCD projector, the laptop,
and educational CDs provided by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). She started to use
these digital technology tools to teach English literature in the early 2000s, when the English
literature course was reintroduced into the Malaysian English education curriculum. Around
2005, she started to use the computer and other digital technology tools for other aspects of
English education, including writing instruction. During this time, she learned to use these digital
technology tools on her own by trial and error; by asking for tips or skills on digital technology

121

from her daughters or husband; and by getting educational and technical support on using digital
technology from English teachers from other schools. To illustrate, Mrs. Wong reported,
So, most of the time, I learned through experience, I learned through experience. I do trial
and error here and there. And then I would ask my friends, I would ask my daughters,
you know, “I need to take this picture, I need to put it into PowerPoint, how do I do it?”
or maybe my children will help me to do it, you know.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
Of her 25 years as a teacher, Mrs. Wong informed me that she only received one session
of formal training on the use of digital technology in education, which was about five years ago.
She was sent by the school administration to go to this training, where she was taught basic
knowledge about using the computer. She was not, however, quite pleased with the training,
citing that it was poorly done, and that the topics covered were very basic knowledge of using
the computer, such as creating, saving, and sending files, and also extracting information over
the Internet. Mrs. Wong explained,
We were taught how to, like, how to send compressed files, how to escape if our
computer hang, and all these little, little knowledge, yes ‘lah’! Just simple tasks, like,
how to create file, how to save file, how to send file, you know, how to extract picture,
let’s say from the Internet, how to extract pictures and put it into our Words or, you
know, PowerPoint forms… Just basic! And then, they wanted us to have our PowerPoint
ready, but we didn’t have enough time [to be] ready, you know, ready the lesson, in
PowerPoint form, prepare the lesson, prepare the lesson in PowerPoint form… It’s just
like touch and go, touch and go, so many things… But, frankly speaking, I was, like, not
sure of what to do. And most of the time, the course was quite short, it was like, two
days-time, only two days-time. So, we need to rush through so many things. So, in the
end, I know a little bit here, I know a little bit there.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
How did Mrs. Wong conceptualize digital technology in English writing instruction?
Even though Mrs. Wong had only basic training in digital technology, she had complex insights
on digital technology and its use in teaching writing. Mrs. Wong acknowledged the promise and
potential of digital technology, but also noted the technical and creative aspects involved in
realizing its potential in instruction. Her positive conception of digital technology was not,
122

however, blurred by the promise and potential of digital technology, as she too was aware of the
setbacks that it can bring. When asked about her definition of digital technology, Mrs. Wong
explained,
Ok, it is new technology where it helps us to search for information, [it is] very fast, [it
is] very efficient, and we can in fact store our information, without taking too much
space, ok. But the setback would be, like, the equipment or the setting, or if you have
Internet available in all our classes, means that we can have our lessons any time in the
class.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
From this unassumingly simple definition of digital technology, Mrs. Wong showed that
she was able to describe the contested notions of digital technology, most notably the
affordances (i.e., the benefits and promise of using digital technology) and constraints (i.e., the
restrictions imposed when using certain digital technology tools). From her definition of digital
technology, she focused on the instrumental, operational, or efficiency-related features of using
digital technology rather than an integration of the technology into thinking about and practicing
literacy or teaching about multiple modalities, new literacies, and so forth. This view of hers
could be related to many things, including her focus on the examination, her age, and her lack of
opportunity and support to learn about other uses of digital technology. Even so, she believed
that digital technology played a very important part in her teaching, for both for lesson
preparation and instruction. Mrs. Wong’s approach to balance these notions of affordance and
constraints was to stress her role as the teacher in using digital technology instead of having
digital technology dictate the way she taught. She believed that the teacher is the more prominent
figure in instruction, surpassing the digital technology, which in a way also portrayed her
command of the digital technology tool. To illustrate, when I asked whether digital technology
held an important place in her instruction, Mrs. Wong replied,

123

Yeah, I think it’s important, but the main thing is it still depends on the teacher. The
teacher must be good, the teacher must know what to, you know, how to teach the lesson,
and then, by the help of ICT you make the lesson better. It still depends on the teacher.
The teacher, and then the second thing is the material, the material and the tools that you
use. So, the main thing is still the teacher. If the teacher is good, if the teacher knows her
stuffs, and knows how to present it, then, through ICT it will become better.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
In a similar vein, and in emphasizing the role of the teacher in the use of digital
technology in English writing instruction, Mrs. Wong explained that the teacher must be
interested and committed to use digital technology in instruction because it takes more time in
lesson preparation and classroom management from the teacher. Mrs. Wong believed that digital
technology can produce positive outcomes if the teacher has proficient digital literacy (i.e., in
searching for suitable lesson materials) and can properly manage the classroom. She also
believed that digital technology can be more useful for certain topics in English education as
compared to others. Mrs. Wong thought that digital technology cannot be used in total eclipse of
the more traditional lesson materials, such as handouts, books, and newspapers. In explaining
this complex conception, Mrs. Wong stated,
Ok, in the usage of ICT, actually to me, it is very useful if you are interested. If you are
interested, you want to learn more, because it is something new, you know. You, using
Internet, you say it is convenient or what, you, you actually have to have the interest and
spend time, sit down, searching for it. If you have time to search for it, when you get it,
then ok. If not, you can just say you searched, but you cannot get the proper or the
relevant information, you would just waste time, isn’t it? So, to say, not all the time it’s
very convenient. Sometimes it is not convenient, so you need to know. Throughout the
years, I know certain subjects or certain topics you can use the Internet; certain [other]
topics, no, not so suitable. You have to use, come back to textbook, come back to
newspaper, hardcopy!
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
Even though Mrs. Wong described complex conceptions of digital technology, it was
quite prominent that she had more positive than negative conceptions of digital technology.
When asked about a tool that best defined her use of digital technology in writing instruction, she

124

alluded to her most prominent positive conception of digital technology, i.e., the laptop, which
was its convenience. Mrs. Wong stated,
Ok, I always use this laptop. I bring it to my class, and then I show pictures, I show some
notes on even simple instruction on writing, and I show it through LCD [projector], and
you know, students can have better idea of what I’m showing them ‘lah,’ on top of that I
also still give them handouts. So, I find this computer very convenient, because it’s easier
for me to express my elaboration, and also the things that I want to show, it’s easier,
actually, like pictures, very easy… I’ve been using the computer or like a few years.
That’s why I find it very easy; it’s easier for me to use the computer because I had
[never] owned one. So, right now, I’m thinking maybe I should get one for myself. Yeah,
mainly it’s for the school use, because at home I already have my desktop. So, it’s easier
to use desktop, if I want to, you know, I think it’s faster in the sense if you want to gain
access to certain websites, desktop is faster, I think so ‘lah’.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
In addition to the conception that digital technology made her instruction convenient,
Mrs. Wong also acknowledged the fact that using digital technology in writing instruction can
attract students to her lessons. She found her lessons with digital technology to be livelier, with
more student participation. She also found that her students became more attentive and alert to
her lessons if she used digital technology, as opposed to basic/traditional lesson materials,
regardless of the fact that they had few opportunities to use digital technology in learning, and
the fact that they did not have independent access to technology in the classroom. In describing
this conception, Mrs. Wong referred to an observation that I did on her instruction in which she
was using YouTube music video clips for her teaching:
Of course with ICT, my lessons is more interesting, more lively, because I can play the
songs, I can show the singers, I can even show the background and everything, it’ just,
you know through the LCD [projector]. But, if I do not use ICT, I will only be able to use
radio. Radio, do you consider ICT [technology]? I don’t think so, not so, I think it’s the
old technology. So, that would be not that interesting, they can only listen, they cannot
see, ok. [They can] only listen and [do] discussion, that’s all. And, I have to explain a lot
for the background of the song, and so on. So, this one, just through the YouTube, I just
show [it to] them, and it’s very clear, and they can see the person, they can see the history
behind it.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)

125

Apart from making her lessons easier to conduct, and having students become more
attracted to her lessons, Mrs. Wong also thought that digital technology promotes better
responses from the students, citing that she often found them more cooperative, attentive, and
participative in her lessons. Mrs. Wong assumed that her students responded better to her writing
lessons with digital technology due to the familiarity and relevance of digital technology in their
lives. She realized that her students constantly used digital technology at home in so many
aspects of their lives, hence making it easier for them to express themselves creatively and
intellectually. Mrs. Wong claimed,
So, and, I also feel very, you know, by using the computer and all these technology, they
make our teaching faster, and more effective, and also it’s some kind of, like, something
different for them. If you were like using textbook and the whiteboard or the blackboard,
it’ll be quite dull, chalk and talk, it’ll be quite dull for them. That’s why I notice in order
to make the students interested in the subject, we have to change, we have to change, we
have to, like, use different approach. And I realize when I start using this type of teaching
technique, the students responded well and they become interested, they become
interested in learning, especially English language is like an international language.
When they go to using the computer or the Internet, it’s like the [English] language, it’s
like, so easy, so easy. And they also can, I know I can ask them to find anything in the
Internet, I’d say, I would be like, “Find me a list of idioms”, they can find from the
Internet. “Get me, you know, words that describe happiness”, so they find, all of these
[words.] Convenient and it’s quite, quite interesting ‘lah’ and then I ask them to do
presentation in PowerPoint and Words [in] class[room], so, from there they learn to, try
to, you know, learn to find information elsewhere and paste it on their, their, what is it,
their assignment, they can see pictures, they can see all these things.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, June 19, 2012)
Mrs. Wong’s positive conceptions of digital technology also reflected her conception of
English education, which is English is fun (i.e., fun, easy, practical). She believed that learning
English via the use of digital technology is fun (i.e., due to the interactive activities done with
digital technology); easy (i.e., due to the students’ familiarity and proficiency in using digital
technology); and practical (i.e., in that the topics of lessons chosen by Mrs. Wong were relevant
and practical to their daily uses of digital technology). In relation to another main conception of

126

English education (i.e., instruction for examination), Mrs. Wong also thought that the use of
digital technology benefitted her students in that it helped her prepare them for their
examinations in a more convenient way. Mrs. Wong believed that the element of interactivity
and the audio and visual-spatial elements in digital technology helped her achieve the objectives
of her lessons. To illustrate, Mrs. Wong reflected on her use of the laptop, LCD projector, and
also PowerPoint slides in teaching her students about the past year’s SPM examination question,
notes on format, and the grading scheme for the SPM examination:
Yes! Yes, yes, ICT does help me to achieve my lessons! For example, just now, if I do
not have the PowerPoint, I would just be talking. Maybe I will have to give them out, the
handout. So, by having this PowerPoint, I don’t have to give them this handout anymore,
so it saves on papers, right? So, you just take a look on questions on the screen, and then,
I show them my format. And the format is like, you know, by PowerPoint. So, it is like,
more interesting, right? More attractive, so they are able to see the points more clearly!
Like, I pointed, “Where is C1? With C1you have to come out with another elaboration,
you have 1A, 1B,” So, through PowerPoint, they can see clear. If I were to just talk and
maybe scribble a little bit on the board, I don’t think they can see that. So, that is the
advantage of the ICT.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
While Mrs. Wong had very high regard for using digital technology in writing
instruction, she also had concerns due to the unreliable nature of digital technology and the
school’s inefficient management of digital technology that she believed could at times
compromise her teaching. Mrs. Wong argued that teachers need to have more preparation when
using digital technology in instruction in terms of making sure that the digital technology is fully
functioning and that the setting where the lesson is conducted is properly equipped to support the
use of these digital technology tools. In that sense, she believed that teachers need more
commitment to inspect the tools, as well as the setting, for using these digital technology tools.
Furthermore, she also thought that teachers need to spend more time searching for and attaining
softcopy lesson materials from the Internet. Due to the rapid developments of digital technology,

127

teachers need to keep abreast of these advances, and also to store and manage the digital lesson
materials safely from virus infections and from becoming outdated or corrupted.
How did Mrs. Wong use digital technology in English writing instruction? Mrs.
Wong used various digital technology tools in her lessons, all of which were provided by at the
school. The most prominent digital technology tools that she used were the school’s laptop and
the LCD projector, both of which she usually brought to the classroom to project her notes,
writing exercises, past years’ SPM examination writing questions, or even sample answers to
these questions. (These notes or exercises were mostly in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or PDF
formats.) However, when she managed to reserve the computer laboratory or other rooms within
the school that were equipped with digital technology, she would always use the desktop that
was located at the teacher’s desk within these rooms and other digital technology tools, such as
the LCD projector, and the Internet. Her use of these digital technology tools was either to show
notes or exercises on writing lessons, or to use the Internet to show videos (e.g., YouTube
videos), play music, or show information from websites, blogs, and so on. She also used email
for her students to submit their written work, and she showed these emails to the students to
present their written works and later have a discussion about them in class.
She preferred to use these digital technology tools instead of having students use them so
that she could manage the class better without having the students distracted by these digital
technology tools. However, she also involved her students in her instruction when using digital
technology, which in a way used her students’ high digital technology proficiency in her lesson.
For example, she would always ask one or two students to help her with setting up the digital
technology and to manage the Word, PowerPoint, or PDF notes that were projected onto the
projector screen. As the student managed the digital technology to project the notes, Mrs. Wong

128

actively moved between the projector screen and around the classroom to explain these notes to
the class. On occasion, she also would ask students to use the desktop computers and the
Internet—especially if they went to the computer laboratory—to look for information to be used
in their writing, to use websites to help them with their writing (e.g., Google Translate, online
dictionary, etc.), and to come up with written works using these digital technology (e.g., students
used email to send written works to her and used Microsoft Word/PowerPoint to do the writing
task). At times, she also used educational CDs that were provided by the school, especially in
teaching English literature and in doing writing exercises.
Mrs. Wong stated that she used these digital technology tools to meet the needs and
interests of her students, who were very attracted to digital technology in their lives. She also
used these digital technology tools to satisfy her own curiosity to try new types of lesson
materials and approaches to teaching English. In her reflection, Mrs. Wong appreciated the sense
of attraction from using such lesson materials from her students and also their increased
participation in the lesson. This sense of attraction and lively participation, in a way, also
promoted her conception of English is fun in that her lessons were more attractive, hands-on, and
relevant to the students’ lives. In reviewing a lesson in which she used YouTube clips to show
and play music videos, Mrs. Wong stated,
Of course with ICT, my lessons is more interesting, more lively, because I can play the
songs, I can show the singers, I can even show the background and everything, it’ just,
you know through the LCD [projector]. But, if I do not use ICT, I will only be able to use
radio. Radio, do you consider ICT [technology]? I don’t think so, not so, I think it’s the
old technology. So, that would be not that interesting, they can only listen, they cannot
see, ok, only listen and discussion, that’s all. And, I have to explain a lot for the
background of the song, and so on. So, this one, just through the YouTube, I just show [it
to] them, and it’s very clear, and they can see the person, they can see the history behind
it.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)

129

Mrs. Wong also claimed that she used these digital technology tools for their practicality.
This was because by using digital technology, such as the Internet and also the educational CDs
provided by the school, she believed that she could save time on looking for new lesson
materials from other resources (e.g., reference books), and she could save time on planning for
these lessons. This was because there were many resources to learning English writing that she
could find on the Internet, and there also were ones that were already provided by the school and
the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) in the educational CDs. This sense of practicality
strengthened her conception of the convenience that digital technology provided to her teaching.
Instead of having to type out all the notes that were readily available to her in the educational
CDs, the use of these CDs allowed her to save time in preparing for her lesson, and thus gave her
more time to think about other aspects of her teaching, such as attracting and maintaining student
interest in the lesson, and providing them with more enjoyable and challenging writing tasks.
Mrs. Wong stated,
I think they respond better. They respond better, they are more cooperative, attentive,
alright. And, I like it when I plan certain lessons using ICT, I see positive response,
positive response from them, most of the time. They can pay more attention. What if I’m
not using ICT? They would be, like, they are able to listen to me, but not that, not that
good. I can see that, like a few boys, you know, they tend to fall asleep.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
In addition, Mrs. Wong also found that the use of digital technology in her writing
instruction enhanced the effectiveness of her teaching. She found that students were able to
understand the lessons better and faster. The fact that there were audio and visual-spatial
elements to these digital technology tools (e.g., projection of notes with illustrations and graphs)
enabled her to convey her messages more clearly and effectively. Mrs. Wong claimed,
I think it’s very effective. In a short period, you use things like ICT tools, you show them,
right away, they can listen right away, and then, they can understand faster. Instead of

130

just me talking, and explaining, and then some students may not be paying me attention,
you know, they will not be able to understand me fully.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Furthermore, the use of these digital technology tools, especially the use of the Internet,
also helped her promote the notion of infusing moral values into her lessons. This was evident
especially from her lesson on “Making the World a Better Place,” in which she showed students
music video clips (e.g., renditions of Michael Jackson’s “Heal the World,” by various artists) on
making the world a better place; she also asked them to use the Internet to find information to
help those who were underprivileged. Through the use of the Internet, her students were able to
come up with PowerPoint presentations to present their ideas on holding charity events,
collecting donations, and volunteering to help those in need. More importantly, her use of digital
technology also promoted her most important conception of English writing instruction, which
was instruction for examination. This is because the senses of convenience and attraction that
digital technology provides enabled her to teach lessons on writing instruction with ease and
clarity, especially the more technical aspects on preparing students for the examination (e.g.,
discussion of past years’ examination questions, and discussion of SPM examination grading
scheme). Mrs. Wong stated,
And then, the other one, when I used PowerPoint, it’s because I had the notes with me
and this is the requirement of the exam, so I can show them, easily. If I were to write, or I
were to print out the effect would not be that good, the effect would not be that good.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
To add complexity to her use of digital technology in her writing instruction, Mrs. Wong
admitted that she did not use digital technology for all her lessons, and instead only used them
for certain topics or lessons that she thought were suitable to be taught using digital technology.
Moreover, even though she admitted to relying heavily on the use of the laptop, the LCD
projector, and digital word processor or PowerPoint notes/exercises, she also used several other
131

digital technology tools in her instruction to keep students motivated and interested in her
lessons. Mrs. Wong explained,
Ok, it depends on the topics that I want to teach. So, there are certain topics that I need to
use, like today’s lesson, I think, the best for me is to use YouTube video, because I can’t
sing! (Laughs) I can’t sing! So, I can always make use of YouTube. It’s very easy, very
easy, with the lyrics, with the song…Different, different types [of ICT tool use] would be
like the students would not get bored. You have to find pieces, you know, something
new, it’s always something new. So, if we were to use just one type of method, like, if I
use PowerPoint all the time, students will get bored. You know, it’s just still photos, no
music, you know just looking at the pictures, and then with my explanation, my voice.
So, instead of me [talking] all the time, I would show something, like, on YouTube just
now, and it’s like, “Ooh, something different here!”
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Espousing her conception on the importance of the teacher’s role in the use of digital
technology in teaching English writing, whenever Mrs. Wong used digital technology in her
writing instruction, she preferred to use digital technology tools herself instead of having the
students use them. This was also part of her classroom management technique, in which by
taking command of the digital technology instead of having all of the students use it, she could
direct their attention and determine their participation in the lesson. By her taking more
command of the digital technology, she also gained more flexibility in her lesson control so that
she could hasten or slow the pace of her lesson, and especially think on her feet based on her
students’ participation and if the digital technology became unreliable (i.e., malfunctioned). An
example of Mrs. Wong’s flexibility in her instruction when using digital technology was when
during one of her lessons, the projector screen she was using suddenly was not working properly
(i.e., would not roll down). In thinking on her feet, she directed the LCD projector onto the
whiteboard and still managed to project her notes onto it. In another instance, both the laptop and
the LCD projector were not working, so she quickly gave students printed copies of her notes,
which she had handy with her. All of these instances reflect her point that to use digital

132

technology effectively, teachers need to be more prepared and committed, and they must also be
able to think on their feet due to such circumstances.
Interestingly, even though Mrs. Wong stressed the role of teachers in managing the
digital technology to ensure that its potential and promise are delivered, whenever she used
digital technology for lesson preparation and especially in her instruction, she involved her
friends, family, and even with her students. She utilized the knowledge and expertise of her
family members, friends, and most notably her students in her use of digital technology in
instruction, either by coming up with interesting presentations of notes for her students, or by
dealing with technical difficulties with the digital technology in her instruction. Mrs. Wong
admitted that she only had basic knowledge of operating digital technology, yet, realizing the
benefits of using digital technology, she was highly dependent on and used digital technology in
her instruction very often. As such, Mrs. Wong managed to compensate her feeling of
inadequacy with digital technology by drawing on the people around her for their higher digital
technology proficiency. Very often she would ask her friends, family members, and students for
ideas and to help her in her lesson preparation and actual use of digital technology in teaching
writing. Below is an excerpt where Mrs. Wong described her dependence on her friends and
family:
But, most of the time, I prefer to, like, because I’m still depending on my friends or my
family members to help me out, I’m more interested in finding ideas, how to deliver these
ideas, how to present, then I will get somebody to do it for me. I find it faster that way.
Ok, let say, for this lesson, I want to do PowerPoint [slides] and I want to present it this
way, and then I will get my children or my friends to do it for me. They can, they
understand me, “You do like this, this”, so that after that, I understand how to do it. I
prefer that way, instead of I, sit down, start everything, you know, from A to Z, you
know. I find it too much, consuming, you know, time consuming.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)

133

To illustrate further, below are excerpts in which Mrs. Wong credited the help of a
science teacher in Salahuddin, her teacher friends from other schools, and her daughter in
helping her with her development of lesson ideas in using digital technology in writing
instruction and in the actual preparation of her lesson plans:
But luckily, I have very helpful friends, so anytime I just ask, they, they are willing to
help me. But they are also busy like me. So, sometimes, I feel, like, so sorry, you know,
especially [for] my friend next to me. She is forever willing to help me, but she’s
burdened with a lot of stuffs. So, sometimes I ask her help, if not, I will call my friends
from other schools to do for me. Like, the PowerPoint that I showed you just now. It was
my idea, but my friend did it for me. So, throughout the years, we have collected a lot of
PowerPoint [slides].
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
If I’m not very sure, I will get people who know more than me to do it for me, to help me.
Or, I will get people to do it for me, prepare for me. First, like, my daughter, [I] get her
to, you know, like the, relate the song lyrics. I cut and paste from YouTube, this one, I
can’t do it. I tell my daughter “You do it for me!” (Laughs) Less than five minutes, she
[made it] ready for me! So, sometimes, I give myself the excuse that, “Never mind ‘lah’,
she can do it for me”. I always tend to delay, tend to escape, “Never mind ‘lah’, you do
for me.” (Laughs)
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
In addition, Mrs. Wong also utilized her students in her use of digital technology in
writing instruction. She had her students who were good with digital technology to help her set
up the digital technology tools, such as the laptop and the LCD projector, and she asked her
students who were good with the computer to manage the word processor files or PowerPoint
slides to help her with typing, correcting, highlighting, editing, and doing other tasks on the
computer while she taught. She utilized students who were highly digitally literate, because they
could not only save her time, but also share with her some tips (e.g., shortcuts and strategies)
about using digital technology for her future use. Her good relationship with her students and her
genuine care for them enabled her to learn about their interests and mastery of digital technology,
and thus opened up a door of opportunity for her to gain their help in instruction while also

134

making them more involved in her lesson. She admitted this strategy had helped her from the
first time she used digital technology in instruction, and she still heavily used this strategy due to
the effectiveness it has provided her. Below are excerpts of Mrs. Wong explanations of her
utilization of her students as helpers or assistants in her lesson, which she described acts as a way
for getting them more involved in her lessons:
Because, [in the] beginning, when I started using ICT I was not very sure of myself. So, I
always identify student who is good, who is good with computers. So, I used to have an
“assistant”, “computer technician”, I always call [him/her] my “technician”. Ok, he or she
would know what to do. So, from there I also learn, ok, “Can you do this for me? Can
you zoom in for me? Can you move this?” They will show me, because there are students
who are really good, these students are very good. These students show me… So, I get
the students to help me out ‘lah’. I mean, I have to admit, I’m not good in computer. So,
with the help of the students, you know, I am able to deliver my lessons. And then, at the
same time they also feel committed, because they also part of the team. They help me set
up, they help me do it, and when I have problems with the LCD, I say, “Will anyone help
me? Can you help me?” they will come, they just help.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
I will make use of the good students, those who are advanced to help me out. I will make
them be my assistants, help me to set up, and help me to find [information]. If I have any
problems, I will get them to help me out with the problems. For example, if, simple,
simple tasks, like, make the section break, you know, emphasize, you know zoom in,
zoom [out], or make it small, or maybe come up with the volume, or fast forward, or
things like that… I need them, especially. I remember, before this, I have one or two that
I know who is very good with computer. When I have group presentation in class, you
see, presentation, this good boy will be, you know, manning the, my laptop. And he will,
I will do the checking, and [I will] evaluate the essay. And then, this boy, he will [be the
one to] highlight the mistakes, he will highlight the mistakes, he will type the comments
that I make, he will type the grading for me. So, what, I just point, I will just explain, and
this boy, very fast with the computer, very fast with word [processor], so, he will be the
one, typing, doing the correction, doing the highlighting of the mistakes.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 25, 2012)
While Mrs. Wong was able to involve her students in her use of digital technology in
writing instruction, she confessed that she had some concerns over the use of digital technology
in her instruction. Her concern was especially due to her feeling inadequately proficient to use
digital technology for lack of formal education in it, and also because certain conditions at the

135

school pertained to the use of digital technology in instruction. For one, Mrs. Wong confessed
that she was not quite satisfied with her lack of education in digital technology in instruction.
She wished to learn more about using digital technology, specifically in teaching English. In this
vein, she also rued not having professional support from her English teaching colleagues, for
example, to learn from them if they had successfully used digital technology in their English
writing instruction. In addition to that, even though she believed that the school was fairly
equipped with digital technology tools, Mrs. Wong felt that there could be improvements to
ensure their efficiency. For one, she lamented the instability of the Internet connection at school
since the day it was first set up, robbing her and other teachers of the opportunity to use the
Internet in the classroom, and instead having to go to the computer laboratory or other digital
technology-equipped rooms. She was also frustrated with the inefficient management of digital
technology in the school, for example, the projector screens in some of the classrooms were
broken, a number of laptops were either broken or were infected by viruses, and other broken
digital technology tools took too long a time to be repaired or replaced.
In addition, Mrs. Wong commented on the many procedures that had to be undertaken in
applying to use digital technology tools and reserving rooms that were equipped with them (e.g.,
computer laboratory or access room); she had to compete with other teachers at the school to use
the tools and reserve the rooms. She also commented on the computer laboratory that—while
being adequately equipped with digital technology—was too far away from the students’
classroom, resulting in their taking too long a time getting to and from the computer laboratory.
She also commented on the unsuitability of having the class in the computer laboratory due to its
huge size, which made it difficult for her to manage her class. She reported,
And it is not suitable there, because that is very big and wide, and then there is no empty
table, and with all the desktops, no ‘lah.’ I prefer them to be closer to me, so that I can go
136

around and check, I can see them if they are writing or not. So, that’s why I don’t often
bring them there.
(Wong, A. C., personal communication, July 12, 2012)
How did Mrs. Wong’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect
her use of digital technology in English writing instruction? From the analysis of Mrs.
Wong’s data corpus, I believe Mrs. Wong’s personal and professional backgrounds, as well as
her conceptions of the roles and importance of the English language, directly and indirectly
influenced her instructional beliefs, instructional practices, and her own professional
development in becoming an English teacher. More importantly, in tying Mrs. Wong’s general
conceptions about the English language to her actual instructional practices, there is one aspect
in the Malaysian education system that crucially shaped her instructional beliefs and practices—
the focus on national examinations, or her conception of instruction for examination. From her
own perspective on the importance of the English language (in attaining higher education,
gaining better employment, and personal and social development), Mrs. Wong had come to the
realization of the importance of student achievement in the national examinations, with regards
to the English language in general and to English language writing in particular.
However, Mrs. Wong also harbored more meaningful conceptions in her instructional
goal, which included infusing moral values—by which she developed moral, social,
interpersonal, and professional values within her students—and also English is fun—by which
she taught meaningful English writing lessons via activities that were interesting, relevant, and
practical in students’ lives. Yet, instead of sacrificing one instructional belief for the other, Mrs.
Wong managed to balance these conceptions of English writing instruction, complementing her
goal for instruction for examination with her belief of infusing moral values, as well as with
other conceptions (i.e., English is important, English is fun, and good English writing).

137

Within the larger framework of Mrs. Wong’s conceptions and practices of English
writing instruction, Mrs. Wong’s personal and professional identities and her experiences with
and education in digital technology also influenced her conceptions and uses of digital
technology in teaching English writing. Similarly, with the push of digital technology by the
Malaysian government and the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE), and her attending to the
needs and interests of her students, Mrs. Wong developed prominent conceptions of digital
technology and heavily used them in her writing instruction. However, rather than forsaking her
main goals in teaching English, in particular English writing, Mrs. Wong garnered her vast
experience as a teacher (i.e., varied teaching approaches and abundant lesson materials) and her
personal and professional connections (i.e., friends, family, and students) to assimilate
harmoniously her conceptions of digital technology within her English writing instruction.
Mrs. Wong acknowledged the promise and potential of digital technology in instruction,
but she was also aware of the technical and creative aspects involved in realizing its potential and
the setbacks that it could bring. Mrs. Wong also believed that digital technology played a very
important part in her teaching, for both her lesson preparation and her instruction. In ensuring
that the potential of digital technology was realized, she believed in the prominent role of the
teacher in using digital technology. She argued that teachers must be interested and committed to
use digital technology in instruction because it can take more time in lesson preparation and
require more effort in classroom management. Mrs. Wong also thought that digital technology
was more useful for certain topics in English education, compared to others.
As such, Mrs. Wong had more positive conceptions of digital technology rather than
negative conceptions, citing its convenience, attraction, relevance, and practicality. These
positive conceptions of digital technology in writing instruction also enabled her to project her

138

conceptions of English education (i.e., instruction for examination, infusing moral values,
English is important, English is fun, and good English writing). In finding balance between the
positive and negative conceptions of digital technology in English writing instruction, and also in
assimilating these conceptions along with her other conceptions of English writing instruction,
e.g., instruction for examination, infusing moral values, English is important, English is fun, and
good English writing, Mrs. Wong stressed the role of the teacher in realizing the promise and
potential of digital technology and in minimizing its constraints. In addition, Mrs. Wong also
credited her family members, friends, and most especially her students (i.e., their technical
knowledge as input to her instruction) as the bridge to realize these positive conceptions in her
classroom and to close the digital divide between them.
Mrs. Wong was very dependent on digital technology for personal and professional
purposes, and she constantly used it for her lesson preparation and English writing instruction.
The digital technology tools that Mrs. Wong used were varied, from the basic to the more
advanced (e.g., laptop, LCD projector, desktop computer, the Internet, etc.). Albeit having to go
through several procedures in attaining them, Mrs. Wong utilized the digital technology tools
that were provided at her school quite often. These digital technology tools were used in varied
ways, but mostly for showing notes, doing exercises, and making presentations.
Mrs. Wong’s main motivation in using these digital technology tools was to meet the
needs and interests of her students. She also used these digital technology tools for their sense of
practicality and their enhancement of the effectiveness of her instruction, and she believed that
digital technology mostly helped her promote the notion of instruction for examination, English
is important, and good English writing in her lessons. In addition, the use of digital technology
also helped her promote her conceptions of infusing moral values and English is fun. Mrs. Wong

139

used digital technology for certain topics that she thought were more suitable for its use, such as
lessons that require presentations, searching for information, and so on. Even though Mrs. Wong
preferred to use digital technology instead of having her students use them, whenever she used
digital technology for lesson preparation, and especially in her instruction, she involved her
friends, family, and even her students in order to use their technical knowledge about using
digital technology in English writing instruction to ensure that her lessons could capitalize fully
on the promise and potential of digital technology.
Taking into consideration the social and psychological binaries and continuum that Mrs.
Wong had to deal with in relation to her use of digital technology in English writing instruction,
such as the affordances and constraints, access and restraints, and her dual identities as digital
native and digital immigrant, Mrs. Wong managed to position herself quite well in her
conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction. When positioned onto
the Web of Conundrums diagram proposed earlier in the conceptual framework chapter, Mrs.
Wong conceptualized the use of digital technology in writing instruction rather positively, by
viewing and valuing more the affordances (i.e., promise and potential) of digital technology
rather than its constraints. Even though she believed she had limited technical and intellectual
access to digital technology in her writing instruction—hence her feeling inadequate to use
digital technology in the educational setting, i.e., being a digital immigrant—she managed to use
as best as she could the access to digital technology that was provided in her school. Also, she
managed to compensate her feeling of inadequacy in using digital technology in the education
setting by involving her families, friends, and most especially her students in her writing
instructions. By relying on her vast experience as a teacher, varying the lesson topics to
accommodate her students’ interests, using her knowledge and expertise as an examination

140

grader, and involving people around her for input for her instructional ideas, Mrs. Wong
managed to capitalize as best as she could the promise and potential of digital technology, and to
put at bay its constraints regardless of limited access to digital technology (i.e., technically and
intellectually), and regardless of her feeling of inadequacy in using digital technology in English
writing instruction (please see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Mrs. Wong’s position in the Web of Conundrums
Mrs. Wong’s strong positive conceptions of digital technology supported her use of it in
her instruction, and thus helped her reap benefits in her teaching, while also helping promote her
larger conceptions of English writing instruction. However, in doing so, Mrs. Wong
acknowledged the negative conceptions that she had about digital technology. In order to trump

141

these concerns and maximize the potential uses of digital technology, Mrs. Wong stressed the
important role of the teacher in identifying these contested conceptions of digital technology, and
in being more committed to its use in order to enjoy the benefits of using digital technology in
writing instruction. More importantly, Mrs. Wong acknowledged the importance of the most
important resource in the classroom when it came to using digital technology—her students.
Apart from that, she also included her family members and friends who had higher levels of
digital literacy to help her figure out how best to use digital technology in her English writing
instruction. Mrs. Wong harmonized her personal and professional backgrounds, her conceptions
and practices in teaching English writing, and her conceptions and uses of digital technology—
all of which relate to and affect one another—to ensure the successful use of digital technology
in her instruction.

142

CHAPTER 6:
MRS. ALMA
This chapter is presented in two sections. The first section, The School: Sultan Mohamad
Science Secondary School (Mohamad), describes the research setting, including the background
of the school, basic school amenities, digital technology amenities, and the classroom physical
environment. The second section, The Teacher: Mrs. Alma, describes the first research
participant, Mrs. Alma. In this section, I provide detailed accounts of her personal and
professional backgrounds; her conceptions and practices in English writing instruction; her
conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction; and how her
conceptions of digital technology were related to and thus affected her uses of digital technology
in English writing instruction.
The School: Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School (Mohamad)
Mohamad’s Background
Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School, or Mohamad for short, was founded in 1979
and was named after and was officiated by the then king of the state. It is located about 10 miles,
or a 15-minute drive, from the capital city, in an economically underdeveloped state on the East
Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Because it is located a bit further away from the city, Mohamad is
considered a suburban/rural secondary school and is attended by students from both suburban
and rural settings. Like Salahuddin, Mohamad combines the middle school and high school into
a secondary school. However, unlike Salahuddin, which offers science, management, and liberal
arts courses, Mohamad offers only a science education major for its high school students.
Mohamad is also a full boarding school; unlike boarding schools in Europe or North American
countries that mostly cater to students from wealthy, high socio-economic backgrounds, the full

143

boarding school system in Malaysia is to accommodate students from underprivileged or low
socio-economic backgrounds who have very good academic standing as evident in their
achievements in elementary and/or middle school national assessments. All of these students are
required to live in the boarding hostels because their education and their livelihood (i.e., hostel
stay, daily meals, and health coverage) are covered by the state and national governments.
Mohamad is 21.5 acres, and in its full capacity it is able to accommodate 1,000 students.
The school has 11 school administrators (principal, vice principals, and heads of education
departments), 63 teachers (seven of whom are English teachers), and a relatively high number of
non-academic staff (49) who are clerks, laboratory technicians, drivers, security guards, and a
computer technician. At the time the study was conducted, there were about 600-650 students in
Mohamad who were in forms one to five (i.e., similar to grades eight to eleven). However, unlike
Salahuddin, which offers form six education (i.e., an alternative two-year pre-university level
certification program for students who pass the Malaysian Certificate of Education Assessment,
or the SPM examination), Mohamad limits its education only to middle and high school levels.
Most of the students in Mohamad are Malay-Muslims with low to middle socioeconomic
statuses and from suburban or rural backgrounds, which is quite similar to Mrs. Alma’s
background. Students from Chinese and Indian backgrounds (or other minority backgrounds) are
very few, making Mohamad almost a homogeneous community. Most students are from this
state and are high achievers in terms of academics, as per the school’s admission requirement.
Even so, as is the case with Salahuddin’s students, their achievement in the English language
subject and their English language proficiency are on par with other secondary school students
on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (i.e., low to intermediate).

144

Mohamad’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment
Even though not as big as Salahuddin, Mohamad’s amenities rival that of Salahuddin’s.
There are eight main buildings on the school compound. Within these buildings are several
offices for school administrators and non-academic staff; meeting rooms; two rooms for male
and female , respectively; a room for the heads of education departments; several science
laboratories for specific science courses (i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology); a language
laboratory; a counseling room; a lecture room; a music room; and also classrooms for students.
Within these buildings, there are also rooms to store teaching and learning resources, such as the
audio and visual room, which stores radio-cassette players, television sets, audio/video players,
audio-cassette tapes, video tapes, and educational CDs. There is also the resource room that
stores the more traditional teaching and learning materials, such as text books and learning
modules. The language room stores materials for learning foreign languages, such as French,
Japanese, and Arabic; at times, the teachers and students occupy this room for teaching and
learning purposes. There is also the school library, which, apart from reference books, novels,
magazines, and newspapers, is equipped with adequate digital technology. Interestingly, the
school has two multimedia and computer laboratories that, even though not as spacious as
Salahuddin’s, are equipped with similarly adequate digital technology tools.
There is one large main hall which the school uses for formal events, such as the weekly
school assembly. This hall can accommodate about 700-750 people at a time. Mohamad also has
adequate sports amenities, such as a gymnasium, a basketball court, a volleyball court, a
badminton court, and a large multipurpose school field for track, soccer, rugby, and field hockey.
Similar to Salahuddin, Mohamad has two full size buses and one full size van. Since Mohamad is
a full boarding school, there are three boarding hostels for all the students at Mohamad, two for

145

male students and one for female students. Within these boarding hostels, there are small
apartments for hostel wardens, a few recreational rooms, a sports utility store room, the nurse’s
office, the school’s dental clinic, and study rooms. There are two dining halls in the school, one
located in the school compound, and another located close to the students’ boarding hostels. The
school also has a mosque and a convenience store, both located between the school compound
and the students’ boarding hostels. (Please see Table 3.)
Table 3
Mohamad’s School Amenities
School Amenities

No.

Main administrative office

2

Science laboratory

5

Language laboratory

1

Counseling room

1

Lecture room

1

Music room

1

Audio-visual room

1

Resource room

1

Language room

1

School hall

1

School library

1

Dining hall

2

Meeting room

1

Teachers’ room

3

146

Table 3 (cont’d)
Prefects’ room

2

Heads of education room

1

Multimedia and computer laboratory

2

Convenient store

2

Student boarding hostel

3

Recreational room

2

Sports utility room

1

Nurse office

1

Mosque

1

Basketball court

1

Volleyball court

1

Badminton court

1

Gymnasium

1

Multipurpose sports field (i.e., track, soccer, rugby, field hockey, etc.)

1

Full-size bus

2

Full-size van

1

Meanwhile, the classrooms in Mohamad are similar with other classrooms in Malaysian
public schools. A classroom in Mohamad can accommodate 30-35 students, even though
normally there are only about 20-25 students per classroom. Students in Mohamad stay in their
designated classrooms, and the teachers are required to go into the classrooms for instruction
rather than the students needing to move from classroom to classroom. The teacher’s desk and

147

chair are placed in the front of the classroom, at the far right corner and across from the entrance
to the classroom. The students’ seating arrangements in most classrooms are traditionally
arranged with students seated in pairs or threes across and throughout the classroom. There are
usually three or four columns of paired tables and chairs, arranged in rows of four or five,
depending on the number of students. Interestingly, unlike at Salahuddin, where male and female
students tend to be mixed together in classroom seating arrangements, most classrooms in
Mohamad, including Mrs. Alma’s classrooms, have female students seated separately from male
students, either at the back or on the left/right side of classroom. I assume this is done due to
certain religious or moral values espoused by the school, given the fact that most students in the
school are Malay-Muslims, for whom close communication between boys and girls is not
encouraged.
Commonly, a classroom in Mohamed is equipped with a whiteboard placed on the front
wall. Like any other school in Malaysia, there are notice boards or bulletin boards placed on the
front and back walls of the classroom. These boards are provided for students and teachers to
post notices, time tables, duty rosters (e.g., maintaining classroom cleanliness and classroom
duties), and especially notes on academic subjects. For example, for the English language
subject, there are notes, tips, sample essays, and/or writing formats posted on classrooms’ notice
boards or walls. In the case of Mrs. Alma’s classrooms, there are notes on literary works (i.e.,
characters, setting, plot, themes, etc.) and also lists of adjectives and adverbs that can be used in
writing pasted on these noticeboards. There are also visual aids in the form of pictures, posters,
charts, figures, and graphs that are pasted on the classroom walls.
Other materials that can be found in a classroom are the wall clock located on the front
wall and cleaning materials, such as brooms, mops, and feather dusters that students use to clean

148

the classroom. In a few classrooms, I saw reading/writing corners and spaces designated for
collaborative work. More evident is the abundant reading materials (e.g., magazines, novels, and
reference books) that are stored on bookshelves, in cabinets, or in large cupboards usually placed
at the rear of the classroom. Mrs. Alma herself used these bookshelves and cabinets to store her
students’ English reading and writing modules and exercise books. All of the classrooms have
power outlets on the walls for teachers to use when they want to plug in radios, laptops,
projectors, or other electrical/electronic devices for their instruction. However, and similar to
Salahuddin, instructional technology aids in these classrooms are not found, as there are no
computers, television sets, video projectors, audio/video players, or even projector screens.
Mohamad’s Digital Technology Amenities
Unlike Salahuddin, Mohamad does not have a wireless Internet connection available
throughout the school. However, other digital technology tools are provided by the school
similar to those available at Salahuddin. To illustrate, the administration offices at Mohamad are
equipped with desktop computers with secured Internet connections, printers, scanners, facsimile
machines, and copier machines. Also, the teachers’ rooms, the heads of education departments’
room, the resource room, and the school’s counseling room at Mohamad are each equipped with
a desktop computer with a secured Internet connection, a printer, and a scanner. The school’s
main hall is also equipped with an LCD projector and a large projector screen alongside an audio
system (i.e., public address system). The school’s library is equipped with several desktop
computers with a secured Internet connection, printers, scanners, and a copier machine.
However, unlike Salahuddin, these digital technology tools are located in a secured section in the
school library, and are only for teachers or the librarian to use. Students are prohibited from
using them unless they have permission from teacher, who is also required to supervise the

149

students as they use these digital technology tools. There is also the school’s language laboratory
room, which stores digital technology tools such as old desktop computers, monitors,
headphones, and a projector screen. However, these digital technology tools are out-of-date,
mostly inoperable (i.e., broken and left unfixed), and improperly maintained or disposed by the
school. (Please see Table 4.)
Table 4
Mohamad’s Digital Technology Amenities
Venues
Main administrative office

Digital Technology Amenities
Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, facsimile machines, and copier machines

Resource room

Desktop computer, projector screen, printer, scanner, radiocassette/CD players, television sets, DVD players, and
over-head projectors

Heads of education department

Desktop computer (with secured Internet connection), a

room

scanner, and a printer

Counseling room

Desktop computer (with secured Internet connection), a
scanner, and a printer

Science laboratory

Projector screen and over-head projector

School hall

LCD projector, projector screen, audio system (i.e., public
address system)

School library

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, and a copier machine

150

Table 4 (cont’d)
Teachers’ room

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Language laboratory

Old desktop computers, monitors, headphones, and a
projector screen (i.e., all digital technology tools are mostly
inoperable)

Multimedia and computer

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),

laboratories

LCD projectors, projector screens, printers, scanners, and
educational CDs

The rooms that have the most adequate digital technology tools are the two multimedia
and computer laboratories located in one of the school’s buildings, to which Mrs. Alma brought
me to observe her writing instruction on several occasions. These two computer laboratories are
not as big as the one at Salahuddin; however, they are evenly matched in that they are both
equipped with similar digital technology tools, such as desktop computers with secured Internet
connections, portable LCD projectors, projector screens, printers, scanners, and educational CDs.
These two computer laboratories are also equipped with traditional teaching and learning
materials, such as whiteboards, noticeboards and bulletin boards, and book shelves and
cupboards to store books and/or educational CDs.
Each of the computer laboratories, even though very small as compared to Salahuddin’s,
is able to accommodate 20-25 students at a time. The teacher’s desk, equipped with a desktop
computer, a secured Internet connection, a printer, and a scanner is placed in front and at the far
right, opposite the entrance. The students’ seating arrangement is in columns of four, where in

151

each column there are about two large tables, and on each table there are two desktop computers.
There are about 15 desktop computers in each computer laboratory; however, during my
instructional observation sessions several computers were not working properly, resulting in
students having to share computers, i.e., sometimes three students sharing one computer.
While Mohamad has fairly adequate digital technology amenities, some of the school’s
policies on digital technology are rather disheartening. Apart from the prohibition of students’
use of digital technology at the school library and the poorly managed digital technology tools in
the language laboratory, another example is its restriction on the use of state governmentprovided laptops. To explain, Mohamad was selected as one of the schools in this state for the
state government to do a pilot study, called the “E-book Project,” on the use of laptops in
education. This was where all form one students (similar to eighth graders) are provided a laptop
each for free to use in all educational subject lessons. However, upon the receipt of these laptops
earlier in the year 2012, the school administration prohibited these laptops or e-books to be used
in the classroom or to be brought to school during school sessions for fear that they would
distract teaching and learning sessions, and also for fear of theft. In another instance, teachers
and school administrators at Mohamad, including Mrs. Alma, were having problems with the
school’s computer technician; this person was known to have had some disciplinary issues and
was not helpful to teachers needing assistance with digital technology.
In all, it is within these contexts of the school setting, the school community, the basic
school amenities, the digital technology amenities (or rather the lack of access to them), and the
classroom physical environment that Mrs. Alma accommodates herself as an English teacher,
prepares her lesson, and teaches her English lessons.

152

The Teacher: Mrs. Alma
Mrs. Alma’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds
In this section, I describe the research participant, Mrs. Alma, and I provide detailed
accounts of her personal background, professional background, and her teaching contexts at
Mohamad—all of which are important in her development and role as an English teacher,
especially in the context of teaching at Mohamad.
Mrs. Alma as a person and as a professional. Mrs. Alma was a 30-year old MalayMuslim teacher who was originally from a neighboring state, which is also another economically
underdeveloped, homogeneously populated, and east-coast-dialect-speaking Malaysian state. Out
of the five teachers who participated in the study, and from the three reported on, Mrs. Alma
seemed to be the person who held back the most information about her personal background. I
learned later on from my interactions with her that her reserved attitude was actually a big part of
who she was as a person and as a teacher at Mohamad. She told me that she came from a modest
middle-class family; her father was an Islamic studies teacher, her mother was a housewife, and
she and her siblings were brought up with strong religious values.
Mrs. Alma was very reserved, modest, very soft-spoken, and quite religious. Her
religious personality was very strong due to her being brought up in a strong Islamic
surrounding, especially with her father, who was an Islamic studies teacher. Apart from her
reserved demeanor, her strong Islamic identity was seen in her sense of clothing in that she was
always wearing loose clothing with a huge hijab, or the head veil, both of which fully covered
herself except her face and hands. Mrs. Alma’s strong Islamic personality was seen in her

153

educational background in that for her secondary education, she went to a religious public school
in her home state. She later obtained a bachelor’s degree in education from a local teacher
education institution at a local public university, in which she majored in teaching English as a
second language and minored in Islamic studies. As such, people often mistook her for an
Islamic studies teacher instead of an English teacher, as I initially did.
Mrs. Alma was a relatively young teacher; she had just taught for five to six years. At the
time of the study, she had just transferred to Mohamad from another public suburban school in
her home state; students in that state were known to be similarly poor in their English language
proficiency and in their English language achievement. She had only been at Mohamad for about
three to four months; it was clear that she was still trying to adapt to the new environment of the
school, and she was trying to make connections with the teachers at Mohamad. Being almost the
same age as I was, and knowing that I too used to be a teacher at a secondary school in this state
with the same kinds of students that she was teaching, I sensed that Mrs. Alma was really trying
to find her footing in the teaching profession, and to be a teacher at Mohamad. Her search for a
sense of professional development was evident on several occasions, in which after the interview
or observation sessions, she would have discussions with me, asking for techniques, tips, or
strategies on writing instruction and writing assessment. In this regard she was genuinely
concerned about her students and motivated to improve her instruction, and she wanted to polish
her craft as a teacher. More importantly, her constant seeking of guidance from me and other
teachers showed that she was really trying to get professional support in her teaching from peers
or colleagues, which I did not sense as available in this school.
Mrs. Alma informed me that she initially did not want to become a teacher, but was
advised by her parents to take on the teaching profession. She did not discuss her entry into the

154

teaching profession at great length, but similar to Mrs. Wong, I inferred that Mrs. Alma also has
a strong sense of family obligation in that she followed her parents’ wishes in becoming a
teacher. However, Mrs. Alma harbored a dream of opening a boutique-type spa and beauty
center for Muslim women. She said that she might leave the teaching profession for good if or
when this dream of hers comes true. Mrs. Alma also described that after five years of teaching,
she had had moments where she found teaching enjoyable, especially due to the nurturing sense
of the teaching profession, through which she became an important figure in her students’ lives.
At the same time, she also acknowledged the hardships and complexities that go with teaching,
in which she strived to become not only a good teacher, but also an effective teacher. Mrs. Alma
explained,
Ok, actually, at first, I don’t want to be a teacher. Ok, but then, but then, I give it a try.
Ok, because I don’t think I’m qualified enough to educate people, because it’s hard, you
know, that to educate people—it’s hard enough to educate people. Not [only] to become a
good teacher, but to become an effective teacher. Ok but then, I give it a try and then I,
once I, at first I become a teacher in 2007, and then I found out that “Wow!” It’s “Wow!”
that’s an enjoyable moment to be a teacher actually. We may educate them, at the same
time we may be close with them, we know the students and then we fall in love in this, in
this career.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Mrs. Alma as a teacher at Mohamad. Having started working at Mohamad for only
about three months at the time of the study, Mrs. Alma was a relatively new teacher at the
school. Mrs. Alma used to teach at a different secondary school in a different state prior to her
move to Mohamad, but she asked for a transfer to this state because she wanted to be with her
husband, also a teacher and a native of the state, who taught at a nearby secondary school.
Having been married for several years, and being apart from each other due to their working in
different states, they were planning to stay in this state to start a family together.

155

As alluded to before, Mrs. Alma had not received a lot of peer/collegial support from
other English teachers, mostly due to her being a new teacher, the other teachers’ own busy
schedules, and the fact that Mrs. Alma herself was quite reserved. She was very timid and
respectful to the other senior English teachers, and she did not find herself like-minded with the
younger but more outgoing English teachers due to her more reserved, religious identity.
However, Mrs. Alma had a very good relationship and a deep affinity with her students,
especially considering the fact that, like her, most of them were from underprivileged socioeconomic backgrounds. This affinity was also due to the fact that her reserved, modest, and
religious personality was well-received by these students, who also mostly came from religious
family backgrounds. This affinity with her identity was shown in their paying respect to her
every time at the beginning and end of her lessons; they stood up, greeted her, and recited prayer
every time before class began and after class ended; and also the female students always kissed
her hand after each lesson to ask for her blessing for the knowledge she imparted. Her good
relationship with students was also evident in the fact that she remembered all of her students’
names in all four classes, and she always conversed with them within and outside the classroom.
All of the students seemed to be very comfortable around her, to the point that sometimes I
sensed that the students somehow saw her as a big sister- or a mother-substitute person,
especially in compensating for their being away from their own sisters and mothers because the
students stayed at the school hostels.
Even though Mrs. Alma had only taught for about five years, and despite the fact that she
had transferred to Mohamad only three months prior, her teaching assignment at Mohamad was
quite heavy. She was assigned to teach four classes of English education for students from the
middle school level to the high school level (i.e., forms one to five, which are similar to grades

156

eight to eleven), including the students who were sitting for the high stakes national examination.
Most of her students had generally high academic achievement in all courses, as evident in their
elementary and middle school national examination results. However, these students had low
achievement in their English language courses, and most of them had a low to intermediate level
of English language proficiency. Due to their high academic achievements yet poor command of
the English language, these students had very high hopes to excel in the English language course;
hence, they were very dependent on Mrs. Alma’s instruction to learn English and to do well in
the examination.
Mrs. Alma’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction
Mrs. Alma’s conceptions of English writing instruction. Mrs. Alma had similar
conceptions of teaching English writing to Mrs. Wong’s in that she also believed in the
conceptions of English is important (i.e., mastery of English is important for the high stakes
examination, college entrance, employment, and self-improvement); instruction for examination
(i.e., English writing is an important aspect in the English examination, and thus for college
entrance and employment); and, good English writing, i.e., good writing is based on mastery of
form and function (e.g., no grammatical mistakes, correct spelling, and correct format for writing
genres) and beautiful writing (e.g., to use original ideas, interesting English expressions, and
varied vocabulary). Albeit having similar conceptions of teaching English writing with Mrs.
Wong’s, there was one conception that Mrs. Alma had which was her own conception, that
teaching English writing is difficult. This particular conception, or rather concern, reflected her
being a new teacher, and in essence trying to find her footing in the teaching profession (and as a
teacher at Mohamad).

157

English is important. Similar to Mrs. Wong, Mrs. Alma believed that the English
language holds a very important place in the Malaysian education system, and in Malaysian
society as a whole. This is due to the fact that the English language is the second national
language in Malaysia, and also to the fact that mastering the English language could empower
her students’ personal and social development. Mrs. Alma believed that the mastery of this
language would enable her students to open doors to opportunities in their lives as a means of
attaining knowledge (i.e., through English books and communication); to further their education
to the tertiary level; and also to have better job prospects. The mastery of the English language
itself would also ensure that her students would be able to do well in their examination, which in
term would open doors to education and employment even wider. This notion of the importance
of learning English that Mrs. Alma had was voiced many times throughout my interactions with
her. Mrs. Alma explained,
Ok, actually I really want to help my students. I do want them to be, [to] excel in this
language because as good students they might go to further their studies in [the] overseas
[universities], right? So, I really want them to be [able to] communicate, and to be
master[ful] in this language, because they are going communicate with other peoples.
And, I want them to talk fluently in this language. I want them to really love this
language.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Instruction for examination. Mrs. Alma, like Mrs. Wong, also had a very strong
conception of teaching students to prepare them for the high stakes Malaysian Certificate of
Education (SPM) examination. She believed that preparing students for the SPM national
examination is the main goal of the education system in general, and school in particular; hence,
she also thought that her own main objective in English instruction was to prepare her students
for this examination. The conception of instruction for examination was so strong within Mrs.
Alma that she admitted to using approaches, strategies, and techniques in her English lessons,

158

particularly in English writing instruction, mainly to prepare her students for the examination
(please see Appendix M – Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Narrative/Descriptive Essay and
Appendix N – Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Argumentative Essay). To illustrate further,
when asked about her main goal in writing instruction, Mrs. Alma stated,
Ok, I want them to, to be able to write, because writing is the most difficult part for them,
especially in their SPM format, 1119. For writing is, in paper 1, ok, their main problem is
paper 1, which is writing, essay writing. Paper 1 consists of section A and B. Ok, [for]
section A, which is directed writing, ok, they might be able to elaborate the points given,
but then, the problem is in section B. Ok, they have to choose only one question out of
five, ok, that carries the highest mark, 40 marks. So, that’s why I focus on their writing,
because I want to help them to write, to write well, and get the highest mark for this
section. Because, I can see, because the section B in paper 1 is really the problem, ok.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
This conception of instruction for examination also affected her definition of success in
teaching English in that she felt her students’ success in the SPM examination would reflect her
success in teaching. Similar to Mrs. Wong, Mrs. Alma bore this similar notion of instruction for
examination due to the high expectations from the school, the students, their parents, and her
own expectations to have students excel in the national examination. However, unlike Mrs.
Wong, who had been successful in preparing her students for this high stakes examination, Mrs.
Alma lamented the fact that she had not been able to be successful in her teaching due to her not
having had a lot of students be successful in the national examination. I sensed that Mrs. Alma
desperately wanted her students to be better in English education, especially in their writing;
however, she found this goal difficult to achieve due to her minimal experience as a teacher; and
also, unlike Mrs. Wong, she did not have the expertise of being a certified examination grader to
help her shape her instruction to cater more to her preparing students for the examination.
Good English writing. Like Mrs. Wong, Mrs. Alma also focused on the notion of good
English writing in her teaching of English writing. However, unlike Mrs. Wong, who catered to

159

both the notion of form and function (i.e., not making grammatical mistakes in their writing, and
using correct spelling as well as the correct format of genres of writing) and the idea of beautiful
writing (i.e., use new or original ideas, interesting English expressions, and varied vocabulary in
their writing), Mrs. Alma focused more on the notion of beautiful writing. This is evident from
the many instances in her instruction where she focused on students’ use of varied English
vocabulary and interesting English expressions in their writing. Like Mrs. Wong’s espousal of
the notion of good English writing (i.e., beautiful writing) as influenced by her notion of
instruction for examination, Mrs. Alma also exposed her subliminal notion of instruction for
examination through the notion of beautiful writing, in particular her appreciation of the use of
varied English vocabulary. Mrs. Alma also acknowledged that she preferred teaching English
reading to teaching writing, due to the fact that she believed that reading can enhance her
students’ vocabulary so that they can apply it in their writing. This focus on varied and complex
English vocabulary showed her focus on instruction for examination, and hence the notion of
good English writing (i.e., beautiful writing) to achieve this commitment. Mrs. Alma explained
her preference for teaching reading, and she intuitively exposed her focus on the notion of
beautiful writing:
Because I considered through reading, they may increase their vocabulary, and they can
see the idea, how the idea is being progressed. And then, I want them, I ask them, I want
them to memorize how the writer writes the essay, so that they can apply it in their essay.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
In another instance, Mrs. Alma explained her wanting her students to write well in their
essays (i.e., practice good English writing) and also to write beautifully (i.e., original ideas,
interesting expressions, varied vocabulary), and the issues that she had been having pertaining to
her students not being able to envision this goal of hers. Mrs. Alma lamented,

160

Because of, because of limited vocabulary, I think. And they have no, they have no
ideas. And then they, they don’t know how to write, they don’t know how to elaborate.
Ok, sometimes, when they have ideas, but then, they don’t know how to, how to, work on
it. Ok, they lack ideas. That’s why they kept repeating the same ideas. They don’t know
how to [elaborate].
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Teaching English writing is difficult. Being relatively new to the teaching profession,
having recently moved to a new school, and teaching students who were struggling with the
English language, Mrs. Alma had a lot of concerns. Mrs. Alma’s main concern was her students’
poor English language proficiency. Her students’ low to intermediate English proficiency level
made it difficult for Mrs. Alma to cater to their needs, especially given the fact that she too had
to teach a wide range of grade levels (i.e., from grades eight to eleven), and the fact that she was
also teaching students who were taking the high stakes national examination. Due to most of her
students having a low level of English proficiency and at the same time preparing to sit for the
national examination, they depended on her very much to provide them with the technical knowhow in approaching the English language paper, especially the writing section, which carries the
most scores in the examination. This sense of dependency put a lot of pressure on Mrs. Alma,
especially because English writing was very important for her students to do well in the national
examination. To illustrate, Mrs. Alma explained,
Writing is the most difficult part for them, especially in their SPM… So, that’s why I
focus on their writing, because I want to help them to write, to write well, and get the
highest mark for this section. Because, I can see, because the section B in paper 1 is
really the problem, ok… Problem means that they, some of them, some of them didn’t,
just write only, only about 200, and 150 out of 350 words needed for the length of the
essay… Because of, because of limited vocabulary, I think. And they have no, they have
no ideas. And then they, they don’t know how to write, they don’t know how to
elaborate. Ok, sometimes, when they have ideas, but then, they don’t know how to, how
to, work on it. Ok, they lack ideas. That’s why they kept repeating the same ideas. They
don’t know how to [elaborate].
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)

161

Due to the position of the English language in the Malaysian education system and in
Malaysian society; its promise for further education and employment; and specifically the
important role of English writing within these contexts, Mrs. Alma also had a somewhat negative
conception, or rather a concern, about teaching English writing. This concern was mostly due to
her having difficulty in catering to her students’ low level of English language proficiency and
the nature of writing itself, which, instead of memorizing answers, students were required to
think and develop ideas, as well as project them onto their writing with correct use of English
grammatical rules. Mrs. Alma reported that she had to take a longer time and a more rigorous
step-by-step approach to her writing instruction. This concern had influenced her thinking that
English writing was the most difficult skill to teach her students. Mrs. Alma explained,
Ok, as for me, writing is the toughest, apart from reading, speaking. Ok, because I have to
teach them step-by-step. Ok, first I have to teach them grammar, then, I have to [do]
some sort of vocabulary, ok. For your information, I use newspaper, to the students, for
them to enrich their vocabulary, and then, I ask them to write simple sentences. Simple
sentences first, [and] then, only then I move to the compound sentences, and topic
sentence, and I encourage them to use idioms, proverbs, and phrasal verbs, ok, only then I
ask them to use linkers, ok, in their writing. So, I have to teach writing step-by-step,
because the students encounter problems in writing; from form one until form five. Even
[for] form five [students], they still have problems regarding writing.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
Mrs. Alma also felt that teaching English writing was particularly difficult due to her
constant battle to fight off resistance from her students in learning English writing (i.e., students
thinking that English is a killer subject) and their constant dependency on her to provide them
with technical know-how in preparing them to sit for the English examination instead of learning
or developing the skills needed to be good at writing. However, and more importantly, this
struggle that Mrs. Alma portrayed also illustrated her deep concern about her teaching of writing,
and that she still hoped to teach her students to write well and to instill love of the English
language in them. Mrs. Alma said in this regard,
162

I [am] really worried about my students in terms of writing because I can see that some of
them are quite good, but then some of them are quite, very weak in writing. And, I hope I
can do something to help them, in terms of writing… Because, some of the students,
when it comes to writing, writing an essay, it seems that they, they don’t learn anything.
It’s not easy for them to write an essay… Because, I can see that, the same as my
previous school students, students here totally depend on teachers, ok, depend on
teachers. They don’t have their own efforts. Ok, they want to learn English… but they
don’t know how to be master[ful] in this language. They say that English is a killer
subject.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Mrs. Alma’s practices in English writing instruction. Mrs. Alma had strong
conceptions of English writing instruction and understood its importance for her students and
herself. She also had concerns about English writing instruction; in particular she believed that
English writing is very difficult to teach. In attending to her conceptions and concerns, Mrs.
Alma prepared her lessons and used various instructional approaches to juggle and accommodate
her conceptions and put at bay her concerns pertaining to English writing instruction.
Mrs. Alma’s lesson preparation. Mrs. Alma informed me that she did not rely so much
on the teaching materials that the school provided and instead developed her own lesson
materials. In so doing, Mrs. Alma relied heavily on digital technology for preparing her lessons;
she heavily used her laptop and the Internet at home to look for lesson materials (i.e., notes,
exercises, reading materials, etc.), and she adapted these materials for her lessons (e.g., cutting,
pasting, typing, editing, and printing the notes, exercises, and activities). Mrs. Alma took her
lesson planning quite seriously and reported preparing and following through her lessons; she
never taught her lessons impromptu. If there were circumstances for which she was not able to
teach her prepared lessons, she would carry her lessons forward to the next learning sessions.
Her strict regimen of planning lessons and adhering to them was due to the need to follow
closely the school syllabus and the English language curriculum, both of which were important
due to their role in the national examination, because the questions in the national examination
163

are based on topics from the English syllabus and curriculum. Her lessons were therefore
planned based on the themes, topics, and the English language aspects (e.g., reading, writing,
speaking, listening, grammar, and literature) within the English curriculum and syllabus. Mrs.
Alma usually planned each lesson to focus on one aspect of the English language, and she
assimilated it over a few others (e.g., reading over speaking, or listening, grammar, and
literature). However, when teaching writing, Mrs. Alma focused solely on the English writing
aspect together with the English grammar aspect.
In her preparation for an English writing lesson, she had to pay extra attention to the
students’ level of English proficiency. This was due to the many classes (four classes) and wide
range of grades that she was teaching (forms one to five, similar to grades eight to eleven). More
importantly, she paid extra attention to her students’ levels of English proficiency due to the fact
that some classes had students who were at the intermediate level in their English proficiency,
while other classes had students at the low level English proficiency. In doing so, she planned
her lessons by applying a step-by-step process to English writing. This was done by her first
determining their level of English proficiency, then teaching them to write in stages (e.g.,
sentences, paragraphs, and then full essays), and then engaging in discussions about their writing
by focusing on their range of English vocabulary and grammar in order to come up with
beautiful writing. In justifying her lesson preparation, Mrs. Alma explained,
Ok, so, I can say that before I come up with the lesson plan for writing, I can say that
teachers have to focus more on the students’ level. It means that, are they able to write, to
write it right, to write the essay with grammatically correct [sentences], and their
vocab[ulary]. The teachers have to consider all these before they come up with, or before
they just ask the students to write an essay [so that] the teacher knows the students’ level.
So, in the middle, the teacher has to teach the students, step-by-step. Ok, for example, the
teacher should ask the students to come up with a piece of writing, a piece of writing—
for example, just a simple, just a short paragraph. Ok, from this we can see that the
students’ level in writing. And, while teaching, I can see that students have their own
levels of writing, they have their [level], some of them have limited vocabulary, some of
164

them are good, some of them are weak. And, also for the grammar [aspect]. Ok, some
students are good in grammar, and some of them are still confused with certain parts of
speech, ok. Some of them just write without [knowing] the meanings of their piece of
writing, so, they just [write] what come out of their minds. And then, after I teach them, I
can say that the students improve only with the teacher’s way of teaching. Ok, [it] means
that, when I ask them to come out with as many vocabularies as they can, ok, they may
enrich their vocab[ulary]. Ok, if I ask the students to write, and then, I can see that, I can
see their piece of writing with grammatical errors, ok, and then I can check their piece of
writing, I check their essay, and they may improve after that.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Mrs. Alma’s English writing instruction. Mrs. Alma informed me that she and the other
English teachers at the school taught writing for double periods out of the five periods of English
lessons for each grade level. The writing instruction was done through a rigorous step-by-step
process, due to the low to intermediate levels of English proficiency of the students. First, the
students were introduced to the writing topic by the teacher and taught about the grammatical
aspects to be included in the essay. Guided by the teacher, the students then discussed the main
ideas and supporting details of the writing topic; wrote in stages of sentences to paragraphs to
full essays; and then went through a process of whole-class or group revision with the teacher.
Upon completion of an essay, the teacher would sometimes ask the students to memorize their
written work, especially if the teacher anticipated that the questions for the writing task, or even
something similar to the writing task, would be asked in the national examination.
This approach to teaching writing was part of the school’s way to prepare students for the
national examination. This rigorous process meant that the students came up with one fully
written essay within eight periods (i.e., four-double periods), or roughly one month of English
writing lessons. This also meant that within one academic year, the students were able to produce
about eight to ten essays, which is very low when compared to what is required in the national
English education curriculum and what is normally practiced in other schools (i.e., 20-30 essays
per-academic year). The decision to teach English writing this way was not instigated by Mrs.
165

Alma; instead, it was discussed and agreed upon by the panel of English teachers at Mohamad.
Mrs. Alma explained,
This is what we discuss in our panel meeting. We can’t force the students to write. For
example, before this, we decided that students should write one essay per-week. But then,
according to our head panel, it’s impossible! We know our students! It’s impossible for
them to come up with one essay per-week, ok. So, we make it this way, [we] ask the
students to write until they can write well, the essay, only then only go to another essay.
Or, we just give them a simple, sample essay, and we ask them to change a bit then to
memorize.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
In exercising this school’s approach to teaching English writing, Mrs. Alma used a range
of lesson materials, from the basic/traditional lesson materials to the more advanced digital
technology lesson materials. In the five English writing lessons that I observed (on summary
writing, argumentative/persuasive writing, narrative writing, and directed writing), twice she
taught using solely basic/traditional lesson materials, and three times she taught using digital
technology, accompanied by basic lesson materials (e.g., handouts on notes or exercises). In her
use of traditional lesson materials, Mrs. Alma utilized mostly handouts, such as notes, exercises,
activities, and samples of writing that she adapted from resources from the Internet and printed
out for her students. She also used the whiteboard, reference books, the exercise book, and
English modules to teach English writing, and did writing tasks from these books. She admitted
that at times she used other print materials, such as newspapers, magazines, and pictures for her
writing lessons. I concluded that she used a variety of lesson materials to teach her students; and
even though she was a relatively new teacher at Mohamad, she was quite resourceful in attaining
and using these lesson materials.
An important point of Mrs. Alma’s instruction, as described before in her conceptions of
English writing instruction, was preparing her students for the national examination. Apart from
practicing the school’s English education panel’s approach to teaching English writing (i.e.,
166

having students rigorously go through the step-by-step process and having them memorize
samples or their own written works in order to prepare them for the national examination), there
were several other approaches that Mrs. Alma practiced in promoting her conception of
preparing students for the national examination. Mrs. Alma’s preparation of her students for the
national examination was seen in her choices of topics for the writing lessons in her instruction
in that she was more inclined to teach argumentative, narrative, and directed writing topics (that
are often asked for in the national examination), instead of more creative writing genre topics.
Apart from that, Mrs. Alma also had her students practice and discuss English writing questions
from the past years’ national examinations. She would at times provide examples of good writing
that she found, either on the Internet or from the reference books, for them to read, memorize,
and hopefully emulate.
Mrs. Alma also often intimidated her students about the national examination. This was
done as part of her classroom management skills. She would constantly warn her students about
the importance of writing well and thus scoring well in the examination; and at times she
alarmed them with stories of students who did not pay attention in class, and thus ended up not
being able to answer/write well in their examination. Mrs. Alma would also give writing
strategies or tips based on different genres of writing for students to use in the actual
examination. For example, to write a summary, she advised them to use sequence connectors or
modal words, write brief and concise points, and always paraphrase given points. Meanwhile, for
a narrative essay, she advised them to try to visualize the people or setting as they wrote their
essay, to be as detailed as they could, and to use complex words or interesting English
expressions.

167

In her teaching to prepare her students for the national examination, and abiding by the
school’s English panel’s approach to teach English writing, Mrs. Alma also promoted her other
conception of English writing instruction, which is good English writing, in particular the notion
of beautiful writing. For example, when teaching her students English writing in stages, or
through the step-by-step process that was promoted by the school’s English education panel,
Mrs. Alma first taught her students the correct use of sentence structures and/or parts of speech.
She then constantly promoted on the importance of having varied vocabulary, thus encouraging
students to read and use English language words in their essays that were complex and out of the
ordinary. She also encouraged them to use idiomatic expressions and phrasal verbs to make their
writing more interesting. In doing so, she promoted the use of the thesaurus and dictionary in her
lessons; and when she had the opportunity to use the computer laboratory, she asked her students
to use the Google Translate application or the online dictionary to change common English
words into complex words with similar meanings. To illustrate, below are two excerpts from our
interview sessions in which Mrs. Alma explained her teaching approach:
Ok, as for me, I teach them to come up with a simple sentence first. Ok, before I ask them
to write, I teach them grammar first, so that they know the eight parts of speech, so that
they know how to use the parts of speech in terms of their writing. Then, I teach them
about simple sentences, and then complex sentences, compound sentences, and then I ask
them to write simple sentence first. Ok, then, I check on their work. Only after that, once
they master how to write an essay, how to come up with their main ideas and then
supporting details; only after that, I ask them to write complete essay.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Ok, as for me, writing is the toughest, apart from reading, speaking. Ok, because I have to
ask them step-by-step. Ok, first I have to teach them grammar, then, I have to [do] some
sort of vocabulary, ok. For your information, I use newspaper with the students, for them
to enrich their vocabulary, and then, I ask them to write simple sentences. Simple
sentences first, [and] then, only then I move to the compound sentences, and topic
sentence, and I encourage them to use idioms, proverbs, and phrasal verbs, ok. Only then
I ask them to use linkers, ok, in their writing. So, I have to teach writing step-by-step,
because the students encounter problems in writing; from form one until form five. Even
form five [students], they still have problems regarding writing.
168

(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
In espousing her conceptions of teaching English writing as instruction for examination
and good English writing, Mrs. Alma utilized several approaches to her instruction. Her ability to
use several approaches interchangeably throughout her instruction was quite impressive, due to
her being an English teacher for only five years, and being in Mohamad for only a few months—
and especially dealing with its students, who had low to intermediate English proficiency and
who rebelled against learning writing. Due to the rebellion and attitude of her students towards
learning English writing, the most prominent teaching approach that I witnessed Mrs. Alma
using was the teacher-centered approach, in which she took a more center stage in inducing
discussions in her lesson; explained about the notes, activities, tasks, or exercises; and practiced
very active classroom management in which she constantly assisted and monitored students in
their writing tasks. Mrs. Alma’s taking a more teacher-centered approach to teaching was not due
to her own preference in teaching, but to her students’ poor response to learning English writing.
Due to her students’ dependency on her taking a more prominent role in their learning,
and also to promote her conception of instruction for examination, Mrs. Alma used a
demonstrative approach. This was where Mrs. Alma demonstrated or gave examples of how to
write well in accordance with the requirements of the questions/writing tasks, and she also
provided samples of good essays for students to read, decipher/understand, and memorize on
their own. It must be noted that unlike Mrs. Wong, who explained in detail these samples of
good writing in her lessons for her students to understand and emulate, Mrs. Alma did not do so,
or perhaps was not able to do so. Mrs. Alma’s not explaining in depth the features and
characteristics of these samples of good writing was due to her not having Mrs. Wong’s expertise
as a certified examination grader.

169

Mrs. Alma also used a more communicative approach in her writing instruction by
practicing diplomacy through allowing students to interact with one another in doing or
discussing writing tasks; had her students present or share their written works; used questioning
strategies to determine her students’ comprehension of her instruction; had whole-class and
group discussions on the writing tasks; and also had whole-class readings of samples of good
writing. In her use of the communicative approach, Mrs. Alma also constantly used a codeswitching technique, in which she at times interchanged between the English language and the
Malay language, and even the east coast Malay dialect, to communicate or explain things to her
students.
Furthermore, Mrs. Alma at times used a constructive approach to teaching writing, by
which she promoted group or pair work in writing tasks, and also individual work or homework
after the students had a better grasp of the writing tasks from the prior discussion or completion
of writing tasks with their colleagues in the classroom. In addition, Mrs. Alma also taught her
students based on the step-by-step process to writing, in which she moved from sentence
formations to writing paragraphs to writing full essays, and by which she had whole-class or
group discussion on the revision of their essays to promote beautiful writing (e.g., interesting
English expressions and varied English vocabulary).
In her espousal of another conception of English writing instruction, good English
writing, Mrs. Alma also focused on the grammar aspect in her writing instruction; she would,
especially prior to writing tasks, teach her students about specific grammatical aspects (e.g., parts
of speech, sequence connectors, etc.) that she wanted them to use in their writing task. At times,
she gave corrective feedback on the grammar aspects when the students were doing their writing
tasks, and she corrected their pronunciation when they were reading samples of good writing.

170

Mrs. Alma’s other approaches to teaching English writing included her using a problem-solving
or task-based approach, in which she had students do writing tasks in pairs or individually in the
classroom and/or later as homework; and she also used a student-centered approach, in which
she had students do presentations on their written work so that they could learn from one
another.
Even though Mrs. Alma managed to use various teaching approaches and techniques in
her writing instruction due to her students’ low level of English proficiency, her constant
struggle with her students’ poor attitude, and her struggle with classroom management, Mrs.
Alma genuinely wanted to improve her English writing instructional skills. This was evident
from the many discussions that she had with me in her search for instructional approaches; she
always tried to elicit my input on how to give feedback on her students’ essays, especially on
their grammatical mistakes, poor sentence structures, and lack of ideas. She also a few times
asked me for references and websites for her writing lesson materials. Mrs. Alma was genuinely
concerned with improving her instructional methods and teaching styles. Apart from that, Mrs.
Alma was also concerned with her students’ performance and their lack of success in the
examination. Mrs. Alma stated,
Because of the students’ achievements, their achievement in, their [examination] results.
Ok, for each examination it is still the same, not much different. Ok, so, I have to work
harder, ok. I have to improve myself first, ok. I have to come up with something which is
different, something that is really interesting, for me to really help them in the future. So,
I have to find out some, some materials, or ICT, to help them to be better.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Mrs. Alma believed her not being able to achieve success in her instruction was due to
the fact that her students were quite poor in their English language proficiency, and also the fact
that they were resisting learning or not using the English language in their lives. Mrs. Alma also
believed that the environment at Mohamad, especially pertaining to the use of the English
171

language (or lack thereof), did not promote students to learn and practice using English seriously.
While the principal and the school community at Mohamad as a whole realized the importance
of the English language, Mrs. Alma lamented the fact that the students’ low English language
proficiency was due to the English language being patronized, not only by the students, but even
by the teachers at the school, in favor of the east coast Malay dialect. Mrs. Alma explained,
Because they are too influenced by their, what do we call it? Their dialect, yeah,
dialect! And also they are, I think that they are not, the teachers themselves, do not
stress on the use of the language in the school. Ok, for example, in this school,
students tend to use their dialect even during the assembly, which is a formal [event],
an assembly, a formal [event], which is [where] we have to use formal English or
formal Malay to speak in front. Ok, but then, I can see the students are not [doing so].
Even teachers teach them using dialect, their own dialect, so, it indirectly influences
the students.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Impressively, Mrs. Alma recognized the problem of her students’ low level of English
proficiency quite early during her first few weeks at Mohamad. To give credit to Mrs. Alma, she
brought this matter to the principal. In overcoming this issue, the principal came up with a
program called “One Student, One Newspaper,” in which each student was required to subscribe
to an English newspaper to enhance their English reading proficiency, and for teachers to use the
newspaper in their instruction. However, upon implementation of this program, Mrs. Alma
informed me that they had not yet seen any visible positive results; and, more importantly, they
were having further resistance from students who were complaining about the burden of paying
for the English newspaper. Mrs. Alma explained,
Alma : Ok, at first I talked to the, I brought this matter to the Principal. Ok, and then the
Principal came out with a program which is called, “One Student, One
Newspaper.” Ok, we subscribe the News Straits Times [newspaper] for each
student, and then all the English teachers have to use the newspaper in their
classroom, and ask the students to read, and also ask the students to exchange
ideas. It means that they have to select an article and then they have to read it
[and] discuss some ideas with their friends, ok. And also, I want, and also the
Principal wants the students to be familiar, to love this language, ok, to improve.
172

And also, for writing, they may use some bombastic words, ok, from the
newspaper.
Bakar : Ok, so far, how has it been? Has there been any improvement?
Alma : So far, I think they are still the same, [they are] still the same. Students still look
it as a burden, ok. They have to pay for it, they have to collect [the money], they
have to take [the newspaper], [and] they have to use the newspaper every week,
ok.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
To be fair to the students, their resistance to the “One Student, One Newspaper” program
was understandable given the fact that most of the students in the school were from underprivileged or low socio-economic backgrounds, and thus paying for a subscription to a
newspaper, even for their own sake, seemed like quite a burden to them. However, this resistance
implied another important aspect of their sustenance of poor English proficiency—their rebellion
against learning English.
Her students’ resistance to learning English, in particular against English writing, was
also one of Mrs. Alma’s biggest concerns. She asserted that their rebellion against learning
English stemmed from their conception that, in her students’ words, “English is a killer subject.”
She saw evidence of this perspective in her students’ refusing to speak using English in the
classroom or outside of it. She also said that her students viewed English writing as their least
favorite topic, and that this was evident in many students ignoring, not participating, or being
disruptive in Mrs. Alma’s English writing lessons compared to other English lessons, such as
reading or English grammar. In her reflection of her students rebelling against learning English
writing, Mrs. Alma pondered the nature of English writing itself—in that they were required to
develop ideas, know and apply the English grammar rules, and come up with a good essay,
instead of just having to choose the correct answers for multiple choice questions as they
normally did for other courses—as the reason to their rebellion against it. Mrs. Alma reflected:

173

So, for writing, students hate writing. I don’t know why. Because I can see that when it
comes to writing, they feel like, they set in their minds that writing is just like a burden to
them. Ok, they have to think, they have to consider all aspects, [such as] the language
itself, the grammar, ok, the vocabulary, [and] they have to put their own ideas in there.
But, it’s different when it comes to multiple choice questions. They just, they [are] given,
they just have to choose the right answers, [and] the answers are there, ok. So, the
students are weak in CCTS, it means, [they are weak in] Creative and Critical Thinking
Skills.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
She interpreted these behaviors as rebellion against learning English, in particular English
writing. These forms of rebellion were very evident in my observations of Mrs. Alma’s lessons,
where on many occasions students would not cooperate with Mrs. Alma during her lessons. They
chatted among themselves while lessons were underway, undermined Mrs. Alma’s authority, and
did not participate in the discussion or the writing activities. Most disheartening of all, some of
the boys would be very disruptive in the lessons. This was most evident with certain groups of
boys who, using the east-coast Malay dialect, made fun of Mrs. Alma and other students who
tried to speak in English.
This rebellion, Mrs. Alma believed, stemmed from their considering that English is a
killer subject and that English writing was the least favorable English education aspect for them
to learn, and also the fact that they were not exposed to use the English language much due to
their low socio-economic backgrounds. This sense of rebellion, in turn, made English writing the
most difficult topic to be taught by Mrs. Alma. To illustrate, below is the excerpt of my
conversation with Mrs. Alma on this matter:
Alma : Because I can see that, the same as my previous school students, students here
totally depend on teachers, ok, [they] depend on teachers. They don’t have their
own efforts. Ok, they want to learn English, they love English, but they don’t
know how to be master[ful] in this language. They say that English is a killer
subject.
Bakar : Killer subject? That’s what they say?
Alma : Killer subject. But then, they don’t put their own effort to overcome their
problems.
174

Bakar : Why do you think they say so?
Alma : Because I think they are not much exposed to the language, ok, and then, there is
no there’s no background, or it’s their lack of confidence to speak. Once they try
to speak in English, their friends will demotivate them, demotivated them, ok,
once they would speak.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
Mrs. Alma’s constant struggle with her students’ low level of English proficiency and
their rebellion against learning English writing led to another concern of hers, which was her
constant struggle with classroom management, especially when these students were being very
disruptive in her lessons. This rebellion against her writing instruction, in particular from the
male students, resulted in her constant struggle with classroom management, not getting through
her planned lesson activities, and not meeting her lesson objectives. The fact that Mrs. Alma was
a young and new teacher encouraged these acts of rebellion because the students tended not to
take her writing instruction seriously. Mrs. Alma’s demure and reserved personality also
encouraged these male students to bully her by being loud and rude to her, making fun or teasing
her, and even making crude jokes in her lessons. This was also done because they wanted to seek
her attention because Mrs. Alma shared similar backgrounds with most of them, i.e., being from
an under-privileged background and having a strong Islamic background. Their wanting her
attention was also due to fact that they tended to see Mrs. Alma as a substitute for their faraway
sisters or mothers, whom they rarely got to see due to their living at the school’s hostel.
Mrs. Alma’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction
Within Mrs. Alma’s conceptions and practices of English writing instruction, she also
had particular conceptions and uses of digital technology for her writing instruction. These
conceptions of digital technology were interchangeably carried out and dependent on her
conceptions of English writing instruction, and they shaped and informed her uses of digital
technology in teaching English writing. Mrs. Alma also had several concerns about digital
175

technology, especially pertaining to her students’ misuse of digital technology in her writing
instruction. In this section, I describe Mrs. Alma’s daily uses of and education on digital
technology, her conceptions of digital technology, and her uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction. I also explain how Mrs. Alma’s conceptions affected her uses of digital
technology in her English writing instruction.
Mrs. Alma’s uses of and education on digital technology. Unlike Mrs. Wong, who had
her first experience with digital technology after teaching for almost 15 years, Mrs. Alma had
quite early exposure to digital technology throughout her life. She took a course on basic
computer knowledge when she was in high school, in which she was taught basic knowledge for
using the computer, Microsoft applications (i.e., Word, PowerPoint, and Excel), and basic
knowledge for using the Internet. When she went to college for her bachelor’s degree, she started
to use email and other social media on the Internet in order to stay connected with her friends. It
was also during her college years that she used digital technology more actively, in particular the
computer, to do her assignments and course projects. Mrs. Alma admitted to heavily using digital
technology in her current daily life, in which she depended on it for communication with her
family and friends via social networking websites and emails. At home she had a laptop
computer with a secured Internet connection, a printer, and a scanner, which she used for both
personal (i.e., daily tasks) and educational purposes (i.e., finding lesson materials and for
preparing lessons). At school, she shared a desktop computer provided by the school with a
secured Internet connection, a printer, and a scanner with the other female teachers in the female
teachers’ office.
Apart from the basic knowledge of using digital technology that she learned in high
school, Mrs. Alma admitted that she mostly learned on her own about digital technology from

176

using either digital technology tools (i.e., hardware) or digital technology applications (i.e.,
software programs), and through trial and error. Even though she had only basic training on
digital technology in high school and was mostly self-taught on using digital technology, Mrs.
Alma’s use of digital technology showed competence and confidence. This competence was
perhaps her being accustomed to digital technology and her dependence on it in her daily life,
and also her constant interactions with friends and family via these digital technology tools. She
informed me that she also asked her friends with whom she kept in touch in the online world for
tips and pointers on using digital technology in her lessons. Sometimes Mrs. Alma also asked her
husband and her new colleagues at Mohamad about resources for online materials, or even
strategies for using digital technology in her lessons.
Even though Mrs. Alma showed good proficiency in her use of digital technology, and
even though she mentioned that her digital technology proficiency had increased since her first
time using it, Mrs. Alma lamented the fact that she has insufficient training on digital
technology, in particular its use in English writing instruction. Mrs. Alma reported that she was
not educated in using digital technology in education during her college time. Furthermore,
during the five years that she had been a teacher, she had not once attended any in-service
courses on digital technology in English education or even in education per se. While she
projected good digital technology proficiency, Mrs. Alma felt that she had inadequate knowledge
of digital technology in English instruction; she believed there is more to digital technology in
instruction, and she genuinely wanted to learn more about it for her own sake and her students’.
How did Mrs. Alma conceptualize digital technology in English writing instruction?
Out of the three teacher participants, Mrs. Alma had the highest level of proficiency on digital
technology even though—similar to the other two teachers—she received little formal training

177

on digital technology in education. However, despite her proficient use of digital technology,
Mrs. Alma expressed contrastive conceptions of using digital technology in English writing
instruction, citing the convenience, attraction, and effectiveness that digital technology provides
her instruction, but also noting that digital technology can be a distraction and can compromise
the learning sessions. These contrastive conceptions of using digital technology in English
writing instruction had a lot to do with the policies and bureaucracies of digital technology in the
school, her students’ rebellion against learning English writing, and more importantly her
constant struggle with classroom management due to their rebellion to English learning, as well
as their crafty use of digital technology in exercising their rebellion.
Mrs. Alma had a wide definition digital technology, or as more popularly termed in
Malaysia, information and communication technology. Mrs. Alma defined information and
communication technology as communication tools, which, apart from computer and the
Internet, also included radio, television, and cable television network, due to the fact that they are
also means for information and communication. Mrs. Alma explained her definition of digital
technology, or information and communication technology:
Ok, ICT stands for Information and Communication Technology, right? So, many things
can be called as ICT. For example, television is also one of the ICT tools, I think. And the
radio, because it gives us information, gives us, we can communicate through them. We
can, we can really, we can learn from them. For example, television, we have our, we
have the Astro TutorTV, ok. We can learn through them. [This is] because, as we know,
Astro TutorTV is related with the SPM format, for example.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
In terms of the role of digital technology in English instruction, Mrs. Alma believed that
digital technology is very important for teachers, especially as a means for them to communicate
and share information amongst themselves. Mrs. Alma acknowledged the role of social
networking sites, such as Facebook, and email services in maintaining her professional

178

relationship with fellow teachers; they served as the main means of communication to receive
and send information about school meetings, seminars, workshops, and so on.
When talking specifically about the role of digital technology in instruction, Mrs. Alma
felt that digital technology plays a very important part and brings a great sense of relevance to
instruction, especially due to the fact that many of her students were brought up with digital
technology in their lives. These notions of the importance, relevance, and attraction that digital
technology promotes encouraged Mrs. Alma to admire teachers who were able to use it in their
writing instruction, citing that they were creative and were able to attract their students’
attention, which, she believed, can directly or indirectly improve their students’ knowledge/skills
on English writing. She too harbored the hope of using the senses of importance, relevance, and
attraction that digital technology promotes successfully in her lessons in order to overcome the
problem of her students rebelling against learning the English language, and to counter their
notion of English as a killer subject. Mr. Alma confessed,
I think that in this school, it is a must. It is a must for teachers to use ICT. For example,
just like science and English teachers, because it’s quite difficult as students bear in their
minds, set in their minds that English is a killer subject, so, I really have to find out
something interesting, something very different, something different to attract their
attention, to love this language.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
In her reflections on the use of digital technology in her writing instruction, Mrs. Alma
also believed that digital technology promotes a sense of convenience and effectiveness. When
using digital technology, Mrs. Alma observed that some of her students could find information
for their writing tasks a lot faster than using traditional lesson materials, such as books or
dictionaries. Apart from that, Mrs. Alma appreciated the fact that there are a lot of interesting
quizzes and writing tasks on the Internet that can attract students’ attention and that can
interactively challenge them to do writing tasks. In addition to that, Mrs. Alma also noticed that
179

her students’ writing tended to improve due to the convenience that digital technology, in
particular the Internet, provided to her students. This convenience was important because she
reported her students easily found a lot of helpful information from the Internet to help them with
their writing, such as various Internet sources and websites in the forms of videos, blogs,
informational websites, and so on. Mrs. Alma also appreciated the convenience that digital
technology promoted in helping her and her students find samples of writing that were relevant
to their own lives, and appropriately matched to their English proficiency level. When asked
about her most memorable story with digital technology in English writing instruction, Mrs.
Alma reminisced,
Ok, I think the most memorable story is when, when I found out a story which is related
to my lessons. Ok, I asked them to read, I print it out, and I asked them to read, and then,
I can, once they read they feel touched with the, with the story. Ok, then I asked them to,
I asked them to come up with moral values with the story I printed out, and then, they say
that the story is interesting and can be easily be understood by them, because of their
level of proficiency.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
While Mrs. Alma had many positive conceptions of digital technology in English writing
instruction, there were also some negative conceptions that Mrs. Alma expressed. For one, even
though Mrs. Alma was quite proficient in using digital technology, she admitted to not being
comfortable and not feeling competent in using digital technology in teaching English writing.
This sense of inadequacy was due to her not having sufficient education in using digital
technology in teaching English, in particular English writing; and also the fact that her students,
in their rebellion against learning English writing, tended to misuse the digital technology
presented to them. Their misuse of digital technology reflected the fact that digital technology
can be a distraction in the lesson and also a compromise to her lesson objectives. To illustrate,
Mrs. Alma explained,

180

Because [as for] computers, my experience using them, when I asked them to surf the
Internet they might, they might take things for granted. Ok, they might use it for
something else; they might take some, something that they should not watch. Ok, they
might use it wrongly.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
These struggles that Mrs. Alma had with her students instigated her to think that while
digital technology was important due to the senses of convenience, attraction, relevance, and
effectiveness in her instruction, and while she admitted that digital technology played a very
important part in her lesson preparation (e.g., the Internet as her main source for lesson
materials), in a tone of frustration, she admitted that due to these struggles, she could do without
digital technology in her instruction. An important element in Mrs. Alma’s thinking was also due
to the convenience that digital technology provided for her students that thus led them to depend
more on the digital technology for their learning, and thus not put enough effort into
development of their own writing skills. Mrs. Alma explained,
I can do without ICT in writing. Ok, sometimes, I can’t say that I need to know ICT to
teach writing, because sometimes if we offer the students to use ICT they might think
that, they might just, depends on the ICT, they don’t depend on themselves to find some
vocabulary, they just click and they can find the answer, for example, the unfamiliar
words for them, they just click, they don’t put an effort towards it.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
In her reflections, Mrs. Alma also made the argument that the use of digital technology in
her writing instruction might compromise the effectiveness of her lessons in the long run. Mrs.
Alma believed that due to the convenience that digital technology provided to her students, they
tended to be very dependent on it, and thus did not take initiative to learn the English language
for their own development and mastery of the English language; instead, they just used it for the
writing tasks asked of them at the time of the lesson. Due to the convenience of digital
technology, Mrs. Alma was concerned that the students might not develop the skills needed in
their writing or even a sense of creativity to come up with their own writing. She explained,
181

I can say that teaching writing by using ICT is not, I think is not effective enough for the
students. It’s not an effective way, because there’s not, there is no originality from the
students, ok. There is no originality, because the students, they don’t think themselves,
they just go through others’ pieces of writing, they don’t put an effort, they don’t put their
own effort to write. Ok, why did I say that? Ok, because, for example, once I teach them
in the classroom, I asked them to think. I asked them to think and I asked them to come
up with their own ideas, so they had to think. But then, if the ICT tools in front of them,
they may use it to find some samples that the sentences are not from them. Ok, so, I can
say that there is no originality and the students just look for other samples of essay of
writing, that’s it.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
How did Mrs. Alma use digital technology in English writing instruction? Mrs. Alma
informed me that all the teachers at Mohamad, including herself, used an online database system,
called E-Record Book, to record/report their lesson plans, which they prepared on a daily basis
and submitted to the school administration on a weekly basis. In addition to that, Mrs. Alma
relied quite heavily on digital technology in her lesson preparation. She admitted that the Internet
was her main source for lesson materials, and she depended on her laptop to adapt and prepare
these lesson materials for her instruction on a very regular basis. In the excerpt below, Mrs.
Alma explained her reliance on the Internet as her main source for lesson materials, and her use
of the laptop to adapt these lesson materials into her lessons:
Ok, I use the Internet, I mean, the laptop, to prepare the materials. Let say, I have some
topic, for writing classes, for the next classes of writing, and then I try to come up with a
simple, with a sample, sample writing. For example, continuous writing or directed
writing for my students, and I want to make it easier for my students to understand,
because as you can see my students just now, their level is quite weak to intermediate.
Then, I have to find out about something that is easily understood, and then use not
standard or high level English, ok. And also I try to come up with some tips, ok. I find
out some tips on writing, and then, pictures or what so ever related to the writing, ok,
from the Internet. Only sometimes I refer to the books, revision books… And, also, I use
this laptop to find some teaching materials. For example, articles, and some notes, ok.
And then I print it out, and photocopy it for my students. Ok, and also, I use the laptop
for my record book, ok, we use e-record book, ok. That’s why this laptop is the most
suitable for me.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)

182

Even though digital technology played a very important role in her lesson planning and
preparation, Mrs. Alma informed me that she seldom used digital technology in her actual
instruction. She normally used digital technology in her English lessons only once a month. This
low frequency in the use of digital technology in her instruction was due to the many
circumstances in the school, such as the insufficient/inefficient management of digital
technology at the school, the school’s intricate policies on attaining these digital technology
tools, and her students’ misuse of digital technology in her instruction. However, when Mrs.
Alma managed to get access to these digital technology tools, and when she was determined to
use them in her instruction, she showed quite proficient use of them.
The digital technology tools that I witnessed Mrs. Alma use in her instruction were the
desktop computers and the Internet connection in the computer laboratory, and these digital
technology tools were always accompanied by traditional/basic lesson materials, such as
handouts. In her use of digital technology in writing instruction, Mrs. Alma catered to preparing
her students for the national examination by her asking them to use the computers and the
Internet to go to websites that stored past years’ examination questions and samples of good
writing for them to discuss and practice. Using desktop computers and Internet websites, Mrs.
Alma would also ask her students to go to English education websites, educational blogs from
other schools, and educational videos to do English writing tasks or attain writing lesson
materials from these websites. She also utilized popular social networking websites, such as
YouTube, blogs, and even the Google Translate application to help her students find information
on the writing tasks or to help them with their choices of English words. The Internet
applications that she preferred to use, and had always been using since she first stumbled upon
them in her first few years as a teacher, were educational websites for English education, for

183

which she asked students to do online English language activities and grammar or writing
exercises. To illustrate, in the excerpts below Mrs. Alma explained the educational websites that
she used in her writing lessons:
4

Ok, I always use my laptop to find out information needed for in my P&P . For example,
as you can see just now, I ask the students to go to the web, internet TESL journal. I
prefer the Internet TESL journal [website] because I can see my students that they can
learn and also gain knowledge because there are so many activities in there.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
Ok, actually I use the Internet, ok online, online games. I ask the students to, I ask all my
students to use, to surf the Internet. Ok, I currently use the Internet TESL Journal because
there are many activities, interesting games, [and] quizzes for them. And then, I ask the
students to do it by themselves first. Ok, after that, only after that, I will discuss the
answer together. Ok, then I let them, I have a space for them to ask me, to ask me,
“Teacher, why is it incorrect? Why is it like this? Why is it like that?”
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, June 12, 2012)
In her reflections on her uses of digital technology in writing instruction, Mrs. Alma
appreciated the convenience that the Internet provided in terms of finding lesson materials and
resources to help her and her students do their writing tasks. Mrs. Alma also appreciated the
sense of attraction that digital technology provided in her writing instruction, citing that students
tended to be more awake and alert when digital technology was used in her lessons, compared to
her just using traditional lesson materials, such as handouts and reference books. When asked if
there were any differences in her students’ responses when she used digital technology compared
to traditional lesson materials, Mrs. Alma stated,
I can say that they’re different. Ok, [the] students, nowadays, [are] more interested to join
the lessons by using ICT because they are now in their era, which is technology. It is
important [for them], not just chalk-and-talk. Ok, as we can see, [while] controlling the
lesson in the classroom, I can see some of them were sleeping and seems not to focus
more on writing. When compared to using the ICT, they will be more focused.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)

4

P&P refers to the Malay acronym for “pengajaran dan pembelajaran” or translated as “teaching
and learning” sessions.
184

Apart from the sense of convenience and attraction that digital technology had for her
instruction, Mrs. Alma also found that through the use of digital technology, her instruction was
better received by her students and hence improved their writing proficiency. Mrs. Alma credited
this sense of effectiveness to the many resources that are available on the Internet. The
information from these online resources was so abundant that it was easy for her students to find
information that could be understood by them, and this information was presented in ways that
were more interesting to them. Her students’ high level of digital technology proficiency also
allowed them not only to look for these online learning resources from only a few websites, but
from various websites, such as video blogs (i.e., vlogs), social networking websites, and so on.
Mrs. Alma reflected on her students’ improvement in their writing in relation to the use of digital
technology:
Ok, I can say that they improve a bit, ok, they improve. It means, for example, in writing,
if I ask them to write an essay, for example, write a process of doing something. Ok,
there are videos, and they can see videos, and they may, they may see it clearly, clearly.
And then, they may come up with their own piece of writing. Ok, and then, they, I can
see that they, it’s easier for them to write, ok, and also for them to search for the sample
of writing and also for sample for the videos and pictures.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Her students’ high level of digital technology proficiency also allowed Mrs. Alma to get
the best out of their expertise into her writing instruction. Their expertise allowed them to use
various kinds of Internet applications in their writing tasks, such as using Wikihow, YouTube,
Flickr, Scribd, and Google Images application to find information on writing tasks that were
asked by Mrs. Alma. Mrs. Alma believed that the convenience and attraction of the digital
technology, in particular the Internet, benefitted her students’ learning in that they were more
participative and were committed to complete the writing tasks. The various presentations of

185

media (i.e., audio, video, animation, print, pictures, etc.) on the Internet also led to her thinking
that digital technology promoted better chances for her to achieve her lesson objectives.
Mrs. Alma’s use of digital technology in her writing instruction also allowed her to
incorporate her conception of English writing instruction, which was good English writing, in
particular the notion of beautiful writing (i.e., to use original ideas, interesting English
expressions, and varied English vocabulary), into her instruction. This was seen in her asking her
students to use the Internet applications, such as Google Translate and online dictionaries, and
also Microsoft Word’s applications, such as spellchecker and thesaurus, and to write and edit
their writing by using interesting English expressions and complex English vocabulary in her
promotion for good English writing and beautiful writing. Mrs. Alma explained,
It’s different! Because when using ICT, I can ask the students to find meanings of
unfamiliar words by using Google Translate, for example. Ok, because the students, they
are not interested in using dictionary. Ok, so, that’s why I asked them to use Google
Translate, ok. And in the classroom, I make it compulsory for the students to have their
own dictionary. But then, still they don’t, they still like to ask teachers, ok, they don’t
want to find it by themselves, [and] everything they have to ask teachers, the meanings of
words. So, the ICT makes, the students, makes it easier [for them] to find the meanings,
to find some proverbs, or idioms, or synonyms, or antonyms, ok.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Even though Mrs. Alma had good experiences in her use of digital technology in her
writing instruction, she also had several negative experiences. Mrs. Alma’s negative experiences
with the use of digital technology in writing instruction had to do a lot with her classroom
management skills that she utilized when using digital technology in instruction. Unlike Mrs.
Wong, who preferred actually to use digital technology in her instruction herself or have just a
few students help her with the digital technology, Mrs. Alma preferred to have her students use
digital technology instead of herself using it in her lessons. Her giving them total control of the

186

digital technology in her instruction was done with her very close guidance and active
monitoring.
This approach to her use of digital technology in her instruction represented Mrs. Alma’s
acknowledgement of some of her students’ high proficiency in digital technology, and also her
wanting her students to exercise their digital technology proficiency to help others who were not
as proficient. Mrs. Alma realized that there were students in her class who had higher levels of
digital technology proficiency than others; hence she usually paired or grouped them to use one
computer in which the pairs/groups were to help one another with their learning of English and
their use of digital technology. However, this instructional strategy in the use of digital
technology in English writing instruction, while showing her positive outlook on her students’
level of digital technology proficiency, led to many problems with her classroom management.
This was especially so when the students tended to misuse the chances given to them to use
digital technology for their personal uses (i.e., playing online games and visiting social
networking sites). Her students also tended to misuse digital technology in her instruction to
exercise their rebellion against learning English writing. These circumstances left Mrs. Alma
feeling very challenged to manage her lessons, and she felt flustered every time she finished a
lesson with digital technology. Mrs. Alma lamented her experience with her students’ misuse of
digital technology:
If the students are given a chance to use the ICT as a main source, ok, they tend to just
play around, ok. They are not focused in their writing, but then they [can] still complete
their task, but then, they are a bit disruptive, ok. Because they, nowadays, as you can see,
some of them sign [into] their Facebook accounts, so they tend to write, they tend to
complete their task, and then as the same time, their minds keep on their Facebook
(uncomfortable laughter).
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)

187

To be fair, Mrs. Alma had tried several ways to curb her students’ misuse of digital
technology in her writing instruction. This was done by her not taking disruptive students to the
computer laboratory; restricting their misuse of digital technology by having them pair up or be
in groups to complete their writing task using one computer; scolding or warning students who
had been found not to be focused on the lesson tasks; and most notably her constantly moving
around the computer laboratory in order to assist and monitor her students while they were using
the digital technology. However, none of these approached were really effective in the short or
long terms. All of these approaches had, at the end of the lesson, always left her flustered. Mrs.
Alma herself noticed the persistence of these issues; hence she had constant consultations with
me and other teachers in order to find ways to manage her class better.
These issues that Mrs. Alma faced with her students, especially in their crafty use of
digital technology in English writing instruction, points to a complex issue—one that pertains to
the notion of access to digital technology at school (or lack thereof), and in particular, the strange
policies that the school exercised against the use of digital technology in instruction. To reiterate,
these strange policies were the school’s prohibition of the government-provided laptops for
students; insufficient digital technology and inefficient management of these digital technology
tools; giving priorities for using digital technology to students sitting for the national
examination; and the inefficient management of other technological teaching and learning
resources, such as the education cable television network not being renewed and the copier
machines not being repaired/replaced. Moreover, in order to use digital technology tools that
were available, teachers were required to go through a lot of documented and technical
procedures to obtain them. Due to these restrictions, at one time, Mrs. Alma even resorted to

188

bringing her husband’s digital technology tools (e.g., laptop and LCD projector) to use them in
her lessons. Mrs. Alma recollected,
So, as for me, for example, my husband, himself, bought an LCD projector, which is
portable, and he used it in the classroom. Once, I borrowed from him and I brought it to
the school to use it with my students. [This is] because I don’t want to make it, it’s
difficult to ask the administrative people, you have to fill out forms…
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
Apart from these issues, Mrs. Alma also revealed to me that the government-funded
satellite dish network for educational television was not renewed by the school, and other
technologies in the other rooms, such as broken copier machines, monitors, headphones, and old
desktop computers were left unrepaired and/or improperly disposed. There were also many
broken digital technology tools (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, etc.) in the resource room and
in the computer laboratories that remained unfixed for so long. Mrs. Alma believed that this
inefficient management of digital technology was due to the notion promoted by the school
administration that digital technology was a compromise to education, specifically in the
teaching and learning process.
The school’s stance on digital technology was quite baffling and ironic, especially
considering the fact that the school persisted in having teachers submit their lesson plans via an
online database system, instead of having them send these lesson records on journals like what
other schools normally do. Yet, the school ultimately denied its students use of digital
technology for their learning, citing the students’ lack of responsibility in using them as the main
factor in their being prohibited from using them. This restriction, Mrs. Alma believed, was the
school’s prominent negative conception that digital technology, especially in the hands of
students, was a liability—a compromise—to their learning. In explaining this conundrum, Mrs.
Alma explained the school’s stance on digital technology in instruction:

189

Alma : They have their own e-books, but then, I don’t know what it is, why they are not
allowed to bring it into school. Because I can see that, if the teacher can really
control the students, we may use it, ok. It makes it easier for the teachers and also
for the students, and it [does] not take time, it’s not too long. [Because] it takes
too long to book the room, to go to the computer lab, it takes time.
Bakar : So, why? Is it just this school that doesn’t allow the students to bring their ebooks to school? Because I know some other schools that allow their students to
bring the e-books to school.
Alma : I don’t know, I think it’s because of the administrator. [This is] because it also
brings [more] harm than good.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 25, 2012)
This restriction towards the use of digital technology enhanced the students’ misuse of
them when they were presented with the opportunity to use them. This was evident in Mrs.
Alma’s lesson sessions, in which these students were craftily using them for their own personal
uses. To explain, Mrs. Alma recognized her students’ high digital technology proficiency, and
she also acknowledged the promise and potential of digital technology in learning the English
language when used in responsible ways. However, due to the restrictions by the school on
students using these digital technology tools that they saw were available at school—but were
restricted from using them—the students tended to become over-excited when presented with the
rare chances to use these digital technology tools, and thus they would pursue their own personal
agendas when using them in their learning sessions. Their misuse of digital technology also
tended to increase, especially when used in learning English writing—a topic of learning that
they already despised.
Mrs. Alma had to deal constantly with the tricky issue of her students’ high digital
technology proficiency, especially their creative and crafty (i.e., sneaky) use of digital
technology on the rare occasions she would have access to use digital technology in her
instruction. To be fair to Mrs. Alma and her students, this sense of creative/crafty use of digital
technology was illustrated by her students in positive and negative forms. For example, in

190

showcasing their proficient and creative uses of digital technology in Mrs. Alma’s English
writing lessons, on several occasions I saw Mrs. Alma’s students discuss and use various Internet
websites to look for information for their writing tasks (e.g., Wikihow, YouTube, Flickr, Scribd,
Google, Google images, etc.); use Google Translate application to translate words and phrases
from the Malay language to the English language to help their writing tasks; and write drafts on
Microsoft Word and use the spellchecker application in Microsoft Word to check their spelling,
vocabulary, and grammar. On a more technical basis, her students even showed innovative uses
of digital technology by dividing the tasks of using digital technology. For instance, while using
the same desktop computer, I saw one student manage the keyboard while another managed the
mouse to do their writing task, i.e., searching for information for their English writing activity.
Also, during Mrs. Alma’s lesson, there was an instance where a student was trying to fix a
desktop computer that was not functioning very well or was infected by a virus, and was very
close to succeeding.
On the other hand, Mrs. Alma’s students also showed a more crafty or sneaky side to
using digital technology. For instance, while class was in session in the computer laboratory, and
when Mrs. Alma was not looking, most of them would open multiple tabs on the computer and
look at various other websites that were not related to the lesson, such as social networking
websites, gaming, and online comic websites. Once they realized Mrs. Alma near them, they
would instantly switch tabs to hide the fact they were not doing the writing tasks asked by Mrs.
Alma. Due to their high level of proficiency in digital technology, they were inclined to
multitask in their use of digital technology, and hence not pay the attention needed to Mrs.
Alma’s instructions. These students’ crafty use of digital technology left Mrs. Alma having
constant trouble with her classroom management.

191

In further analysis, I found that even though Mrs. Alma’s students in general had a high
level of proficiency in digital technology, most of them came from under-privileged or low
socio-economic backgrounds, which means that they did not have had great access to these
digital technology tools that they saw in school. However, the strange policies and bureaucracies
implemented by the school in restricting the students from using these digital technology tools in
their learning sessions had frustrated them; hence when presented the chance, they would use
them for their own personal uses instead of learning English writing. These strange policies by
the school deprived not only students, but also teachers such as Mrs. Alma, from using digital
technology, which in effect left her feeling inadequate to use digital technology and to control
her class whenever digital technology was involved in her instruction, due to her lack of
familiarity in using digital technology in instruction and her students’ strong resistance to learn
English.
In overcoming all these obstacles from the school and the students, particularly in her use
of digital technology in English writing instruction, Mrs. Alma was very concerned with her lack
of knowledge about using digital technology, particularly in teaching English writing. She was
not satisfied with her current knowledge of digital technology, and, due to her not having any
sort of formal education on using digital technology in English education, she desperately
wanted to learn more about using digital technology in teaching writing because she wanted to
use more digital technology in her instruction. In my last interview with Mrs. Alma, in a tone of
frustration and/or desperation she said,
Ok, my suggestion, my suggestion is, if there is some, say, excellent teachers in English,
I would like for them to come to the school and teach the students by using ICT for
writing purpose. Ok, I would like to invite any teachers from other schools who have
ideas in using ICT to teach writing. Ok, so, I would like to invite them to come to this
school. At that time, we can share ideas, ok. I really hope that some teachers from other
school who is willing to come to this school.
192

(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
In her constant psychological battle to juggle these instances of promise and compromise,
Mrs. Alma stated a poignant thought on the role of digital technology in English writing
instruction, which also showed her opposition to the school’s policies on digital technology. In
doing so, she also reiterated her conception of digital technology—her belief that digital
technology is relevant in students’ lives and is important in writing instruction—and she also
acknowledged the role of teachers in realizing the promise and potential of digital technology in
instruction. More poignantly, she argued that the school had no right to take away students’
opportunity to use digital technology in their learning. Mrs. Alma stated,
The students’ knowledge in using ICT tools for their, when they further their studies, they
have to use this [ICT technology], right? Ok, so, why don’t we train them during
secondary school? I like using ICT, because students nowadays are not like us before.
Ok, they are now, they are so exposed to this ICT technology, so we have to, we have no
right to stop them from using these ICT tools. We can use these ICT tools, but then, we
can, make sure we can manage the students. Make sure that they don’t use these ICT
technologies for something which is forbidden.
(S. A. Y., Alma, personal communication, July 16, 2012)
How did Mrs. Alma’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect
her use of digital technology in English writing instruction? Mrs. Alma’s personal and
professional backgrounds, as well as her conceptions of the roles and importance of the English
language and the concerns that she had about her students’ low English proficiency as well as
their resistance to learn English, directly and indirectly influenced her instructional beliefs and
practices. As such, there was one aspect in the Malaysian education system that crucially shaped
her instructional beliefs, practices, and concerns—the focus on national examinations. Mrs.
Alma realized the importance of English education and English writing in the national
examinations, and thus defined her own success as an English teacher as her ability to guide her
students to achieve well in the national examinations. This success, however, was a goal which
193

she had yet to achieve, due to the low English proficiency of and resistance from her students to
learn the English language, in particular English writing.
Mrs. Alma’s personal and professional backgrounds, and her conceptions and practices in
English writing instruction, also affected her conceptions and uses of digital technology in
writing instruction. Mrs. Alma’s early exposure to and heavy reliance on digital technology in
her personal and professional lives gave her a heightened understanding of the roles and uses of
digital technology, and led her to positive conceptions of digital technology, especially with
regard to its promise and potential in English writing instruction. These positive conceptions
were evident in the instances of importance, convenience, attraction, effectiveness, and relevance
that she experienced from her use of digital technology in her lessons. In her reflections on the
positive experiences of her use of digital technology, Mrs. Alma cited that students were more
participative in her lessons, alert, and motivated, and they managed to improve their writing
abilities. These positive outcomes were due to the notions of convenience, attraction, and
effectiveness that digital technology promotes, especially in helping her students in their writing
tasks.
However, Mrs. Alma also had negative conceptions of using digital technology in
English writing instruction due to the strange policies that the school, Mohamad, exercised in
restricting its students from utilizing digital technology in the teaching and learning processes.
This restriction from using digital technology in instruction, coupled with the fact that the
students were already struggling and rebelling against learning English writing, instigated further
rebellious attitudes from the students upon the rare opportunities they were to use these digital
technology tools in their learning. In addition to the strange school policies on digital technology,
Mrs. Alma also lamented the lack of professional development and lack of education on digital

194

technology in English writing instruction that led her to harbor negative conceptions about
digital technology in writing instruction, such as the aspects of distraction and the compromises
of digital technology. These negative conceptions were strengthened by her students’ resistance
to learning English writing, and their actively exercising this resistance particularly when digital
technology was brought into the picture.
Regardless of her contested conceptions about digital technology, Mrs. Alma depended
heavily and showed very proficient use of digital technology in her lesson preparation and
instruction. For one, Mrs. Alma relied heavily on digital technology to find lesson materials and
for her lesson preparation, in which she adapted these lesson materials from the Internet
according to her students’ level of English proficiency and topics of interests. In terms of her
actual use of digital technology in instruction, Mrs. Alma rarely used it in her English writing
instruction; on average, she used digital technology only once a month for a class. This low
frequency of use of digital technology in instruction was mostly because of the difficulty in
accessing digital technology tools in the school due to the many procedures involved in reserving
the digital technology tools and rooms that were equipped with digital technology, such as the
computer laboratories. However, when she used them in her instruction, Mrs. Alma preferred to
pair/group her students and have them use the digital technology in order to use their high digital
technology proficiency. In so doing, she would guide, assist, and monitor them very closely. This
was Mrs. Alma’s strategy in that she utilized students who were very well versed in digital
technology to be in each of the pairs/groups so that their expertise could be utilized and also to
help those who were not so well-versed in digital technology.
However, since most of her students were quite well-versed in using digital technology,
she found it very difficult to manage her class. This was due to the fact that they would use their

195

high digital technology proficiency to misuse the digital technology for their own personal
purposes. This misuse of digital technology, in part, was due to the school’s prohibition of their
using digital technology at school (for fear of the sense of distraction and compromise that
digital technology might present these students, e.g., theft, misuse, etc.). When the rare
opportunity to use digital technology was presented to them, their over-excitement to use it as
well as their rebellion against learning English writing promulgated their misuse of it in favor of
their own personal uses instead of using it for Mrs. Alma’s lessons.
Overall, even though Mrs. Alma showed competence and confidence in using digital
technology, and acknowledged and utilized her students’ high level of digital technology
proficiency, and despite the fact that Mrs. Alma had positive conceptions and good experiences
with digital technology in her instruction, the concerns that she had from her students’ poor
attitudes and misuse of digital technology left her with frustratingly contested notions of and
experiences with digital technology. Mrs. Alma’s contrastive conceptions of digital technology
were reflected in her constant struggle with digital technology in English writing instruction.
This struggle was catalyzed further by the fact that her students tended to rebel against learning
English writing, and their rebellion was heightened especially when they were presented with the
opportunity to use digital technology in English writing instruction. Their rebellion through the
use of the digital technology platform was extremely frustrating for Mrs. Alma, who understood
the many promises and potentials of digital technology in bringing positive outcomes to her
students, especially if their high level of digital technology proficiency could be successfully
used towards bringing these positive outcomes. Mrs. Alma also had knowledge of many online
resources that were useful for her students, and she believed that digital technology could help
them in their writing. However, Mrs. Alma was also hesitant to use these digital technology tools

196

for fear that their misuse of digital technology would live up to the school’s negative conception
of digital technology. In a way, this sense of rebellion among the students, in the form of the
misuse of digital technology, had also led Mrs. Alma to (at times) share the school’s negative
conception of digital technology in instruction, and thus to claim that digital technology does not
help her much in her instruction.
Mrs. Alma was also constantly baffled by the school’s hypocritical policies regarding
digital technology in instruction, in that while teachers were required to use digital technology in
lesson preparation, the students were almost prohibited from using them, which not only
promoted them to further rebel against learning—through the misuse of digital technology—but
also deprived them of the positive outcomes that could be achieved through digital technology,
had it been made available. Subliminally, Mrs. Alma believed that it was the school’s
deprivation of these digital technology tools to students—voiding them of their right to use
digital technology—that perpetuated a sense of rebellion from the students that in turn made it
very difficult for Mrs. Alma to utilize digital technology successfully in her lessons.
In all, in trying to position herself within these social and psychological binaries and
continua—such as the affordances and constraints, and the access to and restraints of digital
technology in English writing instruction—Mrs. Alma continually struggled to balance her
positive and negative conceptions, and thus struggled in using digital technology in English
writing instruction. When positioned in the Web of Conundrums diagram, Mrs. Alma was
psychologically and socially led to see more of the negative aspects or compromises of digital
technology in English writing instruction instead of its promises and potentials. Even though
psychologically Mrs. Alma had great knowledge about digital technology from her own learning
about and prior experiences with digital technology, and regardless the positive conceptions that

197

she bore on the uses and roles of digital technology in English writing instruction, due to the
social circumstances that she faced, especially the technical restraints imposed by the school in
restricting her and her students from using digital technology, Mrs. Alma experienced constant
struggle in her using digital technology in instruction. This struggle that Mrs. Alma experienced
in using digital technology in English writing education was mostly due to her students’ misuse
of digital technology in the rare opportunities that they were given to use it. Another social
imposition faced by Mrs. Alma was her students’ rebellious attitudes towards the English
language in general, and towards learning English writing in particular—citing that English
writing is the most difficult English aspect to learn and master—which promoted her students
further to misuse digital technology when they were used during English writing lessons.
The difficult social circumstances that came in the form of technical restraints on the use
of digital technology imposed by the school on the teachers and students were somehow a
continuous and looping issue—which was almost self-imposed and self-perpetuating—which
was, in essence, a paradox. The restraint from digital technology that the school imposed was
due to the financial and administrative concerns the school had in maintaining these digital
technology tools, especially in curbing students’ misuse of digital technology. Yet the school’s
restraint on students from using these digital technology tools was also the instigator to students’
misusing them in the rare chances that they got to use them, and thus brought problems to
teachers, especially in the context of using digital technology in education, e.g., English writing
lessons. Mrs. Alma realized this issue; she tried her best to practice her own positive beliefs
about digital technology in education, and she tried to push against the school’s negative stance
on digital technology in education. Yet this push-and-pull conundrum, in which the access to
and/or restraint from digital technology, coupled by Mrs. Alma struggle with her students’

198

rebellious attitudes towards learning English writing, seemed to have made Mrs. Alma see more
of the constraints or compromises of digital technology in English education instead of its
affordances or benefits (please see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Mrs. Alma’s position in the Web of Conundrums
However, regardless of these negative conceptions and bitter experiences, Mrs. Alma still
harbored deep affinity with and positive conceptions on the roles and uses of digital technology
in education that were perhaps nurtured by her own prior experiences with and great knowledge
about digital technology. She also had (on rare occasions) witnessed and experienced success in
using digital technology when which her students managed to use digital technology creatively
and successfully to learn about English writing. Thus, Mrs. Alma still harbored the implicit
belief that digital technology could bring more benefits than harm in her instruction and for her
199

students if they were used properly, and if the class could be managed properly. This belief was
seen in her constantly asking her husband, colleagues, and me for tips, strategies, techniques, and
digital technology resources that could be used in her writing instruction and could be used
effectively with her students. She craved professional development in using digital technology in
English writing instruction that the school had failed to provide her.

200

CHAPTER 7:
MRS. SALINA
This chapter is presented in two sections. The first section, The School: Bright Bay
Science High School (Bright Bay), describes the research setting, including the background of
the school, basic school amenities, digital technology amenities, and the classroom physical
environment. The second section, The Teacher: Mrs. Salina, describes the research participant,
Mrs. Salina, including detailed accounts of her personal and professional backgrounds; her
conceptions and practices in English writing instruction; her conceptions and uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction; and how her conceptions of digital technology were
related to and thus affected her uses of digital technology in English writing instruction.
The School: Bright Bay Science High School (Bright Bay)
Bright Bay’s Background
Bright Bay Science High School, or Bright Bay, is a small high school which, unlike
most secondary schools in Malaysia, only caters to students in forms four and five (similar to
grades ten and eleven). Like Mohamad, Bright Bay offers only the science education major for
its students, and it is also a full boarding school in that all of the students are required to live in
the boarding hostels provided by the school. Bright Bay is relatively small in that, with only 9.5
acres, at its maximum capacity it is only able to accommodate 200-250 students at a time. Bright
Bay is very close to the city capital on a state on the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia where
this study was conducted. In particular, it is about three or four miles, or a five-minute drive,
from the city capital, and it is only about a three-minute drive from Mrs. Salina’s home. Bright
Bay is also a relatively new school; it was founded in the year 2000 (which was also the same
year that Mrs. Salina started working here) on a site that was formerly a small teacher education

201

institution. Because Bright Bay was founded from a teacher education institution, there are quite
a few old buildings in the school’s compound. However, these old buildings are quite wellmaintained, properly managed, and have been given face lifts with current architectural touches
and technological advances.
The school’s demographics are made of mostly Malay-Muslim students and teachers
(including Mrs. Salina), and very few Chinese and Indian students, and most of them are natives
of the state. Most of the students are from underprivileged or low socio-economic backgrounds,
with high achievements in their Middle School National Assessment (i.e., PMR). Similar to
Mohamad’s, Bright Bay’s students’ education and livelihood as students (i.e., hostel stay, daily
meals, and health coverage) are fully-funded by the state and national governments. Bright Bay
has eleven school administrators, including the school principal, the vice principals, and the
heads of education departments. There are about 25 non-academic staff, which includes clerks,
laboratory technicians, a computer or digital technology technician, drivers, and security guards.
There are 39 teachers teaching in Bright Bay, and three of them are English teachers, including
Mrs. Salina. Since Bright Bay is a relatively small school, and caters only to high school
students, there are only about 150 students in the school. Even though most of the students are
from underprivileged or low socio-economic background, they have very good academic
achievement in their middle school national assessment. Their English language proficiency
level, however, is only at par with or just slightly better than any other secondary students in this
state or in other states in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
Bright Bay’s Basic Amenities and Classroom Physical Environment
Even though small in size, Bright Bay has all the basic amenities that any public
secondary school in Malaysia possesses. This includes a large administrative office for the

202

school administrators and non-academic staff; a few meeting rooms; a counseling room; one
room for heads of education departments, for which cubicles are made for each head of
department; and two teachers’ rooms, one for male teachers and one for female teachers. Mrs.
Salina’s desk is located in the female teachers’ room alongside the other female teachers in the
school. The school is also equipped with a few science laboratories for physics, chemistry, and
biology courses; a language laboratory; a new building which is the multimedia and computer
laboratory; a school library; a chess room; an English room (a room designated specifically for
English instruction and for the school’s English language club); classrooms; two lecture rooms; a
resource room; a media room; two boarding hostels, one each for male and female students; two
dining halls, one in the school compound and another close by the boarding hostels; a main hall
which is able to accommodate about 200-250 people at a time; a mosque; a convenience store; a
basketball court; a volleyball court; a multipurpose school field; and two full-size buses and one
full-size van. (Please see Table 5.)
Table 5
Bright Bay’s School Amenities
School Amenities

No.

Main administrative office

1

Science laboratory

3

Language laboratory

1

Counseling room

1

Lecture room

1

Media room

1

Lecture room

2

203

Table 5 (cont’d)
English room

1

Chess room

1

School hall

1

School library

1

Dining hall

2

Meeting room

2

Teachers’ room

2

Heads of education room

1

Computer laboratory

1

School convenient store

2

Student boarding hostel

2

Mosque

1

Basketball court

1

Volleyball court

1

Multipurpose sports field (i.e., track, soccer, rugby, field hockey, etc.)

1

Full-size bus

2

Full-size van

1

Meanwhile, the classrooms in Bright Bay share similar features with most public school
classrooms throughout Malaysia. Each classroom in Bright Bay is able to accommodate 35-40
students, even though normally there are only about 20 students per classroom. In general, the
teacher’s desk and chair are placed in front of the classroom, at the far corner and across from

204

the entrance to the classroom, while the students’ seating is arranged traditionally, with students
seated in pairs (or threes) across and throughout the classroom, which is very much the structure
for Mrs. Salina’s classrooms. There are usually three or four columns of paired tables and chairs,
arranged in rows of four or five, depending on the number of students. As with other public
schools in Malaysia, Bright Bay’s students stay in their designated classrooms, and the teachers
are required to go into different classrooms to teach their subject fields, rather than the students
needing to move from classroom to classroom. Similar to Mohamad, classes in Bright Bay have
female students seated separately from male students, either at the back or on the left/right side
of classroom. This was presumably done due to certain religious or moral values espoused by the
school, given the fact that most of the students are of Malay-Muslim background. Mrs. Salina’s
classes also use a similar seating arrangement; however, I noticed that during her lesson
activities male and female students were free to engage with one another, and she always
grouped students together in her lesson activities regardless of their gender.
Similar to a classroom in Salahuddin or Mohamad, a normal classroom in Bright Bay is
equipped with a whiteboard placed on the front wall. There are also notice boards or bulletin
boards placed on the front and back walls of the classroom that students and teachers use to post
notices, time tables, duty rosters (e.g., maintaining classroom cleanliness and classroom duties),
and notes on academic subjects. There are also visual aids in the form of pictures, posters, charts,
figures, and graphs that are pasted on the classroom walls. In Mrs. Salina’s classrooms, there are
notes on summary writing, argumentative writing, and narrative writing, as well as notes on
English literature readings, such as poetry and short stories. There is at least one large bookshelf
or cupboard located at the rear of classrooms in Bright Bay for students to store their reading
materials or exercise books or modules. Other materials that can be found in a classroom are the

205

cleaning materials such as brooms, mops, and feather dusters. Reading and writing corners or
desks/spaces designated for collaborative work are rarely seen. All of the classrooms do have
power outlets on the walls for teachers to use when they want to plug in radios, laptops,
projectors, or other electrical/electronic devices for their instruction. Similar to Salahuddin and
Mohamad, Bright Bay’s classrooms also lack digital instructional tools; there are no computers,
televisions, video projectors, or DVD players.
Bright Bay’s Digital Technology Amenities
Even though Bright Bay is smaller than Salahuddin and Mohamad, the digital technology
amenities in Bright Bay slightly surpass that of the two other schools. Apart from the usual
desktop computers, printers, and scanners provided in the teachers’ rooms, counseling room,
resource room, and the copier and facsimile machines in the school’s administration offices,
there are additional digital technology tools in other rooms/buildings at Bright Bay. In the media
room there are a big television set, a DVD player, a Blue ray player, a cable TV network, and
many educational CDs. There is also an image enhancer and an over-head projector in this room.
Mrs. Salina used these digital technology tools located in the female teachers’ room and the
resource room on many occasions for her lesson preparations and to do clerical work, such as
typing and writing letters.
Apart from the digital technology tools in these rooms, the school’s main hall also has
some basic digital technology tools in the form of an LCD projector and a large projector screen.
There are two lecture rooms in this school, in that the rooms are designed like lecture rooms in
the university (i.e., descending stairs and seats) and are equipped with projector screens and
over-head projectors. However, the place that has the most advanced digital technology tools in
Bright Bay is the computer laboratory. Like Salahuddin’s, the computer laboratory is also a very

206

large building which is well-equipped with desktop computers with secured Internet connections,
an LCD projector, a projector screen, printers, scanners, educational CDs, and also a storage
place to store these digital technology tools safely and properly. There are also other more
traditional teaching resources in the multimedia computer laboratory, such as a large whiteboard,
cupboards to store books, and several noticeboards.
More impressively, at Bright Bay there is one corner called the “Anjung Cyber,” or
literally translated, the Cyber Porch. It is located on the porch next to the entrance of the school’s
main administration office, where in the open and under the roof there are about ten desktop
computers—all equipped with secured Internet connections—provided for the students to use
throughout the day for learning purposes. The Anjung Cyber is open to students at all times,
except for late at night. During the day, I constantly saw students go to this place, either to do
their homework or to catch up with emails or do school projects. Mrs. Salina herself encouraged
her students to use these computers to complete their English writing tasks, especially to use the
Internet to help them with their writing.
Another room that is well equipped with digital technology is the English room, in which
there is one desktop computer equipped with a printer and a scanner, and there is also an
interactive smartboard that was newly bought by the school. In the English room there are many
English reading materials for the students to read, and also English exercises and modules for
them to learn the English language. Similar to the computer laboratory, there are also other more
traditional teaching resources, including a large whiteboard, noticeboards, and also visual aids
such as posters and pictures in this room. Due to the fact that this room was newly built, Mrs.
Salina herself had not yet taught in or used this room; however, she was really looking forward
to bring her classes there to conduct her English lessons. (Please see Table 6.)

207

Table 6
Bright Bay’s Digital Technology Amenities
Venues
Main administrative office

Digital Technology Amenities
Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, facsimile machines, and copier machines

Counseling room

A desktop computer (with secured Internet connection), a
scanner, and a printer

Resource room

A desktop computer, a projector screen, a printer, a
scanner, radio-cassette/CD players, television sets, DVD
players, and over-head projectors

Media room

A television set, a DVD player, a Blue ray player, cable TV
network, and educational CDs

Science laboratory

Projector screen

School hall

LCD projector, projector screen, audio system (i.e., public
address system)

School library

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, printers, and a copier machine

Teachers’ rooms

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections),
scanners, and printers

Lecture rooms

LCD projectors and projector screens

English room

A desktop computer, a printer, a scanner, and an interactive
smartboard

208

Table 6 (cont’d)
Language laboratory

Old desktop computers, monitors, headphones, and a
projector screen (i.e., mostly inoperable)

Computer laboratory

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections), an
LCD projector, projector screen, printer, scanner, and
educational CDs

Anjung Cyber (Cyber Porch)

Desktop computers (with secured Internet connections)

School compound

Wireless Internet network

Even though properly equipped with digital technology, there are also certain settings in
Bright Bay where the digital technology tools are inefficiently managed. For example, like
Salahuddin, Bright Bay has a secured wireless Internet system available for the teachers and
students to use; however, the Internet connection is quite poor and very unstable. Also, in the
school’s language laboratory there are old and outdated audio and visual tools, such as cassette
players, monitors, headphones, and microphones. This room, however, is no longer in use, and
most of these digital technology tools are rendered useless and are improperly disposed of by the
school.
Interestingly, similar to Mohamad, Bright Bay is also one of the schools in this state to
receive free laptops or e-books (i.e., E-Book Project) for its form four students (i.e., similar to
eleven graders). More interestingly, Bright Bay has a policy similar to Mohamad’s policy
concerning the use of digital technology, although not as strict or as baffling. Bright Bay’s policy
for these government-provided laptops states that these laptops are permitted to be used in the
teaching and learning sessions, and they are allowed to be brought into the school compounds;

209

however, they are not to be used two weeks prior to the mid-year or year-end examination or the
national examination; they will be kept by the teachers during these two-week times, and they
will be given back to the students only after the end of the examination. This is done to help the
students focus on their studies and to help them prepare for the national assessment.
In all, it is within these contexts of the school setting, the school community, the basic
school amenities, the digital technology amenities, and the classroom physical environment that
Mrs. Salina accommodates herself as an English teacher, prepares her lesson, and teaches her
English education lessons.
The Teacher: Mrs. Salina
In this section, I describe the research participant, Mrs. Salina. I provide descriptions of
her personal and professional backgrounds; her conceptions and practices in English writing
instruction; her conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction; and
how her conceptions of digital technology were related to and affected her uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction.
Mrs. Salina’s Personal and Professional Backgrounds
Mrs. Salina as a person and as a professional. Mrs. Salina was a 37-year old female
Malay-Muslim teacher. She was a native of the state and her home was very close to Bright Bay
(i.e., 2-3 minute drive). Being a native of this state, Mrs. Salina speaks the Malay language,
English, and also the regional east-coast dialect. However, even though Mrs. Salina was from
this state, which was known for being an economically-underdeveloped state, she had a higher
middle-class background. Mrs. Salina informed me that she was brought up in a fairly well-to-do
family. Due to her parents’ encouragement for Mrs. Salina and her siblings to learn and speak in
English at home, Mrs. Salina developed a great proficiency in the English language at a very

210

early age. Her exposure to and deep appreciation for the English language was also developed
quite early in her academic life. She was sent by her family to public but also very prestigious
elementary and middle schools in the urban area; these schools were attended by students who
were similarly from higher middle-class to high-class backgrounds and who also had early
exposure to and spoke English to communicate at home and at school. Mrs. Salina admitted that
she and her friends at school also preferred to communicate with one another in the English
language, a habit that she brought with her when she attended college, and even more so now
with her being an English teacher.
Mrs. Salina’s deep affinity for English continued. She confessed that she vigorously reads
classic and contemporary English literature and watches English movies very often—and, in fact,
at times incorporates clips of these movies into her English instruction. Her love for the English
language, especially English literature, was also evident in that when compared to Malaysian
literature or literary works written by Malaysian authors, either in the Malay language or in the
English language, Mrs. Salina admitted that she prefers to read English books written by English
or American authors.
Mrs. Salina’s love for the English language influenced her life so much that it also
affected her choice of being a teacher. In reminiscences of her journey into the field of education,
Mrs. Salina admitted that she never really wanted to be a teacher. However, her deep love for the
English language, and the lack of undergraduate degrees in Malaysian universities in English at
that time, encouraged her to apply to a bachelor’s degree in education program, in which she
chose to major in teaching English as a second language (TESL). Mrs. Salina managed to get
into the teacher education program at a local public university in the capital of Malaysia.
However, even as she was undergoing the TESL program at this teacher education institution,

211

she and her TESL colleagues were poised to look for other job opportunities instead of teaching,
once they graduated. Upon their graduation from the teacher education institution, quite a few of
Mrs. Salina’s friends managed to go into other professions, such as broadcasting and journalism.
Mrs. Salina, however, was not so driven to look for other job opportunities, and she decided to
give the teaching profession a try. Mrs. Salina recalled,
Ok, I think this is actually a tall tale story of all English teachers, or most of the English
teachers—they don't want to be English teachers. It's just that they like English, and, as
you know, after our SPM, it's rather limited. If you want to further your studies to do
something regarding English, it is rather limited. You cannot go to, for example,
Bachelor of English, if you want to go straight after SPM, you do have to take
matriculation, and in TESL, which means the teaching of English, not English per se. So,
that is one turning factor why you have to become a teacher.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Mrs. Salina as a teacher at Bright Bay. Mrs. Salina had been a teacher for fifteen years.
She first taught at a secondary school in another nearby state on the East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia for two years before she asked for a transfer and came to teach at Bright Bay. Mrs.
Salina was a teacher at Bright Bay since it was first opened as a school in 2000. Mrs. Salina
transferred to Bright Bay due to her wanting to be close to her hometown—having been born and
bred here—and also wanting to start a family with her husband, who was also from this state.
Mrs. Salina also applied to transfer to Bright Bay Science High School because of her
own preference to teach high school students instead of lower middle school students, which she
was assigned to do at her previous school. Mrs. Salina felt that she had more connection with
high school students, instead of middle school students, due to their higher level of maturity.
Initially not liking the teaching profession, Mrs. Salina admitted that after moving to Bright Bay
she developed a sense of liking the teaching profession and later identified herself as an English
teacher. This affirmation of her identity as an English teacher, Mrs. Salina confessed, was due to
the high school students at Bright Bay, who helped her in finding peace with her identity as an
212

English teacher and her accepting the teaching profession as her job. She credited them for her
eventually liking the teaching profession:
So, when I'm here, teaching form 4 and form 5, I find it, maybe I'm suited to be their
teacher. There, there, I find the passion to teach. You know like, there are things that I
can learn from them, and, they also can learn from me. And, then, I guess that's how the
passion grew. That's how I like the profession. I know that I can be a teacher. It's not just
something you do day in and day out, to get a salary, right? You do it because you do like
it. It's just that along the way, when you're a new teacher, everything is about teaching.
You teach your class, you make yourself a better teacher, you learn how, better methods
to be a better teacher.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Having fifteen years of teaching experience, Mrs. Salina possessed many lesson materials
and teaching resources, as well as great classroom management skills. However, even though she
had taught for fifteen years, and was quite comfortable with the environment at Bright Bay, Mrs.
Salina still showed hunger for professional improvement. This was evident in her constantly
asking me and her colleagues at Bright Bay about new strategies, techniques, and resources for
teaching English. Having gone to several professional development courses, Mrs. Salina used the
knowledge that she learned from these courses and shared them with her other English teacher
colleagues. I am inclined to assume that Mrs. Salina genuinely wanted to improve her teaching
instruction and strived constantly for self-development as an English teacher.
At the time of the study, Mrs. Salina was teaching only two classes of form four and form
five students (similar to grades ten and eleven); in each class there were only about 20 students.
This low teaching assignment was due to the school being very small. In fact, the school was so
small that there were only three English teachers in the school, including Mrs. Salina. Due to the
small size of the English teaching panel, Mrs. Salina and the other two English teachers at Bright
Bay, and in fact, all the other teachers in the school, developed a very close affinity among
themselves. The English education panel, in particular, was very supportive of one another and

213

had very strong collegial support throughout the academic and non-academic activities in the
school as well as in their personal lives.
Apart from the good relationship that Mrs. Salina enjoyed with her English teacher
colleagues and the other teachers at Bright Bay, Mrs. Salina also had a very good relationship
with her students. This was due to the small size of the school and also Mrs. Salina’s outgoing
and sociable personality. Mrs. Salina was able not only to memorize the names of her students,
but she also knew students from other classes from the curricular and extra-curricular activities at
the school. Her good relationship was seen in her constantly joking with them and in her always
teasing them in good nature. This good relationship was also seen in her students giving her
respect in showing their strong Asian values, in which they regarded her (and other teachers) as
of higher status. This sense of high regard had to do with their strong Malay-Muslim upbringing
and the fact that they were from under-privileged backgrounds—which, in Malaysia, are also
known to be of strong traditional values. These strong values, especially with regards to
respecting the teacher, could be seen in students standing up, greeting the teacher, and reciting a
prayer to ask for blessing before each lesson; and similarly, standing up, thanking teacher, and
female students kissing the teacher's hand after each lesson to ask for her blessing for the
knowledge she imparted.
However, even though Mrs. Salina enjoyed a very good relationship with her students,
she had high expectations for them—as reflective in her striving for her own professional
development—especially in their learning and mastery of the English language and also their use
of digital technology in their education. These high expectations for her students influenced the
way she conceptualized and practiced her English writing instruction, as well as her use and her

214

students’ use of digital technology in her English writing instruction. These high expectations
will be further elaborated throughout this chapter.

Mrs. Salina’s Conceptions of and Practices in English Writing Instruction
Having been a teacher for fifteen years, Mrs. Salina had several prominent conceptions of
English education in general and English writing instruction in particular. These conceptions
were interchangeably carried out and dependent on each other, and ultimately they informed and
shaped her approaches to teaching English writing instruction in profound ways. Mrs. Salina also
had several concerns over certain aspects of English education, especially pertaining to her
students’ low level of English language proficiency.
Mrs. Salina’s conceptions of English writing instruction. Mrs. Salina had general
conceptions of the English language, which were the notions of English is fun, i.e., the English
language is fun, easy, and practical to be taught and learned; English is important, i.e., the
mastery of the English language is important for the high stakes examination, college entrance,
employment, and self-improvement; and English education is transactional, i.e., English
education is a two-way learning process and a form of self-development for both teacher and
students. Mrs. Salina also harbored more particular conceptions to teaching English writing,
which are instruction for examination, i.e., English writing is an important aspect in the English
examination, and thus for college entrance and employment; good English writing, i.e., good
English writing is based on mastery of English grammatical rules, form, and function (e.g., to
have no grammatical mistakes, correct spelling, and correct format for writing genres); and
beautiful writing (e.g., good English writing is the ability to use original ideas, interesting
English expressions, and varied vocabulary).

215

English is fun + English is important. Due to Mrs. Salina’s proficient mastery of and
deep appreciation for the English language, she shared a similar belief with Mrs. Wong in that
she thought that teaching and learning the English language is and should be fun; is easy to be
taught and learned; and is relevant and practical in the students’ lives. Her notion of English is
fun was also informed by her deep appreciation for the English literature that she felt could be
very liberating and entertaining. In a more complex thought, Mrs. Salina also believed that once
students could develop a sense of appreciation for the English language, as she did, it would
bring them closer to the real purpose of learning the English language and would promote a
better sense of responsibility towards learning and mastering the English language course. Mrs.
Salina said,
Ok, when you talk about philosophy, my philosophy is always this, I always have the
idea that the students should feel, not to say comfortable, but there’s always the ‘fun’
aspect that comes into the picture. ‘Fun’ in the sense that you get the students’ interest,
ok, you get the students liking you, liking the class. The students can like the subject, and
therefore be responsible towards the subject, and get an A, hopefully. Ok, so,
philosophically, I think you can’t teach English like you teach… I don’t know. But, the
fun aspect of it must be there. The students must like the subject first in order for the
students to perform in the subject, as for English, I think.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s explanation of her conception of English is fun led to another important
conception that she had, which was English is important. Like Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma, Mrs.
Salina understood, acknowledged, and harbored the notion of English is important, in which she
believed the English language was very important to be learned and mastered due to its
important position as the second national language of Malaysia, and the doors of opportunities
that mastery of the English language could bring to students, such as tertiary level education,
better employment, and personal and social improvements. Like Mrs. Wong, Mrs. Salina saw the
English language as a language of power that enables students to enhance their socio-economic

216

status, especially through ways of education. In her espousal of this conception, Mrs. Salina
believed in the aspect of English communication (e.g., speaking) as the most important part in
English education. She stressed speaking skills and pronunciation, and Mrs. Salina admitted that
communication was a big part of her English instruction in that she tried to impart the skills of
communication in all her lessons through activities of student presentations, group discussions,
and whole-class discussions. She also reported that she tried many ways to impart her focus on
English communication in her class by creating English speaking environments. This was also
done by her having English conversations with other teachers, and especially with the students in
the school, inside and outside the classroom.
Instruction for examination + good English writing. Apart from the conceptions of
English is fun and English is important, there were two other prominent conceptions that Mrs.
Salina had with particular regard to teaching English writing. These conceptions were instruction
for examination and good English writing. Even though Mrs. Salina had conceptions of English
education in English is fun and English is important, she realized the reality of the education
system in Malaysia, and especially the important role of English education, in particular English
writing, in the Malaysian education system. Mrs. Salina, like Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma,
believed in the conception of instruction for examination, in which she believed that her main
goal in English education was to prepare her students for the high stakes national examination. In
doing so, Mrs. Salina based her lesson preparations, teaching approaches, teaching materials, and
even assessment of students’ achievement on preparing them for the national examination. This
conception was shared not only by her English teaching colleagues, but also by all the teachers in
the school—especially given the fact that they were teaching high school students, most of
whom were sitting for the high stakes national examination.

217

Also, like Mrs. Wong, Mrs. Salina believed that preparing students for the national
examination could be done through rigorous instruction of English writing, which carried the
most allocations of marks in the national examination. As such, she too harbored a similar
conception of English writing with Mrs. Wong, which was good English writing. This
conception of good English writing was promoted by Mrs. Salina in her belief that good English
writing is based on mastery of English grammatical rules or form and function (e.g., to write with
no grammatical mistakes, correct spelling, and correct format for writing genres) and beautiful
writing (e.g., the ability to use original ideas, interesting English expressions, and varied
vocabulary). These two notions within the conception of good English writing that Mrs. Salina
espoused were also promoted in her communicational activities in class, where she would always
correct students’ mispronunciation, grammatical mistakes, and incorrect sentence structures. This
conception of good English writing (i.e., form and function) was also promoted in her infusing
grammar instruction quite often in teaching the other aspects of English education components,
and also evident in her enthusiasm in teaching English literature (i.e., one of the English
education components in the Malaysian English education curriculum). This was where Mrs.
Salina would always teach her students to appreciate and emulate the English language used in
literary works, i.e., varied English vocabulary and interesting English expressions, in her
espousal of the conception of good English writing (i.e., beautiful writing).
English education is transactional. A conception that distinguished Mrs. Salina from
Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma was her belief that English education is transactional. This
conception posited that while Mrs. Salina taught her students about the English language, she too
hoped that she could learn from them, or at least sustain her mastery of the English language
through her acts of teaching and learning the English language. This conception stemmed from

218

her early exposure to and deep appreciation of the English language, which prompted her to
think that she could always have more things to learn about the English language for her own
personal and social growth. This belief that she could learn from her students from teaching
them, especially in the contexts of the setting and the students’ backgrounds, illuminated her
high expectations to learn from her students and for her students to live up to her high
expectations. This high expectation of her students was also projected in her preference for
teaching high school students who were supposedly more mature and less dependent on the
teacher, as opposed to the lower-middle school students that she used to teach at her previous
school. In alluding to her notion of English education is transactional, which portrayed her
hopes to learn from her students, Mrs. Salina explained,
Ok, I don’t really, I can’t really tolerate these form 1 students, whereby, whereby I can't
really tolerate all this, you know, you're not just catering to their language, but you have
to cater to their attitudes, mentality. Whereby, you have something else you want to share
with your students. You have this mentality that you want to share with your students,
you have these ideas that you want to share with your students, you know, you want your
students to understand you, to actually get what you are talking about.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
However, Mrs. Salina’s high expectations to learn from the students about English
education, or even to sustain her level of mastery of the English language, were rather dubious
and perplexing. This is because, while some did, many of her students did not have the same
higher-middle class background, nor the early exposure to and deep appreciation of the English
language that she had. The current focus on the national examination also limited her students’
appreciation of the English language in that they were striving mainly for academic achievement
in English education and not for appreciation for the English language, unlike Mrs. Salina, who
had a deep affinity with the English language. This conception that Mrs. Salina had was also
somewhat wishful thinking due to the reality of her students’ varied levels of English proficiency

219

(i.e., from intermediate to low level) and their constant struggle to learn the English language.
Apart from this sense of inadequacy in the students to provide Mrs. Salina with the professional
development that she craved, her students also showed signs of rebellion against learning the
English language, especially those who had low level English proficiency. This resistance could
be seen in their refusal to speak to Mrs. Salina in the English language outside of the classroom,
and their reserved attitude in Mrs. Salina’s lessons in the classroom, especially those that had to
do with English communication activities.
Mrs. Salina observed that this rebellion against learning the English language was
heightened by her students tending to change their attitude towards learning English, especially
when they made the transition from form four (i.e., similar to grade ten) to form five (i.e., similar
to grade eleven), in which they were to sit for the national examination. This was evident from
her students being more open and willing to be reserved and serious in their English class,
especially when they were in form five (i.e., similar to grade eleven). When asked about this
change in their attitudes, Mrs. Salina believed that their changed attitudes were due to the
changes in their lives and their development as young people, and more importantly, due to the
intimidation of the national examination that they would have to sit for once they were in form
five. Mrs. Salina reflected,
Sometimes, I ponder upon myself, why is it I like teaching my form four class, but when
they are in form five, I kind of hate [teaching] them. They change, I thought that they
change and all. Physically, yes, they do change, and personality-wise they change. They
change, that’s why. They are not the teachers’ pets anymore, you know? They don’t
follow you anymore. That’s the thing with them. So, I thought so… Then it’s partly our
fault [too] because when they are in their form four we have a lot of activity-based
lessons, right? We have a lot of activity-based lessons, so we interact more in English,
they have to use the language in order for them to interact among themselves. [But] when
it gets to form five, it’s SPM, and everything is drilled, not much of activity-based
lessons anymore, yeah, yeah. So, it’s not speaking skills for them anymore, it’s now how
to get grades, good grades, yeah. Maybe it’s that.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
220

The high expectations from Mrs. Salina, her frustration of her students’ varied English
proficiency, and their changed attitudes towards learning English had inevitably led her to feel
constantly frustrated with her own self development in mastering the English language. Mrs.
Salina confided in me how she felt her mastery of the English language deteriorated due to her
students not living up to her expectations, her not being able to learn from them, and their
constant dependence on her to teach them the English language. Mrs. Salina even lamented her
having to lower her own English language proficiency to adapt to her students’ low level mastery
of the English language. As such, Mrs. Salina also believed that she needed to have a refresher
course on the English language (i.e., to learn about the English grammar and other English
education skills), so that she could enhance her high level of English proficiency and have her
students move up to her level instead of her moving down to theirs. This sense of inadequacy and
unfulfilled expectations, Mrs. Salina confessed, was more prominent now as compared to when
she first started teaching—which she believed was due to many of her students’ low level of
English proficiency. In a dialogue between Mrs. Salina and me, she explained her frustration:
Bakar : I remember last time, I think it was two or three weeks ago, you mentioned that
your own level of English proficiency is deteriorating because of the students that
you are having, that you are influenced by them and it has made your English
deteriorate a little bit.
Salina : Ah, ok, I told you about sometimes we learn from our students and on the other
hand the students learn from us, right? You just take, for example, a classroom
where all students can speak in English, good English. If not at par with you, they
speak English with you in the classroom, [and] they don’t have a problem
speaking [in] English with you. So, of course, when you use it every day, even
outside the classroom [when] the students greet you in English, the students are
comfortable using the language, it makes you even a better teacher and even
more… I mean it just comes naturally to you to speak in English. But, when it
comes to students who rarely speak in English, who don’t want to speak English
to you, cannot use English, don’t understand your jokes in English, it’s a problem
when English does not come naturally to you. So, the students don’t get you and
you don’t get the students. But most of the time, it’s the students not getting you
‘lah’, you make a joke, they just kept quiet. It’s supposed to be mocking them,
221

but, they just kept quiet, they don’t get it. So, yeah, I believe in that, I believe that
although you are supposed to, [if] you are a teacher, you are supposed to hand out
information to your students, hand down all these skills to your students and what
not. But you, on the other hand, you need students who are participative as well. It
doesn’t have to be good students all around that can speak the Queen’s English.
But, at least, they are not shy, they are participative, they are comfortable using
the language. And we had students like that before. But nowadays, sometimes,
they are not in a weak class, but they just refuse to speak in English with you.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
In my reflections on Mrs. Salina’s complex notion of unfulfilled expectations and the
deterioration of her level of English proficiency, I sensed that she still, in fact, had an indefinite
sense of identity when it came to teaching and learning the English language. Mrs. Salina’s
intense love for the English language, especially her deep appreciation of English literature,
somewhat projected her divided identities, in that she at times divisively saw herself as an
advocate for the English language instead of an English teacher. These contested identities of
being an advocate for the English language and being an English teacher were perhaps due to
Mrs. Salina’s early exposure to and deep appreciation for the English language, which
misaligned with her students’ background, i.e., under privileged, low socio-economic, and eastcoast Malay dialect speaking backgrounds. This contested identity also projected her beliefs that
English is an important language to master for students to develop personally and socially, and
her hopes that her students would be able to be as good as she was, and thus they would all help
develop one another’s mastery of the English language.
Mrs. Salina’s practices in English writing instruction. Mrs. Salina had positive
conceptions of English writing instruction, and she understood its importance in the personal and
social development of her students and herself. However, Mrs. Salina also had high expectations
for her students to master the English language that—upon their inability to live up to her
expectations— in return frustrated her. In attending to her conceptions and expectations, and

222

trying to keep at bay her frustrations, Mrs. Salina prepared her lessons and developed various
instructional practices to juggle and accommodate her conceptions and hopes, and she tried to
find solutions for her frustrations pertaining to English education in general and English writing
instruction in particular.
Mrs. Salina’s lesson preparation. In preparing her English lessons, Mrs. Salina would
normally consider the goals and objectives based on the school’s English education curriculum
and syllabus, and most especially her students’ level of English proficiency. In meeting her
students’ level of English proficiency, it was important for her to think about certain activities in
the lesson that could benefit her students in enhancing their English proficiency and preparing
them for the national examination. Mrs. Salina explained that to cater to her students’ level of
English proficiency as well as to attain their attention to her lesson, she tried to plan her lessons
to not be too rigid or too structured. This was because she claimed that she had to be ready for
the unpredictable responses from her students due to their varied English proficiency levels. Mrs.
Salina also claimed that she could not be too ambitious and have too many objectives in a lesson,
especially with the students’ varied English proficiency levels. Mrs. Salina also always tried to
reflect back on her lessons on things to improve and to adapt in the future.
Mrs. Salina confessed that her writing lessons were always planned towards preparing
her students for the national examination, especially her teaching the two writing genres that are
always asked for in the national examination, i.e., directed writing and continuous writing. When
teaching the directed writing genres, such as letter writing, summary writing, and report writing,
Mrs. Salina would first teach the formats of these writing genres. There are six types of directed
writing that are frequently asked in the national examination, and Mrs. Salina would sometimes
teach one format at a time, or she would just teach all six formats at once, depending on her

223

students’ level of English proficiency. Once the formats of the directed writing genres were
taught, Mrs. Salina would then have discussions with the students to get feedback on their
understanding of the directed writing genres and their formats. Her students’ knowledge and
understanding of the formats of this writing genre were important due to the marks/grades given
on the correct use of these formats in the national examination. After Mrs. Salina made sure her
students knew and understood the format of the writing genres, she would discuss with them the
content points or the writing points provided in the writing questions. This discussion was done
by Mrs. Salina first providing her students questions from the previous examinations or questions
that had similar gravitas to the examination questions. She and her students would then have a
whole-class or group discussion on the content points for the essay, i.e., a brainstorming session
to develop the content points given and to provide suitable examples and supporting details for
each content point. After that, Mrs. Salina would have her students do the writing task, either in
groups, pairs, or individually.
In teaching the continuous writing genres, such as narrative, persuasive, and
argumentative essays, Mrs. Salina usually planned for various writing activities to familiarize her
students with the writing skills, the vocabularies needed, and also the structures/formats of these
writing genres. These activities were planned in order to promote the thinking skills and writing
skills that her students could apply in their examination. For example, when teaching
argumentative or persuasive essays, Mrs. Salina had her students engage in debates among
themselves on the topic of the writing lesson prior to doing the writing activity. The points of
arguments from these debates would be discussed in depth by Mrs. Salina and her students, and
later would be used in their persuasive or argumentative essays. When teaching narrative or
descriptive essays, Mrs. Salina had students do presentations of the stories/narratives that they

224

wrote. In addition, Mrs. Salina would do reading activities for students to enrich their English
vocabulary and English expressions to be used in these essays. Mrs. Salina also did a lot of group
activities and process-writing activities in groups in which the students collaborated to discuss
the content points, formats, and structures of the writing genres. Her students were usually
required to do the writing task on their own or as individual homework.
When teaching these two writing genres, Mrs. Salina would use her own lesson materials
that she had developed and collected over the years as an English teacher. Mrs. Salina also relied
on the Internet to find new ideas, new teaching methods, and new teaching materials on teaching
these writing genres. Most importantly, Mrs. Salina adapted these lesson materials to fit her
current students’ English proficiency levels.
Mrs. Salina’s English writing instruction. Mrs. Salina mentioned that she and the other
teachers at Bright Bay normally taught English writing instruction for two periods out of the five
periods of weekly English instruction. However, similar to Mrs. Alma and the teachers at
Mohamad, the teachers at Bright Bay focused on a very low frequency of essay production,
which was one essay per-month. This was because they went through a lot of step-by-step
procedures in teaching the students on coming up with a good writing piece, such as the formats
of the writing genres, development of writing points and supporting details, and revisions of their
writing works. This rigorous step-by-step process to teaching English writing focused more on
the quality of students writing, especially in preparing them for the national examination, and in
coming up with good and quality English writing.
Mrs. Salina’s conceptions, i.e., English is important and instruction for examination,
were quite prominent in her English writing instruction. In her espousal of these conceptions of
English writing instruction, and as apparent from her lesson preparation, Mrs. Salina conducted

225

her lessons to prepare her students for the high stakes national examination. Her focus on
preparing her students for the national examination was due to the way the Malaysian education
system was set up, the importance of the writing section in the English examination course
(which carries the highest marks), and to live up to the school’s, parents’, and students’
expectations to do well in this examination.
Mrs. Salina’s focus on preparing the students for the national examination could be seen
in her choices of topics for her writing lessons in that she would always choose writing genres
that were always asked in the writing section in the English education paper in the national
examination (i.e., the directed writing and continuous writing genres). Apart from that, Mrs.
Salina, like Mrs. Alma, tended to intimidate her students every now and then about the
importance of the writing section in the national examination, just to make them pay more
attention in class and be more serious in their learning. Like Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma, Mrs.
Salina also discussed and practiced past years’ national examination English paper writing
questions with her students. In her writing instruction, especially in discussion and practice of
past years’ examination English writing questions, Mrs. Salina also gave her students a lot of tips
and strategies for different genres of writing. For example, in one of her writing lessons,
summary writing, Mrs. Salina advised her students always to develop content points prior to
answering the question; always to paraphrase the article that they were to summarize; always to
paraphrase, change, and shorten the sentences/paragraphs in their summarizing the article; and
always to write concise and brief sentences, as well as always to stay within the word-limit
requirement.
After her students were done with their writing tasks, Mrs. Salina would always assess
her students’ writings using the national examination evaluation grading scheme to familiarize

226

them with the grading scheme used in the national examination. Apart from using the national
examination grading scheme, Mrs. Salina also assessed her students through very thorough error
analyses of their writings. This was usually done by collecting the writings done by her students,
assessing all of their writings, and compiling samples of mistakes that most of her students made
in their writings into a Word document or on a piece of paper. In the next lesson, Mrs. Salina
would use the compiled samples of mistakes made by the students and discuss these mistakes to
explain to them and give corrective feedback concerning the mistakes in their writing. In
addition, Mrs. Salina and the other teachers at Bright Bay also had writing conferences with a
few selected students to provide additional instructional assistance to those who were quite weak
in their English language proficiency and weak in their writing skills.
In the alignment of her conception to prepare students for the national examination, Mrs.
Salina also practiced her conception of good English writing, which were the notions of form and
function (i.e., to write with no grammatical mistakes, correct spelling, and correct format ) and
beautiful writing (i.e., the ability to use original ideas, interesting English expressions, and varied
vocabulary). This alignment of her two main conceptions for teaching English writing was done
through infusing grammar knowledge in her writing instruction. To explain, Mrs. Salina would
usually teach the grammar aspects before the actual writing lesson or during the writing
instruction so that these grammatical skills could be applied in their writing. This was done by
Mrs. Salina focusing on several specific aspects of English grammar that she wanted her students
to incorporate in different writing genres. For example, before teaching the summary writing
genre, Mrs. Salina would teach about the grammar aspects of conjunctions, sequence connectors,
or modal verbs to be used in their summary writing tasks. In teaching narrative or descriptive
essays, Mrs. Salina would focus on adverbs, adjectives, interesting phrases, and complex English

227

vocabularies to be used in their narrative or descriptive essays. These grammatical aspects were
refocused in students’ presentation of their written works, during the error analysis session, and
during the writing conference sessions between her and her students.
In her espousal of her conceptions of English writing instruction, her attending to
preparing her students for the national examination, and her trying to enhance their English
language proficiency, Mrs. Salina used various lesson materials in her writing instruction—from
the more basic lesson materials to the more modern digital technology tools. At most times, these
basic and modern lesson materials were used in sync with one another. These lesson materials
were mostly the ones that she came up on her own, or shared with her English teaching
colleagues at Bright Bay, or adapted from the Internet. Throughout my observations of Mrs.
Salina’s writing instruction, I witnessed her use handouts, an English dictionary, A4 papers,
reference books, and the whiteboard and marker pens. These lesson materials were sometimes
used in and of themselves, but a few times they were used with digital technology lesson tools,
such as the laptop, LCD projector, and memory storage devices, especially for her and her
students’ presentation of writing works. She would also use PDF, Word, and PowerPoint files to
show notes, exercises, and samples of English writing genres, as well as the Internet in search for
information for writing tasks.
What was important was that regardless of which lesson materials took a prominent
feature in her instruction, i.e., traditional or digital technology lesson materials, Mrs. Salina
would almost always incorporate them together, especially her use of the whiteboard to
complement these lesson materials. Mrs. Salina explained that she appreciated the visual-spatial
aspect of the whiteboard in her use of the whiteboard, citing the advantages of having certain
strokes of the marker pen or her creative use of the whiteboard space to convey her lessons to her

228

students. The dialogue between Mrs. Salina and me reflected her preference to use the
whiteboard in her English writing instruction:
Bakar : Speaking about doing it the manual way, I notice that each time you have
writing lessons, you like to use the whiteboard a lot, even though you have LCD
projector in the lessons that I’ve observed. And even throughout those lessons,
you always use the whiteboard.
Salina : I feel that sometimes there is a need for me to recap certain words that I mention.
I feel that I can switch, I can always switch on the Microsoft Word and copy it
down. But, the effect for me to write it on the whiteboard is always, maybe it’s
me, I like to utilize the whiteboard. But then, as for why I go back to the
whiteboard, I feel that there are some things [that are] needed to be given more
focus. And sometimes, I don’t think the students focus when I write it down on
the Word document. Ok, and it gives some sort of character to the teacher
themselves, you know, without that, there is not character, it’s just a font that they
are familiar with. With that, it’s more personal, it’s the teacher’s handwriting.
They might remember the way that I have circled it, or in the way that I have
written it down, ok.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s use of the whiteboard in her English instruction showed her great
experience as an English teacher. It also showed that she was very well prepared and attentive to
her students’ needs in and their level of attention to her lesson. Apart from her good use of the
whiteboard, Mrs. Salina, like Mrs. Wong, also had very good classroom management skills; she
was very flexible, attentive, and responsive to her students’ needs. Mrs. Salina also practiced
active classroom management in her English writing lesson; she was seen constantly to assist and
monitor her students as they did their writing tasks and group discussions, and she also attended
to her students’ progress in their writing abilities. Her outgoing and sociable personality also
allowed her to be very audible and energetic with her lessons, in which these positive energies
tended to transmit to her students as well. These positive energies were important in her espousal
of her conception of English is fun.
In her espousal of her other conceptions of English writing instruction, such as English is
important, instruction for examination, and good English writing (i.e., form and function and
229

beautiful writing), Mrs. Salina also used various teaching approaches to juggle her conceptions
of English writing instruction and to cater to her students’ varied levels of English proficiency.
Mrs. Salina’s fifteen years of experience as a teacher showed in her ability to use a range of
teaching approaches, such as from a more teacher-based approach to a more student-based
approach, and she promoted a more progressive teaching approach to the more behaviorist
teaching approach. What remained prominent in her English writing instruction, though, was her
focus on the aspect of communication. This focus on communication skills, according to Mrs.
Salina, was due to her students’ lack of participation in her lessons and her wanting them to
come out of their cocoon of shyness and reservation. As such, Mrs. Salina was very good and
flexible in her classroom management; she knew how to incite the students’ participation into her
lesson and to motivate and/or challenge them to communicate in the lesson. While she built great
rapport with her students through her good relationship with them, she also was not shy about
disciplining them, especially if they were out of line or did not take the lessons seriously. All of
these aspects of her instruction were done through the many teaching approaches that she had
developed and picked up in her 15-year experience as a teacher.
The teaching approach that Mrs. Salina applied the most throughout my observations of
her instruction was the communicative approach, which aligned very well with her conceptions
of English is fun and English education is transactional that she hoped to instill in her students.
In her practice of the communicative approach, Mrs. Salina always had many communicative
activities in her writing instruction, such as having whole-class, group, or pair discussion on the
writing task; having students present their written works; having whole-class discussions of
students’ presentations of their written works; and her giving immediate feedback or evaluation
of students’ written works, especially their English grammar (which was also to promote her

230

conception of good English writing). Apart for that, Mrs. Salina also encouraged her students to
ask questions of her and of their friends during whole-class or group discussions, and even
during their friends’ presentations of their written works. All of these activities were done in the
hope that they would participate in their learning and communicating amongst themselves using
the English language, which was a part of her teaching agenda to create an English speaking
environment.
Mrs. Salina’s wanting to create an English speaking environment for her students in her
communicative approach could also be seen in her use of a more constructive approach in her
writing instruction. This was evident when she tended to integrate other English education
aspects (i.e., grammar, reading, and listening skills) along with communication skills in her
writing instruction. This constructive approach could also be seen in her using topics of English
lessons from previous lessons in the lesson that she would have on that day in order to help
students scaffold their previous knowledge for the new knowledge. This scaffolding was
especially evident in her students’ use of the grammar aspects that she would teach them prior to
the writing instruction, in the hope that they would use this English grammar knowledge in their
writing. Most prominently, Mrs. Salina constructed her lesson based on the students’ level of
English language proficiency and also the interest and needs of her students. This was done to
accommodate better their varied levels of English proficiency.
Mrs. Salina also used a more traditional approach to her English writing instruction, in
which she would take a more teacher-centered approach, especially in explaining the notes,
exercises, and samples that she had on English writing genres. Another approach to Mrs. Salina’s
English writing instruction was the demonstrative approach, in which, while teaching her
students about certain writing genres or techniques to write in the national examination, Mrs.

231

Salina demonstrated or gave examples of these techniques. Mrs. Salina would also demonstrate
good English writing through showing her students samples of good writing from her own
collection of good essays, or from other students who managed to write the writing task
exceptionally well (please refer to Appendix O – Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing).
Mrs. Salina also sometimes engaged in a more student-centered approach in which she
would often strategically group her students to accommodate those who had high English
language proficiency with those who had intermediate to low English proficiency. She would
have them discuss, collaborate, and practice on the writing tasks in groups so that they could
learn from one another. In addition, Mrs. Salina also practiced a problem-solving or task-based
approach in which she first had students, either in groups, pairs, or individuals, do the writing
task on their own (e.g., brainstorming or doing Internet research on content points for an essay)
without her guidance. After putting their effort in solving these writing tasks, they would then be
guided by Mrs. Salina on doing the writing task properly in the whole-class discussion.
Even though Mrs. Salina showed expertise and experience in her English writing
instruction, she still had concerns in her instruction, in particular her students’ varied level of
English language proficiency. This concern of hers was especially for those who were of low
English language proficiency and their attitudes towards learning the English language. To
illustrate, Mrs. Salina complained on the extra effort that she had to put into her lesson planning,
especially in finding suitable lesson materials, and also the extra time taken for her to adapt these
lesson materials according to their varied levels of English proficiency. Mrs. Salina also
complained about the extra time taken in her analyzing their errors in their writings, and in her
one-on-one writing conference with her students on their writing works, in which she found that
it was not only time-consuming, but also frustrating. In addition to these concerns, Mrs. Salina

232

also had issues with her students’ varied levels of English proficiency in terms of their
participation in the classroom (or lack thereof) and the range of their attitudes towards learning
English. She explained that due to the varied levels of English proficiency, there were students
who shied away from the lesson and tended to continue to shy away, while there were good
students who tended to steal the spotlight and who benefited more from the instruction—both
instances which ultimately left the gap in their English proficiency wider and wider. Mrs. Salina
explained,
Ok, as for the teaching of English, of course, you have to look into the proficiency level.
It’s much easier of you group your students into… It’s much easier if you just simply
know their ability. Overall, they fall under the same category or the same ability level.
But when they are in a mixed ability classroom, oh, that is where [the problems] come,
you know, the problem when carrying out your activity would come into the picture, you
know. Some activities would be suitable for certain students, and some activities [for]
5
some of the students, they just “nganga ” they don’t know anything about your activity,
not even the words that you use. So, yes, of course, apart from the level of their English
[proficiency], sometimes the personality of the students also take a role in carrying out
your activity in English. You have non-participative students sometimes. Or sometimes
students who are, what you call that, there is a syndrome… those who are not shy at all,
too playful, exhibitionist students, who tend to take the whole attention to just them. So,
in the end what happens is that they benefit from your class, they benefit from the
lessons, they become better and better. But the students who shy away from the picture
they become worse and worse.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
The excerpt aforementioned also points to another concern that Mrs. Salina had in her
English writing instruction, which were instances of students rebelling against practicing the
English language. This resistance, even though not as serious as the opposition that Mrs. Alma
faced at her school, was still quite worrying to Mrs. Salina. She recounted instances in which
students were not cooperative in her English lessons and in the other English education related
activities that she and the other English teachers had prepared for them (e.g., English debates,
choral speaking activities, public speaking events, etc.). The most prominent resistance that Mrs.
5

‘Nganga’ is a Malay word that describes the state of being confused or perplexed.
233

Salina was most frustrated with was her students’ reluctance to speak the English language.
When asked why they refused to speak the English language, Mrs. Salina lamented,
They don't use it. They don't use it. They don't, they don't use the language in their
normal, in their daily life, in their daily conversations. English sticks to English language
classrooms only, or English lessons only. Sometimes, even in English classrooms or in
English lessons they don't speak in English. They would only speak to you in English in
fragmented sentences only, not really full sentences. But, when they turn their backs to
their friends, what language are they using? It is not English! They are not confident, they
are not confident in using the language. They are so afraid that the teacher might
comment on their pronunciation. But the teacher has to do that, the teacher has to do that!
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
These concerns that Mrs. Salina had, i.e., students’ varied levels of English proficiency,
poor attitudes towards learning the English language, and instances of rebellion against learning
the English language, were due to her high expectations of her students in their learning of the
English language and her conceptions that English education is transactional, which in reality
did not align with her students’ current proficiency level. This conception was very strong in her
striving for her students to speak or communicate using the English language, which she
believed was one of the indicators of mastery of the English language. To be fair, Mrs. Salina
and the other teachers at Bright Bay had tried many ways to create an English speaking
environment at the school; however, none of these efforts prevailed. Their efforts to create an
English speaking environment failed due to instances of rebellion by students in resisting their
efforts. Mrs. Salina explained one of the efforts that she and colleagues had tried to create an
English speaking atmosphere:
The atmosphere of it is not there. To create the atmosphere, we need a group of students
who can be some sort like [a] virus to the [other] students. For example, we have this
group of students, let’s take, for example, 20 students, who can actually speak English.
So, when they speak English, they mingle around, so they spread the virus among
themselves. We had the idea before. We tried this, with these students who can speak
English. But, at the end of the day, what happened was that our 20 students, our virus
students, they were absorbed by the virus of the majority. Instead of them promoting to

234

speak English to their friends, their friends can actually influence them to speak the east
coast dialect with them, although they are from outside [of this state].
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s Conceptions of and Uses of Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction
Within Mrs. Salina’s conceptions and practices of English writing instruction, she also
had particular conceptions and uses of digital technology in her English writing instruction.
These conceptions of digital technology were interchangeably carried out and dependent on her
conceptions of English writing instruction, and they shaped and informed her uses of digital
technology in teaching English writing. Mrs. Salina also had several concerns over certain
aspects of digital technology, especially pertaining to her students’ use of digital technology and
her lack of education in using it. In this section, I describe Mrs. Salina’s daily uses of and
education on digital technology, her conceptions of digital technology in English writing
instruction, and her uses of digital technology. I also explain how Mrs. Salina’s conceptions were
related to and affected her uses of digital technology in her English writing instruction.
Mrs. Salina’s uses and education on digital technology. Like Mrs. Wong and Mrs.
Alma, Mrs. Salina used and depended heavily on digital technology in her daily life. Mrs. Salina
used various kinds of digital technology (i.e., laptop, desktop computer, and smartphone) in
order to communicate with her family and friends, do online shopping and online banking, and
search for information and for entertainment. At school, she often used similar digital
technological tools, such as the desktop computer, printer, scanner, and the Internet, for
educational purposes, such as preparing lessons, recording lesson plans, teaching, and doing
clerical work.
Due to her daily use of digital technology in her personal and professional lives, Mrs.
Salina showed much confidence and competence in the use of digital technology. Her confidence

235

and competence in using digital technology had to do with her early exposure to digital
technology in her life. Mrs. Salina informed me that after finishing high school, which was
around the late 1980s, she attended a computer course for three months to learn about how to use
the computer. Mrs. Salina also informed me that during her time at the teacher education
institution, she started using digital technology quite heavily, and she often used the computers at
the university library and the college of education to do her assignments. During this time,
computer technology in Malaysia had just started, and the university that she attended was one of
the few that provided computers for students to use, albeit students had to undergo long
procedures to reserve and use them due to the limited number of computers available. Mrs.
Salina lamented the difficulty in reserving the computer and the limited amount of time allowed
for using them, and hence she asked for and was given a desktop computer by her parents to use
for her studies. For a student to own a computer was quite a rarity at that time; however, due to
her affluent family background, Mrs. Salina was able to do so.
Due to her early exposure to digital technology tools, Mrs. Salina was very confident and
competent in using them, and she admitted to learning to use many current digital technology
tools on her own via trial and error. Not formally educated in using digital technology in
education during her teacher education years, and having attended only one or two digital
technology in-service courses over the years, Mrs. Salina thought that she still learned best from
her own experimenting and trying out the new digital technology tools. Through trial and error,
Mrs. Salina admitted to learning to use her smart phone to record lessons that she had with her
students, and she learned to download movies and video clips to be used in her lessons, among
many other digital technology skills. Mrs. Salina also believed that due to her high English
language proficiency, it was easy for her to learn to use digital technology on her own because

236

the instructions to use digital technology were mostly in the English language. Mrs. Salina
recalled her experience of learning to use the smart phone to record her lessons, learning to print
the pictures she took using the Bluetooth application, and learning to download videos for her
lessons:
When I have been using the smartphone even, I’ve tried to record my students. I took
pictures of, last time we used to have this, students coming up with pictures. This is what
we call as ‘pictorial meaning’. Ok, there’s something called ‘pictorial meaning’ for
poems. So, they would draw pictures of how they see the poem, how they see the poem in
their own eyes, so they draw it. So, just for my record and my keeping, if not, you know,
the thing will just go away. I do take pictures and sent it to, just at that time, it’s
something quite recent where you started printing out pictures from cellphones,
remember? You go to the shop, and then tell them to print out from your Bluetooth,
right? Ok, so, I did that. I learned that as well. But the videos, usually I would just,
exploratory ‘lah’, everything that I do is something that I explore, I try, trial and error. If I
record something using my cellphone, if I want to transfer it to my laptop, just trial and
error ‘lah’ on how to do it, ok. It’s rather not that difficult because you are an English
teacher, basically everything uses English, you just need to understand it for a bit, and
then you can do it on your own.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 18, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s positive outlook and her motivation to learn independently about digital
technology was also evident when she admitted that she was quite excited to learn about the
newly arrived interactive smartboard that the school bought. She claimed that there was
supposed to be a person to come and train the teachers to use the interactive smartboard.
However, since the person never came (i.e., even until the end of the study), she and her
colleagues were going to explore the interactive smartboard on their own; they would rely on
their knowledge of the English language to learn to use the interactive smartboard.
It is very important to mention that Mrs. Salina was also constantly supported by the
other English teachers and the other teachers at Bright Bay in her learning to use digital
technology in education. Unlike Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma, the English teachers and other
teachers at Bright Bay were always showing strong collegial support in relation to using digital

237

technology in education. This sense of strong collegiality was shown by their always sharing
useful websites, giving tips to one another for using digital technology in instruction, and helping
with technical aspects of digital technology tools (e.g., setting up LCD projector). The other
English teachers at Bright Bay in particular were very supportive of one another in using digital
technology; they not only shared information on digital technology, but also digital technologybased lesson materials and strategies to use these lesson materials. They also taught each other
computer applications and shared websites to download past years’ national examination
questions to use in their English instruction. Apart from this strong support from her colleagues,
Mrs. Salina also admitted to learning to use digital technology from her own students. She
informed me that she would always ask her students about websites or computer applications to
help her in English instruction. The excerpts below explain Mrs. Salina’s learning to use digital
technology from her colleagues and from her students:
Ok, one more thing, ICT, when talk about realization, I do learn from other teachers as
well, I mean, my, my own colleagues. I mean, with new teachers, you gain new ideas,
you learn more from them. So, when I look at my friends, I see “Oh, ok, you can actually
use it this way”. It does not only limit you to showing of notes, you know? Sometimes,
you look at teachers, ICT is just showing of notes—you show it in PowerPoint, blah,
blah, blah, blah, show, show, show, show, done with the lesson! So, there are various
ways for you to use it, like showing clips so that you get ideas of how to use this, and so
on and so forth. So many things apart from, you know, sometimes, it’s just being limited
to you show notes and student just do presentation, that’s all.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Sometimes the students, they know better websites. For example, I say, “If I want to
download something, where can I go?” They know, they will tell me, “Teacher, you use
this and that.” So, I learn. They might use it for different purpose, [and] I might use it for
my lessons, so, I learn skills from them as well.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Even though Mrs. Salina was very independent in her learning of digital technology and
she had been receiving great support from her English teaching colleagues and from her students,
she believed that she was still inadequately educated to use digital technology in instruction.
238

When asked if she had attended courses on digital technology in education, Mrs. Salina
responded that she had indeed gone for training; however, she lamented the low level of digital
technology skills that the trainer was focusing on, which in effect did not enhance her already
proficient use of digital technology. Mrs. Salina recalled,
Bakar : So, how many [digital technology] trainings have you gone to?
Salina : So far, I’ve gone to coursework and workshop, as I can remember for the past
three years, for the past three or four years, only once.
Bakar : Only once?
Salina : Only once, and I was put at the back. Why? Because they taught something that
I already know. So, I said, “I know this already.” So, they said, “Ok, just sit at the
[back] because these are teachers who really have zero knowledge on ICT, on
computers.” They are just doing something basic like switching on the laptop, and
how to search for information, [showing] the websites that you want to go when
you want to search for information, and I’ve, I’ve passed that level at that time,
because, maybe because I explored it on my own. And maybe because we have
the, you know, certain people don’t have the equipment that we have, or whatnot,
right? The facilities are not the same in every school. It’s not the same thing.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 18, 2012)
Mrs. Salina further explained that she was a little frustrated at the low level of digital
technology skills focused on in this course. Mrs. Salina alluded to the fact that the training that
she received on digital technology did not focus on the educational elements of using digital
technology, such as ways for teachers to use digital technology for instruction and classroom
management, to motivate students, and ultimately to utilize digital technology with efficacy. She
believed that there were many and more current ways, methods, and strategies to use digital
technology effectively in her lessons that she could learn about. When asked what was missing
from the training that she attended, Mrs. Salina compared the digital technology course with a
course that she attended many years ago on the use of the overhead projector (i.e., OHP):
But, in those days, when we use the, when the OHP projector was still widely used they
actually taught us to use it to the maximum. For example, they taught us, ok, let me recall
this, on having better ideas in writing. They actually have layers of transparency [slides],
they put in one-by-one, [and] it makes a great picture finally at the end of it. So, the skills
are more.
239

(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
In essence, even though Mrs. Salina showed great competence in her use of digital
technology, in the context of English writing instruction Mrs. Salina still felt unsatisfied with her
current education on digital technology, and she wanted to learn more about using digital
technology more effectively in English writing instruction. Her hunger for learning how to use
digital technology in her lessons can be seen in her constant search for online lesson resources
and her asking her colleagues and me about ways, strategies, and techniques to use these digital
technology tools in her writing instruction. Mrs. Salina’s sense of professional development was
highly applauded; however, it also points to another point that Mrs. Salina recognized fairly
well—that there was insufficient and inefficient education on digital technology particularly in
English writing instruction. In reflecting on the other courses that she attended on using other
lesson materials for English instruction creatively and innovatively, as opposed to using digital
technology in English instruction, Mrs. Salina lamented the fact that courses on digital
technology were non-existent. She said,
But it’s so sad that they don’t actually have this kind of courses. They say they want to
make it better, they want to make students, they want to make teaching in class fun, but
then there’s no, there’s no courses that we have in order to, you cannot teach a teacher to
make your lesson fun, right? They think these things come naturally. But you can teach
them the methods. You can teach the materials and how to use them. They don’t have it,
they don’t have it. They don’t have these types of courses. [It is] so sad ‘lah’.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
How did Mrs. Salina conceptualize digital technology in English writing
instruction? Having learned that Mrs. Salina was confident and competent with using digital
technology, that she was comfortable with her current knowledge of digital technology, and that
she was always hungry to learn about new digital technology, it was not a surprise that she
brought all these positive notions into her conceptions of digital technology and into her English

240

writing instruction. When asked about how she defined digital technology, or information and
communication technology, in teaching and learning English, Mrs. Salina posited a processproduct view of digital technology in education, in that she believed that the process of using
digital technology had great potential to lead to good products of learning. Mrs. Salina explained,
For me, if we, if we talk about ICT, there’s always, there should be the equipment itself,
ok, there should be methods. Let’s just leave it to that, maybe? Equipment and method,
[and] materials, maybe. Ok three things ‘lah’, equipment, methods, and materials.
Equipment are the premises, the tools itself, hardware itself, ok, whatever it might be—a
computer, an LCD projector, or even much more than that, which we do not know of or
whatever. The method is how you use it. How are you going to use it? And the materials
are what we are getting from it.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
This view that Mrs. Salina had on the role of digital technology in English education was
rather vague and difficult to explain; however, it was evident from her conceptions, expectations,
and uses of digital technology in her lesson preparation and instruction. For one, Mrs. Salina
believed that the use of digital technology in English education was very important in English
instruction, assessment, and most importantly lesson preparation. This notion of importance that
Mrs. Salina had was evident in her constant use and reliance on digital technology in her lesson
preparation; she used the computer and the Internet to find most of her lesson materials and to
prepare her lessons. This notion of the importance of digital technology in English instruction
was mostly due to the fact that the digital technology tools that she used (e.g., laptop computer,
smartphone, and the Internet) were portable/mobile, accessible, and fast (i.e., quick and easy to
retrieve information). Mrs. Salina appreciated the convenience of displaying notes, movies,
music, et cetera, on her laptop computer for her English instruction instead of using old
technologies, such as the radio and/or the television; and she appreciated the portability of her
smartphone in her use of the encyclopedia and the online dictionary applications that she used in

241

her English lessons. Mrs. Salina also appreciated the convenience that digital technology
provided for her searching for lesson materials and information on the Internet.
Mrs. Salina also believed that it was important for her to use digital technology in her
instruction due to the relevance that digital technology had in her students’ lives. Mrs. Salina
understood that most of her students were very well-versed in digital technology, and all of them
were very interested in it and used it in their daily lives. Having acknowledged the importance of
digital technology in her students’ lives, Mrs. Salina believed that it was important for her to use
digital technology in her instruction. Mrs. Salina believed that the use of digital technology could
make her students find the lessons more interesting. This relevance was due to the fact that
digital technology could attract their attention to the lessons as opposed to using traditional based
lesson materials. Her adapting and catching up to her students’ needs and interests show that
Mrs. Salina understood the role of digital technology and the potential it could bring to her
lessons. She in fact cited that her lessons were more colorful, lively, and interesting, and that her
students tended to respond better to her lessons when digital technology was used.
More importantly, the use of digital technology and the notions of convenience,
attraction, and practicality that it provides aligned very well with Mrs. Salina’s conception of
English instruction, which was her belief that English is fun. Mrs. Salina believed that through
the use of digital technology, her English instruction would be perceived by her students to be
more fun, easy, and more relevant and practical to their lives. Through the use of digital
technology, Mrs. Salina believed that she could promote a sense of love for the English language
and for the students to be more interested in learning English writing. She reflected on her
students’ responses when she used movie clips in her writing lessons, citing that they were very
engaged with the lessons, and that the video clips helped instigate ideas for their writing, and

242

also got them motivated and alert to the writing task. Mrs. Salina continued to reflect on the use
of digital technology in that it promoted better learning outcomes, especially due to the notions
of attraction and convenience that digital technology provided and also due to the many
interesting and practical activities (e.g., communication activities) that could be done using
digital technology in her lessons. In the excerpt below, Mrs. Salina explained her students’
responses to her use of digital technology, and she compared an English teacher’s use of digital
technology with a science’s teacher’s use of digital technology:
Yeah, they respond better. Whenever they see you carrying a laptop, it’s always
something to look forward to for them. They see you carrying a laptop to class, with LCD
[projector], they actually, in their minds there is already a mindset that the teacher is
going to have a very interesting lesson today. Sometimes, it’s just showing of notes and
something mundane actually. But, yeah, for them, because they like ICT, they are the
children of ICT, right? So, they feel better if you have ICT with you, and they look
forward to that kind of lessons. But it depends, it depends on the course, I guess. As for,
let’s take for example, if they see a biology teacher carrying a laptop, they know for sure
that they will look at notes. The pictures are more colorful and more varied, yes, but it’s
all the same thing except that they are presented in a new way. But then, when they see
an English teacher carrying a laptop and LCD [projector] to the class, they might figure
out this is not the usual lesson for this teacher, that this [lesson] is going to be carried out
differently.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s recognition of the promise and potential of digital technology in English
instruction led her to have very high regard for teachers who constantly used digital technology
in their instruction. She believed that these teachers were very up-to-date and very aware of their
students’ needs and interests. Mrs. Salina believed that she had not achieved this level yet, but
she hoped that she would one day be able to use digital technology masterfully to support her
English instruction. Apart from her admiration of teachers who used digital technology in their
instruction, Mrs. Salina also had high regards for her students’ proficient uses of digital
technology in their lives and in their education, as she had witnessed from her own lessons, such
as their creative use of the computer, the Internet, and other technological gadgets. Her students’
243

high proficiency in using digital technology had led her to believe that all of them were far more
advanced than her and other teachers in the school when it came to using digital technology. In
her admiration for her students’ high proficiency in digital technology, Mrs. Salina recalled some
memorable experiences of their use of digital technology in her English lessons:
Ok, this is a good one. Ok, a good one would be, actually, when the students really know
how to use this particular software. You get good students that know, have better
knowledge than you in the software the he is using, right? So, when he does presentation,
it’s very effective presentation, colorful, with colorful pictures and what not, ok, that’s
one, that [is] one instance. But, this year, I had this oral presentation. This time around
it’s a group presentation, so these students, this group of students, they did a very, very
interesting presentation. Why? Because they incorporated, apart from having PowerPoint
presentation in it, they had a drama in it, ok. And, a very effective way of using a video!
These, these, I think very smart ‘lah’ these students. They showed us, this is how they do
it. It’s actually a drama, an act, an act about this group of students going to the cinema.
So, these four girls go to the cinema together, and later on they discussed about the movie
that they have seen. So, there are a few elements to it. So they, so what they’ve actually
shown us is just a video clip of a movie, it’s just s trailer, a trailer of a movie. So, they do
it as if they’re watching the movie itself. And, afterwards when they are finished
watching the movie, they discuss among the four of them, like teenagers do. How do
teenagers discuss movie, right, that’s how they do it. But, it’s rather interesting because
there are a few elements incorporated into one.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Due to Mrs. Salina’s high perception of her students’ digital technology proficiency, she
developed very high expectations for her students when she incorporated digital technology into
her English writing instruction, and she tended to challenge her students to an extra measure of
effort when it came to their using digital technology in English instruction. For example, in one
of her English writing lessons that I observed, Mrs. Salina asked her students to come up with
articles for sections or columns for the school newspaper within two classroom sessions. She
brought her students to the school’s computer laboratory, grouped them into groups of three or
four students, and asked them to use the computer and the Internet to find information about the
assigned newspaper columns topics. They were asked to write about the topic using a Microsoft
Word document; revise their writings using the Microsoft Word spellchecker and the online
244

thesaurus; and compile the articles together to make a school newspaper. Each group was asked
to present their articles in the next lesson. Due to the high expectations of Mrs. Salina, the
lessons were not very successful, and the goals of this English writing lesson were not met due to
the time constraints to do the writing task and the time constraints to use digital technology. This
particular incident showed Mrs. Salina’s good impressions of and high expectations for the
digital technology, and it also showed that she acknowledged her students high command of
digital technology. However, and more importantly, it also showed her very high expectations of
students’ proficiency with digital technology.
In support of her view, I did witness Mrs. Salina’s students’ high proficiency use of
digital technology in their writing tasks. I saw them use their knowledge of the online resources
to discuss where to get the best information to be used in their writing; go to various websites to
find information on writing task (e.g., YouTube, online shopping websites, sports websites,
school website, Google images, etc.); delegate tasks of using digital technology in searching for
information and writing up the newspaper articles; and show mastery of using Microsoft
PowerPoint application in their presentations of their written tasks. However, there were certain
goals of Mrs. Salina that were not achieved, such as the students were not able to use the
grammar and spellchecker in Microsoft Word due to lack of time, and they were not able to
decorate their written articles with more pictures and colorful fonts as requested by Mrs.
Salina—also due to lack of time.
Mrs. Salina later informed me that there were other instances of her frustrations with her
students’ use of technology. These incidents also informed her negative conceptions of digital
technology; she thought that too much use or rather improper use of digital technology in writing
instruction could be a distraction during the learning session and could be a compromise to the

245

lessons’ goals. Mrs. Salina recalled an incident about three years ago of an unsuccessful lesson
that involved the use of technology. Mrs. Salina wanted each of her students to do a presentation
on their favorite website; they were required to use the computer and LCD projector to present to
the whole class their favorite website. One of her students presented a website that contained
pictures and videos of people involved in gruesome accidents. She was startled and offended by
this incident due to the inappropriateness of the content of the website. In essence, Mrs. Salina
was caught off-guard by this particular student, who took for granted the trust that she had given
him, and it left a bitter experience in her instruction.
Interestingly, Mrs. Salina also shared Mrs. Alma’s concern in that she believed through
the constant use of digital technology her students might take their learning of the English
language, in particular English writing instruction, too lightly and for granted. Mrs. Salina
believed that the convenience that digital technology provides could give the impression to
students that they could just learn and find learning materials from the Internet and that they did
not have to put a lot of effort in their learning. Mrs. Salina believed that the use of too much
digital technology could make her students become lazy and not focused in their learning of the
English language. In addition to that, Mrs. Salina was also concerned about the quality of her
students’ writing. She noticed that many of her students in their writing tasks plagiarized from
the Internet without properly crediting their resources, and they tended to use complex words
without actually knowing the meaning of those words. Also, Mrs. Salina lamented the fact that
the word processor applications that students used to check their writing (e.g., grammar, spelling,
sentence structures, etc.) led them not to take time to actually learn how properly to apply
grammatical rules in their writing. All of these instances made it hard for Mrs. Salina truly to

246

evaluate her students’ level of English writing ability, and they negatively affected her
instruction. Mrs. Salina explained,
I think it tends to make students to be lazier nowadays. When they see you having your
notes in PowerPoint presentation form, they don’t go copy your notes anymore. What
they do is [they] ask for your materials that you put to be sucked inside their pendrive or
thumbdrive. So, that’s one, that’s one thing, students become lazier as I said earlier on.
And, again you question the quality, like I said just now, the quality of the students’
[writing], in terms of writing ok. And sometimes you cannot evaluate your students’ true
ability when using ICT in writing. If you ask them to write something by using the
computer, for example, right? “Ok, go back, and do an essay using the computer.” The
story of copy-and-paste is one thing; and then, you have to evaluate their grammar ability
whether they are good in grammar or if they are just using the grammar checker and the
thesaurus. You know that they know how to use it, how to use the grammar checker and
therefore, they get error-free essays. And then, they come up with very good wide
vocabulary. Where do they get that from? The thesaurus, maybe? So, you tend to wonder
about that ‘lah’. You can’t really evaluate their true ability, like I said earlier on. So, I
don’t think it’s much [help]. It’s better to go through the old fashion when you teach
writing [like] process writing, one-by-one, you and the students do it, you know,
manually.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s concerns over the use of digital technology applied mostly to certain
aspects of English education, especially English writing and English grammar. However, she felt
that in teaching speaking and communication, and especially English literature, digital
technology could be very useful. Mrs. Salina especially appreciated the use of digital technology
in teaching English literature, due to the visual-spatial elements of digital technology that could
help her in literature instruction. For example, Mrs. Salina valued the images, pictures, words,
and animations that she could show using digital technology to explain the literature
components, especially when explaining the setting, the plot, and the characters in the literary
works. These visual-spatial elements were important for Mrs. Salina because they helped her and
her students understand the literary works better. Mrs. Salina also appreciated the fact that there
were many English literature lesson materials (i.e., notes, exercises, samples of questions and
answers) that were already readily made available by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE)
247

and were given to the school for her to use in her literature lessons. Her preference of using
digital technology for only certain aspects of English education, i.e., English literature, as
opposed to teaching English writing, was evident in the excerpt below:
Bakar : What is the role of ICT in your English writing classroom? Is it something very
important to you, or something that you can do without?
Salina : As for writing, I can do without [it], I can do without [it]. If you talk about
writing instruction, I can do without [it]. But there are some things that are really
a necessity to have ICT.
Bakar : Such as?
Salina : Such as I always mentioned to you, literature component needs to use ICT,
because you cannot just chalk-and-talk with literature component. Students
wouldn’t see it. Our students mostly learn using visual-spatial right? They want to
see it with their eyes, the colors and what not. Then, they will see.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 18, 2012)
How did Mrs. Salina use digital technology in English writing instruction? Even
though Mrs. Salina had positive conceptions of digital technology in English education, having
learned she had contested conceptions when it comes to the use of digital technology in English
writing instruction, I noticed that she used digital technology in her English instruction,
including writing instruction, quite often. Her early exposure to and proficient use of digital
technology, the constant support from her colleagues, and her own hunger in searching for new
and nuanced English lesson materials through the online sphere gave her a heightened
understanding of the promise and potential of digital technology in English instruction, and thus
her frequent use of it in her lessons. As such, Mrs. Salina used digital technology not only in her
instruction and lesson preparation per se, but also to record and store her lessons and lesson
materials, and to build connections and to communicate with other people in the education world
using digital technology. For example, Mrs. Salina informed me that she and her colleagues used
email to get in touch with book publishers and lesson materials suppliers to get the supplies that
they need for their English lessons. She recalled,

248

Talking about emails, of course, there’s personal email, but now things are getting
simpler that we do, we are doing connections, we are finding information through the
emails, we can also, what you call that, get our supplies, our lesson supplies, right. We do
have some budget whereby you can buy books [and lesson] materials, we do use the
emails to buy our materials through the Internet, because we, nowadays the suppliers, for
them it’s easier in that sense because we can, everything is already there. We can already
see the materials online, and then, we know what we want, ok. And, they can do
promotion through that, it’s easier in that sense as well. Actually, we did buy the novels;
we bought novels through this distributor. So, what he did was that he emailed a copy of
list, list of books and we just ordered through that, which is easier, ok.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, June 20, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s most prominent use of digital technology was her reliance on digital
technology for her lesson preparation and finding lesson materials. Having used digital
technology actively for almost two decades, and having used digital technology actively in her
English instruction for the past five years, Mrs. Salina admitted that she relied very heavily on
the Internet and her laptop for her lesson preparation and finding lesson materials. She used the
laptop and the Internet daily to look for lesson materials and references from educational
websites, and she adapted these lesson materials or resources to her lessons according to her
students’ levels of English proficiency. She also had been going to several websites to download
past years’ examination questions to use in her English writing instruction. Mrs. Salina said that
she also searched the Internet and went to several educational blogs by other Malaysian teachers
for language games and lesson materials, and for interesting and creative ways to teach grammar,
literature, and writing.
Mrs. Salina found inspiration from these educational websites and blogs, and she adapted
these lesson materials into her notes, references, and exercises, but sometimes she used them as
is. After obtaining and using these lesson materials, Mrs. Salina also used digital technology (i.e.,
her laptop and other storage devices, such as a jump-drive and an external hard-drive) to store
and save these lesson materials for future use. Mrs. Salina credited the convenience that digital

249

technology provided in her finding and adapting these lesson materials to her own lessons.
However, in her reflections, Mrs. Salina also admitted that it had been rather difficult to search
for suitable lesson materials for her students. She found it difficult to find and adapt these lesson
materials for English writing in the context of the Malaysian setting for fear that these lesson
materials would tend to lose their sense of authenticity. However, Mrs. Salina’s biggest concern
with finding and adapting these online lesson materials was the time constraint that they
imposed. She claimed that adaptations of the lesson materials that she obtained from the Internet
tended to take more time for her to adapt according to her students’ levels of English language
proficiency. Mrs. Salina explained,
But, my major concern would be time constraint, you know. Apart from setting up and
everything, for you to, remember when I tell you about materials and all? It’s time
constraint when you don’t have it there and then for you to use it. You have to look for it.
And you know, finding information in the Internet takes you hours of browsing through
to find a suitable one, you know, to get it printed out, to read it carefully, to dissect it, and
then everything. And then trying to whether, to try to visualize whether it will work with
your class or not. This takes time, this is time-constraining.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Apart from using digital technology to find lesson materials, similar to Mrs. Alma and the
teachers at Mohamad, Mrs. Salina and the teachers at Bright Bay also had to plan their lessons
and submit their lesson plans to the school administration on a weekly basis through the use of
digital technology, i.e., the school online lesson plan database. In addition, Mrs. Salina also had
to key in data for her students’ background information, academic performance, and their results
in the mid-year, year-end, and the national examinations in the school computer database. This
was done for Mrs. Salina and for the school to keep track of their students’ academic
achievement. Apart from that, Mrs. Salina also used digital technology for clerical work, such as
coming up with documents, proposals, reports, or letters for the school and her students’
curricular and extra-curricular activities.
250

As for her use of digital technology in instruction, Mrs. Salina used quite a variety of
digital technology tools, such as her own laptop computer and smart phone, and other schoolprovided digital technology tools, such as desktop computers, LCD projectors, and the computer
laboratory. The digital technology tool that she utilized the most in her instruction was her laptop
computer. Mrs. Salina informed me that she had been actively using the laptop for her instruction
for the past five years. She initially used the laptops provided by the school for her instruction;
however, due to her strong dependence on the laptop, she bought and had been using her own
laptop for English instruction for the past three years. Mrs. Salina used her laptop mainly to
project her lesson materials to the students, such as notes, exercises, samples of past years’
examination questions, and English lesson activities. Mrs. Salina explained,
Ok, alright. As for the laptop, I use it to aid me in my classroom teaching. Ok, most of the
time I would use the Word program and the PowerPoint program. Ok, I would use the
Word program when I need to come up with handouts, exercises for the students. And
sometimes I would show notes on the Word program to my students. And as for
PowerPoint presentation, it is very helpful for me in order to teach literature component
because materials are usually supplied by CDM. And I would just show the students the
notes on various areas of literature component, for example, our novel, the poems, and
also the drama.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 18, 2012)
To project these notes, exercises, samples, and instructions for English writing activities,
Mrs. Salina used the laptop alongside the LCD projector, projector screen, and Microsoft Word
and PowerPoint applications, as well as notes in the PDF format. These digital technology
materials were often used with traditional lesson materials, such as handouts, and especially the
whiteboard. Through the use of these digital materials, Mrs. Salina explained about the notes,
exercises, samples, and instructions of English writing activities, engaged in discussion with the
students about them, and asked them to present their written works using these digital technology
tools. Her use of these digital technology tools (i.e., laptop, LCD projector, screen projector, and

251

memory storage devices) was also to complement her conception of English writing instruction,
which was to prepare her students for the national examination. Mrs. Salina used these digital
technology tools to project notes on genres of writing in the examination, grading schemes or
evaluation schemes for the national examination, past years’ English writing questions and
samples of answers to these questions, tips and strategies for answering these examination
questions, and also writing exercises for students to do in preparation for the national
examination.
Apart from these digital technology tools, Mrs. Salina also used other digital technology
tools, such as her smart phone, in her English writing lessons in quite profound ways. For
example, she used her smart phone quite a few times to video record or take pictures of her
students’ works to save for her future reference and further use. She also used the encyclopedia,
dictionary, and thesaurus applications that she downloaded in her smart phone to help her in her
English writing instruction. She had been using these smart phone applications since early last
year, and she admitted that they had been helping her a lot with her writing instruction due to
their portability, convenience, and the speed at which she could obtain information from her
smart phone in her writing instruction. Her use of smart phone applications reflected her
promoting her conception of good English writing, which was to enrich students’ use of varied
vocabulary, promote the use of interesting English expressions, and foster original ideas for their
written works. Mrs. Salina explained,
As for my cellphone, it is really necessary for me to bring to class as I have installed
dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedia in my cellphone. So, it’s a very fast, reliable
source if we are doing reading, or even writing, and when the students ask me of certain
words that they don’t understand and words that are also not familiar to me, I would just
refer to my smartphone, cellphone.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 18, 2012)

252

Mrs. Salina would also at times bring her students to the computer laboratory at the
school to conduct her English writing lessons there. Usually when Mrs. Salina brought them to
the computer laboratory, it was for lessons that would have her students use the computers and
other digital technology tools in the computer lab (e.g., desktop computers, the Internet, printer,
scanner, and LCD projector, among others). Her students’ use of digital technology in her
instruction were be in the forms of their looking for information for their English writing tasks,
using the computer (i.e., Microsoft Word or the email) to write specific writing genres (e.g.,
letters, newspaper articles, etc.), presenting their written pieces or English literature chapters, and
using the computer and LCD projector to project their PowerPoint slides or Word document for
their presentations. For example, in two of her lessons that I observed, she brought her students
to the computer laboratory to do a class project, i.e., to write newspaper columns for the school
newspaper. In doing so, she asked them to use the Internet to find information about certain
topics; to write about the topic using Microsoft Word document; to revise their writings using the
Microsoft Word spellchecker and the online thesaurus; to compile the articles together to make a
school newspaper; and to have each group present their written works.
These instances of Mrs. Salina’s uses of digital technology reflected her varied
approaches to classroom management when using digital technology. Unlike Mrs. Wong, who
preferred to use the digital technology instead of having her students use them, and Mrs. Alma,
who preferred that her students use the digital technology instead of herself, Mrs. Salina did not
mention any preference for either her or her students using the digital technology in her English
writing lessons. According to the lesson that she planned, she used digital technology herself if
she was showing notes, exercises, samples, and formats of writing genres for her writing
instruction; and she had her students use digital technology if she wanted them to find

253

information, or to write something in her lessons (e.g., school newspaper project), or to present
their written works.
However, Mrs. Salina admitted that whenever she used digital technology in her English
instruction, especially for lessons in which students were required to use digital technology—
instead of herself—such as to search for information, do writing or online grammar activities,
and do presentations, she would have to have more classroom management in that she had to
constantly assist and monitor her students’ use of digital technology. Her constant assistance and
monitoring of their use of digital technology were not only in the form of technical aspects of
digital technology, such as dealing with broken computers or those infected with viruses, but also
prohibiting them from visiting websites that were not related to the topic of the lesson (i.e., social
networking sites) or forbidding them from playing online computer games. Some of her students’
misuse of these digital technology tools, and their high proficiency in using these digital
technology tools, somehow compromised her lesson in that these digital technology tools were a
distraction from the lesson. Her students’ use (or rather misuse) of these digital technology tools
deviated them from focusing on the lesson tasks and rendered Mrs. Salina not being able to
achieve her lesson goals on time, and instead having to monitor them closely in their learning.
In addition to that, Mrs. Salina lamented the fact that when she had her students do
presentations using the digital technology, especially at the computer laboratory, the other
students did not focus on the presentations and did not contribute to the discussions due to being
engaged with the online world. Often students did not listen to her instruction to turn off the
computers or focus on the presentation or discussion in the lesson, and they instead pretended to
turn off the computers but still were engaged in the online world. In essence, they were not very
cooperative or participative in the lessons by being quiet and quietly browsing the Internet, and

254

hence they could be easily distracted from the actual learning and not be able to do the tasks
asked of them on time or as well as Mrs. Salina had envisioned. Mrs. Salina’s hopes for her
students to be more participative, to communicate with the English language, to instill the sense
that English is fun, and to create the English speaking environment that she had long envisioned
seemed to be dampened when digital technology came into the fray. This frustration on having
the students not be participative in her lesson led to her preference to use traditional materials,
especially the whiteboard and handouts, instead of digital technology, specifically for the English
writing lessons which were very important in preparing them for the national examination. In
comparing her use of the whiteboard as opposed to digital technology tools, Mrs. Salina
explained that she preferred to use the whiteboard (and have her students use the whiteboard) as
opposed to digital technology tools:
They still need it in printed materials, printed form, because they need to read the passage
first in order for them to identify the content points. But then, after they have read, or
after they have read the passage on the summary writing activity, they can just find the
content points and they can just write [them] down on the whiteboard. They can go oneby-one, you know, take turns, you know. Sometimes it is much more fun like that. Yeah,
it would be more fun because there is students’ participation there. Students are not just
sitting there, being passive, right, just looking what you’re showing them. So, they will
be more active, there will be movement around, one. And you have fun of calling them
out one-by-one, you know, giving them the marker, they will draw, they will write on the
whiteboard, and you can also detect which students who actually did not get your lesson
and which students [who] get your lesson. So, you can straight away know, the students,
when [you] as them randomly, the students come into the front, [if] they miss out certain
steps, [if] they miss out certain content points, there goes it. You know that this student
did not actually get what you’re teaching.
(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
Mrs. Salina’s preference to use traditional materials, i.e., the whiteboard—and to have
her students use these traditional materials—as opposed to digital technology materials in her
English writing lessons, was mainly due to the fact that the use of digital technology, especially
in the hands of her students, often left Mrs. Salina with time constraints in her lesson. To

255

elaborate, Mrs. Salina’s frustration on the time constraints imposed by digital technology was not
only prior to the instruction session—especially in setting up these digital technology tools and
in finding and adapting lesson materials to be suited to her students’ level of English
proficiency—but was also the use of digital technology in her actual instruction. This was
because of the constant monitoring of their use of digital technology and their not attending to
the lesson’s tasks, instead attending to their own personal uses of digital technology. Mrs. Salina
also believed that when digital technology is used in her writing instruction, she had less
flexibility in her classroom management due to the notions of distraction and compromise that
digital technology provides.
Mrs. Salina also shared Mrs. Alma’s concerns about the convenience of digital
technology leading to students’ heavy dependence and lack of effort in learning English writing.
To explain, like Mrs. Alma, Mrs. Salina believed that the convenience that digital technology
provided in finding writing materials had led to a sense of convenience to her students that in
turn led them to not putting a lot of effort into their own learning of English writing. In addition,
the convenience that digital technology provided to her students, especially when used for their
writing tasks, led to issues of plagiarism, in which they tended to copy and paste information that
they found from the Internet into their essays without properly citing them, and even to the point
of using readily written essays found online as their own. This notion of digital technology as
convenience leading to compromise was similar to Mrs. Alma’s concerns, and it informed Mrs.
Salina’s contested conceptions of the use of digital technology in English writing instruction, and
thus her reluctance to be heavily dependent on it in her instruction. Upon deeper reflection, the
students’ misuse of these digital technology tools also frustrated Mrs. Salina even further in that

256

the students inadvertently betrayed the sense of trust that she gave them and her high regard for
their high digital technology proficiency.
In relations to her students’ misuse of digital technology, Mrs. Salina was also frustrated
with the lack of English education digital technology resources for English teachers as opposed
to science and mathematics teachers, which rendered her almost helpless when confronted with
students misusing these digital technology tools. In the specific context of Bright Bay, even
though the school was adequately equipped with digital technology that was made readily
accessible to its students, especially when compared to Mohamad, Mrs. Salina was still frustrated
with some of the school’s policies on digital technology. Her frustration was evident in the
school’s unstable Internet connection and the school’s cyber café (i.e., Anjung Cyber) being
closed for two weeks prior to the national examination in order to have students focus on the
examination. She was also frustrated with the school’s negative outlook on digital technology,
especially the many procedures to apply for digital technology to be used in instruction, which
made it difficult for her and other teachers to obtain these digital technology tools for her
lessons. Mrs. Salina believed that this red tape should be cut down, and that the school
administration at Bright Bay should trust the teachers and students more when it comes to using
digital technology. She explained,
One of my thoughts, if you want to see teachers use ICT effectively in Malaysia, then it
shouldn’t be as I said, you cannot be too careful with it, you know? Like here, you are
managing it too much, putting it in rooms safely. Not to say not [to be] too careful with it.
It’s just that you know, minimize these procedures! [And] have it installed in more places
for the teachers to use. And, after all, it’s not just limited to us English teachers or science
teachers; [but] even everybody can use it, all teachers can use it. Islamic Education
teachers also can use it, [or] Malay language teachers. It’s just how you, you know?
Facilities should be more [accessible] and you shouldn’t be too, too… you know? This
mentality should be, should not be there anymore. If you want people to evolve with ICT,
you shouldn’t have these, what you call these, bureaucracies, yeah. Reduce it! Reduce all
the bureaucracies. [It’s] not just special rooms [that should] have ICT facilities, all
classrooms should have it.
257

(S. A. J., Salina, personal communication, July 24, 2012)
How did Mrs. Salina’s conceptualizations of digital technology relate to and affect
her use of digital technology in English writing instruction? From my interactions with Mrs.
Salina and my observations of her English writing instructions, I believe that her personal and
professional backgrounds shaped and informed her conceptions about the English language and
English education as well as her English writing instruction—and thus her conception about and
uses of digital technology in English writing instruction. Her early exposure to and love for the
English language led her to choose to be an English teacher, created her appreciation for the
teaching profession, and developed her identity as an English teacher. In effect, her early
exposure to and deep appreciation for the English language also developed her conceptions that
English is important and English is fun, and her more specific conceptions of English writing
instruction, which are instruction for examination and good English writing (i.e., form and
function and beautiful writing).
Due to her appreciation for the English language, Mrs. Salina also hoped to instill love
for the English language in her students, especially the English communication skills, which
were a big part of her belief in the mastery of the English language. This effort could be seen in
her determination to create English speaking environments in her lessons and in her
communication with her students. She also hoped that she and her students could learn English
from one another as espoused in her conception that English education is transactional.
However, on further reflection, her hope for this sense of English education transaction was also
due to her divided identities as an advocate for the English language and as an English teacher.
Her higher middle class and English education backgrounds were not similar to that of her

258

students, and thus her wanting to learn the English language from them, or at least sustain her
mastery of the English language, was unfulfilled.
More importantly, these conceptions and hopes that Mrs. Salina harbored for her students
in English education and English writing instruction were also related to and affected her
conceptions and uses of digital technology in her English writing instruction. These conceptions
and hopes, along with her personal and professional backgrounds pertaining to the use of digital
technology in English instruction, such as her early exposure to digital technology, learning to
use digital technology on her own, getting constant support from colleagues, and even getting
tips from her students on using digital technology in her English instruction, also shaped and
informed her conceptions of digital technology in her writing instruction.
Like Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma, Mrs. Salina also bore both positive and negative
conceptions on the use of digital technology in writing instruction, and thus she had her fair
share of joys and struggles with using digital technology in English instruction. Generally, Mrs.
Salina believed that the use of digital technology in English instruction was important for lesson
preparation, lesson planning, recording lessons, and for aiding instructional activities. In the
specific context of English writing instruction, Mrs. Salina believed that digital technology
promoted convenience, attraction, and relevance that thus motivated and benefited her students
in learning about English writing. However, she also believed that digital technology could be a
compromise and distraction in English writing instruction in that its convenience could lead to
students not putting effort into learning English writing skills, and thus compromising the lesson
objectives; and that digital technology was better used with only certain aspects of English
education, such as English literature and communication.

259

Mrs. Salina used her proficient knowledge of digital technology that was informed by her
experience with, self-education on, and her colleagues’ support of digital technology to attend to
her positive conceptions of digital technology in English writing instruction and to avoid the
negative conceptions of digital technology in her lessons. As such, Mrs. Salina relied very
heavily on digital technology to find lesson materials, prepare her lessons, and record her lessons
for her own use and for the school’s database system, and she often used them in her instruction.
She used varied digital technology tools in her instruction, such as her own digital technology
tools (i.e., laptop computer and smart phone), and also the digital technology tools that were
provided in the school (i.e., LCD projector, desktop computers, the Internet, printers, scanners,
and the school’s online databases). Her range of uses of digital technology in her lesson
preparation and English writing instruction were from the more basic uses, such as projecting
notes, exercises, instructions, and samples of good writing, to the more complex uses of digital
technology in writing instruction, such as having her students come up with the school’s
newspaper columns, write and do presentations, find resources and materials to be used in their
writing, do online language games and quizzes, and engage in online communication.
It is important to mention that, all the while in Mrs. Salina’s uses of these digital
technology tools and promoting their positive notions, she also used them to complement and to
espouse her core beliefs about English education and English writing. To promote the conception
of instruction for examination for her students, she used digital technology to download
questions and samples of answers of past years’ national examination questions, and to show
notes, formats, grading schemes, questions, and samples of answers to past years’ questions. To
promote her conception of good English writing, she used the applications in her smart phone to
teach about the use of interesting English phrases and expressions, and she used the thesaurus

260

and the dictionary in the smart phone to teach about varied and complex English words. To
promote the conceptions of English is important and English is fun, she asked her students to use
digital technology to do interesting language and writing activities, presentations, and English
related activities that were relevant to their lives.
Even though Mrs. Salina credited digital technology, i.e., the laptop and the Internet, as
the main resource for her lesson materials, she admitted that she had difficulty with the lesson
materials from the Internet, most notably the amount of time that she spent in finding and
adapting these lesson materials to accommodate her students’ varied levels of English
proficiency. Mrs. Salina lamented the fact that there was little digital technology-based English
education resources provided by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) as compared to
other courses (i.e., science and mathematics), and the fact that online English education
resources were mostly from overseas, which were not authentic or as easily applicable to the
Malaysian setting. In addition, even though Mrs. Salina showed great confidence and proficient
use of digital technology in her English writing instruction, and while digital technology
benefited her students’ writing skills, she believed that it was better used in other aspects of
English education, such as lessons that involve projecting notes/exercises/activities/tasks and
lessons that use the visual-spatial elements in digital technology, such as in English literature and
English communication lessons.
Mrs. Salina also believed that some of the school’s policies concerning the use of digital
technology somewhat influenced her students’ misuse of digital technology. Mrs. Salina believed
that the school’s insufficient provision of and inefficient management of these digital technology
tools were reasons teachers were not able to get themselves acquainted with using digital
technology, and thus were not able to use them effectively in their lessons. Furthermore, Mrs.

261

Salina also lamented the fact that she had not had a proper education to use digital technology for
English writing instruction.
On the other hand, when Mrs. Salina did use digital technology in her writing lessons,
especially in lessons that required her students to use digital technology instead of herself, she
expressed frustration due to her students not being able to come up with the objectives that she
set out for her lessons, especially their not being able to live up to her high regard of their digital
technology proficiency. However, while Mrs. Salina’s high regard for her students’ digital
technology proficiency was somewhat justified, what eluded Mrs. Salina was that her students’
levels of digital technology proficiency were more varied instead of her belief that all of them
had equally highly proficient knowledge of digital technology. In addition, Mrs. Salina also
expressed frustrations about her experiencing difficulty in classroom management and her
students’ misuse of these digital technology tools, in that instead of using them for her writing
tasks, they would pursue their own personal agendas (i.e., playing online games and visiting
social networking sites). These incidents made Mrs. Salina become wary of using digital
technology in her instruction.
In comparison, unlike Mrs. Wong, who had no support from her English teaching
colleagues in her use of digital technology in English writing instruction, and Mrs. Alma, who
had very little access to using digital technology in her instruction due to her school’s policies,
Mrs. Salina had collegial support and had better access to digital technology at her school.
However, her high regard for digital technology, her students’ varied proficiency in using them,
and her conception of English education is transactional as shown in her high hopes for her
students’ mastery of the English language to rival and feed her own proficient use of both the

262

English language and digital technology, seemed to blind her to fact that her students were not
like her and that she might had too high expectations from her students.
In all, Mrs. Salina’s conceptions and uses of digital technology in her English writing
instructions were very much influenced by the psychological issues—more so than the social
issues—pertaining to digital technology in English instruction. Due to Mrs. Salina’s
[mis]conceptions about her students’ high digital technology proficiency and her
[mis]conceptions about the school’s lack of provision of technical and intellectual digital
technology support—regardless of the fact that she was already a very proficient user of and had
knowledge of digital technology (i.e., digital native), and regardless of the positive experiences
that she had had with her students on her uses of digital technology in teaching writing—she
tended to believe that she did not have the proper knowledge to use digital technology in the
educational setting. These [mis]conceptions, in essence, psychologically affected her lack of
pedagogical confidence in using digital technology in English writing instruction.
In addition, due to Mrs. Salina’s own personality in that she bore high expectations for
her students in learning the English language, and the fact that she witnessed her students’ high
digital technology proficiency, she also developed high expectations of her students’ use of
digital technology in learning English writing. This high expectation of her students’ digital
technology proficiency hindered her from seeing her students varied levels of proficiency on and
varied access to digital technology. Furthermore, Mrs. Salina’s became disappointed whenever
her students did not manage to meet her high expectations in their use of digital technology in
English writing instruction. Several circumstances in which her students tended to misuse digital
technology also led Mrs. Salina to see more of the disadvantages (i.e., constraints) of digital
technology instead of its promises (i.e., affordances).

263

When compounded by social aspects concerning the use of digital technology in her
English writing instruction (e.g., several negative experiences of her students’ misuse of digital
technology in her English instructions) and certain school policies about the use of and access to
digital technology (e.g., the school’s restriction to use the cyber café prior to the national
examination), Mrs. Salina’s believed that her psychologically negative stance against the use of
digital technology was justified. This sense of justification seemed to be solidified within herself
regardless of the fact that her students managed to live up to most of her instructional
expectations and did not misuse digital technology tools that severely (especially as compared to
students in other schools), and regardless of the fact that Bright Bay did give adequate access to
digital technology (especially compared to the two other schools) as well as her constant
intellectual support from colleagues on the use of digital technology in English instruction.

Figure 6. Mrs. Salina’s position in the Web of Conundrums
264

When positioned in the Web of Conundrums diagram, all these psychological and social
aspects influenced her immensely in her conceptions and uses of digital technology in English
writing instruction in that she saw more of the technical and intellectual restraints from digital
technology that she thought the school administration failed to provide to her—and thus her
intrinsically thinking that she was a novice in using digital technology, especially in educational
setting. Also, she saw more of the constraints of digital technology in English writing instruction,
which compromised her style of teaching.
Because of these psychological and social aspects—especially the ones that fed her
negative conceptions of digital technology in English instruction—Mrs. Salina lamented the
intellectual and technical restraints from using digital technology in the educational setting in
that she believed there was lack of education on and provision to digital technology from the
school administration and the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE); and she also positioned
herself to see more of the constraints or disadvantages of digital technology in English writing
instruction (please see Figure 6). Her negative stance on the use of digital technology in English
writing instruction is quite baffling, especially due to the fact that she was already quite
proficient in using digital technology, even in English writing instruction, and the fact that she
had experienced many events attesting to the promises and potentials of digital technology in her
English writing instruction.

265

CHAPTER 8:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Is there any part of you that is not your appetites? Is there any part of you that is not your
fears and not your desires? Is there any part of you that doesn’t want or reject? Is there
any part of you that is just you and which you cannot retreat?
(AtGoogleTalks, 2012)
When Eric Schmidt, co-founder of Google, asked the comedian Stephen T. Colbert about
the title of his new book, America Again: Re-Becoming the Greatness We Never Weren’t,
Colbert explained in the excerpt above why Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons is one of his
favorite books. Colbert’s response outlines the complex binary relationship between human
emotion and cognition which resonates with the hope and fear, desire and dismissal, and
expectations and frustrations experienced by the teachers in this study. The teachers’ conceptions
and uses of digital technology in English writing instruction were framed and fraught by a series
of conundrums that complicated rather than liberated their instructional work. These conundrums
were also central to the social contexts that these teachers were situated in that constantly
wavered them between favoring and opposing the use of digital technology in English writing
instruction. However, some teachers were able to capitalize on the affordances of digital
technology in instruction, while others were more constrained due to the psychological stances
that they bore and the social circumstances that they were in.
These social and psychological contexts were in terms of their personal and professional
backgrounds; their uses of, experiences with, and education in digital technology; the contexts of
education that each teacher was situated in, such as their school settings and their students; their
personal and shared conceptions and practices in English education and writing instruction; and
their individual and collective concerns about English education and writing instruction. All of
these social and psychological notions shaped and informed their conceptions of digital
266

technology, gave them experiences of success and frustration from the use of digital technology
in English writing instruction, gave them hope and concerns about the future uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction, and thus related to and affected their current uses in
English writing instruction in both positive and negative ways. These social and psychological
notions thus created a Web of Conundrums presented by the binary notions of affordances and
constraints (i.e., advantages and disadvantages), access and restraints, and dual identities as
digital natives and digital immigrants (i.e., experts and novices) for the use of digital technology
in writing instruction.
In this chapter I describe the teachers’ conceptualizations and uses of digital technology
in English writing instruction, and I describe how their conceptions of digital technology relate
to and affect their uses of digital technology in English writing instruction. By using the Web of
Conundrums diagram that was developed from the theoretical/conceptual ideas described in the
Conceptual Framework chapter and analysis of the research findings, I explain the binary
relationships between social and psychological elements in the use of digital technology, and I
explain how these social and psychological elements relate to and affect their uses of digital
technology in their English writing instruction (and/or lack thereof).
How Did Malaysian Teachers Conceptualize Digital Technology
in English Writing Instruction?
Teachers’ conceptions of English writing instruction and conceptions of digital
technology served as their personal constructs (Pajares, 1972) and thus as bases for their use of
digital technology in English writing instruction (or lack thereof). In this study, there were
personal and psychological elements that served and shaped how teachers viewed digital
technology in English writing instruction, such as their personal and professional backgrounds

267

and their professional support on, previous experiences with, education in, and competency with
digital technology. However, there were also contextual and social factors that the teachers had
to consider that thus affected their conceptions and uses of digital technology in instruction.
These contextual factors included the schools’ policies and bureaucracies on the use of digital
technology and the provision of technical and intellectual access for using digital technology in
English writing instruction (or lack thereof). These contextual factors also included their
students’ different conceptions about and uses of digital technology, such as their deep
appreciation for and great proficiency with digital technology, and their tendencies to misuse
digital technology in educational settings. In all, these psychological and contextual elements
shaped how these teachers conceptualized digital technology in English writing instruction,
which in turn also shaped how they used digital technology in instruction.
All of the teachers in the study had varied exposure to, education about, and experiences
with digital technology in their lives. Mrs. Wong had her first experience with digital technology
about seven years ago (which came about through her teaching context), while Mrs. Alma and
Mrs. Salina were accustomed to using digital technology since their pre-adolescent years. Mrs.
Alma and Mrs. Salina also reported going to computer classes when they finished secondary
school, and they used digital technology heavily in their college years. All three teachers
reported learning to use digital technology in their lives, mostly by experimenting and exploring
digital technology on their own. However, given their varied experiences as teachers (i.e., 5 to 25
years of teaching experience), Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Salina, who had 25 and 15 years of teaching
experiences respectively, reported having only one in-service workshop on using digital
technology in education; while Mrs. Alma, who only had five years of teaching experience, had
no pre-service or in-service training for using digital technology at all. Interestingly, Mrs. Wong

268

and Mrs. Salina reported that the in-service training they received on digital technology was
focused on basic computer skills, and the courses were inefficiently taught.
Even so, all three teachers still used and relied heavily on digital technology in their daily
lives, such as for communication with friends and families; to do daily chores, such as online
banking and online shopping; to get the latest news and information; and for entertainment
purposes. All three teachers had access to digital technology at school, and they also had their
own digital technology tools at home, from the basic to the more advanced, which they used for
personal, educational, and other purposes. All three teachers were fairly confident and competent
in using these digital technology tools to the extent that their personal and professional lives
required them to. It is important to note that Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina were clearly more
comfortable and competent with using digital technology, due to their early exposure to and
frequent use of digital technology in their daily lives; they also possessed more up-to-date digital
technology tools (i.e., smartphones, tablet PCs, computer netbooks, etc.), and they also
participated actively in online social networking websites.
Each teacher was teaching within different contexts (i.e., different school settings and
students); however, there were many similarities in these contexts with regards to their teaching
English writing and using digital technology. For example, all teachers taught students with low
level English proficiency, faced students who rebelled against learning the English language
(especially writing), and dealt with their schools’ insufficient and inefficient management of
digital technology. The teachers also had different personal and professional identities as English
teachers. They had their own personal ethos and psychological positions in their teaching
approaches that were shown in their conceptions of English education and English writing
instruction. There were also differences between the teachers’ preferences and their actual

269

practices in English writing instruction and in their uses of digital technology in instruction.
Regardless of these differences, there were many conceptions that were shared by these teachers,
especially pertaining to teaching English writing instruction and to their conceptions of the use of
digital technology in English writing instruction. These conceptions were evident in both
positive and negative notions, in that while they acknowledged the affordances of digital
technology tools, they also rued the constraints in using them and the intellectual and technical
restraints from using them.
In all, the teachers had both positive and negative conceptions of the use of digital
technology in writing instruction, and thus had their fair share of joys and struggles with using
digital technology for this instruction. The teachers believed that digital technology was
important for lesson preparation, lesson planning, and instruction, as well as for storing and
recording lessons. They also believed digital technology provided convenience, attraction, and
relevance in their instruction that thus motivated and benefited their students in their learning
about English writing. However, the teachers also believed that digital technology could be a
compromise and distraction in English writing instruction in that its convenience and attraction
could lead to students not putting sufficient effort into learning English writing, changing their
literacy (writing) practices, and also compromising the objectives of the lesson.
Positive Conceptions of Digital Technology
All of the teachers believed that digital technology plays a very important role in
education, especially in lesson preparation and lesson planning. Digital technology plays a very
important role in their lesson preparation especially due to the fact that they all regarded the
Internet as the main resource for lesson materials for their English instruction, and desktop
computers or laptops were the main tools to prepare their English lessons. They believed that the

270

use of the Internet and desktop computers/laptops was important in that via the use of these
digital technology tools they were able to read, evaluate, choose, write/type, edit, revise, and
adapt these lesson materials from the Internet to accommodate their students’ level of English
language proficiency and interests.
The teachers also believed that digital technology made their lesson preparation and
instruction easier due to the convenience and practicality that digital technology provided them.
This sense of convenience was evident in their being able to find information for their writing
tasks a lot faster than using traditional lesson materials, such as reference books or dictionaries.
The teachers also believed that their students’ high level of digital technology proficiency
allowed the students to look for and use online learning resources, and the teachers valued the
fact that they managed to get the best out of their students’ digital technology expertise into their
English writing instruction. The teachers also valued their students’ expertise in using various
kinds of Internet applications in their writing tasks, such as video blogs, social networking
websites, and other online applications, such as Wikihow, YouTube, Flickr, Scribd, Google
Translate, and Google Images, to find information on and actually to use them in their writing
tasks. The teachers’ positive conceptions of digital technology also extended to their appreciating
other teachers who constantly used digital technology in their instruction and who were able to
use them successfully, citing that these teachers were up-to-date, creative, and able to attract
their students’ attention, all of which, the teachers in this study believed, can directly or
indirectly improve their students’ knowledge/skills in English writing.
In addition, the teachers also believed that the use of digital technology in their English
writing instruction better attracted their students to writing lessons. They valued the plethora of
interesting quizzes and writing tasks on the Internet that they needed to attract students’ attention

271

and to challenge them to do the writing tasks. They also posited that students tended to be more
aware and alert when digital technology was used in their lessons, compared to just using
traditional lesson materials. They noticed that their students were more participative and
committed to complete the writing tasks, and that the lessons were more colorful, lively, and
interesting. This sense of attraction, they believed, was due to the fact that technology played a
very important role in their students’ lives, and thus brought a great sense of relevance to their
instruction. This was especially due to the fact that many students were brought up with digital
technology in their lives. The teachers understood that most of their students were very wellversed with digital technology, and all of them were very interested in and used digital
technology in their daily lives.
The teachers also believed that digital technology could be very beneficial in English
writing instruction. They believed that it could make their English writing instruction more
effective. This effectiveness was voiced in their reminiscence of their writing instruction being
better received by their students. The teachers also noticed improvements and productivity in
their students’ English writing knowledge and skills, and they believed this was due to the
convenience that digital technology, in particular the Internet, provided to their students. The
teachers credited this sense of effectiveness to the many resources that are available on the
Internet that make it easier for students to find information that can be understood by them, and
the fact that this information was presented in ways that were more interesting to them. The
teachers also found that their students tended to respond better to writing lessons when digital
technology was used, and this promoted better learning outcomes.
The use of digital technology also aligned with the teachers’ shared conceptions of
English education and English writing instruction, in particular their believing that learning

272

English is fun. All of the teachers believed that through the use of digital technology, English
instruction would be perceived by their students to be fun, easy, more relevant, and practical to
their lives. This was due to the many interactive activities that can be done with digital
technology; the students’ familiarity and proficiency in using digital technology; and the
abundant lesson materials obtained from the Internet that could be relevant and meaningful to the
students’ lives and interests. Furthermore, through the use of digital technology, the teachers
further believed that they could promote a sense of love for the English language and for the
students to be more interested in learning English writing.
The relevance and practicality that digital technology provided in their lessons also
aligned well with the teachers’ conception that English is important to be learned. All three
teachers believed the English language is very important to be learned and mastered due to its
position as the second national language of Malaysia, and the doors of opportunities that mastery
of the English language can open for students, such as opportunities for tertiary level education,
better employment, and personal and social improvements. The authentic, relevant, and practical
writing activities that the teachers found on the Internet and/or other digital technology lesson
materials aligned well with the importance that teachers placed on teaching and learning the
English language.
In addition, the teachers also valued the convenience that digital technology provided
them in exercising their main goal of preparing students for the high stakes national examination,
especially for the English writing section in the English paper which earns the highest mark in
the national examination. The teachers valued the convenience that digital technology provided
in their attaining lesson materials (i.e., past years’ examination questions, sample answers to
these questions, national examination grading schemes, and formats for writing genres) and the

273

convenience in showing notes about, doing exercises on, and discussing samples of examination
questions, as well as doing writing exercises and presentations with the use of digital technology.
As such, they believed that digital technology benefitted students in that it helped prepare their
students for their examinations in a more convenient way.
Apart from digital technology aligning with their shared conceptions of English
education and English instruction, the teachers also believed that the use of digital technology
aligned with their own personal conceptions to English education and English writing
instruction. For example, Mrs. Wong believed that the use of digital technology, especially the
convenience and relevance that it promoted, encouraged her to infuse moral values into her
English writing instruction. She appreciated the abundant and relevant lesson materials and
topics of lessons that she could choose from the online resources, and the other digital
technology tools (i.e., educational CDs) that she could use in imparting social awareness and
moral values in her lessons. Mrs. Alma believed that the notions of attraction and relevance that
digital technology promoted enabled her to attract her students to learn English writing, helped
her neutralize her students’ rebellion against learning English writing, and relieved her concerns
in teaching English writing. She believed that interesting and attractive online activities, as well
as the appeal of other digital technology tools managed to attract her students into liking the
learning of the English language and English writing. Meanwhile, in the case of Mrs. Salina, she
believed that the use of digital technology, especially in terms of the interactivity and abundance
of authentic lesson materials within the Internet, enabled her to create an English environment, to
promote more students’ participation in English lesson activities, and to develop their
communication skills.

274

In view of the teachers’ shared and personal conceptions of English education and
English writing instruction, they also believed that digital technology was very useful for certain
topics or lessons, such as communication-based activities and English literature lessons, where
students could engage in communication and presentation-based activities. This was especially
due to the notions of interactivity and multimodality (i.e., the multi-modes of media, such as
audio, textual, and visual-spatial elements) in digital technology that helped them achieve the
objectives of their lessons easier. For example, the teachers believed that in teaching English
literature, the use of digital texts, images, and animations was very useful in that they could
explain the literature components more easily. These audio, textual, and visual-spatial elements
were also important because they helped students understand the literary works better, especially
when explaining the setting, the plot, and the characters in literary works. The teachers also
appreciated the fact that there were many English literature lesson materials (i.e., notes,
exercises, samples of questions and answers) that were readily made available by the Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MOE).
Overall, the teachers believed that their positive notions of digital technology, such as its
importance, convenience, attraction, relevance, and effectiveness, as well as interactivity and
multimodality, enabled them to see the affordances or advantages of digital technology in
English education and English writing instruction. The vast information that can be obtained
from the Internet and other digital technology tools, and the fact that digital technology was very
relevant in the lives of their students, promoted them to use digital technology to attract their
students into the learning sessions; to capitalize on their students’ heightened appreciation for
and high proficiency in digital technology in the learning sessions; and to try to gain benefits for

275

themselves and their students in the teaching/learning process, especially in accordance with
their own conceptions of English education and English writing instruction.
Negative Conceptions of Digital Technology
Even as the teachers perceived positively and had positive experiences with the use of
digital technology in writing instruction, there were also many negative conceptions that the
teachers harbored. These negative conceptions were especially due to many negative experiences
that they have had with the use of digital technology, such as their students’ misuse of digital
technology and their inability to meet their students’ expectations. In a similar vein, the students’
misuse of digital technology, in fact, also portrayed the students’ contrastive view of the allure
and appeal of digital technology, especially its dark and devious nature, and the different
purposes for which the students used digital technology (e.g., online gaming, social networking,
etc.). This opposing view and experiences showed the different perceptions and expectations that
the teachers and the students had with regard to the use of digital technology in English writing
instruction. Even though the positive conceptions and experiences of using digital technology by
the teachers were, in fact, somewhat justified, and even the fact that the students’ learning of
English writing was somewhat improving, the students had different experiences and
expectations for digital technology that had thus contributed to the teachers’ negative
conceptions of digital technology, and the teachers’ constant conflicting conceptions of digital
technology in writing instruction.
For one, even though the teachers reported many positive conceptions of the use of
digital technology in their English writing instruction, they also expressed concerns about digital
technology, especially in the hands of their students. The teachers were concerned that the
notions of convenience and attraction provided by digital technology in writing instruction would

276

lead to students not putting the necessary efforts into learning English writing skills. Mrs. Alma
and Mrs. Salina, for example, lamented the fact that even though they were able to provide their
students with writing resources very easily from the Internet, the students did not put enough
effort into understanding and appreciating these resources. The sense of convenience that digital
technology provided promoted their students to save these resources instantly onto memory disks
without having to jot down or understand the notes, exercises, or samples of writings provided
by the teachers. This convenience also led the teachers to think that their students neither
appreciated the teachers’ effort to find, to adapt, and to prepare these lesson materials nor
appreciated the values of the lesson materials.
Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina also lamented their students’ use of computer and Internet
applications, such as the spellchecker, auto-correct, and thesaurus in the word processor
software, that had thus brought them sometimes positive results and sometimes negative results
from their instruction. This was because while these computer applications were helpful in their
students’ spelling and vocabulary development, the teachers felt that the students were using
these programs without properly knowing or understanding the English grammatical rules,
especially because their mistakes were automatically corrected by these word processor
programs, and they could rely on the words suggested by the word processor program without
properly understanding the meanings of the suggested words. The teachers also feared that the
word processor programs and other Internet applications that students used to check/edit their
writing in turn led them not to take time actually to learn how to apply English grammatical rules
properly in their writing.
The notion of convenience that digital technology provided their students also led the
teachers to believe that the students would depend more on digital technology for their learning

277

and not put enough effort into the development of their own writing skills. In this sense, the
teachers believed that digital technology could compromise their development as writers. The
teachers feared that the convenience that digital technology provided could give the impression
to students that they could just learn and find learning materials from the Internet without having
to put a lot of effort into their learning. The teachers were also worried that due to the
convenience of digital technology, the students tended not to take the initiative to learn the
English language for their own development and mastery of English, and the students would not
develop the skills needed in their writing or even a sense of creativity to come up with their own
writing. In a similar vein, the teachers were also concerned about the quality of their students’
writing in that they noticed that many students plagiarized from the Internet without properly
crediting their sources.
In actuality, the teachers’ views on how students should use digital technology
(especially in the educational setting) were not shared by the students, who were more
accustomed to using digital technology for their personal purposes, such as online gaming, social
networking, and entertainment. The students’ views of digital technology and its use were also
influenced by the rebellious and devious nature and the content of the Internet and other digital
technology tools that they believed were in direct contrast with the rigid and formal view of
Malaysian education and how teachers viewed digital technology to be used in such an
educational setting. Furthermore, the students’ literacy practices when using digital technology,
such as their multi-tasking, fast-reading, skimming and scanning, and using multiple modes of
media, were at many times not in favor of how teachers perceive literacy should be learned or
used. What the teachers failed to see was that these new literacy practices were what the
students, who grew up with digital technology, were very accustomed to and appreciated, and

278

that they seemed almost automatically to switch into using these new literacy practices when
presented with digital technology, instead of the traditional English literacy practices that the
teachers hoped them to use when using digital technology.
Even though both the teachers and the students saw the affordances of digital technology
and craved for the potentials of digital technology to be realized, they failed to compromise
between their different conceptions and practices of digital technology in that how the teachers
envisioned for the role of digital technology did not align with how the students envisioned it to
be, especially when it comes to choosing between traditional literacy practices and new literacy
practices. In essence, the teachers feared that through the use of digital technology in English
writing instruction students were more prone to compromise their literacy writing practices and
knowledge that the teachers deemed important in their development as writers, such as the
cognitive acts of coming up with ideas, finding information, applying grammatical rules,
revising, editing, sharing, and publishing their written works.
The compromise in their written literacy practices also worried teachers in that they
feared digital technology would distort the important aspects of writing, such as the notions of
authenticity, voice, audience, and publication that are valued in writing. The teachers also
lamented the students’ compromising their literacy practices with digital technology literacy
practices, such as multitasking, i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking on/with the
computer while being engaged in the lessons’ (writing) tasks. These multiple literacy practices
that students engaged in when it came to using digital technology, or rather the multi-literacies
that they practiced, were central to the notions of multimodality and interactivity that digital
technology provided in their use of it. This was because the students were accustomed to and
found it easier to multitask and use the multi-modes of information in the digital technology

279

world, as opposed to relying more on traditional literacy practices. As such, in the presence of
digital technology, the students tended to use the new literacies to the fullest, leaving teachers to
hang between and get confused by their own traditional versus new literacies practices.
This disparity in the teachers’ and students’ use of digital technology is the byproduct of
disparity between the teachers’ and students’ conceptions of digital technology in the educational
setting. The students valued more the rebellious, un-conforming nature of digital technology and
its appeal, and hence used it to get away from the formal ways of learning, and even from the
traditional formats and formalities of writing (that the teachers tried to promote). In their
wriggling away from abiding to these formalities of learning and from following the rules and
traditional practices valued in writing, the students instead relied on their new literacy practices
that they developed outside of the education setting (i.e., out-of-school uses of digital
technology) to navigate themselves away from conforming to traditional literacy practices. Their
deviation from abiding by traditional literacy practices was also due to the fact that via the new
literacy practices that they have developed with digital technology, they could attain the notions
of convenience, multimodality, and interactivity that they might not see in the traditional writing
practices.
With that being said, there was also a disconnection between the teachers’ and the
students’ literacy practices, in that the teachers were somewhat contesting the new literacies that
their students practiced with digital technology. The literacy practices promoted by the teachers
and the ones practiced by the students (i.e., traditional literacy practices versus new literacies
practices) had the teachers fear that the students would not appreciate or be able to use the
(traditional) literacy practices that they were trying to impart to the students (especially in
accordance with their conceptions of English is important and good English writing). In the end,

280

the (new) literacy practices that the students were accustomed to and appreciated were not
appreciated by the teachers; and even though teachers and students saw the affordances of digital
technology, they viewed and practiced different kinds of literacy skills (especially when it comes
to digital technology), which made the teachers constantly perplexed, and they struggled to
manage their classroom when digital technology was involved.
This issue was made more critical due to the fact that most of their students had low
levels of English proficiency and also rebelled against learning English writing, as shown in their
being shy to communicate in English, refusing to speak English in public, being passive or nonparticipative, and also being hyper-active or disruptive in writing lessons. The use of digital
technology in English writing instruction also brought concerns to the teachers in that they feared
that the students would use digital technology to exercise their rebellion against learning English
writing, such as to continue to shy away from the writing lessons and be lost in the online world,
or to become disruptive in the writing lessons through their misuse of digital technology, as
evident in the cases of Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina.
Apart from the teachers’ concerns about their students’ preference in literacy practices
and misusing digital technology in their writing lessons—or, in essence, the disparity between
their values, conceptions, and practices of digital technology—the teachers also felt inadequate
when it came to using digital technology to its fullest or in having digital technology meet their
expectations—especially in understanding or catching up with students’ new literacy practices.
While all the teachers felt confident and competent when it came to using digital technology in
their personal lives, they were neither comfortable nor felt competent in using digital technology
in their teaching, especially in teaching English writing. The teachers, in fact, projected duality in
their identities as digital natives (i.e., those who were adequately informed of and heavily relied

281

on digital technology in their lives) and as digital immigrants (i.e., those who were novices and
were inadequately informed on the use of digital technology) in between the two settings of their
6

personal and professional lives .
The teachers’ feeling of inadequacy using digital technology in English instruction was
rather puzzling. This was because the teachers showed proficient use of digital technology in
their personal lives, such as using digital technology in their communication with friends, doing
online banking and online shopping, and for entertainment. However, within the realm of
teaching, specifically in English writing instruction, they lamented their inadequate knowledge
of digital technology. The teachers were concerned about what they perceived as their lack of
abilities to use digital technology, their unfulfilled expectations from the uses of these digital
technology tools, and their concerns with classroom management when digital technology was
being used. The teachers believed their sense of inadequacy was due to their lack of education
and lack of support during their pre-service education or their in-service years. They felt that
they had inadequate knowledge of digital technology in English instruction, believed there was
more to digital technology in instruction, and genuinely wanted to learn more about it for their
own sake and for their students’ sake.
On my reflection, the teachers were having this duality in their identities (i.e., digital
natives versus digital immigrants) in using digital technology due to their comparing themselves
to some of their students’ high proficiency on digital technology, and thus they felt inadequate
6

The basic understanding of digital natives is a generation of people who are more open and
comfortable with using digital technology in their daily lives; and the term digital immigrants
refers to the generation of people who are not familiar with or as open to digital technology
(Bennett et al., 2008). In the context of this study, I am using these terms to explain the duality of
the teachers’ identities in their uses of digital technology. I am using the term digital natives in
reference to the teachers’ competent and confident use of digital technology in their own
personal lives, and the term digital immigrants to explain their feeling of inadequacy within the
specific context of English writing instruction.
282

and at a lower level compared to their students’ digital technology proficiency; and they were
afraid that they were not able to live up to their students’ (and their own) expectations for the
uses of digital technology in English writing instruction. This duality in their identities was also
due to their wanting to understand and catch up with their students’ changing literacy practices
and proficient uses of digital technology so that they could take more authoritative positions as
teachers in their classrooms; and also their wanting to capitalize and/or utilize their students’
proficient use of digital technology in their lessons within the supervision of their own highly
proficient knowledge of digital technology that they craved.
To compensate for this duality in their identities, i.e., digital natives versus digital
immigrants, the teachers assumed that their students were better and more proficient users of
digital technology in education (and in other settings), and they tended to rely on their students in
their lessons to capitalize on their expertise in digital technology. This high regard for their
students’ high proficiency in digital technology was not unfounded, because time and again they
did witness their students using digital technology successfully and creatively, either in lesson
sessions or in their personal lives, such as their masterful use of the computer, the Internet, and
other technological gadgets. This mastery that the students showed led the teachers to believe
that all of them were far more advanced than the teachers when it came to using digital
technology in education. However, this conception was also ill-conceived by the teachers
because while there were students who had high proficiency in the use of digital technology,
there were also those who had low proficiency in digital technology due to their lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which did not allow them much access to digital technology in their
lives. Furthermore, the students who showed high proficiency in digital technology also were not
highly accustomed to using their high proficiency in digital technology and were not able to

283

transfer their digital technology knowledge as smoothly in the realm of English education as the
teachers had hoped.
How Did Malaysian Teachers Use Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction?
Even though the teachers expressed contrastive conceptions of digital technology in
English writing instruction, they still heavily relied on and constantly used it in their instruction.
In doing so, their positive and negative conceptions of digital technology shaped and informed
their digital technology uses. In addition to that, their personal and professional identities,
education on (or lack thereof), access to, restrictions from, support on, and hopes and concerns
about digital technology also played important roles in their writing instruction.
All three teachers used their knowledge of digital technology that was informed by their
experiences with, education on, and their colleagues’ support of digital technology in English
writing instruction. While one teacher, Mrs. Salina, managed to receive more collegial support in
doing so, Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma had very little help from the teachers at their schools, and
thus they had to rely more on their own efforts and help from their spouses, daughters, and
students in using digital technology in their English writing instruction. Even with this disparity
in their support, all of the teachers still managed to use various kinds of digital technology tools,
either the basic tools that were readily provided in their respective schools (e.g., desktop
computers, laptops, LCD projectors, printers, scanners, and the Internet connection), or even at
times their own digital technology tools, such as their own laptops, smartphones, and LCD
projector, and also educational websites that they found on the Internet.
All three teachers used these tools for administrative and educational purposes, such as
for clerical, documentation, or other school-related work, e.g., to record their lesson plans, to
record their students’ academic progress in the school’s online databases, and to come up with

284

documents, letters, or proposals for curricular and extra-curricular activities for the schools or for
their students. However, and more importantly, they used digital technology for their lesson
preparation and in their English instruction.
Digital Technology in Lesson Preparation
While the teachers differed in their personal preferences for, education on, access to, and
uses of digital technology in English writing instruction, all three agreed on its importance in
their lesson preparation, because they all relied on it for lesson materials and also as tools for
lesson preparation. In fact, the teachers reported that the importance of digital technology
surpassed the traditional lesson materials that were provided by the schools or even those
provided by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE), such as government-approved text
books, basal books, and so on.
All teachers regarded the Internet as the main resource for their English writing lesson
materials, such as notes, exercises/activities, past years’ examination questions, sample essays,
and ideas for their writing lessons. They also used the Internet to find and adapt lesson materials
and ideas for other aspects of English education, such as reading, speaking, listening, English
grammar, and English literature. They looked for these lesson materials and lesson ideas from
various Internet resources, such as educational blogs, videos, and websites, and also from social
networking websites on which they communicated and shared lesson materials with other
teachers. All three teachers also found these lesson materials either by themselves, or from their
colleagues, spouses, and even from their students.
In their lesson preparation, the teachers used desktop computers and/or laptops that either
were available at schools or were their own personal computers, and they regarded them as their
main digital technology tools to prepare their English writing lessons and to adapt the lesson

285

materials they obtained online. They used the desktop computers or laptops to adapt these
materials through cutting, pasting, typing, editing, and printing the notes, exercises, and
activities, in order to make these materials suitable to their students’ levels of English
proficiency and their interests. Apart from finding lesson materials from the Internet and using
computers to adapt them to their own lessons, they also used the computer and the Internet to
share their lesson materials with their colleagues; in the cases of Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina,
they recorded their lesson plans in the online school database systems of their respective schools.
However, even though the teachers acknowledged the importance of, relied heavily on,
and very often used digital technology in their lesson preparation, they lamented the fact that
they had to do more lesson preparation with digital technology as compared to preparing lessons
using basic/traditional lesson materials. This was because the teachers had to spend more time in
searching for and attaining lesson materials from the Internet for their writing instruction. Mrs.
Alma and Mrs. Salina, for example, were concerned about the difficulties that they faced in
searching for suitable lesson materials for their students, and they lamented that the lesson
materials they obtained from the Internet tended to take more time for them to adapt to their
students’ level of English language proficiency. They both also feared that in the context of the
Malaysian setting, these lesson materials (which were mostly from the United Kingdom or the
United States of America) would not be suitable for students due to the social and contextual
differences of the content of the lesson materials. The teachers also feared that if these lesson
materials were changed to adapt to the students’ level of English proficiency and their
social/contextual circumstances, they would lose their sense of authenticity. Furthermore, the
teachers were concerned that they had to have more preparation when using digital technology to
make sure the tools were fully functioning before the actual instruction; they also had to check

286

whether the setting where the lesson would be conducted was able to support the use of these
digital technology tools.
Overall, just like their balancing their contested conceptions of digital technology in
English writing instruction, the teachers also had to balance their binary notions of digital
technology in preparing their English writing lessons, in order to maximize the positive aspects
and to minimize the negative aspects of digital technology.
Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction
In terms of their uses of digital technology in instruction, all three teachers showed
professionalism and were able to use diverse teaching approaches and varied digital technology
tools in their writing instruction. For example, all the teachers used the more basic digital
technology (e.g., laptops and LCD projectors) for projecting notes/exercises/questions/samples
of English writing in their lessons. These digital technology tools were used in traditional ways,
such as in discussion sessions and for lessons where students were required to present their
written works, and in lessons on English literature and communication skills. The teachers also
used more up-to-date digital technology in varied ways, such as emails, blogs, educational
websites, word processor applications, and other Internet and computer applications.
Mrs. Wong, for example, used the desktop computer/laptop and the Internet to show
videos (e.g., YouTube videos); played music from her laptop; asked students to find information
from websites, blogs, and other Internet applications to use in their writing tasks; and also
conducted writing exercises using educational CDs in her writing lessons. She also asked her
students to submit their written work via email; she asked them to present their written work; and
they had discussions about these written works using the laptop and LCD projector. Mrs. Alma
and Mrs. Salina also used modern digital technology tools in varied ways, especially for the

287

information and educational resources from the Internet that they used in their writing tasks (i.e.,
English education websites, educational blogs, and educational videos). They frequently asked
their students to do English writing tasks or to attain writing lesson materials from these
websites. Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina also used social networking websites, such as YouTube,
personal blogs, and Google Translate, to encourage their students to find information on the
writing tasks or to help them with their choices of English words.
Mrs. Alma, for one, was very resourceful in her use of English educational websites in
that she asked her students to use these websites in their learning the English language, in
particular about English writing (e.g., doing English grammar quizzes, finding writing samples,
and finding/using information about English grammatical rules). Meanwhile, Mrs. Salina used
the camera/video application in her smartphone to store/record her lessons and lesson materials
for future reference and further use. She also used the encyclopedia, dictionary, and thesaurus
applications that she downloaded to her smartphone to help her with her English writing
instruction. Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina also constantly searched the Internet and actively went to
several educational blogs to look for language games and lesson materials, and to find interesting
and creative ways to teach English grammar, literature, and writing. All three teachers’ uses of
basic and up-to-date digital technology tools were usually with support from their traditional
lesson materials, such as handouts, whiteboards, reference books, exercise books, and so on.
It is important to note that even with their lack of formal education on digital technology
in English education, these teachers still managed to use basic to modern digital technology in
various ways, especially in trying to meet the promises and potentials of digital technology and
in trying to put at bay the compromises and disadvantages of digital technology in English
writing instruction. It is also very important to note that their uses of digital technology were

288

done within the confines of their shared conceptions of English writing instruction, such as their
beliefs that teaching English writing was mainly to prepare their students for the high stakes
national examination and to incorporate the ideas of good English writing, as well as the ideas
that the English language is fun and important to learn. The teachers also used digital technology
to accommodate their own personal conceptions of English writing instruction, such as infusing
moral values (Mrs. Wong); attracting students to the English writing lessons and neutralizing
their dislike for learning English writing (Mrs. Alma); and also creating an English speaking
atmosphere and promoting English communication (Mrs. Salina). In balancing their positive and
negative conceptions of digital technology, these teachers tried not to forsake their shared and
personal conceptions of English writing instruction, and at the same time they tried to enhance
the promises and potential of digital technology in their lessons.
In practicing their shared conception of preparing the students for the national
examination, the teachers used the notes/exercises/samples of good writing that they obtained
from educational websites in their discussions and practices of writing tasks in their writing
lessons. The teachers also used PDF, Microsoft Word, and PowerPoint notes on English writing
that were shared among themselves or from the educational CDs provided to them by the
Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). They used other digital technology tools, such as
laptops and LCD projectors, to project these PDF/Microsoft Word/PowerPoint notes on genres
of writing; grading or evaluation schemes for the national examination; past years’ English
writing questions and samples of answers to these questions; tips and strategies for answering
these examination questions; and writing exercises for students to do in preparation for the
national examination. However, Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Salina were able to use digital technology
more successfully in promoting their conceptions of preparing students for the national

289

examination, compared to Mrs. Alma. This was due to Mrs. Wong’s and Mrs. Salina’s vast
experiences as English teachers (i.e., 25 and 15 years of teaching experiences, respectively) and
also Mrs. Wong’s identity as a certified national examination grader, i.e., the instructional
leverage she obtained from grading English writing examination scripts for 16 years.
The teachers also used digital technology to promote the notion of good English writing,
especially the mastery of the English language’s grammatical rules (i.e., form and function), and
the ability to produce beautiful writing (i.e., original writing with interesting ideas and varied
English words and expressions). Their promoting the notion of good English writing through
digital technology was most vividly seen in their error analyses of their students’ writings. These
error analysis sessions were usually done through the use of the laptop and the LCD projector to
highlight, show, discuss, and provide corrective feedback to the students on their mistakes in
their writings, such as their grammatical mistakes and their incorrect sentence structures. The
teachers also used digital technology in projecting samples of good writing that they found on
the Internet, or that they wrote/typed by themselves to promote the correct use of formats for
various writing genres in their espousal of the notion of good English writing.
Moreover, the teachers used the Internet applications, such as Google Translate, online
dictionary, and online thesaurus, to promote their conception of good English writing, i.e.,
beautiful writing. This is where, through the use of these Internet applications, they promoted
their students to use interesting ideas, attention-grabbing English expressions, and complex
English vocabulary in their writing tasks. They also asked their students to use the word
processor’s applications, such as the spellchecker, to write and edit their writing by using correct
grammatical rules, interesting English expressions, and complex English vocabulary. In the cases
of Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina, they also asked their students to use Google Translate or an online

290

dictionary/thesaurus to change common English words into complex words with similar
meanings. They also used digital technology to show authentic and complex uses of the English
language, i.e., varied English vocabulary and interesting English expressions, for their students
to appreciate and emulate.
The teachers also used digital technology in promoting their conceptions of learning
English is fun and English education is important. For example, in promoting the idea that
learning English is fun (i.e. fun, easy, practical), the teachers tried to capitalize on the
interactivity and multimodality of digital technology in that they used the wide range of medias
(e.g., text, music, graphic, animations, etc.) available on the computer and on the Internet in their
writing tasks in trying to attract their students. They also relied on the vastness and abundance of
authentic and interesting English writing lesson materials from the Internet in accommodating
their students’ interests and in using lesson materials that were relevant to their students’ lives.
By using authentic, relevant, and up-to-date materials that they obtained from the Internet or
other digital technology tools, the teachers tried to promote the notion of the importance of
learning English in their students—especially the use of the English language in their daily lives.
In doing so, the teachers tried to convey to their students the importance of learning the English
language for their personal and social development.
Apart from using digital technology to impart their shared conceptions of English
education and writing instruction, each teacher also used digital technology to promote her own
agendas for teaching English writing. Mrs. Wong, for example, used the varied lesson materials
and the vast topics of English writing lessons—especially topics on current issues and social
awareness—obtained from the Internet to infuse moral values into her writing lessons.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Alma used the senses of attraction, convenience, and relevance of digital

291

technology to attract her students to learn English writing in her effort to diffuse their negative
attitudes towards learning English writing. In doing so she tried to use digital technology to meet
the needs and interests of students, who were very attracted to digital technology in their lives. In
the case of Mrs. Salina, she used the convenience and relevance of digital technology, especially
the abundance of authentic lesson materials and topics from the Internet, in her effort to create
her ideal English environment—especially in developing her students’ English communication
skills.
While these teachers tried to achieve their shared and personal goals of English writing
instruction, and while they strived to achieve the promise and potential of digital technology, in
terms of their classroom management with digital technology, these teachers had different
preferences or techniques. Mrs. Wong, for one, preferred to use digital technology on her own in
her instruction—even though she also at many times involved some of her students in her
instruction, especially in asking for their assistance in tending to digital technology in the
classroom. Mrs. Wong always asked a few students to help her with setting up at the beginning
and end of class, and she asked one student to tend to the digital technology tools, such as to
manage the Word, PowerPoint, or PDF notes that were projected onto the projector screen as she
actively moved to and from the projector screen and around the classroom to explain these notes
to the class. In doing so, she managed to utilize her students’ high digital technology proficiency
and to make them more involved in her lessons. Mrs. Wong also managed to capitalize on her
students’ digital technology expertise, but at the same time she maintained more control of the
classroom.
Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina, on the other hand, preferred to put digital technology in the
hands of their students in the hope to capitalize fully on their students’ higher level of digital

292

technology proficiency. This exchange in power showed their acknowledgement of their
students’ high proficiency in digital technology, and also their wanting their students to exercise
their digital technology proficiency to help others who were not as proficient. In exercising their
classroom management technique, Mrs. Alma and Mrs. Salina compensated giving their control
of digital technology to their students with their very close guidance and active monitoring. This
constant assistance and monitoring of their students’ use of digital technology were not only on
technical aspects of digital technology, such as dealing with broken computers, but also
prohibiting them from going to websites that were not related to the instruction, or forbidding
them from playing online computer games, or making sure they were focusing on the writing
tasks instead of multitasking on other (personal) tasks.
However, this exchange of power in the classroom setting somehow disrupted the flow of
the lessons and compromised the learning outcomes, especially due to the students’ misusing
digital technology through acts of multitasking (between the writing tasks and their personal uses
of digital technology), not participating in the writing lessons, or being disruptive in the writing
lessons despite the teachers’ effort to prevent all of that. Apart from that, the teachers also
reported being frustrated with the inappropriate content of the websites that the students used in
their presentations; students not appreciating or acknowledging the teachers’ efforts in finding
and adapting the lesson materials to accommodate their levels of English proficiency and
interests; and the students’ lack of responsibility in using these digital technology tools, such as
plagiarism and pursuing their own agendas in their use of digital technology as opposed to doing
the tasks asked by the teachers. Their misuse of digital technology also tended to increase,
especially in learning English writing, which thus created a constant struggle for teachers with

293

class management due to the students’ rebellion against learning English writing and their
misuse of digital technology in exercising their rebellion.
In this respect, their students’ poor reactions, or counter-reactions, to the teachers’ efforts
to share classroom power and to enhance the students’ higher proficiency on digital technology
reflects how the teachers and the students differed in their values, conceptions, and practices of
digital technology. To make matters worse (to the teachers), the students were also practicing
different or new literacy practices (i.e., multitasking, fast-reading, skimming and scanning, etc.),
that were neither fully understood nor approved by the teachers. In this regard, the students’ high
proficiency in using these digital technology tools and their new literacy practices—or in
essence, their different values, perspectives, and practices of digital technology—were tools that
were used by the students to exercise their own desired conceptions and uses of digital
technology that they were accustomed to and appreciated, and also to rebel against learning
English writing.
These counter-reactions in effect were seen by the teachers as the students’ misuses of
these digital technology tools, which compromised the teachers’ lessons. This was because the
students’ counter-reactions to using digital technology (or, in the teachers’ view, their misuse of
digital technology) resulted in the teachers having less flexibility in class management due to the
distractions and compromises that digital technology brought. As a result, teachers lamented
having to do more class management in which they would have to assist and monitor constantly
their students’ use of digital technology more than they would normally do, and not benefitting
from the use of digital technology as much as they had envisioned. In this sense, the students
also betrayed the sense of trust and high regard that the teachers had of their high digital
technology proficiency. These negative experiences in the teachers’ uses of digital technology in

294

writing instruction thus reinforced the teachers’ negative conceptions of digital technology for
instruction, and they further believed that digital technology could be a distraction to and a
compromise in their English writing instruction. In actuality, their values and conceptions of
digital technology and their intentions for digital technology practices were not well-aligned with
their students’ conceptions and practices of digital technology; hence, the teachers had constant
struggles with classroom management and instruction, and difficulty in utilizing students’ higher
digital technology proficiency in their lessons persists to happen.
The issue of students misusing digital technology, and hence the teachers’ struggle with
classroom management, was a prominent one, as constantly mentioned by the teachers.
However, in deeper analysis, the students’ misuse of digital technology in English writing
instruction also points to another complex issue—one that pertains to access to digital
technology in schools (or lack thereof), and in particular the strange policies that the schools had
in restricting the use of digital technology in instruction. The teachers believed the school’s
policies concerning the use of digital technology somewhat influenced their students’ misuse of
digital technology.
This concern was most prominent in the case of Mrs. Alma, especially with the baffling
policies that her school, Mohamad, implemented in restricting its students from using readily
provided digital technology in the school. Due to the presence of digital technology that the
students saw were available at school—but were restricted from using—the students tended to
become over-excited when given the rare chances to use these digital technology tools, and thus
they would pursue their own personal agendas when using them in their learning sessions. In this
sense, the schools’ restrictions of the use of digital technology somehow enhanced the students’
misuse of them when they were presented with the opportunities to use the digital technology.

295

When compounded by the fact that the students had different values, conceptions, and practices
in using digital technology—regardless of the fact that both teachers and students saw the
promises and potentials of digital technology in education—they were at an impasse; the
school’s fear for students’ misusing the digital technology unfortunately seemed to be justified.
On a different point, the teachers also differed in their frequency of use of digital
technology in English writing instruction, due to the restrictions from or limited access to use
digital technology in their schools. Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Salina had fairly decent access to the
digital technology tools that were available at their schools, and thus they used these digital
technology tools as frequently as they could in their English instruction. Mrs. Alma, however,
did not have very good access to digital technology tools due to the strange policies exercised by
her school, Mohamad, and thus she was not able to use these digital technology tools as
frequently as she would like.
On further reflection, these strange policies by the schools deprived not only students
from digital technology, but also teachers. This deprival, in effect, left the teachers feeling
inadequate to use digital technology and to manage their classroom when digital technology was
involved, due to their lack of education on digital technology in their own education, their lack of
familiarity with digital technology in instructional settings, and the students’ strong resistance to
learn English and misuse of digital technology—all of which led the teachers to not being able to
use digital technology effectively in their lessons.
However, the issues of their access (or rather lack of access) to—and thus their frequency
in the use of—digital technology in their schools were not simply the case of the provision of or
the restriction in using these digital technology amenities by the schools. This was because this
issue also had to do with other social and psychological circumstances in relation to the teachers’

296

and students’ uses of digital technology. While the issues of the schools’ intricate policies on
attaining and restricting these digital technology tools were indeed problematic, it is important to
note that it was because of the large number of consumers and the constant use of these digital
tools that the schools created and enforced their restrictions of the use of digital technology in
instruction—and yet failed to anticipate the problems and deal with them by means of support—
both provisionally and pedagogically (i.e., technical and intellectual support).
All three schools (i.e., Salahuddin, Mohamad, and Bright Bay) were almost equally
provided with basic digital technology tools, such as computer laboratories, laptops, LCD
projectors, and so on. The provision of digital technology amenities was arguably similar for all
schools in terms of volume (i.e., quantity) and quality (i.e., make, type, and design), regardless of
the vast difference in the number of teachers and students in these schools, such as Salahuddin
with 1,400 students, Mohamad with 650 students, and Bright Bay with 150 students. Thus, due
to the large number of students, the bigger schools, e.g., Salahuddin and Mohamad, were
constantly having insufficient amounts of digital technology and inefficient management of these
digital technology tools. This was due to the fact that many other teachers and students were also
using these digital technology amenities for their teaching and learning sessions, so much so that
the constant use of these digital technology tools by the teachers and students in the school had
rendered the digital technology amenities to be broken from constant use, and were thus
improperly managed. The fact that there was only one computer technician in each school to
oversee all of these digital technology tools compounded the issue of the computers being
insufficiently available and improperly managed for the school communities’ heavy use.
In another light, the teachers’ conceptions of the provision and access to these digital
tools also played an important part in their use (or lack of use) in their English writing

297

instruction. For example, take the case of Mrs. Salina and the digital technology that she and her
students were provided at Bright Bay. While Bright Bay more or less equaled the other two
schools in terms of its quantity and quality of digital technology amenities—even with the fact
that all these schools differed vastly in the numbers of their students—, and regarless the fact that
Mrs. Salina had good access to these digital technology amenities, she still thought that Bright
Bay was insufficiently provided with digital technology. Mrs. Salina’s concern about the
insufficient amount of digital technology amenities at Bright Bay—especially if compared to the
more serious lack of access to digital technology at the other two schools—portrayed her
conception that access to digital technology needed to be given to all of the school community
(i.e., teachers and students) at all times.
Mrs. Salina’s conception to provide digital technology to all teachers and students might
have been informed by her higher socio-economic status and her convenient access to digital
technology that she had been accustomed to since she was young. This conception did not align
well with the reality of her school or especially the reality of her students—in that the school did
not have the capacity to provide digital technology to all its students, and not all students had
access to or knowledge of properly using digital technology due to their low socio-economic
backgrounds. Furthermore, Mrs. Salina’s conception (or rather misconception) of the mass
provision of digital technology tools to students would not solve the issue of the students’ misuse
of digital technology or their lack of proficiency in using them. What would still be missing
would be the teachers’ and students’ lack of education on how properly to use digital technology
in English education with etiquette, responsibility, and efficiency.
Apart from these complex notions of access to digital technology (or lack thereof),
another issue that was related to the issue of access was the teachers’ getting support from their

298

colleagues, especially within the confines of their educational settings (i.e., schools), thus
affecting their uses of digital technology in writing instruction in both positive and negative
ways. Unlike Mrs. Salina, who had great support from her English teaching friends at her school,
was very reliant on them, and cherished the professional development that she shared with her
colleagues, Mrs. Wong and Mrs. Alma reported little to no support from their English teaching
colleagues in their uses of digital technology in English education. In compensating for this lack
of access to professional support, Mrs. Wong—who had 25 years of teaching experience—
utilized her great teaching experience to substitute for her lack of proficiency with digital
technology. Mrs. Alma, however, had only five years of teaching experience, and while she had
greater exposure to and higher proficiency with digital technology, due to her limited teaching
experience she struggled with classroom management, especially when using digital technology
in English writing instruction. This issue was mainly due to her lack of access to professional
support, her still developing her classroom management skills, and especially her students’
rebellious attitude towards learning English writing.
In pursuit of this intellectual access to professional support in their uses of digital
technology, the teachers capitalized on other resources for support in their uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. The teachers mostly resorted to their own sense of
independence, which was to learn about digital technology via trial and error. All of them
experimented in using digital technology on their own, and they used their own prerogative and
judgment when it came to using digital technology, especially in catering to their students’ needs
and interests, to enhance the positive aspects of digital technology, and put at bay the negative
aspects of digital technology. They also involved other teachers from outside of school, their

299

families (i.e., husbands and daughters), and also their friends to gain ideas on and strategies for
using digital technology in writing instruction.
In so doing, the teachers compensated for their feelings of inadequacy with digital
technology by drawing on the people around them for their support and by feeding on their
higher digital technology proficiency to help with their lesson preparation and their actual uses of
digital technology in teaching writing. Mrs. Wong, for one, used her teaching experience and
classroom management skills successfully to involve her students in her writing lessons in
utilizing their expertise with digital technology. Mrs. Salina, on the other hand, utilized the great
support that she had from her colleagues in using digital technology in her writing instruction,
while Mrs. Alma relied on her husband to ask for tips and strategies in using digital technology
in her instruction. However, regardless of their varied support in the use of digital technology,
they all still felt inadequately educated to utilize digital technology and fully to capitalize on the
promise and potential of digital technology that they envisioned or hoped to bring into their
writing lessons. In view of this feeling of inadequacy, they all craved professional education on
digital technology, and they wanted to use more digital technology in English education.
How Did Malaysian Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Digital Technology Relate to and
Affect Their Use of Digital Technology in English Writing Instruction?
In all, the teachers reported both positive and negative conceptions of the use of digital
technology in English writing instruction; while they believed that there were many benefits (i.e.,
affordances) of digital technology, there were also limitations (i.e., constraints) in the use of
digital technology in English writing instruction. The teachers also reported the importance of
using digital technology in that they heavily relied on and often used digital technology in their
lesson preparation and English writing instruction, as well as in other work related to their

300

teaching profession, such as clerical work, documentation, and so on. In their uses of digital
technology within their lesson preparation and instruction, the teachers thus had to walk carefully
between the fine lines of their positive and negative conceptions of digital technology, in order to
capitalize fully on the advantages and put at bay the disadvantages of digital technology.
The complex binary relationship between the positive and negative conceptions of digital
technology were described in the teachers’ emotions and cognitions, or the psychological aspects
of their hopes and fears, their desires and dismissals, and their expectations and frustrations, all
of which were represented in their very careful planning and thoughtful uses of digital
technology in English writing instruction. The social contexts (i.e., schools and students) that
these teachers were situated in were also central to the binary relationships that they had over the
use of digital technology in English writing instruction in that these social contexts influenced
their conceptions and uses of digital technology, and they constantly swayed them both in favor
of and against the use of digital technology.
One teacher (i.e., Mrs. Wong) was able to capitalize more on some of the positive aspects
of digital technology in instruction, while the other teachers were not able to do so, due to the
psychological positions that they had and/or the social circumstances that they were in. These
psychological and social contexts were represented in their personal and professional
backgrounds; their uses of, experiences with, and education in digital technology; the contexts of
education that each teacher was situated in, such as the school settings and the students; their
personal and shared conceptions and practices in English education and writing instruction; and
their individual and collective concerns about English education and writing instruction. All of
these psychological and social contexts were related to and affected their conceptions of digital
technology; gave them experiences of success with and frustration from the use of digital

301

technology in English writing instruction; gave them hope and concerns in the future uses of
digital technology in English writing instruction; and thus shaped and informed their uses in
English writing instruction in both positive and negative ways. These psychological and social
notions thus created a web of conundrums presented by the binary notions of affordances and
constraints, the access to and restraints, and the dual identities of digital natives and digital
immigrants that the teachers switched back and forth between using digital technology in writing
instruction.
Psychological Realm: Balancing Promises and Compromises of Digital Technology
Within their psychological realm, the teachers reported positive conceptions of digital
technology, and they attested to the promises and potentials of digital technology in English
education and English writing instruction. These positive conceptions were developed from their
prior experiences with digital technology thus far, and also their prior and current uses of these
digital technology tools in their English instruction. These positive conceptions and experiences
hence built their hopes and aspirations to capitalize further on or even maximize these positive
conceptions into their teaching in the future. For one, teachers valued very highly the importance
that digital technology brought into their lesson preparation. They also valued highly the
convenience, attraction, and relevance that digital technology brought to their instruction in that
digital technology made it easier for them to attract students to the lessons and to conduct their
English writing lessons. These notions of attraction and convenience (among others) were mostly
due to the interactivity and multimodality that these digital technology tools brought that helped
the teachers in their instruction and also helped the students in understanding and developing
skills for English writing.

302

Furthermore, the teachers also appreciated the fact that the uses of digital technology
accommodated their conceptions of English education and/or English writing instruction, such as
preparing their students for the national examination; imparting the ideas that English education
is fun and important to be learned and mastered; and developing students’ writing skills in order
for them to produce good English writing which would show their mastery of English grammar
rules, form, and function as well as their ability to produce beautiful English writing (i.e.,
English writing that is based on original ideas, interesting English expressions, and varied
English vocabulary). The teachers also appreciated the fact that they were able to accommodate
their own personal conceptions of English education and/or English writing instruction through
the use of digital technology.
However, within another side of their psychological realm, the teachers also reported
negative conceptions of digital technology in English writing instruction. These negative
conceptions were also developed from their experiences with digital technology thus far, as well
as their ongoing concerns with digital technology. These concerns were due to the time that they
had to sacrifice in order to find suitable lesson materials and adapt these lesson materials to suit
their students’ levels of English proficiency and their interests/needs. They also needed to put
more time and effort into managing their classroom and also the digital technology tools in their
instruction in technical, creative, and educational ways. The teachers also believed that their
students were easily distracted and the lesson objectives were easily compromised when digital
technology was used, due to their students being preoccupied with digital technology instead of
the lessons. The teachers also lamented that instead of building the students’ writing skills and
knowledge, the convenience that digital technology provided in their learning sessions was
compromising their learning of traditional English literacy practices and their development as

303

writers. The teachers also feared that the students were relying too much on the use of digital
technology in their learning, and that they were not being responsible in their use of digital
technology in their writing (e.g., plagiarism).
The teachers’ negative conceptions of digital technology, in part, also had to do with their
feelings of inadequacy in using digital technology specifically in English education and/or in
writing instruction. The teachers projected dual identities in their use of digital technology in that
they were competent and confident in using digital technology in their personal lives; however,
they were incompetent and unconfident in using digital technology in their instruction, which
was notably seen in their struggles with classroom management. The teachers lamented the
education and professional support that they had not received when it came to using digital
technology. They also believed that their feeling of inadequacy in using digital technology
reflected the lack of access to digital technology in their schools, which left them feeling
unfamiliar with using digital technology in the teaching context.
While these two factors were very sound and true, there is another underlying factor,
which was the teachers’ inferiority complex in using digital technology in the educational
setting, especially when they compared their own uses and knowledge of digital technology to
their students’ knowledge and uses of digital technology. The teachers appreciated and relied on
their students’ high digital technology proficiency in their instruction, but at the same time
lamented their own lack of proficiency in comparison to their students. This sense of inferiority
complex was intensified due to their lack of formal education on digital technology; their lack of
access to digital technology that was not provided by the school administration as frequently or
as efficiently as the teachers had hoped; and the lack of professional support to use digital
technology in their English instruction.

304

Social Realm: Living to Expectations and Attaining Access/Support on Digital Technology
Similar to the psychological realm, teachers also had to balance between the positive and
negative aspects of the use of digital technology within the social realm. These social aspects
were their students’ highly proficient use of digital technology (which also led to their misuse of
it), the students’ different values, conceptions, and practices of digital technology, and also the
schools’ technical and intellectual access to and support of digital technology in instruction (or
lack thereof). These positive and negative aspects in their social realm affected the teachers’
psychological positions and thus their uses of digital technology in their English instruction.
The teachers acknowledged and appreciated their students’ proficiency in digital
technology; thus they tried very hard to capitalize on their students’ digital technology
proficiency in their English writing lessons, which was mostly done by the teachers handing over
the digital technology tools for the students to use in their writing tasks. While most students
were, in fact, quite proficient in their uses of digital technology, some were not so proficient.
More alarmingly, many of them were not familiar in using digital technology in the education
context, or with using digital technology to live up to their teacher’s high expectations with
regard to learning English writing. At the same time, due to the lack of access to these digital
technology tools in the schools, these students tended to misuse digital technology (e.g.,
multitasking in between writing tasks and their own agendas), which led them to be too engaged
in their own agendas instead of the writing lessons. To make matters worse, they also became
disruptive in the lessons by influencing/disrupting other students away from the writing lessons.
The context in which the teachers were pushing the students to utilize digital technology
according to the teachers’ expectations, and the schools were restricting them from using it, was

305

in contrast with the students’ own values, expectations, conceptions, and practices with digital
technology, which they believed the teachers and schools did not appreciate or approve.
The teachers’ struggle with their students’ misuse of digital technology and their new
literacy practices was heightened by the fact that the students were already rebelling against
English education, in particular English writing. In this sense, the students too were dealing with
complexities in attending to their fascination with digital technology, their different values,
appeals, and practices of digital technology, and in accommodating it to learn English writing—a
topic that they found challenging and frustrating and that required traditional literacy practices as
opposed to the new literacy practices that they were accustomed to when it comes to using digital
technology. This string of complexities between the teachers and students—in attending to each
other’s hopes and expectations—in many instances left the teachers feeling betrayed, frustrated,
and concerned. At the same time, these senses of betrayal, frustration, and concerns were being
felt by the students too. This was because the students’ sense of excitement to use digital
technology (after being deprived of it by the school administration), their wanting to exercise
their high proficiency with digital technology, and their expectation to have a lesson that is fun
and engaging (as they would hope digital technology could bring) were often not met—either
due to the fact of their own misuses of digital technology, the different literacy practices that
they practiced (that were not approved by the teachers), or their unfulfilled expectations from the
teachers’ use of digital technology in the writing lessons.
The teachers’ struggle with the students was most pertinent in the teachers losing their
sense of classroom management and having less flexibility in their instruction, especially in
attending to the students’ misuse of digital technology and guiding them towards traditional
literacy practices. Their struggle was also shown in their tendency to pursue the technical and

306

creative aspects of using digital technology in their writing instruction to meet their own
expectations and the expectations of their students. In their lamenting their struggles with digital
technology in English instruction, the teachers mostly felt that they lacked access to using digital
technology (i.e., technical access), which in turn limited their familiarity with digital technology.
They also felt that they lacked professional education on and support with digital technology
(i.e., intellectual access) in English instruction.
The teachers believed that the schools’ restrictions from using digital technology in
instruction, or rather the limited access to use digital technology, was prohibiting the teachers
and students from exercising their knowledge about digital technology, and thus impeding their
further development on digital technology in English education. The teachers also felt that there
was an insufficient amount of digital technology tools in their schools—irrespective of the sizes
of their schools—and that these digital technology tools were not properly maintained. The fact
that there was only one computer technician to oversee, repair, and maintain these digital
technology tools in each school was also not helping, due to the fact that many, if not all, other
teachers and students were also using these digital technology tools as well.
The lack of access to these digital technology tools, the teachers believed, added to their
lack of familiarity with using them in their lessons, and thus their feeling of inadequacy in using
them for educational purposes. Apart from Mrs. Salina, the teachers also reported receiving little
support to none at all in their use of digital technology in English instruction within the contexts
of their school, neither from other English teachers nor the computer technician. All teachers had
to resort to finding support on digital technology use in their instruction from other sources, such
as their spouses, friends, children, and even their own students.

307

Conclusion: Balancing on a Web of Social and Psychological Conundrums
In conclusion, the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction can be best described as a constant balancing act on a Web of Conundrums within
their social and psychological settings. In their uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction, the teachers had to balance their conceptions within their psychological and social
realms by having careful consideration of the affordances and constraints and access and
restraints of digital technology in the educational setting. As such, these psychological and social
contexts created a Web of Conundrums made of strings of affordances and constraints, access
and restraints, and dual identities as digital natives and digital immigrants that the teachers had to
consider carefully in their uses of digital technology in their English writing instruction. This
Web of Conundrums is central to the act of teaching itself and the role of digital technology, in
that both are also reflections and mediums of the binary relationship between the social and
psychological nature of education, the development of digital technology, and social and
individual participation within this educational and digital technology movement.
Teaching is a practice, a balancing act, which involves careful consideration of social and
psychological aspects. The basic social aspect of teaching involves the interaction between
teachers and students; and in the larger context, it involves the teachers’ roles in attending to the
expectations of students and the expectations of society to prepare the students to function within
the society. In attending to these social expectations, teachers are responsible to achieve the goals
and objectives of the lessons, and thus live up to the needs, values, and expectations of students
and society. In this respect, teaching is also a very psychological act in that it involves navigating
and even compromising teachers’ own identities, belief systems, values, needs, and expectations

308

in accommodating the belief systems, conceptions, values, needs, and expectations of students,
schools, and society as a whole.
As such, the use of digital technology is also a form of practice that is a representation of
the social and psychological aspects of society and the individual. The use of digital technology
is a social act in that the widespread and heavy use of digital technology is very central to the
social purposes and values that society espouses. At the same time, the use of digital technology
is also a psychological act in that digital technology serves as a medium to represent one self, to
portray/develop identities, and to project the values, needs, and expectations that a person has.
The use of digital technology in these two respects requires its users to present their personality,
i.e., their values, needs, and expectations—and thus their psychology, which is also central to the
social backgrounds, beliefs, values, and expectations of their social communities.
The balancing act of teaching and using digital technology merges along with other social
and psychological notions within these two realms. These other social and psychological notions,
especially in the context of this study come in the form of the position of English as a national
second language, the role of English education, and the importance of English writing within
these realms—especially as a medium to achieve success in the national examination, and thus to
attain a better chance at furthering education and employment, as well as personal and social
development. The social and psychological notions also come in the form of students’ struggles
with and rebellion against learning the English language, in particular English writing, and their
different values, conceptions, and practices of digital technology. The balancing act of teaching
and using digital technology in instruction also gets more complicated when added to the
plethora of social and psychological notions that come with digital technology within the

309

teachers’, the students’, and the school administrators’ positions within their own social and
psychological realms.
Within these social and psychological realms, there were many binary elements that
shaped and informed the teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in English writing
instruction. One of the binary relationships pertained to the many promises and potential of
digital technology in English instruction, as well as the many compromises of digital technology
(i.e., affordances versus constraints). Another binary relationship was that while schools offered
access to digital technology, this access was very limited, due to the large number of teachers
and students using these digital technology tools, and also due to the fact that there was
insufficient and inefficient management of these tools (i.e., access versus restraints).
Teachers were also exposed to the promises of digital technology in instruction through
their own positive conceptions and good experiences with digital technology, as well their
witnessing their students’ highly proficient use of these digital technology tools. However, the
teachers were often deprived of the proper education on and support with digital technology,
hence making these teachers have a sense of inferiority complex in comparing their own digital
technology proficiency with their students’. Their positive and negative conceptions of,
experiences with, and expectations of digital technology thus affected their identities in that they
felt adequate in their uses of digital technology in their personal lives, but felt inadequate in their
uses of digital technology in instruction . This complexity thus points to another binary
relationship, which are their dual identities as digital natives and digital immigrants.
The teachers’ dual identities as digital natives and digital immigrants, or their feelings of
adequacy and inadequacy, in their uses of digital technology also had to do with their students’
misuse of these digital technology tools in the English lessons and also their forsaking the

310

traditional English (writing) literacy practices that the teachers deemed important for their
development as writers and for preparing them for the high stakes national examination, in favor
of their digital technology literacy skills. While the teachers acknowledged, appreciated, and at
times tried to capitalize on their students’ high proficiency in digital technology in their lessons,
they feared that the students’ traditional literacy skills (i.e., especially in learning the English
language) were not fully developed with the presence of digital technology, and thus were
forsaken. In this vein, the teachers were concerned that their students’ learning and development
of traditional English (writing) literacy skills were compromised in favor of their digital
technology literacy skills.
In response to these issues, the teachers aspired to be as proficient as their students in the
use of digital technology, in the hope that through their own mastery of digital technology they
could have better classroom management and be able to fulfill their expectations and their
students’ expectations in the use of digital technology. They also hoped that through their
mastery of the digital technology literacy skills, they would be able to assert their authoritative
position in the classroom in order to restrain their students from misusing digital technology, and
to gain respect and admiration from their students. This mastery of digital technology was
especially important for the teachers in achieving their hope to help students master the English
language/English writing skills that were important in their lives, and also to indicate their own
success as teachers.
As such, the teachers’ use of digital technology in English writing instruction was full of
binary relationships, in which the teachers had to perform a constant balancing act between the
notions of affordances and constraints, access and restraints, and their identities as digital natives
and digital immigrants (i.e., experts and novices) in their use of digital technology. This

311

balancing act got more complicated, with more social and psychological obstacles to navigate
along the way, such as the students’, the schools’, and the teachers’ own positive and negative
conceptions, hopes and fears, good and bad experiences, and expectations and frustrations in the
use of digital technology in English writing instruction.
Comparatively, all the teachers had different personal and professional backgrounds. All
teachers differed in their socio-economic statuses, ethnicities, and sense of belonging to the
school community and society in which they were teaching. They all were of different ages, had
different teaching experiences, and bore different and even multiple teaching identities (i.e., from
being a prep-school principal and an examination grader, to someone who just got into the
teaching profession, to someone who used to be a school administrator). Due to these differences
in their personal and professional backgrounds, it is no surprise that they also differed in their
experiences with, exposure to, education on, and levels of competency with digital technology.
Apart from that, they also had different social circumstances in their uses of digital technology,
such as the support from their colleagues or from their schools on their use of digital technology
(or lack thereof). There were also several similarities in their social circumstances, such as the
students that they were teaching, in that all the teachers had similar problems dealing with their
students’ different levels of proficiency on, attitudes towards, and practices of digital technology
in the educational setting. Within a similar vein, they also had difficulty with the technical (and
intellectual) access to using digital technology in their schools, to varying degrees.
It is within these psychological stances and social circumstances that these teachers
developed, shaped, and informed their conceptions and practices of digital technology in
teaching English writing (and other aspects of English education). When positioned on the Web
of Conundrums diagram, the teachers differed in their positions on how they conceptualized and

312

thus on how they actually used digital technology in English writing instruction (please see
Figure 7).

Figure 7. Teachers’ positions in the Web of Conundrums
In the case of Mrs. Wong, she developed more positive conceptions of digital technology
in English education, and thus strived (and managed) to use digital technology to the best that
she could in her instruction. Apart from exploring and learning about digital technology on her
own, Mrs. Wong did not have extensive formal education on, had the least exposure to, and
readily admitted her lack of proficiency with digital technology—and thus she identified herself
as a digital immigrant when it came to using digital technology. Yet, because she understood the
importance and relevance of digital technology in education and in the lives of her students, and
because she realized her inadequacy in using digital technology, Mrs. Wong instead used and
313

relied on her students—as her intellectual access to using digital technology—to utilize digital
technology effectively in her English writing instruction (as well as in other aspects of English
education). However, instead of handing the classroom and digital technology in the hands of her
students, she instead used her vast experience as a teacher in managing the classroom and
utilized her students in using digital technology. She used her vast experience as an English
teacher and as an examination grader to teach English writing and use digital technology
effectively, especially in managing her classroom and using her students’ high proficiency in
digital technology (please see Figure 7). She also managed to use digital technology in
accordance with her core conceptions of English education and English writing instruction (e.g.,
instruction for examination, good English writing, and infusing moral values, etc.).
Also, due to her own personality as a hard worker, and as a strong person who has
endured hardship and oppression (i.e., from the school principal and her English teaching
colleagues), Mrs. Wong was also able to see more benefits, or affordances, of digital technology
in English education. Even though with limited technical access to, intellectual knowledge about,
and peer support on digital technology, she managed to find ways to get both of these forms of
technical and intellectual access to digital technology, and she tried her best to get the best of it
in her instruction—which, in her experiences, had so far been quite successful.
Within her social and psychological realms, and in dealing with the binaries of digital
technology, she managed to balance herself well to ascertain not only her own values,
conceptions, and practices of digital technology in English writing instruction, but also to carry
the school’s and her students’ hopes and expectations when it came to using digital technology in
English education. She also managed to balance these hopes and expectations with the social
constructs that came along with them, such as the technical and intellectual access to digital

314

technology (or lack thereof), and her students’ different values, conceptions, and practices of
digital technology. While she acknowledged her identity as a digital immigrant, she was not
repressed enough to see digital technology as a hindrance (even though she realized some of its
constraints). Instead, she tried her best to use digital technology in her instruction, seeing how
much her students were involved with digital technology in their lives, and seeing the
affordances that digital technology can bring to her English writing instruction.
Mrs. Alma, on the other hand, was exposed to digital technology very early in her life,
and thus had more experience with, appreciation of, and expertise in digital technology—which,
in essence, showed her identity as a digital native. Except for computer classes she took in
secondary school, Mrs. Alma did not have any formal education on digital technology in
education, either in her pre-service or in-service years. However, she grew up with digital
technology in her life; hence, she understood and saw the promises and potentials of digital
technology in English education. Using her high digital technology proficiency, she managed to
gain a lot of lesson materials from the Internet and other digital technology tools; she also
showed great competence in using these technological tools. However, there were many social
circumstances in her school setting which impinged on her positive conceptions and uses of
digital technology in education, such as the school’s policies on digital technology in education
which restrained her from getting access to the digital technology tools in her school. At the
same time, Mrs. Alma was also restrained intellectually from the knowledge needed to use
digital technology in educational settings, in that she was neither educated formally on digital
technology in English education nor was she supported by other teachers or the computer
technician at her school.

315

More importantly, Mrs. Alma lamented her students’ poor reception to her use of digital
technology in instruction; thus, she experienced a lot of constraints on using digital technology in
her writing instruction, and she felt that digital technology (in the educational setting) might
bring more compromises and distractions from her lessons instead of benefits. In terms of using
digital technology in English education, in particular in English writing instruction, she had been
constantly struggling with her students’ counter-reactions to her using digital technology in
education. Her struggle with her students’ counter-reactions or poor responses to digital
technology in writing lessons (e.g., misuse of digital technology) stemmed from their different
values, conceptions, and practices of digital technology in their lives. This issue was
compounded with the fact that they also had a profound dislike for learning English writing. In
the end, even though Mrs. Alma has the psychological position of a digital native (due to her
high digital technology proficiency), she was more socially positioned to see more of the
constraints and compromises of digital technology in English education due her students
rebelling against English writing instruction, and their misusing digital technology in exercising
their rebellion—which was informed by their disdain for English writing and their different
values, conceptions, and practices of digital technology (please see Figure 7).
Meanwhile, in the case of Mrs. Salina, she too had early exposure to digital technology in
her life, understood its potentials in the educational setting, and had positive experiences thus far
with digital technology in her instruction. She too was very proficient with digital technology in
her life—and even in her writing instruction, in her lesson preparation, lesson recording, and
instruction. In regard of her social circumstances, she was also fortunate to have adequate
technical access from her school and intellectual support from her colleagues to use digital
technology in her instruction, as opposed to the two other teachers at the other schools. However,

316

Mrs. Salina still believed that she had been restrained from technical and intellectual access to
digital technology, which she believed the school administration and the Ministry of Education
Malaysia (MOE) failed to give to her, and thus she saw more of the constraints that digital
technology imposed on her in her instruction due to her thinking that she lack the intellectual
know-how to use digital technology in the education setting (please see Figure 7).
In addition, Mrs. Salina’s personality also affected her view of digital technology in
English instruction and her expectations from her students’ use of digital technology in her
lessons. This was another psychological position that made Mrs. Salina see more of the
constraints of digital technology, i.e., her high expectations or the unrealistic visions that she had
for her students’ use of digital technology. Many times she was frustrated by them for not
meeting her high expectations in English education, especially in their uses of digital technology
in her English writing instruction. In this regard, Mrs. Salina seemed to have a misconception
that all of her students were very well versed in using digital technology, whereas in fact her
students varied in their expertise, knowledge, and access to digital technology due to their
coming mostly from low socio-economic backgrounds.
In all, Mrs. Salina had more of a psychological issue with digital technology in English
writing instruction in that she had more negative conceptions and was prone to relate them to
negative experiences of digital technology in English writing instruction. In retrospect, Mrs.
Salina grew up with digital technology, was proficient in using it, and had fairly adequate access
and support to use digital technology in her school. However, due to what she thought was a lack
of technical and intellectual access to digital technology in her educational setting, she believed
that she lacked the knowledge about and access to digital technology tools. This negative
psychological stance was regardless of the fact that her school was actually quite sufficiently

317

provided with digital technology, especially compared to the two other schools and strong
professional support that she gained from her colleagues on using digital technology in English
instruction. Due to her thinking that she lacked these two accesses to digital technology, she was
more prone to see the restraints from digital technology (i.e., both technically and intellectually),
and the constraints that digital technology could and had brought her in her English education
(regardless of the fact that it also brought affordances throughout her writing lessons). In
essence, unlike Mrs. Alma, who had social elements restricting and confining her from her using
digital technology, Mrs. Salina’s conceptions of restraints and constraints of digital technology in
English writing instruction were more influenced by her own psychology.

318

CHAPTER 9:
IMPLICATIONS
We are what we are because we have been what we have been. (Sigmund Freud)
Introduction
There are increasing complexities for Malaysian classroom teachers, school
administrators, teacher educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers, as they consider
how best to prepare students for their English education: the exponential growth of digital
technology and its number of users, the new (and constant) shaping/reshaping of social practices
promoted by digital technology, the ongoing development of the meanings of literacy, and the
position and role of the English language and English education within the Malaysian education
system. The teachers in the study described the many social and psychological complexities that
they have to take into consideration when using digital technology in English writing instruction
in order to capitalize on its benefits and to limit its disadvantages. They perform a seemingly
impossible and complex balancing act between their own conceptions, concerns, hopes, and
expectations for using digital technology in English instruction with the conceptions, concerns,
hopes, and expectations of their students and schools.
By recognizing and understanding these complexities, Malaysian policy makers,
curriculum developers, teacher educators, school administrators, and teachers can better integrate
digital technology in English education, in particular English writing instruction. As digital
technology continues to spread far and wide in the Malaysian education context, teachers,
teacher educators, curriculum developers, and educational policy makers need to ask difficult
questions, such as what is lost, and what is gained, from using digital technology in English
writing instruction? Within these contested visions, through which both the English language and

319

digital technology are important mediating tools for global citizenship and for social and
personal development, what efforts should be put forth in enhancing their benefits and limiting
their costs?
In outlining the direction of the future of digital technology in Malaysian English
education (in particular) and in literacy education (in general), I divide this section into subsections on Digital Technology and Literacy Instruction; Implications for Educational Systems
and Policies; Implications for Instructional Pedagogy; Implications for Future Research; and
Implications for Research Methodology.
Digital Technology and Literacy Instruction
Attending to Social and Cultural Changes
Information and communication technology is rapidly and continuously evolving, as are
the new and nuanced visions for its use (Leu, 2008). The exponential statistics of Internet users
around the world (Coiro et al., 2008) also reflect that its users communicate more often and more
intimately, with more geographically and culturally diverse communities, than ever before,
mediating the transformation of meaning-making communities (Lemke, 1998), and contributing
to changes in the larger and wider social, political, and cultural worlds (Kress, 2005). Online and
digital technology has led to the integration and development of literacy and social practices
across national, cultural, and linguistic boundaries (Black, 2008b), and it has had broad effects
on the ways in which people communicate with one another (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein,
2009). The changes in social, cultural, and literacy practices have also affected students in
Malaysia, as described by the teachers in this study. While these social, cultural, and literacy
changes did provide positive experiences in their use of digital technology in English writing
instruction, there were also some concerns, such as certain cultures, values, conceptions, and

320

literacy practices within digital technology that were not fully understood by teachers, nor
realized by students.
Hence, there is a dire need to pay attention to the social, cultural, and political changes
associated with digital technology. The major challenge is capitalizing on the affordances of
digital technology productively, while also helping teachers and students to become capable and
critical users (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008). Furthermore, we need to realize that meaningful access to
digital technology encompasses more than providing computers and Internet connections; rather,
it is embedded in physical, digital, humane, and social resources and relationships (Warschauer,
2002). To provide meaningful access to new technologies, multiple contexts of content and
language, literacy and education, and community and institutional structures must all be taken
into account (Warschauer, 2002), not only from an instructional viewpoint but also from
sociological, geographical, moral, and cultural viewpoints.
What is lacking is deep understanding of the role of digital technology in the context of
English education and English writing instruction, by not only teachers but also students and
school administrators. One plausible reason to this lack of understanding is the lack of
communication between teachers and students and between teachers and school administrations,
as well as lack of the communication between the people at school and the stake holders, such as
curriculum developers, policy makers, and teacher education institutions—those who are in
positions of power to provide access to the education and use of digital technology in English
instruction. In order for the teachers to be able to balance the many binary elements of digital
technology in English instruction, communication is of utmost importance. Teachers, school
administrations, teacher education institutions, and other stake holders, such as curriculum
developers and policy makers, need to communicate in order to understand the roles, importance,

321

relevance, and practices of digital technology in both the social and the psychological realms so
that teachers, students, and schools can understand what can be done to capitalize on the
affordances of digital technology and to put at bay the constraints.
Changing Paradigms of Instruction
The rapid and extensive growth of new literacies and digital technology is undeniable.
The mass consumption and production of digital technology continually give birth to new
definitions of literacy and literate practices, new venues for education, and ultimately new
literacies. The new values, conceptions, and practices of literacy might not be fully understood
nor appreciated by teachers, especially due to their differing values, conceptions, and practices of
the English language or digital technology. Due to the nature of digital technology (i.e., ever
changing and constantly evolving), there are many issues concerning its use in English/literacy
education, for example, access, resources, expertise, mindsets, and so on. More importantly,
students are already embracing digital technology and new literacies, which have become an
immense part of their lives and inherent in their identities. Their use of digital technology brings
forth many implications for the education system, policy makers, curriculum developers, teacher
education institutions, teacher educators, teachers, and researchers.
Digital technology and the new literacy practices that come along with it are here to stay,
and they are making a huge impact on English/literacy education. As digital technology keeps
changing and evolving, students (and teachers) will continue to use them now and in the future.
Hence, rather than forsaking these new technologies and new literacies, Malaysian teachers,
teacher educators, school administrators, curriculum developers, and policy makers need to learn
about these new technologies and literacies, weigh their potentials (as well as their risks), and
implement them based on how we see them as fit and beneficial in English/literacy education.

322

The technological advances and practices of new literacies have created shifts in the way people
process information and conceptualize learning (Bell, 2005). In response to this, teachers need to
think about, assess, adapt, and make use of students’ engagements with online/digital content in
instruction by developing their abilities to comprehend, discuss, study, and write about multiple
forms of text (print, visual, and audio), and by taking into account what they are capable of doing
as users of language and literacy (Alvermann, 2001, 2008). The key is not to choose one form of
literacy practice over another, but to educate about and to be educated on both forms of literacy
practices so that they can complement and be at harmony with one another, and so that they can
be summoned and used within the different contexts they are required to be used.
With so much to be learned, stakeholders need to think extensively how new digital
technology may transform their institutional habits of teaching and learning (Lemke, 1998).
Furthermore, due to the diversities and complexities of digital technology, teacher educators,
researchers, and English teachers need to work together in designing courses in English
education for pre-service and in-service teachers (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Due to rapid
technological advances and ongoing processes of globalization, Black (2008a) suggested delving
into literacy practices by including proficiencies such as basic, scientific, economic,
technological, visual information, and multicultural literacies, as well as global awareness. Black
(2008c) also believes there have been profound changes in the knowledge and practices of
literacy. Thus, educators and researchers must take note of these changes, in order to learn from
them and integrate them into their understandings of literacy instruction in schools (Black,
2008c). By doing so, we can not only understand the ways in which our students use digital
technology, but also bridge the gap between the dual identities (i.e., digital natives and digital

323

immigrants) that teachers tend to choose from when using digital technology, either in their
personal lives or in the educational setting.
Implications for Educational Systems and Policies
Re-Envisioning the Education System
Scholars believe that there need to be changes in the education system to accommodate
digital technology in instruction. Donald Leu warns that this is an enormous task, but a fullfledged shift at all levels of the educational system is vital. He calls for educating pre-service and
in-service teachers in using the mindset of New Literacies Studies for visionary education
leadership, and for the literacy community to mobilize itself in response to the needs of the
current society (D. Leu, personal communication, February 17, 2010). In the case of the
Malaysian education system, the Ministry of Education Malaysia has tried to respond to these
calls, as shown in their nationwide plan for the inclusion of digital technology at all education
levels (i.e., elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education) and their provision of digital
technology tools and education to schools and teachers across Malaysia (Ministry of Education
Malaysia, 2006). However, the nationwide project of digital technology in the Malaysian
education system has not hit the mark as desired by the Malaysian government, and in fact is
facing many obstacles in its implementation (Lau & Sim, 2008; Roslan & Tan, 2005; Samuel &
Abu Bakar, 2006; Samuel & Abu Bakar, 2007; Thang et al., 2010).
These issues are due to the nature of these digital technology tools that move so rapidly
and fervently that they have also created new literacy practices. Malaysian stakeholders need to
understand and acknowledge that texts are no longer of singular and linear construction. The
advent of technology has brought a wealth of modes enmeshed together into multimodal
representations pertinent in the literacies of today. Beach and O’Brien (2008) argued for the need

324

to reformulate the school curricula to teach students the “ability to understand the power of
images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media,
to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms” (p. 778). In this vein, it is
critical that schools are not held to a mono-modal view of literacy (Siegel, 2006) forcing teachers
to succumb to being either a digital native or a digital immigrant. Instead, schools and teachers
need must adopt the broader views of education, such as those espoused by the Sociocultural,
New Literacies Studies, and Multimodal perspectives, so that they can continuously learn about
digital technology with and from their students and from each other. As such, Malaysian
curriculum developers, policy makers, legislators, and teachers need to be wary when integrating
digital technology into English instruction.
Providing Access and Equity
An important debate in the use of digital technology in English instruction in the
Malaysian education setting is the notion of access to resources and access to expertise to
provide for and educate about digital technology, referred to by some scholars as the digital
divide, or the gap of access to educational technology—between those who are economically
affluent and those from economically disadvantaged communities. Due to the rapid growth of
digital technology, there is an important element of educational inequality; while some students
have access to and knowledge of using digital technology, some do not, due to their low socioeconomic background that thus deprives them of essential access to and knowledge in using
digital technology in their lives (Warschauer et al., 2004). In addition, the issue is not only in
providing digital technology but also its sustenance, i.e., meeting the cost of raising standards
and infusing digital technology within the curriculum (Leu & Kinzer, 2000) and for teacher
professional education. While the issue of the digital divide largely hinges on the provision of

325

resources, access, and expertise in technology, stakeholders, such as Malaysian policy makers,
curriculum developers, teacher educators, and school administrators as well as teachers, need to
understand that the digital divide is also a social, cultural, and political issue (Bennett et al.,
2008; Coiro et al., 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; O’Brien & Scharber, 2008; Rhodes &
Robnolt, 2009; Warschauer, 2002, 2004).
There is an inherent complexity to the notion of digital divide in that while limitation of
access to digital technology resources is problematic, such is also the case when access is
available but without proper guidance or education on how best to use it. To illustrate, the ease
of access to information on the Internet, while beneficial to students in their search for and
construction of knowledge, can be dangerous as they accidentally, or purposefully, access
information that their parents or teachers deem inappropriate for them to have, given their age
level, moral and cultural values, and religious or social beliefs (D. Hartman, personal
communication, May 2011). In this case, access (or rather unguided access) to the vast amount of
information offered on the Internet can have more detrimental effects than good, as attested to
and experienced by the teachers in this study.
In a world where rapid access to information is key it is vital that state and national
educational policies, including Malaysian educational policies, address issues of access
intelligently (Siegel, 2006). While it is important to provide the technology, issues of access and
equity are not resolved by merely providing digital technology to socio-economically challenged
students. A more important concept, Warschauer and colleagues (2004) argued, is the “social
embeddedness of technology in ensuring that technology exists in technological and social
realms in which both are highly intertwined with one another, hence continuously co-creating
each other in interdependent ways” (p. 572). The Malaysian educational authorities also need to

326

address the broad issues of educational inequity by making sure that all schools have higher
numbers of well-trained and experienced teachers, staff, and administrators (Warschauer et al.,
2004). In addition, there is a need for a better approach to addressing unequal access to home
computers (Warschauer et al., 2004), such as providing access to computers at school or other
communal places (i.e., neighborhood mosque, church, and/or library, etc.).
Warschauer (2002) suggested re-conceptualizing the old notion of the digital divide in
that the digital divide is actually marked not only by physical access to computers and
connectivity, but also by access to the additional resources that allow people to use technology
well (i.e., content, language, education, literacy, or community and social resources).
Warschauer (2002) argued that digital technology is woven in a complex manner into social
systems and processes that it is not bounded by the physical presence of computers and
connectivity, but more than that. Apart from financial and technical support, it is very important
to "focus on the transformation, not the technology, for social inclusion or participation of both
the individual and the collective” (Warschauer, 2002).
The addition of social, psychological, and cultural aspects to the issue of economy are
important notions to consider. This is because, while the economy plays an important part in the
access to digital technology, it is but one important aspect in a web of many social,
psychological, and cultural complexities—all of which need to be given attention. This is not
only to tackle the issue of students and teachers having no access to digital technology, but also
how best to use the access gained in order not to direct our students to the many disadvantages of
the wealth of information, such as irresponsible websites promoting fear and hate, or websites
that provide information that can be deemed harmful to people. These notions need to be kept in

327

mind not only by Malaysian teachers, school administrators, teacher educators, and curriculum
developers, but also by legislators and policy makers.
In this view, it is very important to acknowledge that the provision of or access to digital
technology is not only the provision of digital technology tools, but also the provision of
education and professional support for all the school community to use these digital technology
tools. This is especially important considering that teachers in this study report duality in
identities (i.e., digital natives versus digital immigrants) as somewhat a confounding factor to
their feeling adequate or inadequate to use digital technology in the educational setting. With that
being said, the education and professional support on digital technology should also not only be
on the technical or educational aspects of digital technology, but also on the etiquette and
responsibilities. Due to insufficient resources, inefficient management, certain school policies,
and the lack of professional support for education technology, as reported by the teachers in this
study, the school administration and the stake holders need to come up with solutions to provide
adequately digital technology in schools in the technical and intellectual sense, and at the same
time come up with ways to manage them effectively.
Converging Mindsets for Digital Technology in Education
Instead of diverging into different mindsets over the use of digital technology in
education, such as employing drastic policies limiting the use of digital technology in instruction,
school administrators need to realize that digital technology is already an enormous part of
students’ lives, reflecting their identities, social (and personal) preferences, and cultures. To have
schools restrict the consumption, production, and distribution of information through digital
technology—while students are operating, producing, and distributing materials online—is
counterproductive to the literacy development of students and to the professionalism of teachers.

328

It is pertinent that the school (as a social institution) plays an important role in bridging the gap
for students who do have access to technology at home and those who do not, especially in the
case of underprivileged students, such as those reported by the teachers in this study. This is not
only in terms of providing democratic and equitable forms of education, but also in order to
reduce the digital divide and allow students to gain experience working in digital environments
that are essential for their survival in the digital age (DeBell & Chapman, 2003).
Teacher Professional Development
The current policies concerned with technology learning are hampered by the fact that
most teachers are under-prepared, lack knowledge, and are challenged when put in the position
of expert or authority for using digital technology (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Turkle, 1984).
Given that students are being immersed into and are quickly adopting the knowledge and
literacies of digital technology, the possibility that teachers are not well-versed, well-trained, or
open to using technology can be quite alarming. Clearly, teachers need to be fluent in the
technology in order for them to develop, implement, and evaluate a technology-based literacy
curriculum (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009). Thus, teachers need continuous professional
development to become fluent in the technologies, and to develop and reflect on educational
activities that can integrate their teaching experiences with the opportunities that digital
technology offers (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009). Determining the most effective ways
to support teachers in the digital world is an important challenge for policy makers, teacher
educators, and school administrators because they need to develop strategies to help teachers
keep up with the continually changing definitions and practices of literacy (Leu, 2008).
The key to this, Leu and Kinzer (2000) believe, is to provide continuous support for
professional development to in-service teachers within the school setting, and to educate pre-

329

service teachers in the effective use of digital technology within teacher education programs. Leu
and Kinzer (2000) suggested that teacher education programs include new literacies of
networked information and communication technology within methods courses; change the
notion of the teacher as expert to the teacher as participant/facilitator; infuse instructional beliefs,
philosophies, and knowledge in technology use; and have teachers model the technology of
literacy. As such, professional development and education from the schools and the stakeholders
are pertinent for teachers having more command in their use of digital technology so that they
can gain more control and flexibility in their lesson control, and so that they can hasten or slow
the pace of their lessons, and especially to think on their feet, based on their students’
participation in the English lessons and in the case digital technology becomes unreliable (e.g.,
malfunctioned).
Implications for Instructional Pedagogy
Enhancing the Role of the Teacher
Apart from state and national educational bodies providing professional training that is
pertinent for teachers’ professionalism, teachers must be supported by one another as they
develop, implement, and evaluate appropriate technology-based literacy tasks with each other
and with their students (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009). Teachers must be given spaces to
reflect on the implementation of digital technology, where they are able to discuss their
experiences with infusing technology into the curriculum (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009).
In addition, teachers also need professional and peer mentoring to support each other
(Warschauer et al., 2004). Indeed, using digital technology in instruction might be more
challenging to teachers than to students because teachers are responsible to think of the

330

compatibility, content, and accessibility of digital technology, in addition to being
knowledgeable to use that technology for instruction.
From the literature review and from the results of the study, it is no secret that teachers do
acknowledge the promise and potential of digital technology. The positive conceptions of digital
technology, in this regard, should not be blurred by the promise and potential of digital
technology, as teachers too need to be aware of the setbacks that it can bring. As portrayed by the
teachers in this study, there are many aspects that come into play, such as the technical and
creative aspects involved in realizing the potential of digital technology in instruction. In order
for teachers to balance these notions of affordances and constraints, the roles of the teachers need
to be enhanced. Teachers must understand that in using digital technology, teachers are the more
prominent figures in instruction, surpassing the digital technology. Instead of having digital
technology dictate the way they teach, teachers need to have command over the digital
technology, not only technically but also psychologically.
Due to the rapid developments of digital technology, teachers need to keep abreast of
these advances, especially in their use of digital technology, so that they can achieve success in
their English writing instruction. As such, teachers need also to foster interest in and be
committed to use digital technology in English instruction, because using digital technology
takes more time in lesson preparation and class management from the teacher. Digital technology
can produce positive outcomes if the teachers are proficient with digital technology and can
properly manage the class, especially when digital technology is included. Like certain teachers
in this study, teachers must be wary not to fall into the trap of rigid and constant use of the same
technology over and over—they must be innovative and creative in their instruction.

331

Apart from their own will and determination, teachers must be supported to develop these
self-reflection and knowledge-seeking processes, and this support must come from the school
administrators and those who are in power in the education system, and even among teachers
themselves. At the same time, instead of pushing teachers to fall into the trap of anxiety and low
self-esteem, and having them consciously or subconsciously choose between being a digital
native or a digital immigrant, educating and motivating teachers to learn from and with their
students as well as from one another about digital technology in education will be of utmost
importance. By having such support from the school administrators and those in power in the
education system, teachers would also be able to learn about their students’ values, perspectives,
and practices of digital technology in their daily lives that could later be used for their education.
With process of self-reflection and nurturing the teachers’ own digital technology proficiency, by
way of learning from their students and by learning by and from themselves, teachers would also
be able to understand their students’ counter-reactions to their initial uses of digital technology in
education, which might (or might not) be well-received by their students and later exploit them
further or improve them.
Knowing Students, Their Literacy Practices, and Their Interests
Digital technology is an immense part of students’ lives in that students are already (and
will continue to) consume and use. While some are more privileged in using digital technology
than others, what remains true is that they all are exposed to and are fascinated with digital
technology. Therefore, digital technology is very important to be implemented in
English/literacy education, because while digital technology is a tool for learning, it is also a
form of literacy (or literacies) which has been embedded in students’ lives. More importantly,
there is a great need to learn about the potentials and constraints of digital technology in order

332

better to serve students in their English learning. Hence, it is of utmost importance for teachers,
teacher educators, policy makers, curriculum developers, and legislators to learn with (and from)
students about these new technologies and new literacies—especially in view of the different
conceptions, expectations, and practices that their students engage in and value in their uses of
digital technology as compared to the teachers’ values and views of digital technology. This is so
that the teachers might also be able to understand better the students’ perspectives, values, and
practices of digital technology, and hopefully learn from and be more engaged with their
students in order to be able to meet each other’s expectations on the use of digital technology in
education. By doing so, teachers can also improve their instruction, teacher educators can
educate pre-service and in-service teachers, curriculum developers can revise and develop
relevant curriculum and pedagogies, policy makers can come up with well-informed educational
policies, and stakeholders can distribute adequate funds and learning facilities.
In actuality, the literacies valued in students’ lives are not connected to the literacy
practices valued by teachers and the school (Rhodes & Robnolt, 2009). Apart from curriculum
developers, policy makers, and legislators, as well as teacher educators making efforts in
developing curriculum, creating (and revising) policies, and educating teachers, educators
themselves need to find relevant ways to allow students to share their skills and knowledge
within classroom settings, such as through teacher-designed assignments and projects that can
benefit from the implementation of rich multimedia technology in literacy learning (Rhodes &
Robnolt, 2009). It is therefore important to understand the varied literacy approaches that
students practice when it comes to using digital technology, especially in consideration of the
multimodality and interactivity that digital technology provides. In doing so, it is important to
understand that students constantly use digital technology in so many aspects of their lives,

333

hence making it easier for them to express themselves creatively and intellectually. However, it
is also equally important to understand that students have different conceptions and practices of
digital technology, which at most times might not be well aligned with the practices in school or
in the teaching and learning processes—or, in the case of this study, the different values and
expectations of digital technology that the teachers in this study had.
For example, in the context of this study, the students found it easier to multitask and use
the multi-modes of information in digital technology as opposed to going back to traditional
literacy practices. While it might be ingrained in their mind to use digital technology this way, it
is up to the teachers to educate students about the more traditional literacy practices that are more
central to their literacy development, and that also support the new literacies practices that the
students are practicing. This is so that teachers and students can switch back and forth from using
these new languages to using literacy practices (i.e., traditional and new literacies practices) in
their teaching and learning processes.
Constructing Communities of Practice and Teacher-Student Collaboration
Because digital technology is increasingly more powerful and complex, and is
continually changing, teachers must not assume or hope to know everything about digital
technology. Leu (2008) contended that teachers must instead depend more on social learning
strategies than on traditional contexts for literacy learning. Social learning strategies include
addressing issues of what should be taught and learned, and how to teach, and addressing issues
of assessment within a context of continuous change (Leu, 2008). Apart from the social contexts
of literacy education, it is vital to focus on the nature of digital technology, such as the material
and semiotic means and the modes, media, and communicational means in the context of the
larger social, cultural, political, and economic environments (Kress, 2005).

334

Since teachers run the risk of not being as familiar with current digital technology as their
students are, this opens up the opportunity for students to become purveyors and contributors in
learning as far as technology is concerned (Coiro, 2007). In so doing, teachers can reorganize the
classroom with the energy and new knowledge that the students can bring into class (Coiro,
2007), such as by using challenging activities, having students collaborate with each other,
combining apparatus, and bringing students’ different skills together in learning. This idea of
communities of practice is important so that both teachers and students can explore ways to
enhance the effectiveness of digital technology in literacy education (MacArthur & KarchmerKlein, 2009).
Also, students must not be treated as mere recipients of knowledge. They in fact should
be regarded as valuable resources for knowledge that teachers and other students can learn from
and with. Rhodes and Robnolt (2009) suggested that educators find relevant ways to allow
students to share their advanced technological skills and knowledge within classroom settings.
As teachers consider their roles as instructors, facilitators, and motivators, they too must be
aware of the variety of materials available for improving students' language skills, they must
know how to teach learners to use the materials effectively, and they must be able to respond to
the needs students have (Warschauer, 1998). For example, by working in small groups, teachers
and students can take turns leading discussions of the text and demonstrating each strategy (Leu,
et al., 2010). Eventually, through continued practice and a gradual release of responsibility,
students will begin to develop useful knowledge of and strategies for better understanding of
what they read and write; over time these strategies will become self-regulated and will transfer
to new reading and writing contexts (Leu et al., 2010).

335

Teachers must also be sensitive not to privilege any one student—since each student
might not have the same skills or access to technology. Teachers, in fact, need to provide equal
opportunities for students to take part in learning and to have them contribute to being part of the
community. As such, teachers must realize that not all students who were born in the digital age
have great skills for or are greatly dependent on digital technology; therefore, there is a great
need for provision of digital technology and instruction in the new literacies practiced by
students in- and out-of-school, given their importance in students’ lives (Bennett et al, 2008). In
reality, students come to school with many different abilities. Given that, it is very important for
teachers to be able to provide good instruction, informed by knowledge, understanding, and
expertise in digital technology and new literacies, so that literacy learning can take on new
meaning and be novel and interesting (Rhodes and Robnolt, 2009), regardless of the many
different levels of digital technology proficiency the students have in the classroom. In view of
this, it is important for teachers to collaborate with these students who are highly proficient in
digital technology so that other students who might not be as privileged or as proficient with
digital technology can benefit from these students’ expertise in digital technology by way of the
teacher’s instruction and considerate classroom management.
Bridging Formal and Informal Learning, and Integrating In- and Out-of-School Literacy
Practices
The rapid changes to the definitions and practices of literacy in the twenty-first century,
even in underprivileged settings—such as those in this study—have created many challenges for
teachers, teacher educators, researchers, curriculum developers, and policy makers. However,
and more importantly, digital literacies in the twenty-first century will continue to expand and
impact instruction in the future (Rhodes & Robnolt, 2009). There are many complexities not only

336

in the users of these technology and the variety of online practices they engage in, but also in the
use of these technology within and outside the classroom setting. The need to align home and
classroom uses of digital technology is vital because there are many complexities in their uses
within these settings. Rhodes and Robnolt (2009) argued that there are striking differences
between how youths use technology in their home environments and school environments; they
argued that the classroom use of technology almost always does not match their learning needs
and/or changes in the way their minds process information, due to the gap between the students
who are highly-skilled in technology and their teachers, who might not be as skilled as they are.
Effective instruction is founded on the elements of both formal and informal literacies
(Alvermann, 2001). By taking into account students’ interests and needs, and by attending to the
challenges of living in an information-based economy and pressing for literacy achievement
(Alvermann, 2001), merging formal and informal approaches to learning is vital for the
continuation and adaptation of lifelong learning in students’ lives. Substantive English
instruction does not need to focus on learning classical or canonical texts (Black, 2008c).
Instead, literacy can be made more attractive and possible by being embedded in systems that are
more attractive to the learner, such as online English reading and online writing materials or
other digital technology tools for English education (Black, 2008c).
There is great importance in designing instruction that takes advantage of out-of-school
literacy practices, in particular those of digital technology (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein,
2009). Due to the immense use of digital technology and its important role in the lives of youth,
there is a crucial need for teachers to merge out-of-school literacy practices with in-school
instruction (Rhodes & Robnolt, 2009). The failure to do so will result in a mismatch between
students’ out-of-school practices and their in-school practices which will then contribute to their

337

increasing disengagement from literacy education (Beach & O’Brien, 2008), especially due to
their different values, conceptions, and literacy practices when using digital technology.
Therefore, teachers need to vary their instructional purposes to accommodate digital
technology’s special qualities (Alvermann, 2001). This can be done by identifying learning
objectives that can be supported by technology; planning lessons by referring to curriculum
objectives and students’ needs; determining which technology best supports the learning
objectives; and having the mentality that technology is only one component of a lesson—along
with content and pedagogy—and not the overriding factor (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein,
2009).
Also, understanding the lived experiences of students is a very important task for not only
teachers, but all the stakeholders in the field of education in order to make responsive and
meaningful changes to curriculum and pedagogy. This includes knowing what students do inand out-of-school, what engages them, and what their technological skills are that can be utilized
in the English writing classroom (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008). In order to understand (and capitalize
on) their interests, teachers need to be interested in and willing to explore the possibilities of
digital technology used by students (Hagood, 2003), and to understand how they value and see
the role of digital technology in education. As a part of building communities of practice and
appreciating students’ interests, teachers also need to take into account changes and
developments of students’ English and digital technology literacy practices (Snyder & Bulfin,
2008). Teachers need to delve into topics that students find appealing to read, write, and talk
about in order to incorporate them into their English writing instruction (Alvermann & Hagood,
2000; Hagood, 2003).

338

Implications for Future Research
Keeping pace with the advances of digital technology and implementing it in
English/literacy instruction will be an arduous but an utmost important task, especially because
the incorporation of digital technology in classrooms is inevitable (Leu & Kinzer, 2000). Even
though it is impossible to anticipate the social and technological forces that will shape literacy
instruction in the future, it is possible to study these social and technological forces today that are
likely to affect literacy instruction in the future (Leu & Kinzer, 2000). Lemke (1998) argued that
“we cannot afford to continue teaching our students only the literacies of the mid-20th century,
instead we must help this next generation learn to use the new literacies wisely, and hope they
will succeed better than we have” (p. 10). In order to do this, researchers, teacher educators, and
policy makers need to learn how social and cultural contexts shape literacy, and how literacy
shapes the social and cultural contexts in return (Leu & Kinzer, 2000).
The true extent to which digital technology effectively supports literacy instruction is
unknown. Even though scholars argue strongly for its advantages in education, there is not
enough empirical research on digital technology, especially that applies specifically to
instruction at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (Alvermann, 2001, 2004), and
particularly, in the context of Malaysian education, in English writing instruction (Abdul Razak
& Embi, 2004; Abdul Razak et al., 2009). Moje (2009) believes that the “research that exists on
digital text use and its effect on achievement is not extensive, and what does exist is
inconclusive” (p. 357). Clearly vast, rigorous, and quality research needs to take place, not only
on the new technologies of today, but also on the future technology of tomorrow.

339

Digital Technology and Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political Contexts
The impact that social, cultural, and political forces have on digital technology’s
dissemination and implementation in literacy instruction calls for more research situated within
the larger social, cultural, and political contexts. This is to enable us to see more clearly how new
literacy practices are related to the social patterns of global participation and communication
across the world (Black, 2008a). Furthermore, future research on digital technology also needs to
be multifaceted and multidisciplinary, in order to study the dynamics of people’s engagement
with emerging new literacies (Nixon, 2003). Researchers need to conduct vast studies to look at
diverse new literacy phenomena similar to those of other studies, with different groups and
comparatively across settings, in order to generate richer and more complete theoretical insights
(Moje, 2009). We also need to find ways to expand the scope of our research beyond the
practices and environments of new media and digital technology, into how digital technology
and its users are ‘networked’ and how they ‘dynamically interact’ in everyday social practice
(Nixon, 2003).
Understanding New Literacies
With the reach and accessibility that digital technology provides, literacy practices have
expanded, taking literacy learning and acquisition to new heights, and contesting the established
traditional literacy practices. The rapid evolution of technology has brought changes to the
definitions and practices of literacy (Bell, 2005). As Rhodes and Robnolt (2009) suggested, there
are multiple perspectives on the definition of new literacies; students use both traditional and
digital texts for both in- and out-of-school purposes, thus changing profoundly what it means to
be a literate member of society. With the rapid and continuous process of change in the ways in
which we read, write, view, listen, compose, and communicate, literacy is no longer a static

340

construct (Coiro et al., 2008). Literacy can no longer be defined as having the ability to make
meaning of a single, static, technology of literacy (e.g., print technology), but rather
encompasses a larger mindset and the ability to adapt continuously to the new literacies that
rapidly spread through digital technology (Coiro et al., 2008). Information and communication
technology is growing and changing more fundamentally, with contemporary digital and online
texts being shaped by the new uses to which they have been put (e.g., new text types, new
language practices, and new social formations). This implies that the new literacies required for
the future will also be different, and thus will pose significant and ongoing challenges and
implications for language and literacy education (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008).
Understanding these new literacies is pertinent to implementing them in English/literacy
instruction. Research needs to focus on understanding the relations between literacy and
technology (Leu, 2008), so that by being clear about what constitutes them we are able to
overcome any disadvantages digital technology imposes (Coiro et al., 2008). Further research on
the new literacies should also be conducted in order to define them more precisely, and in order
to appreciate the complexities of the many aspects of digital technology that appear to be unique
and different (Coiro, 2008; Coiro et al., 2008). Due to the ever changing and evolving practices
and meanings of the new literacies, it is important for researchers to engage in ongoing research,
including changing perspectives on literacy development, societal implications of online reading
and writing, equity issues, processes of learning with new technologies, and specific forms of
literacy (Leander, 2003a). Because the field of digital technology shifts and changes rapidly,
researchers need to maintain close and particular study at the forefront of research on the new
media and literacies (Moje, 2009). However, as we look closely into the possibilities of new

341

literacy practices, researchers must also study established perspectives on literacies, alongside
new perspectives, in interdisciplinary ways (Hagood, 2003).
Call for New and Potential Research Areas
There needs to be an extensive program of research within classroom contexts, in order to
understand better the variety of individual differences in relation to newer technologies and
literacy instruction. Studies of the textual features and dynamics of the new media genres
children and young people use, as well as studies of how and why they engage with, control,
construct, and critique these new texts and genres in specific contexts, need to be paid more
attention to (Nixon, 2003). In addition, further research should be done on young people who
grow up with technologies; the culture of the computer in the home, school, and community; the
intersection between multiple languages and multiple modalities of new technologies; the
complex relationship between the verbal and visual in communication; and the complex
relationship between digital technology and literacy, including their advantages and
disadvantages (Snyder and Bulfin, 2008). There is also a need to study the opportunities for
hybrid education, multiple modes of representation, and the development of literacy and identity,
especially for students who are greatly engaged in online popular culture (Black, 2008b). In
addition, Leu (2008) lamented that much of the current research on the new literacies and digital
technology is on individual differences and only minimally explores issues with adult
subjects. Hence, there needs to be extensive and continuous research on adult users of digital
technology, such as teachers and school administrators.
By considering the shift towards and push for digital technology in literacy education,
researchers need to examine both the production and the consumption of these online texts in
order to understand better how new literacies can assist teachers and students in education

342

(Hagood, 2003). Also, due to the multimodality and the multi-literacy that digital technology
promotes, computer education and English/literacy education can no longer be taught
independently of one another (Luke, 2000). This calls for the need of studies on how to address
media and cultural studies in mainstream curriculum and how they can inject new life into both
fields of study.
English (Writing) Instruction in Malaysia
From the review of related literature, and as attained by the teachers in the study, the
education system in Malaysia is very much driven towards preparing students for the national
examination, thus forsaking the other goals and philosophy of education. In this regard, the
Ministry of Education Malaysia should look into the current education system in attending to this
matter. If this claim is true, and if this direction is also taken by other teachers, at what cost are
Malaysian teachers educating students in view of the national examinations? In other words, are
they forsaking their personal development and acquisition of social and moral values, as well as
other goals, such as developing able, democratic, contributive Malaysian citizens, for the sole
sake of their achievement in examinations?
Descriptive and scientific research should be done on the idea of preparing students for
the national examination. There also needs to be research to determine if and how English
instruction to prepare for the national examination is done, why it has been done (if so), and how
it might impose further problems to the education field. In this respect, there is one aspect to
English education in Malaysia, especially pertaining to preparing students for the national
examination, which is the high allocation of marks for the English writing section in the English
national examination. How and why the writing section in the English examination is allocated
the highest marks for the English examination—which makes it almost accountable to students

343

passing or failing the English examination? At what cost does this allocation have on English
education in general, and on English writing instruction in particular, especially in terms of other
aspects of English education that are forsaken?
The Ministry of Education Malaysia, which is responsible for teacher certification, needs
to look into the complexities of course-certified teachers and those who are not certified to teach
certain courses, especially in relation to the support that course-uncertified teachers receive, and
their struggles with aspects of pedagogical and content knowledge. Further research needs to be
done on this issue to help teacher practitioners, teacher educators, school administrators, and
policy makers in determining the best ways to train, prepare, and support teachers, as well as to
avoid further instructional and administrative problems faced by teachers and school
administrators. There is also a very deep concern with the issue of professional peer support;
school administrators need to look into in getting teachers to work with and support one another.
Further investigation into this matter would enable teachers to foster a collegial relationship
between them, not only those teaching the same courses, but among other teachers in the school.
This also has relevant implications for teacher education institutions, given the importance of
fostering positive teacher attitudes and teacher professional development in pre-service teachers
so as to prepare them for the social, instructional, and administrative issues that they will face in
schools, and for how to avoid or solve those issues through supportive and interactive learning
communities.
There are also implications for further research on several issues with regards to English
writing instruction in Malaysia. For one, there is still lack of research on teachers’ conceptions of
education in general; and there is still lack of research on teachers’ conceptions and practices in
course-specific fields, such as English education (e.g., the conceptions of English is fun and

344

English is important). Further research also needs to be conducted on the notion of good English
writing that promotes the mastery of the English language’s forms and functions and also the
ability to produce beautiful writing (i.e., writing with original ideas, interesting English
expressions, and varied English vocabulary). Is the notion of good English writing shared by
other teachers? What does good English writing look like? Answers to these questions will help
teachers and researchers in understanding what Malaysian teachers value in their writing
instruction, and how they strive to pursue it. In addition, the alarming lack of use of the English
writing resources provided by the Ministry of Education Malaysia is worrisome. Policy makers,
curriculum developers, and those in the Ministry of Education Malaysia need to look into how
these resources are used, or not used, and how teachers and students perceive these English
writing resources in relation to their learning.
Researchers also need to study the Malaysian students’ low level of proficiency and low
achievement in English education, especially in economically-underprivileged and ethnicallyhomogenous states in Malaysia. In this respect, researchers also need to study the students’
rebellion against learning English, in particular English writing, and the reasons why these
students show rebellious attitudes toward the learning of the English language. In this respect,
there need to be studies on the role of English as a second language and the perception of English
as a foreign language in certain parts of Malaysia, especially due to the different settings and
contextual notions that English education brings to certain people in these settings. Such studies
not only can show issues and complexities that teachers and students have pertaining to this
matter, but it also can identify the reasons students portray rebellious attitudes against the
English language and their low achievement in the national examination that is often reported
from these social settings/contexts.

345

Due to the important role of the English language in Malaysia and the rapid progression
of digital technology in education, it is also very important to study the relationships between the
English language and digital technology as mediums of globalization and socialization and as
tools for social mediation that can promote or restrict social mobility. Because schools serve as
one of the main social settings where the provision of and education in the English language and
digital technology take place, it is also very important to study the roles, uses, and concerns
pertaining to English education and digital technology in all Malaysian schools, be they public or
private schools, and not just those that are better equipped or poorly equipped with digital
technology.
Implementation of Digital Technology in Malaysian Education
Due to the ongoing and nationwide implementation of digital technology in Malaysian
education, and also due to the important role that digital technology plays in the lives of teachers
and students, it is very essential to study how digital technology is being implemented in schools
and how they are perceived and used by school teachers, students, and administrators. It is also
of great importance to study the implementation of educational policies and curricula on the use
of digital technology in education. It is vital to record and have continuous evaluation to keep
track of the successes and failures of the implementations of digital technology in schools and to
have continuous communication between the consumers and the providers of these digital
technology tools (i.e., teachers/students and Ministry of Education Malaysia), as well as those
who are entrusted to manage these digital technology tools (i.e., school administrators). In this
vein, it is also important to study and evaluate continuously the management or administration of
these digital technology tools by school administrators. In relation to this study, it is vital to
study the claims made by teachers concerning the insufficient provision digital technology

346

resources and the inefficient management of these digital technology tools. If there really is
insufficient provision and inefficient management of digital technology, how is it and why is this
so? What are some of the factors affecting to these issues, and what are some of the ways to
overcome these problems?
In addition, there should also be continuous study and evaluation of teachers’
professional development when it comes to the use of digital technology in education.
Researchers need to study the implementations of and success/failures of education on digital
technology for both pre-service and in-service teachers and to study the issues pertaining to
teacher education or professional development in digital technology in education. As such, the
field of education also needs to have further research on teachers’ conceptions, readiness,
acceptance/rejection, and knowledge to use digital technology in English education. In so doing,
there needs to be both quantitative and qualitative research that can complement one another in
describing, analyzing, evaluating, and prescribing some of the ways to alleviate the concerns that
teachers have about using digital technology in English education. Some topics of research
worthy to pursue would be the teachers’ binary conceptions of digital technology in English
education; their contested uses and concerns with digital technology in English education; the
notions of technical and intellectual access to and restraints from the use of digital technology in
English education, i.e., provision of tools for and education in digital technology; and the
contested identities that teachers show when using digital technology in education (i.e., digital
natives vs. digital immigrants, or experts vs. novices).

347

Implications for Research Methodology
Impactful Research
Quality and rigorous research that has critical implications for classroom practice and
school curriculum is, unfortunately, absent (Alvermann, 2008, 2011). While there are many
studies that suggest evidence for the potential of digital technology in literacy instruction, most
of the research is unable to answer the questions that classroom practitioners ask, such as about
classroom management and transferability of technology (Merchant, 2008). Another problem
that impedes the impact of research is the lack of integration of the proposed technologies in
schools, which makes generalized (or descriptive) claims obsolete and irrelevant to other
contexts (Alvermann, 2001).
Conversely, there is also quite a lot of research that suggests extreme implications in
support for or against digital technology. This intense call of urgency is what Stanley Cohen
refers to as moral panic—a situation that occurs when a particular group in society, such as a
youth subculture, “is portrayed by the news media as embodying a threat to societal values and
norms,” where “the attitudes and practices of the group are subjected to intense media focus,
which, couched in sensationalist language, amplifies the apparent threat” (Bennett et al., 2008, p.
782). In another respect, moral panic is also portrayed in the extreme argument for the use of
certain types of digital technology, without properly thinking through, planning for, and
providing support that takes into consideration the affordances and constraints of these certain
types of digital technology. Moral panic is detrimental to education because it tends to ignore
empirical evidence, it tends to declare an emergency situation, and it calls for urgent and
fundamental change by allowing unfounded claims to proliferate. Moral panic not only limits the

348

possibility for understanding the phenomenon, it may also alienate the very people being urged
to change (Bennett et al., 2008).
In all, research needs to be impactful; but it should not be driven by a sense of panic, but
rather by informed theories and evidence. Impactful research will be particularly important due
to the different values, expectations, conceptions, and practices that both teachers and students
seem to have on the role of digital technology in education. This is so that the implementation
measures devised by stakeholders will be more informed on the current situations that teachers
and students are in.
Employing Diverse Research Methods and Research Paradigms
Due to the complex nature of digital technology (and the people who use it), the
methodological issues of researching new literacies are many (Leander, 2003a). One of the most
profound methodological issues pertaining to research on digital technology in Malaysian
education is the focus on large scale quantitative studies, such as surveys, and the lack of other
methodological approaches (Abdullah et al., 2006; Amir et al., 2011; Liaw, 2009). Researchers
need to include various inquiry methods (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009) that can look at
the many affordances and constraints of digital technology. In addition, it is important that
additional research models emerge out of the new contexts within these new technologies (Leu,
2008), and that researchers employ research methods best suited for such contexts, in order to be
able to provide robust understandings of the complexities of literacy practices within digital
spaces (Steinkuehler et al., 2005). The current focus on quantitative approaches in Malaysianbased studies, while very beneficial and important always to be pursued, is not enough for the
development of this field of inquiry; there needs to be a balance between quantitative and
qualitative approaches so that they can support and inform one another.

349

Employing Diverse Theoretical Approaches
Bennett and colleagues (2008) believe that there is a pressing need for theoretically
informed research to ensure that the pedagogical and research implications suggested are wellinformed, and that the claims of the research are well-founded. In order to do this, there needs to
be more scholarship and development of current and new theoretical approaches that can be
useful for investigating new literacies; that can help explain new multimodal textual formations
and literacy practices in relation to their production and use; and that can have significant
implications for curriculum and pedagogical practices (Alvermann, 2011; Snyder & Bulfin,
2008). Snyder and Bulfin (2008) suggested further development of other theories, such as the
New Literacy Studies, which focuses on literacy in everyday lives; Multimodality, which focuses
on communication and learning as multimodal (i.e., multiple forms of representation); and
Cultural Form and Remediation theory, which focuses on blending the old and new
technologies. Meanwhile, Leander (2003a) proposed further broadening the Cultural Historical
Action Theory that is ideal for understanding how new literacies are learned and how culture is
transformed. All of these theoretical perspectives need to be further defined, broadened,
researched, and employed, because they all encourage a critical engagement with culture,
language, and education that is vital for research on new literacies and digital technology.
Diverse Research Settings and Participants
Due to the vast use of digital technology, it is important to have studies at multiple levels
of the education system. What is even more important is to do research on the integration and/or
intersections of these different settings in order to learn how they affect multiple levels of
education, including assessment, instruction, curriculum, teacher education, professional
development, and school leadership (Leu et al., 2010). The field needs rich and descriptive

350

sociological accounts of new literacies, ideally from insiders who can provide both in-depth and
broad details of their use (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Also, even though digital technology
practices are mainly associated with adolescents and young adults, research must also take into
consideration broader users of digital technology, such as teachers, school staff and
administrators, and parents (Hagood, 2003), so that we can better understand the situation before
proclaiming the need for change (Bennett et al., 2008). To gain access to and get understanding
of new literacies, it is vital for researchers to collaborate with the participants of their research
(be they teachers or students). Researchers should collaborate with teachers to develop and study
students’ (or teachers’) new literacies in order to provide an empirical base for effective practices
so that teachers can design educational activities that take advantage of their potential
(MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2009).
In the case of Malaysian teachers’ and students’ uses of digital technology for English
education, there needs to be more research in diverse settings and research that involves diverse
research participants. For example, instead of conducting research only in Malaysian Smart
Schools (Abdul Kader, 2007; Abdul Razak et al., 2009; Bakar & Mohamed, 2008; Chong et al.,
2011; Thang et al., 2010) or other digital technology-rich settings, researchers need to focus on
more diverse research settings, such as public and private schools, both at the elementary and the
secondary levels, and also in colleges and universities. More importantly, these studies need to
be conducted in settings that show diverse socio-economic backgrounds, and more so in
suburban or rural settings that are known to have very poor English academic achievement and
poor attitude towards the use of digital technology in instruction. These studies are important to
pursue so that education policy makers, curricula developers, teacher educators, school
administrators, and teachers will be able to learn the factors contributing to the issues, and to

351

learn ways to overcome the issues faced by school administrators, teachers, and students within
these settings.
Parting Words
The rapid and extensive growth of digital technology and new literacies is undeniable.
The mass consumption and production of digital technology continually give birth to new
definitions of literacy and literate practices, new venues for education, and ultimately new
literacies. Due to the nature of digital technology, i.e., ever changing and constantly evolving,
there are many issues for its use in English/literacy education, for example, access, resources,
expertise, mindsets, and so on. More importantly, students are already embracing these literacies
and digital technology, which have become an immense part of their lives and their inherent
identities. Their use of digital technology brings forth many implications for the education
system, policy makers, curriculum developers, teacher education institutions, teacher educators,
teachers, and researchers. In all, digital technology is here to stay in the education setting, be it in
English education or other areas of education. It is marking a huge imprint on education, and this
mark is getting bigger by the second. As digital technology keeps changing and evolving,
students (and teachers) will continue to use it now and in the future. Hence, rather than forsaking
these digital technology tools, we all need to learn about them, weigh their potentials (as well as
their risks), and implement them in education based on how we see them as fit and beneficial for
English/literacy learning and instruction.

352

APPENDICES

353

Appendix A: Letter of Informed Consent (District Education Office)
Malaysian Secondary School Teachers’ Conceptions and Uses of Digital Technology
in English Language Writing Instruction: A Multiple Case Study
Michigan State University
Abu Bakar Razali
College of Education
301E, Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-775-4100
mohame25@msu.edu
Month, Date, Year
Dear District Education Officer,
My name is Abu Bakar Razali, and I am a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University
in the United States of America. I am currently doing research on how English language teachers
in Malaysia use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to teach English language
writing. The purpose of this study is to understand how English language teachers in Malaysia
conceptualize and teach English writing using Information and Communication Technology
(ICT). I believe that researchers, teacher educators, school administrators, and teachers will be
able to use this information to help pre-service and in-service teachers in their training and
professional development for teaching English writing.
I request your permission for English teachers in several schools in your district, namely
Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School, Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School, and Bright
th
Bay Science High School to participate in this research which will be conducted from June 10 ,
th

2012 to August 16 , 2012. In this research, I intend to select two to three English teachers from
each school to complete a survey, to be interviewed, and to be observed. The survey will be
conducted at the beginning of the study. The interview sessions will be done three times for each
individual teacher. The first interview will be done to inquire into teacher’s personal and
professional backgrounds, his/her conceptions of English writing instruction, and his/her
conceptions of the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English
language writing. The second interview will be done to inquire into each teacher’s preparations
for, training in, and uses of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching
English writing. The third interview will be done to inquire about each teacher’s practices of,
reflections about, and concerns with the use of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) in teaching English language writing. Each interview session will be around 30 minutes
and will be done outside of the teacher’s job obligations. Each interview session will be audiorecorded, and written notes will be taken. I will also do four to five instructional observations
and take observational notes on each teacher’s instructional practices and use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing. I intend to video-record
each teacher’s instruction using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at least
354

once. I also intend to collect the lesson materials (i.e., copies of lesson plans, hand outs, CDROMs, etc.) that these teachers use in their instruction.
I intend to conduct a survey, interview sessions, observations, and collection of lesson
materials. The overall time commitment for this study is small. The teachers will only have to
agree to complete the survey; to be interviewed about and observed during their instruction; and
to share with me their lesson materials, in a mutually agreed upon time and schedule. If you so
permit, I intend to do this research within a 10 to 12-week time frame so that I will have time to
get to know the schools, the teachers, and the administrative staff. The names of the schools, the
teachers, and the administrative staff will not be used. Identification codes will be used on all
data records. The data from this study and the master list of names and identification codes will
be kept in separate locked filing cabinets. Only Michigan State University’s Institutional Review
Board (in the case of an audit), my faculty adviser (Prof. Dr. Douglas Hartman), and members of
the dissertation research committee will have access to the information. The schools’ and the
teachers’ confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The research
data will be retained for a period of 10 years after the close of the research study.
You can indicate your permission for these schools to participate in this study by putting
your signature on this letter and returning it to me. There are no known major risks associated
with participating in this study. In fact, the investigation of English teachers’ use of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) in English language writing instruction is expected to
provide good professional service for teachers so that they will be able to reflect on their
teaching styles and strategies. I hope this research will inform other English teachers, teacher
educators, and school administrators about writing instruction strategies that might be successful
in their schools. Finally, allowing teachers to participate will help English teachers, teacher
educators, and researchers in the United States learn about the use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in English language writing instruction in Malaysia.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as its scientific issues or to report
an injury, please contact the researcher (Abu Bakar Razali, +1-517-775-4100 or +6-09-6191968; mohame25@msu.edu) or his adviser, the responsible primary investigator (Prof. Dr.
Douglas Hartman, College of Education, 352A Erickson Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824;
517-432-9602; dhartman@msu.edu).
If you have questions or concerns about this research, would like to obtain information or
offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this research, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or by e-mail at irb@msu.edu, or by regular mail at 207
Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you,

Abu Bakar Razali
Ph.D. Candidate, Michigan State University

355

By signing this form, I agree to let the teachers in schools within the district of Kuala
Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia participate in this study as outlined above.

___________________________________
(Signature)

__________________________
(District Education Office Stamp)

_____________________________________
(Printed Name and Position)

_________________
(Date)

356

Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent (School Principal)
Malaysian Secondary School Teachers’ Conceptions and Uses of Digital Technology
in English Language Writing Instruction: A Multiple Case Study
Michigan State University
Abu Bakar Razali
College of Education
301E, Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-775-4100
mohame25@msu.edu
Month, Date, Year
Dear Principal(s) of Sultan Salahuddin Secondary School / Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary
School / Bright Bay Science High School
My name is Abu Bakar Razali, and I am a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University
in the United States of America. I am currently doing research on how English language teachers
in Malaysia use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to teach English language
writing. The purpose of this study is to understand how English language teachers in Malaysia
conceptualize and teach English writing using Information and Communication Technology
(ICT). I believe that researchers, teacher educators, school administrators, and teachers will be
able to use this information to help pre-service and in-service teachers in their training and
professional development for teaching English writing.
I request your permission for English teachers in your school (i.e., Sultan Salahuddin
Secondary School/Sultan Mohamad Science Secondary School/Bright Bay Science High School)
th
th
to participate in this research which will be conducted from June 10 , 2012 to August 16 ,
2012. In this research, I intend to select two to three English teachers to complete a survey, to be
interviewed, and to be observed. The survey will be conducted at the beginning of the study. The
interview sessions will be done three times for each individual teacher. The first interview will
be done to inquire into the teacher’s personal and professional backgrounds, his/her conceptions
of English writing instruction, and his/her conceptions of the use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing. The second interview
will be done to inquire into each teacher’s preparations for, training in, and uses of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English writing. The third interview will be
done to inquire about each teacher’s practices of, reflections about, and concerns with the use of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing. Each
interview session will be around 30 minutes and will be done outside of the teacher’s job
obligations. Each interview session will be audio-recorded, and written notes will be taken. I will
also do four to five instructional observations and take notes of each teacher’s instructional
practices and use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English
language writing. I intend to video-record each teacher’s instruction using Information and

357

Communication Technology (ICT) at least once. I also intend to collect the lesson materials (i.e.,
copies of lesson plans, hand outs, CD-ROMs, etc.) that these teachers use in their instruction.
I intend to conduct a survey, interview sessions, observations, and collection of lesson
materials. The overall time commitment for this study is small. The teachers will only have to
agree to complete the survey; to be interviewed about and observed during their instruction; and
to share with me their lesson materials, in a mutually agreed upon time and schedule. If you so
permit, I intend to do this research within a 10 to 12-week time frame so that I will have time to
get to know the school, the teachers, and the administrative staff. The names of the school, the
teachers, and the administrative staff will not be used. Identification codes will be used on all
records. The data from this study and the master list of names and identification codes will be
kept in separate locked filing cabinets. Only Michigan State University’s Institutional Review
Board (in the case of an audit), my faculty adviser (Prof. Dr. Douglas Hartman), and members of
the dissertation research committee will have access to the information. The schools’ and the
teachers’ confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The research
data will be retained for a period of 10 years after the close of the research study.
You can indicate your permission for these schools to participate in this study by putting
your signature on this letter and returning it to me. There are no known major risks associated
with participating in this study. In fact, the investigation of English teachers’ use of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) in English language writing instruction is expected to
provide good professional service for teachers so that they will be able to reflect on their
teaching styles and strategies. I hope this research will inform other English teachers, teacher
educators, and school administrators about writing instruction strategies that might be successful
in their schools. Finally, allowing teachers to participate will help English teachers, teacher
educators, and researchers in the United States to learn about the use of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in English language writing instruction in Malaysia.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as its scientific issues or to report
an injury, please contact the researcher (Abu Bakar Razali, +1-517-775-4100 or +6-09-6191968; mohame25@msu.edu) or his adviser, the responsible primary investigator (Prof. Dr.
Douglas Hartman, College of Education, 352A Erickson Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824;
517-432-9602; dhartman@msu.edu).
If you have questions or concerns about this research, would like to obtain information or
offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this research, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or by e-mail irb@msu.edu, or by regular mail at 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you,

Abu Bakar Razali
Ph.D. Candidate, Michigan State University

358

By signing this form, I agree to let the teachers in this school participate in this study as outlined
above.

___________________________________
(Signature)

__________________________
(School Official Stamp)

_____________________________________
(Printed Name and Position)

_________________
(Date)

359

Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent (Teachers)
Malaysian Secondary School Teachers’ Conceptions and Uses of Digital Technology
in English Language Writing Instruction: A Multiple Case Study
Michigan State University
Abu Bakar Razali
College of Education
301E, Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-775-4100
mohame25@msu.edu
Month, Date, Year
Dear Teacher,
My name is Abu Bakar Razali, and I am a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University
in the United States of America. I am currently doing research on how English language teachers
in Malaysia use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to teach English language
writing. The purpose of this study is to understand how English language teachers in Malaysia
conceptualize and teach English writing using Information and Communication Technology
(ICT). I believe that researchers, teacher educators, school administrators, and teachers will be
able to use this information to help pre-service and in-service teachers in their training and
professional development for teaching English writing.
th

I request your participation in this research which will be conducted from June 10 , 2012
th

to August 16 , 2012. In this research, you will be asked to complete a survey, to be interviewed,
and to be observed regarding your conceptions and uses of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) technology in English writing instruction. The survey will be conducted at the
beginning of the study. The interview sessions will be done three times for each individual
teacher. The first interview will be done to inquire into your personal and professional
backgrounds, your conceptions of English writing instruction, and your conceptions of the use of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing. The
second interview will be done to inquire into your preparations for, training in, and uses of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English writing. The third
interview will be done to inquire about your practices of, reflections about, and concerns with the
use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing.
Each interview session will be around 30 minutes, and will be done outside of your job
obligations. Each interview session will be audio-recorded, and written notes will be taken. I will
also do four to five instructional observations and take notes of your instructional practices and
use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching English language writing.
I intend to video-record your instruction using Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) at least once. I also intend to collect the lesson materials (i.e., copies of lesson plans, hand
outs, CD-ROMs, etc.) that you use in your instruction.
360

The overall time commitment for this study is small. You will only have to agree to
complete a survey; to be interviewed about and observed during your instruction; and to share
with me your lesson materials, in a mutually agreed upon time and schedule. I intend to do this
research within a 10 to 12-week time frame so that I will have time to get to know you, the
school, other English teachers, and the administrative staff. Your name and the names of the
school, other teachers, and the administrative staff will not be used. Identification codes will be
used on all records. The data from this study and the master list of names and identification
codes will be kept in separate locked filing cabinets. Only Michigan State University’s
Institutional Review Board (in the case of an audit), my faculty adviser (Prof. Dr. Douglas
Hartman), and members of the dissertation research committee will have access to the
information. The school and your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. The research data will be retained for a period of 10 years after the close of the
research study.
You can indicate your participation in this study by signing one copy of this letter and
returning it to me. Your participation is entirely voluntary. There is no penalty for refusing to
participate, and you may choose not to answer any question or to stop participating at any time.
If, after you sign and return the letter, you change your mind, simply let the researcher (Abu
Bakar Razali, contact information is provided below) know, and you will not be asked to
participate. There are no known major risks associated with participating in this study. In fact,
the investigation of English teachers’ use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
in English language writing instruction is expected to provide good professional service for
teachers so that they will be able to reflect on their teaching styles and strategies. I hope this
research will inform other English teachers, teacher educators, and school administrators about
writing instruction strategies that might be successful in their schools. Finally, allowing teachers
to participate will help English teachers, teacher educators, and researchers in the United States
learn about the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in English language
writing instruction in Malaysia.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as its scientific issues or to report
an injury, please contact the researcher (Abu Bakar Razali, +1-517-775-4100 or +6-09-6191968; mohame25@msu.edu) or his adviser, the responsible primary investigator (Prof. Dr.
Douglas Hartman, College of Education, 352A Erickson Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824;
517-432-9602; dhartman@msu.edu).
If you have questions or concerns about this research, would like to obtain information or
offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this research, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or by e-mail irb@msu.edu, or by regular mail at 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you,

Abu Bakar Razali
Ph.D. Candidate, Michigan State University
361

By signing this form, I agree to participate in this study as outlined above.

___________________________________
(Signature)

__________________________
(School)

_____________________________________
(Printed Name and Position)

_________________
(Date)

362

Appendix D: Survey Questionnaires
Name : ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Age : ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Gender: ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Ethnicity
: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Language(s) : ……………………………………………………………………………………
Place of Origin: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Education level: Teaching Certification / Dip. Education / B.A. Education / M.A. Education
(Please circle one)
Other : ………………………………………………………………………………..
Major : ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Minor : ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Teaching Certification: National Teaching Certification / Alternative Certification (e.g., KPLI)
(Please circle one)
Education Institution : …………………………………………………………………………….
Year of Graduation : …………………………………………………………………………….
Current School
: …………………………………………………………………………….
Teaching Experience : …………… years
Contact Number(s)
Email Address
Office Location

: Cellphone: …………….. Office: ……………….. Home: ………………
: …………………………………………………………………………….
: …………………………………………………………………………….

Current Teaching Assignment/Situation:
*Grade Level
**Course

***Students’ Academic
Achievement

****Students’ English
Proficiency (if applicable)

*Grade Level: Grade level(s) you are currently teaching, e.g., Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
**Course: Courses that you are currently teaching, e.g., English Language, Mathematics,
Science, etc.
***Students’ Academic Achievement: Students’ academic achievement level, e.g., HighAchieving, Intermediate-Achieving, or Low-Achieving
****Students’ English Language Proficiency: Students’ level of English language proficiency,
e.g., Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced

363

Please list the types of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)—whatever you think
they may be—that you have at home and at your office/desk, and rate your frequency in using
them.
1 – Very Seldom

2 – Seldom

3 – Often

4 – Very Often

ICT at Home
ICT

Other:

Purpose
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both

Frequency
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

Other:

ICT at Office/Desk
Purpose
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both
Personal / Educational / Both

Frequency
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ICT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

364

Please respond to the questionnaire according to the scale below.
1 – Strongly Disagree

2 – Disagree

3 – Agree

4 – Strongly Agree

ICT Use
1
2
3
4
5

Response
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

I use ICT in my daily life.
I am very comfortable with using ICT.
I am very competent with using ICT.
I try to learn about ICT on my own.
I used ICT before becoming a teacher.

ICT Training
5 I learned to use ICT in English writing instruction on my own.
6 I learned to use ICT in English writing instruction from my peers.
7 I was trained to use ICT in English writing instruction during my teacher
education days.
8 The ICT in English writing instruction training during my teacher education
days is adequate for my current instruction.
9 I attended in-service teacher training session(s) on how to use ICT in English
writing instruction.
10 The ICT in English writing instruction training from the in-service teacher
training sessions are adequate for my current instruction.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24

ICT Use in English Writing Instruction
I am very comfortable with using ICT in English writing instruction.
I am very competent with using ICT in English writing instruction.
I often use ICT in my English writing instruction.
I use ICT that I learned on my own in my English writing instruction.
I use ICT that I learned from my peers in my English writing instruction.
I use ICT that I learned from my teacher education in my English writing
instruction.
I use ICT that I learned from the in-service teacher training session(s) in my
English writing instruction.
ICT plays an important role in my English writing lesson preparation.
ICT plays an important role in my English writing instruction.
ICT plays an important role in my English writing assessment.
Concerns about ICT in English Writing Instruction
I have concerns over the use of ICT in English writing instruction.
The school administration has done well to alleviate my concerns, especially
with regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
The teacher education institution has done well to alleviate my concerns,
especially with regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
The district/state/national educational bodies have done well to alleviate my
concerns with regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
365

Response
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1
1
1
1
1
1

Response
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4

1

2

3

4

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

Response
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Professional Development
I am satisfied with my current knowledge of ICT in English writing instruction.
I would like to learn more about ICT in English writing instruction.
I would like to use more ICT in my English writing instruction.
The school administration has done well to develop my professionalism with
regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
29 The teacher education institution has done well to develop my professionalism
with regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
30 The district/state/national educational bodies have done well to develop my
professionalism with regards to using ICT in English writing instruction.
25
26
27
28

366

1
1
1
1

Response
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Appendix E: Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Pre-Instruction Interview Questions
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me.
I am planning to audio record this interview. Do I have your permission to do so? [Press “record”
on the audio recorder. State name, date, and context.]
I would like to begin by talking with you about your personal and professional backgrounds,
your ideas about English language writing instruction, as well as your ideas about Information
and Communication Technology (ICT). May I ask you some questions?

Personal and Professional Backgrounds
Please tell me a bit about yourself.
Please tell me a bit about your educational background.
Please tell me a bit about your professional background (as an English teacher).
- How did you become a teacher?
- Why did you become a teacher?
English Writing Instruction
Please tell me a bit about your job.
- What are you required to do when teaching the English language?
Describe a typical day in your life as an English teacher.
If someone were to walk in your classroom and observe you teach, what kinds of things/activities
would you be doing? What kinds of things/activities would your students be doing?
What is your definition of English language writing instruction?
- Complete this sentence, “English language writing instruction is…”
What is your philosophy of teaching English writing? By ‘philosophy’ I mean your beliefs as to
how English language writing should be taught.
What aspects of English language do you like/prefer to teach (i.e., reading, writing, speaking,
listening, grammar, literature) and why?
How many times do you teach English language writing in a day/week?
What are your goals when you teach English writing? By ‘goals’ I mean what do you expect the
students to learn/achieve from your English writing instruction?

Access to and Use of ICT
You have spoken about your personal and professional backgrounds, as well as your conceptions
about English writing instruction. Let’s now talk about your use of ICT.
367

Can you recall your first experience with ICT? Tell me about it.
What kinds of ICT do you have at home?
- Which ICT do you use?
- How do you use them, and how often do you use them?
What kinds of ICT do you have at your office?
- Which ICT do you use?
- How do you use them, and how often do you use them?
What kinds of ICT do your students use at home?
- How do they use them, and how often do they use them?
What kinds of ICT do your students use at school?
- How do they use them, and how often do they use them?
Do you use the same kinds of ICT that your students use? Why, or why not?
- If so, how do you use them, and how often do you use them?
Can you recall a memorable story or a particular incident concerning your use of ICT when
teaching English writing? Tell me about it.

Definition(s) of ICT
You have spoken about your uses of ICT and your conceptions about its use in English writing
instruction. If you can step back a bit, can you tell me:
How do you define ICT?
- What would be considered as ICT; or, what are certain criteria or characteristics of ICT?
How did you come to this definition of ICT?
- At what point in your life/career did you come to this definition/realization of ICT?
In the next interview session, can you please bring an ICT tool/artifact that best define your ideas
about and use of ICT in your English writing instruction?

Are there any comments or thoughts that you would like to add before we end our interview
today?
In the future, can I follow up with further questions via email or phone call to get clarification on
your thoughts and comments about the use of ICT in English writing instruction?
Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I enjoyed
our conversation.

368

During-Instruction Interview Questions
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me.
I am planning to audio record this interview. Do I have your permission to do so? [Press “record”
on the audio recorder. State name, date, and context.]

Definition(s) of ICT (Revisited)
Last time I asked you to bring an ICT tool/artifact that best defines your ideas about and use of
ICT in your English writing instruction. I am happy to see you brought it with you today.
RQ1 (a, b) – So, can you tell me a bit about this ICT artifact, i.e., your use of it, and how it best
captures your ideas about and use of ICT in English writing instruction?

In the previous interview we talked a little bit about your personal and professional backgrounds,
as well as your ICT use. Let’s now talk a little bit about your preparation for English writing
instruction, your education on ICT, and your use of ICT in English writing instruction.
Instructional Preparation
How do you normally prepare for an English writing lesson?
How do you normally prepare for an English writing lesson when using ICT?
Describe your vision of an ideal English writing lesson.
- Do you always achieve this vision when you teach? Why, or why not?
- How does ICT fit into this vision? In other words, does ICT help or hinder you achieving
this vision?

Education/Training on ICT
Have you tried to learn about ICT on your own?
- If so, what ICT did you try to learn (or did you learn)?
- If so, how did you teach yourself to use ICT? How did it go?
- If so, why did you select these technologies to learn on your own?
During your teacher education training, were you trained to use ICT in English education?
- If so, what were you trained to do and how?
- If so, are you using ICT in your English writing instruction? How did it go?
What in-service professional development training have you done on ICT in English education?
- How many training sessions have you gone to, and what were they about?

369

-

Are you using any of this training on ICT in your English writing instruction? How did it
go?
What is the most current training session in which you received ICT training in English
education? Tell me about it.
- Are you using any of this training on ICT in your English writing instruction? How did it
go?
Have you received any training on ICT in English education from your peers (or other people)?
- Are you using any of this training on ICT in your English writing instruction? How did it
go?

ICT in English writing Instruction
When did you begin to use ICT in English writing instruction? How did it go?
- Is your current use of ICT in English writing instruction different than when you initially
began using it? If so, how?
- Is your current knowledge of ICT in English writing instruction more developed than
when you initially began using it? If so, how?
What do you think about someone who uses ICT in English writing instruction?
What do you think about your own use of ICT in English writing instruction?
What is the role of ICT in your English writing classroom? Why so?
How often do you use ICT in your English writing classroom?
For you, what metaphor/analogy best captures the idea of using ICT in English writing
instruction?
If you could redesign your classroom space to best use ICT in English writing instruction, what
would your classroom look like? Could you use this paper to draw it for me (please see
Appendix 9), and bring the drawing in the next interview session?

Are there any comments or thoughts that you would like to add before we end our interview
today?
In the future, can I follow up with further questions via email or phone call to get clarification on
your thoughts and comments about the use of ICT in English writing instruction?
Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I enjoyed
our conversation.

370

Post-Instruction Interview Questions
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me.
I am planning to audio record this interview. Do I have your permission to do so? [Press “record”
on the audio recorder. State name, date, and context.]
Today, I would like to talk to you about your practices of, reflections on, and concerns about the
use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in English writing instruction. May I
ask you some questions?

ICT in English writing Instruction (Revisited)
Last time I asked if you could show in drawing how you could redesign the classroom space to
best use ICT in English writing instruction. I am happy to see you brought it with you today.
So, can you tell me a bit about this drawing, i.e., how would you use the classroom space to best
use ICT in English writing instruction?

Instructional Practices (Rationalizations and Reflections)
What are the most important things that you consider before, during, and after teaching English
writing? Why?
Are there any differences to these important aspects that you consider before, during, and after
teaching English writing when using ICT? If so, how are they different, and why?
When you use ICT in English writing instruction, how do your students respond?
- Is their response different from when you are not using ICT? Why, or why not?
Do you think your students benefit from the use of ICT in English writing instruction? Why?

Instructional Observations (Uses)
When I observed your instruction in classroom X, on X day/X date/X time:
- I noticed you were doing X with X technology. Can you tell me more about how and why
you were doing X with X technology?
- I noticed in your instruction that you were using X technology in a certain way. Can you
tell me why were you using X technology that way?
- What were you thinking when you were doing X activity using X technology?
- How did you come up with such an activity using X technology?
- How did you come to this realization with regards to X technology?
- How do you choose the type of ICT in your instruction?
- How did you come to the point of using X technology with your students?
371

-

What other ICT could you use in that lesson? Why so?
What non-ICT teaching materials/aids/tools could you use in that instruction?
How would the instruction differ as compared to using ICT?

Concerns/Challenges
What are your concerns when teaching English writing? Why do you have these concerns?
- How have you been addressing these concerns in your teaching?
- How do you intend to further address these concerns in your teaching?
What are your concerns when using ICT in English writing instruction? Why do you have these
concerns?
- How have you been addressing these concerns in your teaching?
- How do you intend to further address these concerns in your teaching?

Professional Development
Are you satisfied with the way you currently teach English writing? Why or why not?
Are there any aspects in your English writing instruction that you want to improve?
- If so, what are they, and how do you intend to improve them?
Are you satisfied with your competency with ICT in English writing instruction?
- Are you satisfied with your current use of ICT in English writing instruction?
- What aspects of ICT would you like to learn more about or improve on?
- What ICT would you like to use more of in your English writing instruction?

Are there any comments or thoughts that you would like to add before we end our interview
today?
In the future, can I follow up with further questions via email or phone call to get clarification on
your thoughts and comments about the use of ICT in English writing instruction?
Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I enjoyed
our conversation.

372

Appendix F: Ideal Classroom to Use ICT in English Writing Instruction
If you could redesign the classroom space to best use ICT in English writing instruction, what
would your classroom look like?
F
r
o
n
t
D
o
o
r

R
e
a
r

D
o
o
r

373

Appendix G: Classroom Physical Environment and Digital Technology
Teacher
: …………………………………………………………………………………….
Form
: …………………………… Level : Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced
No. Students : …………… Boys : ……. Girls : …….
Classroom Setting
Comments/Notes
Teachers’ Desk:
Students’ Accommodation:
• Classroom capacity
• Students’ seating arrangements
Classroom Environment
Present Absent
Comments/Notes
Instructional Materials:
• Blackboard
• Notice/Bulletin board
• Classroom diagrams
• Book shelves
• Visual aids
• Realias
• Others: …………………….
Writing Resources:
• Writing center/corner
• Writing guide books
• Writing notes
• Writing materials
• Others: …………………….
Technological Instructional Aids:
• Desktop computer
• Personal laptop
• Printer
• Scanner
• Projector screen
• Audio player/recorder
• Video player/recorder
• Digital video projector
• Instructional CD-ROMs
• Multimedia player (i.e.,
CD/DVD/MP3 player)
Others:
Others:
Others:
*Take pictures of classroom/learning setting (i.e., seating arrangements and setting; teaching and
learning resources/materials; digital technological aids etc.)
**Take pictures of teacher’s working desk/office (i.e., teaching and learning resources/materials;
digital technology etc.)
374

Appendix H: Uses of Digital Technology in Writing Instruction
Teacher
: …………………………………….
Class
: Form …………………………….
ESL Level
: Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced
No. Students : …………… Boys : ……. Girls : …….
Day/Date
: ……………………………………………
Time
: ……………………………………………
Topic
: …………………………………………….......................................................
Theme
: …………………………………………………………………………………
Writing Aspect: ………………………………………………………………………………...
Objectives
: …………………………………………………………………………………
Teaching Aids: ………………………………………………………………………………….
ICT/Digital Technology Aids: ………………………………………………………………….
Lesson Stage(s) / Activity(s)
Lesson Introduction:

Lesson Instruction:

Lesson Closure:

375

Comments / Notes

Appendix I: Formal/Informal Uses of Digital Technology
Teacher: …………………………………….... School: ……………………………………….....
Date/Day: …………………………………….. Time: ……………………………………………
Setting : ………………………………………. Context: …………………………………………
Activity:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Notes:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

376

Appendix J: Mrs. Wong’s Notes and Exercise on SPM Examination Question

Figure 8. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (1)

377

Figure 9. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (2)

378

Figure 10. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (3)

379

Figure 11. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (4)

380

Figure 12. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (5)

381

Figure 13. Mrs. Wong’s notes and exercise on SPM examination question (6)

382

Appendix K: Mrs. Wong’s Sample of Good Writing

Figure 14. Mrs. Wong’s sample of good writing

383

Appendix L: Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Narrative/Descriptive Essay

Figure 15. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (1)

384

Figure 16. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (2)

385

Figure 17. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (3)

386

Figure 18. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (4)

387

Figure 19. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (5)

388

Figure 20. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (6)

389

Figure 21. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (7)

390

Figure 22. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (8)

391

Figure 23. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (9)

392

Figure 24. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (10)

393

Figure 25. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (11)

394

Figure 26. Mrs. Alma’s notes and exercises on narrative/descriptive essay (12)

395

Appendix M: Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercises on Argumentative Essay
Table 7
Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (1)

Figure 27. Mrs. Salina’s notes and exercises on argumentative essay
396

Table 8
Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (2)

397

Table 9
Mrs. Alma’s Notes and Exercise on Argumentative Essay (3)

398

Appendix N: Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing

Figure 28. Mrs. Salina’s notes on summary writing (1)

399

Figure 29. Mrs. Salina’s notes on summary writing (2)
400

Table 10
Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing (1)

401

Table 11
Mrs. Salina’s Notes on Summary Writing (2)

402

REFERENCES

403

REFERENCES

Abdul Aziz, N. (2008). Taking concerns into account: Understanding the technology adoption
process from the ESL teachers’ point of view. The English Teacher, 37, 76-89.
Abdul Kader, B. K. (2007). Malaysia’s experience in training teachers to use ICT. In Meleisea,
E. (Ed.), ICT in Teacher Education: Case Studies from the Asia-Pacific Region.
Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
Abdul Razak, N., & Embi, M. A. (2004). A framework of IT competency for English language
teachers. Internet Journal of e-Language Learning & Teaching, 1(1), 1-14.
Abdul Razak, N., Embi, M. A., Mustapha, R., & Lubis, M. A. (2009). IT literacy of language
th
teachers in Malaysian technical schools. Paper presented at the 5 WSEAS/IASME
International Conference on Educational Technologies (EDUTE’ 09), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Abdullah, A., & Abbas, M. (2006). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with
cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding. Malaysian
Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3(2), 1-16.
Abdullah, N. A., Zainol Abidin, M. J., Wong, S. L., Majid, O., & Atan, H. (2006). The attitude
and motivation of English language teachers towards the use of computers. Malaysian
Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3(1), 57-67.
Abu Bakar, N., & Mickan, P. (2005). Exploring learning in a computer-based environment in a
Malaysian secondary ESL classroom. Internet Journal of e-Language Learning &
Teaching, 2(2), 1-15.
Abu Bakar, N. (2005). Computers for teaching English as a second language (secondary school)
in Malaysia: A case study (Doctoral thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia).
Retrieved from http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/49485
Abu Bakar, N. (2007). English language activities in computer-based learning environment: A
case study in ESL Malaysian classroom. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies,
7(1), 33-49.
Al-Tamimi, A., & Shuib, M. (2009). Investigating the learning styles preferences of ESL
Learners: The case of English majors in Universiti Sains Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of
ELT Research, 5, 56-107.
Ali, Z., & Md Yunus, M. (2005). An ESL writing course: Unraveling students’ needs and
concerns. The English Teacher, 33, 1-13.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Executive Summary
404

and paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National
Reading Conference.
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(1), 8-19.
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.2
Alvermann, D. E. (2009). Sociocultural constructions of adolescence and young people’s
literacies. In Christenbury, L., Bomer, R., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.) Handbook of
adolescent literacy research, (pp. 14-28). New York: The Guilford Press.
Alvermann, D. E. (2011). Popular culture and literacy practices. In Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D.,
Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Vol. III), (pp.
541-560). New York: Routledge.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. (2000). Fandom and critical media literacy. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 436-447.
Aris, B., Ahmad, M. H., Kok, B. S., Ali, M. B., Harun, J., & Tasir, Z. (2006). Learning “Goal
Programming” using an interactive multimedia courseware: Design factors and students’
preferences. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 3(1), 85-95.
AtGoogleTalks. (2012, December 14). Stephen Colbert | America again: Rebecoming the greatness we never weren’t [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HpBHWUPa8Q
Attanucci, J. (1988). In whose terms: A new perspective on self, role, and relationship. In C.
Gilligan, J. V. Ward, & J. M. Tyalor, (Eds.), Mapping the moral domain (pp. 201-224).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Badusah, J., & Hussin, M. (October 2000). Bilik darjah Internet: Pengunaan pelbagai
bahan media. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Educational Research and
Development, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Bakar, A. R., & Mohamed, S. (2008). Teaching using information and communication
technology: Do trainee teachers have the confidence? International Journal of Education
and Development Using ICT, 4(1), 1-10.
Bell, D. A. (2005). The bookless future: What the Internet is doing to scholarship. New
Republic, May 2005. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/thebookless-future
Bennett, S., Maton, S., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English
405

language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 49(2), 118-129.
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning, 3(2), 170184.
Black, R. W. (2008a). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York: Peter Lang.
Black, R. W. (2008b). Just don’t call them cartoons: The new literacy spaces of anime,
manga and fanfiction. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu,D. J. (Eds.)
Handbook of research on new literacies, (pp. 583-610). New York: Routledge
Black, R. W. (2008c). Digital design: English language learners and reader reviews in online
fiction. In Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (Eds.) A new literacies sampler, (pp. 116-126).
New York: Peter Lang.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109. doi:
10.1017/S0261444803001903
Brindley, R., & Schneider, J. J. (2002). Writing instruction or destruction: Lessons to be
learned from fourth grade teachers’ perspective on teaching writing. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53, 328-341. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053004005
Brown, S. T. (2006). Cinema anime: Critical engagement with Japanese animation. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Chan, F. M. (2002). ICT in Malaysian schools: Policy and strategies. Putrajaya, Malaysia:
Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
Chan, S. H., & Abdullah, A. N. (2005). Exploring affect in ESL writing behavior. The English
Teacher, 33, 14-27.
Chan, S. H., Abdullah, A. N., Tan, H. (2008). Malaysian ESL academic writing skills:
Establishing knowledge bases, attitudes, and processes. The English Teacher, 38, 1-25.
Chan, S. H., & Han, A. L (2005). What goes on when tertiary students are engaged in an
online academic writing course. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 5(2), 1-14.
Chong, M. L., Tan, B. H., & Abdullah, M. H. (2011). Wiki for co-writing a science dictionary.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 109-128.
Choy, S. C. Troudi, S. (2006). An investigation in the changes in perceptions of and attitudes
towards learning English in a Malaysian college. Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 18(2), 120-130.

406

Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet: Paradoxes and
possibilities for diverse adolescent readers (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs). Retrieved from
http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/coirodissertation/
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 214-257.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on new
literacies. New York: Routledge.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in New Literacies and
New Literacies research. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D. J. (Eds.)
Handbook of research on new literacies. (pp. 1-21). New York: Routledge.
Cole, M. (1995). The supra-individual envelope of development: Activity and practice, situation
and context. In J. J. Goodnow, P. J. Miller, & F. Kessel (Eds.), Cultural practices as
contexts for development (pp. 5–16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3
CA: Sage Publications Inc.

rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks,

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
nd
approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Crismore, A., Ngeow, K. Y. H., & Soo, K. S. (1996). Attitudes toward English in Malaysia.
World Englishes, 15(3), 319-335.
D. J. Leu, personal communication, February 17, 2010.
D. K. Hartman, personal communication, May 2011.
Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays of
secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.
David, M. K., Cavallaro, F., & Coluzzi, P. (2009). Language policies – Impact on language
maintenance and teaching: Focus on Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the Philippines.
The Linguistic Journal, 2009 Special Edition, 155-191.
De Rycker, A., & Ponnudurai, P. (2011). The effect of online reading on argumentative essay
writing quality. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 147-157.
DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in
407

2001. (NCES 2004-014). Retrieved January 12, 2012, from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_4/2_1.asp
Duke, N. K., Schmar-Dobler, E., & Zhang, S. (2006). Comprehension and technology. In M. C.
McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R.D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.) International handbook of
literacy and technology (Vol. II, pp. 317-324), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Edwards, D. (1999). Narrative analysis. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse
reader (pp. 227-238). New York, NY: Routledge.
Edwards, P. A., Martin, N. M., Protacio, M. S., & Razali, A. B. (2010, December). Literacy
defined: A content analysis of in-service teachers' responses to reading materials. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Fort Worth, TX.
Foo, B., & Richards, C. (2004). English in Malaysia. Regional English Language Centre
Journal, 35, 229-240. doi: 10.1177/003368820403500209
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
th

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8 ed.).
Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to speakers of other
languages. Simulation and Gaming, 30, 283-291. doi: 10.1177/104687819903000304
Government of Malaysia (2006). The ninth Malaysian plan 2006-2010. Putra Jaya, Malaysia:
Economic Planning Unit.
Had Salleh, A. (2003). The role of the English language in nation building: A keynote
address. The English Teacher, 32, 93-98.
Hagood, M. C. (2003). New media and online literacies: No age left behind. Reading Research
Quarterly, 38(3), 387-391.
Haji Ahmad, R. (1998). Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: Past, present,
and future. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 462-475.
Hakim, F., & Dillah, D. (2007). Investigating spelling errors in a Malaysian learner corpus.
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 3, 1-20.
Hamzah, M. I., Embi. M. A., & Ismail, A. (2010). ICT and diversity in learners’ attitude on
Smart School initiative. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 728-737.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.099

408

Hassan, F., & Fauzee Selamat, N. (2002). Why aren’t students proficient in ESL: The
teachers’ perspective. The English Teacher, 28, 1-19.
Hussin, S. (2004). Web-based language learning materials: A challenge. Internet Journal of eLanguage Learning & Teaching, 1(1), 31-42.
Hussin, S. (2008). Creating a bigger ZPD for ESL learners via online forum in Malaysia.
College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(11), 1-10.
Jamil, H., Abdul Razak, N., Raju, R., Mohamed, A. R. (2011). Teacher professional
development in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics
Education, 12, 85-102.
Jalaluddin, N. H., Mat Awal, N., & Abu Bakar, K. (2008). The mastery of English language
among lower secondary school students in Malaysia: A linguistic analysis. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 106-119.
Johari, S. K (2006). Mirrors for an ESL classroom: Using reflective teaching to explore
classroom practice and enhance professional development. The English Teacher, 35, 99116.
Kabilan, M. K. (2003). Collaborative practices in an unmediated online TESL forum. The
English Teacher, 33, 1-11.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural
practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
36, 883–915.
Khambari, M. N., Moses, P., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Laptop ownership and use among educators:
Reflections from school teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Instruction, 2(2),
47-72.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly,
34(2), 337-340.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of text knowledge and learning. Computers and
Composition, 22, 5-22.
Kumar, N., Che Rose, R., & D’Silva, J. L. (2008). Predictors of technology deployment among
409

Malaysian teachers. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(9), 1127-1134.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). The ‘New Literacies Studies” and the study of “New”
literacies. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lau, B. T., & Sim, C. H. (2008). Exploring the extent of ICT adoption among secondary school
teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, 2(2), 19-36.
Lau, T. C., Yeoh, K. H., Choong, C. C. (2010). Exploring Malaysian trainee teachers’ adoption
of the Internet as informational tool. International Journal of Instruction, 3(2), 25-38.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leander, K. M. (2003a). Writing travelers’ tales on New Literacyscapes. Reading Research
Quarterly, 38(3), 392-397.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In Reinking, D.,
McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and
technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world, (pp. 71-93). New York:
Routledge.
Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked
technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1),
108-127.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of New
Literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication
technologies. In Ruddell, R. B. & Norman J. Unrau (Eds.) Theoretical models and
th
processes of reading (5 ed.) (pp. 1570-1615). Newark, DE: The International Reading
Association.
Leu, D. J. (2008). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an
information age. In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P. D., and Barr, R.
(Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III), (pp. 743-770). Mahway: Erlbaum
Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Laurie, A. H., & Reinking, D. (2010). Research
on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In
Block, C. C., Parris, S., & Afflerback, P. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Researchbased best practices, pp. 2-42. New York: Guilford Press
Liaw, M. L. (2009). Reading strategy awareness training to empower online reading. The English
Teacher, 38, 133-150.
Lin, F. (2013, April 10). For Malaysia: Bringing Google Apps and Chromebooks to the

410

classroom. [Online blog]. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/formalaysia-bringing-google-apps-and.html
Lubis, M. A., Ariffin, S. R., Muhamad, T. A., Ibrahim, M. S., & Wekke, M. S. (2009). The
integration of ICT in the teaching and learning process: A study on Smart School in
th
Malaysia. Proceedings of the 5 WSEAS/IASME International Conference on
Educational Technologies (EDUTE) 2009, 189-197.
nd

Maarof, N. (1998). E-mail as a resource in teacher education. Paper presented at the 32
Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Seattle,
Washington, March 17-21, 1998.
MacArthur, C. A., & Karchmer-Klein, R. A. (2009). Web 2.0: New opportunities for writing. In
Troia, G.A., Shankland, R.K., & Heintz, A. (Eds.), Complexities facing schools and
educators, (pp. 45-69). New York: Guilford Press.
Mahmud, R., & Hj. Ismail, M. A. (2010). Impact of training and experience in using ICT on inservice teachers’ basic ICT literacy. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology,
10(2), 5-10.
Manan, S. (2000). Developing critical skills: Using stylistics in the ESL classroom. The
English Teacher, 29, 1-10.
Mansor, N. (2008). Collaborative learning via email discussion: The impact on ESL students’
writing performance – A case study at Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT). The
International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 25, 37-57. Retrieved from
www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/
Mat Daud, N., Mat Daud, N., & Abu Kassim, N. L. (2005). Second language writing anxiety:
Cause or effect? Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Inaugural Volume 2005, 1-19.
Md Nordin, S. & Mohammad, N. (2006). The best of two approaches: Process/Genre-Based
approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher, 35, 75-85.
Md Rashid, S., & Md Yunus, M. (2008). Writing with the computer: A Malaysian ESL
experience. ReCALL, 20(1), 97-105.
Md Yunus, M. (2007). Malaysian ESL teachers’ use of ICT in their classroom: Expectations and
realities. ReCALL, 19(1), 79-95. doi: 10.1017/S0958344007000614.
Md Yunus, M., Hashim, H., Embi, M.A., Lubis, M. A. (2010). The utilization of ICT in the
teaching and learning of English: ‘Tell Me More.’ Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 9, 685-691. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.218
Merchant, G. (2008). Digital writing in the early years. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. &
411

Leu, D. J. (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies. (pp. 751-774). New York:
Routledge.
Ministry of Education. (1991). Ministry of Education Committee for the planning and
coordination of English language programmes in schools. Compendium: A handbook for
ELT teachers, Vol. 1, 2 and 3. Kuala Lumpur: National Education Department.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York City, March 24–28, 2008.
Moje, E. B. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents.
Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651–690.
Moje, E. B. (2009). Standpoints: A call for new research on new and multi-literacies.
Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 348-361.
Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2009). Perceptions of Malaysian school and university ESL
instructors on writing assessment. Jurnal Sastra Inggris, 9(1), 1-21.
Mukundan, J., & Singh, D., & Singh, R. (2005). Writing maturity in some Malaysian ESL
student writers’ compositions. Scientific Information Database, 8(1), 47-69.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
Ng, Y. S. (2007). The efficacy of computer assisted language learning (CALL) in fostering
autonomous learning among ESL upper secondary school students. Internet Journal of eLanguage Learning & Teaching, 4(1), 32-45.
Ngah, N. A., & Yeoh, P. C. (2005). The use of an e-group as a support tool among student
teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 2(3), 52-61.
Nixon, H. (2003). New research literacies for contemporary research into literacy and new
media? Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 407-413.
Noordin, N. (2004). Electronic literacy: Exploring teacher’s role in English language education.
The English Teacher, 34, 1-17.
Noordin, N., Abdul Samad, A., & Mohamed Razali, A. B. (2007). ESL teacher trainee
reflections on the use of the WebQuest: Practical or just a hype? The English Teacher,
36, 66-80.

412

O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66-68.
Othman, N. (2005). Feedback lessons on writing assessment with four different scoring
strategies. Assoacion Nacional Universitaria de Profesores de ingles, A.C. (ANUPI), 116.
Pakiam, R., & Adam, S. (2009, August, 28). Malaysia must expand faster to be developed
nation, Najib says. Bloomberg. Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAvHYIgq46lg&FORM=
ZZNR8
Pandian, A. (2003). Promoting IT: Whose responsibility? In S. Hongladarom (Ed.) Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information Technology and Universities in Asia
(ITUA 2002) (pp. 443 – 456). Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Pang, V., Lee, K. W., & Tan, C. K. (2005). E-learning initiatives in e-ducating student teachers.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 5(2), 15-27.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pilus, Z. (1993). Considerations in developing materials for the teaching of writing at the prouniversity level. The English Teacher, 22, 1-11.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211227.
Rahamat, R., M. Shah, P., Puteh, S. N., Din, R., & Abdul Karim, A. (2011). End users’
involvement in the development of web-based learning resources for English literature.
3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17, 5-18.
Raja Hussain, R. M. (2004). A collaborative learning experience of evaluating a web-based
learning tool. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 1(2), 6772.
Raja Hussain, R. M. (2006). Deployment of ICT: A case for the interactive whiteboard.
Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3(1), 78-84.
Raths, J. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research and Practice,
3(1), 1-9.
Razali, N. (1992). ESL in Malaysia: Looking beyond the classroom. The English Teacher,
21, 1-15.

413

Rhodes, J. A., & Robnolt, V. J. (2009). Digital literacies in the classroom. In Christenbury, L.,
Bomer, R., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.) Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research, (pp.
153-169). New York: The Guilford Press.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change.
San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass.
Roslan, S., & Tan, C M. (2005). Relationships between sources and dimensions of computer
anxiety. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(2), 41-49.
Sa’ari, M. R., Wong, S. L., Roslan, S. (2005). Attitudes and perceived information technology
competency among teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology
(MOJIT), 2(3), 70-77.
Samuel, R., & Abu Bakar, Z. (2006). The utilization and integration of ICT tools in promoting
English language teaching and learning: Reflections from English option teachers in
Kuala Langat district, Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Development
using ICT , 2(2), 1-16. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=161
Samuel, R., & Abu Bakar, Z. (2007). Do teachers have adequate ICT resources and the right ICT
skills in integrating ICT tools in the teaching and learning of English language in
Malaysian schools? The Electronic of Information Systems in Developing Countries,
29(2), 1-15.
Schwartz, A., & Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2006). Understanding the manga hype: Uncovering the
multimodality of comic book literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(1),
40-51.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
rd
education and the social sciences (3 ed.). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.
Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy
education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65-77).
Snyder, I., & Bulfin, S. (2008). Using new media in the secondary English classrom. In Coiro, J.,
Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D. J. (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies.
(pp. 805-837). New York: Routledge.
Steinkuehler, C.A., Black, R.W., & Clinton, K.A. (2005). Researching literacy as tool, place,
and way of being. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 95-100
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
nd
for developing grounded theory (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
414

Tan, B. H., Emerson, L., & White, C. (2006). Reforming ESL writing instruction in tertiary
education: The writing centre approach. The English Teacher, 35, 1-14.
Tan, K. E. (2006). Writing English essays within dominant discourses in Malaysian schools.
Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, 21, 23-45.
Tan, K. H., & Woods, P. C. (2008). Media-related or generic-related features in electronic
dictionaries: Learners’ perception and preferences. GEMA Online Journal of Language
Studies, 8(2), 1-17.
Tan, K. E., Mohamed, A. R., & Kim, G. S. (2009). Improving school English in Malaysia
through participation in online threaded discussion groups. The Asian EFL Journal
Quarterly, 11(2), 147-162. Retrieved from http://www.asianefljournal.com
Thang, S. M. (2010). Investigating autonomy of Malaysian ESL learners: A comparison
between public and private universities. The Southeast Asian Journal of English
Language Studies, 15, 97-124.
Thang, S. M. & Alias, A. (2000). Investigating readiness for autonomy: A comparison of
Malaysian ESL undergraduates of these public universities. Reflections on English
Language Teaching, 6(1), 1-18.
Thang, S. M. & Kumarasamy, P. (2006). Malaysian students’ perceptions of the environment
contents in their English language classes. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 3(2), 190-208.
Thang, S. M., Murugaiah, P., Lee, K. W., Azman, H., Tan, L. Y., & Lee, Y. S. (2010). Grappling
with technology: A case of supporting Malaysian Smart School teachers’ professional
development. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 400-416.
Thang, S. M. & Wong, F. F. (2005). Teaching styles of Malaysian ESL instructors: An
investigation into current practices and implications to English language teaching (ELT).
Journal of Language Teaching, Linguistics and Literature, 15, 49-64.
Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005). Improving Urban Science Education: New Roles
for Teachers, Students and Researchers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. London: Grenada.
Vengadasamy, R. (2002a). Responding to student writing: Motivate, not criticize. GEMA
Online Journal of Language Studies, 2(1), 1-9.
Vengadasamy, R. (2002b). Teaching writing: Student response to teachers’ written
comments. The English Teacher, 29, 10-17.

415

Vengadasamy, R. (2006). Red-eyed over red ink: Alternatives to error hunt. GEMA Online
Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 89-102.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching,
31, 57-71.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7).
Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/967/888
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18, 562-588. doi:
10.1177/0895904804266469
Wong, S. L., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student teachers
in Malaysia: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). The AsiaPacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261-272.
Zain, M. Z. M., Atan, H., & M. Idrus, R. (2004). The impact of information and communication
technology (ICT) on the management practices of Malaysian Smart Schools.
International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 201-211.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2003.10.010
Zalkapli, A. (2009, August, 28). PM: Grow by 8pc or Malaysia will not achieve Vision 2020.
The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved from
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/PM-Grow-by-8pc-or-Malaysiawill-not-achieve-Vision-2020/

416