FULBRIGHT FLTA CALL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND ENACTMENT: THE ROLE OF CONTEXT By Jeffrey Maloney 2018 A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Second Language Studies—Doctor of Philosophy ABSTRACT FULBRIGHT FLTA CALL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND ENACTMENT: THE ROLE OF CONTEXT By Jeffrey Maloney CALL teacher education (TE) is an important and growing area of CALL research. Teachers are viewed as ‘pivotal’ (Hubbard, 2008) for CALL technology adoption. What teachers know, believe and think, or cognition, has informed most of CALL TE research. Typically, such literature has focused on pre-service training or professional development workshops, and has focused on training effectiveness, teacher attitudes, and identifying necessary competences or knowledge. Less researched is teacher development over time (Arnold & Ducate, 2015) and how participation in an international teaching exchange impacts CALL knowledge and practice. In addition, there is not much work examining whether and how knowledge gained transfers into other teaching contexts (Chao, 2015). As Kubanyiova and Feryok (2015) identify, cognition researchers must engage with what knowledge would be most beneficial to whom. In order to do so, examining what knowledge teachers gain and what factors play a role in development and the use of knowledge for CALL can provide further direction for improving CALL TE. Finally, work examining the impact of the Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) program on its participants is limited. This case study focuses on the experiences of five FLTAs and the program’s impact on FLTA knowledge of technology for language teaching and learning, as analyzed using the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and an extended framework which further delineates and defines the role of contextual factors. I employed interviews, reflective writing, observations, and field work with the FLTAs to gather data which were analyzed using a narrative analysis approach (Benson, 2011), with a subsequent analysis of the narratives (Polkinghorne, 1995) using the TPACK and Extended TPACK frameworks. Results indicated that each of the FLTAs recognized development of their knowledge for using technology across multiple areas within the TPACK framework. However, each of the FLTAs experienced different outcomes based at least in part on the role that various contextual factors across macro, meso, and micro-levels played in both opportunities for knowledge development and enactment of knowledge for CALL. This study contributes to TE research by extending understanding of the impact that various contextual factors have on teacher development both during and after changing teaching contexts. Based on the findings, I argue for adopting more reflective practices such as narrative writing, and encouraging the creation of support groups, mentoring and communities of practice. Copyright by JEFFREY MALONEY 2018 For Mallory and Rosa. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank my advisors Dr. Senta Goertler and Dr. Shawn Loewen. Their support helped me reach the finish line. Of course, I also express my utmost thanks to the other members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Peter DeCosta and Paula Winke. I thank them for their time, assistance and reassurance. Without them I would not have been able to accomplish what I have. I also thank my participants for their patience and willingness to share with me their experiences. It is through their kindness, patience and cooperation that I am able to complete this thesis. I am also grateful to everyone involved with the FLTA program at MSU, specifically Danielle Steider. My friends and colleagues in the SLS program (and beyond!) receive my special thanks, as their friendship and insights helped me along the way. I thank especially (in no particular order) Irina Zaykovskaya, Dustin Crowther, Carly Lesoski, Dan Isbell, Kathy Kim, Jungmin Lim, Wendy Li, Megan Smith, and many, many more. Also, my family who have supported me and helped me through the toughest moments. My sweet wife Mallory, and my incredible daughter Rosa – thank you. They provided encouragement and reassurance when I needed it the most. My parents, grandparents, siblings and in-laws all gave me the strength to pull this off. Thank you for your belief in me. I also express my gratitude to the Creator. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 Motivation .............................................................................................................................. 3 Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 5 Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................... 8 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 8 Language Teacher Training and Knowledge ....................................................................... 8 Technology and Language Teaching .................................................................................. 10 An Overview of CALL Teacher Education ....................................................................... 11 Research on CALL Teacher Knowledge and Competence ............................................... 16 CALL Teacher Training and Professional Development .................................................. 20 The TPACK Framework .................................................................................................... 23 TPACK and CALL Research .............................................................................................. 28 Extending TPACK: Situating Context ............................................................................... 31 Previous Research on Fulbright FLTAs ............................................................................ 37 The Current Study .............................................................................................................. 39 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................. 41 METHOD................................................................................................................................. 41 Context of The Study .......................................................................................................... 42 Michigan State University ................................................................................................ 42 The Fulbright FLTA program ........................................................................................ 42 FLTA Assignments .......................................................................................................... 44 FLTA Program at Michigan State University ................................................................ 45 Role of The Researcher ....................................................................................................... 46 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 48 Alex ................................................................................................................................... 49 Daria ................................................................................................................................. 50 Gene .................................................................................................................................. 50 Kyle ................................................................................................................................... 50 Pat ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 51 Semi-structured Interviews ............................................................................................. 52 Informal Conversations ................................................................................................... 53 vii Reflective Journals ........................................................................................................... 53 Observations .................................................................................................................... 54 Field Notes/Informal Observations ................................................................................. 56 Technology Language Contact Profile ............................................................................ 56 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 57 Validation ............................................................................................................................. 62 Technologies of Focus ......................................................................................................... 63 TPACK Framework ........................................................................................................... 66 Technological Knowledge ................................................................................................ 67 Technological Content Knowledge .................................................................................. 67 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge ........................................................................... 68 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge ............................................................. 68 The Extended TPACK Framework .................................................................................... 69 Macro-level Contextual Factors ...................................................................................... 70 Meso-level Contextual Factors ........................................................................................ 71 Micro-level Contextual Factors ....................................................................................... 71 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 72 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 74 COHORT A: GENE, ALEX, AND PAT................................................................................... 74 Gene...................................................................................................................................... 76 Language and Teaching Background .............................................................................. 76 The Home Context: Gene’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice ............ 80 The FLTA Context: Gene’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA ........................ 84 The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Gene’s TPACK ......................................... 90 Alex ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Language and Teaching Background .............................................................................. 94 The Home Context: Alex’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice ............. 97 The FLTA Context: Alex’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA ....................... 100 The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Alex’s TPACK ........................................ 107 Pat....................................................................................................................................... 109 Language and Teaching Background ............................................................................ 110 The Home Context: Pat’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice ............. 112 The FLTA Context: Pat’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA ......................... 115 The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Pat’s TPACK .......................................... 121 Gene, Alex, and Pat’s TPACK Development and Contextual factors ................................ 124 Knowledge Development—TPACK for CALL ............................................................. 125 Extended TPACK—Contexts and Their Role ............................................................... 127 CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................... 130 COHORT B: KYLE AND DARIA ......................................................................................... 130 Kyle .................................................................................................................................... 131 Language and Teaching Background ............................................................................ 131 Kyle’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice ............................................ 133 The FLTA Context: Kyle’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA ....................... 137 The Home Context Upon Return: Context and Kyle’s Use of Knowledge ................... 140 viii The Intersection of FLTA and Home Contexts: Change in TPACK ............................ 144 Daria .................................................................................................................................... 148 Language and Teaching Background ............................................................................ 148 Daria’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice .......................................... 150 The FLTA Context: Daria’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA...................... 153 The Home Context Upon Return: Context and Daria’s Use of TPACK ...................... 158 The Intersection of Daria’s FLTA and Home Contexts: Change in TPACK ............... 161 A Summary of Kyle and Daria’s Experiences .................................................................. 163 Knowledge Growth—TPACK for CALL ...................................................................... 163 Extended TPACK—Contexts and Their Role ............................................................... 165 CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................................................... 168 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 168 Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 168 Research Question 2 .......................................................................................................... 171 Research Question 3 .......................................................................................................... 174 Findings and Previous CALL Teacher Education Research ........................................... 176 Implications ........................................................................................................................ 183 TPACK and Extended TPACK......................................................................................... 188 Limitations and Future Directions .................................................................................... 190 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 192 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 194 APPENDIX A: Sample Questions from Interview 1 ............................................................ 195 APPENDIX B: Sample Questions and Outline from Follow-up Interview 1 ........................ 196 APPENDIX C: Sample Questions from Interview 2 ............................................................ 197 APPENDIX D: Sample Questions from Lesson Planning Session ....................................... 198 APPENDIX E: Sample Questions from FLTA Coordinator Interview ................................. 199 APPENDIX F: Sample Questions from FLTA Supervisor Interviews ................................. 200 APPENDIX G: Sample Questions from Journal Writing Prompts ....................................... 201 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 202 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Technical and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for CALL. ...............................17 Table 2. Definitions of TPACK Framework Domains of Knowledge...................................26 Table 3. Technology Categories of Focus ..........................................................................66 Table 4. Cohort A Knowledge Development of Technologies Within the TPACK Framework ...........................................................................................................125 Table 5. Cohort B Knowledge Development of Technologies Within the TPACK Framework ...........................................................................................................164 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Hampel & Stickler’s (2005) skills pyramid for online language teaching ..................... 18 Figure 2. The TPACK framework (as presented in Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin & Graham, 2014). ................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3. The extended TPACK framework (Adapted from Porras-Hernandes and Salinas-Amescua, 2013) ............................................................................................. 34 Figure 4. ISTE ICOT screenshot .............................................................................................. 55 Figure 5. Cohort A data collection timeline (Spring) ................................................................ 58 Figure 6. Cohort B data collection timeline (Fall) ..................................................................... 59 Figure 7. Representation of round 1 data analysis ..................................................................... 64 Figure 8. Representation of round 2 data analysis ..................................................................... 65 xi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages CALL EFL ESL FLTA ISTE L1 L2 MLA MSU SLA TCK Computer Assisted Language Learning English as a Foreign Language English as a Second Language Foreign Language Teaching Assistant International Society for Technology in Education First Language Second Language Modern Language Association Michigan State University Second Language Acquisition Technological Content Knowledge TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages TK Technological Knowledge TPACK Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Technological Pedagogical Knowledge TPK xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In CALL language teacher education, researchers have continually grappled with how to effectively train teachers to successfully integrate technology to improve and extend the effectiveness of language teaching. Multiple sets of standards both for general education (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008) and for language teaching specifically (Healey, Hanson-Smith, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware, 2011; ACTFL/CAEP, 2013) have provided guidelines or at the very least acknowledged the need to prepare instructors to wield technology for teaching purposes. Quite a bit of work has been focused on teachers’ attitudes toward teaching with technology (Hedayati & Marandi, 2014; Hlas, Conroy & Hildebrandt, 2017; Kessler, 2007; Wiebe & Kabata, 2010), their confidence or self-efficacy (Kessler & Plakans, 2008; Kissau, 2012), needed competencies or skills for teachers (Compton, 2009; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; O’Dowd, 2015), the effectiveness of teacher training (Borthwick & Brett, 2014; Comas-Quinn, 2011; McNeil, 2013 ), and teachers’ satisfaction with their training (Adnan, 2017; Nami, Marandi & Sotoudehnama, 2016). An important recognition by many CALL teacher education researchers is how training is not as effective as it could, or should be (see Hlas, Conroy & Hildebrandt, 2017, and Sharp, 2013). It has become clear that teacher training can be effective in improving the knowledge that teachers have (Schmid & Hegelheimer, 2014). However, teachers feel that their training is lacking and that they desire more opportunities for development in this area (Sharp, 2009). In addition, there is not much work examining whether teacher training leads to subsequent integration into teaching practice (Chao, 2015). Also lacking are projects examining the development of teachers’ knowledge outside of professional development programs focused on CALL and examining teachers’ development in a 1 variety of contexts. The purpose of this study is to investigate the knowledge development of teachers who change teaching contexts and the language of instruction temporarily in an exchange program. Also, under examination is how contextual factors influence both the construction of CALL knowledge, and whether the participants are able (or perceives themselves able) to transfer their knowledge back to their home contexts. Specifically, I examine the impact of the Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) program on individual FLTA knowledge and the factors at play in their development and subsequent technology integration. FLTAs participate in a U.S. government-sponsored program aimed at improving both U.S. foreign language programs and the English language teaching force throughout the world. Through participation in the program, FLTAs are expected to learn new approaches and techniques for language teaching. For this dissertation, I focus on the knowledge development for teaching with technology and CALL in the language classroom by FLTAs as a result of their experiences teaching, as well as associated opportunities of becoming a part of a US academic context. As mentioned previously, quite a few studies have been focused on improving teacher training and promoting technology use by teachers in the language classroom, and there have been calls for work examining teacher development beyond attitudes or pedagogical beliefs (Arnold & Ducate, 2015). The FLTA group offers a representative example of teachers who go through a professional development program which involves learning and adapting to the norms of a new context, with the express purpose of developing the participants as professionals. I measure the CALL knowledge development of the FLTAs within the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge framework (TPACK). The TPACK framework was first introduced as an extension to Lee Shulman’s (1986; 1987) work on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which described the connection between content and pedagogy knowledge. Originally billed as a 2 framework to describe “the knowledge that teachers need in order to effectively teach with technology” (Koehler & Mishra, 2015, p. 3), TPACK’s central point was to connect knowledge of technology with pedagogy and content, in a new form of knowledge that was distinct from its individual parts. This framework has been adopted widely by education researchers to examine teacher training outcomes and professional development programs across disciplines, although slightly differently depending on the field (Voogt, Fisser, Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013). Nevertheless, this framework provides conceptual lenses with which to examine teaching with technology (Koehler & Mishra). Additionally, I examine different contextual factors at play in both the knowledge construction of the individual FLTAs and how these factors impact whether and how the FLTAs utilize technology in their language teaching both during their time in the United States and once they return home. interviews, reflective journals, observations, a focus group, and technology use logs. I adopted a narrative approach to data analysis, which has often been used in language teacher education research (see Barkhuizen, 2011; 2016). In this way, I explore the individual experiences of each of the focal FLTAs to provide insight into how FLTAs see different contextual factors, and their influence on knowledge construction and subsequent deployment in their teaching. This is a qualitative case study of five focal participants. Data collection included Motivation Fulbright FLTAs represent a unique population of individuals. They are exchange students and teachers. They have the chance to both teach and be taught by both the classroom and through experience. Notwithstanding, there has not been much formal research focused on the impact of the program on its participants’ development and growth. Some of the few studies focused on FLTAs and the impact of the program did find that they confronted challenges in 3 adapting to teaching their home language and did learn and become socialized into their US teaching context (Kirkgoz, 2017; Uzum, 2015). Still, not much SLA and CALL research has explored the experiences of these language teachers as they participate in the program. Language teacher education research and CALL research could glean much from examining the impact of and changes that take place during FLTA’s year-long experience in the United States. While this dissertation is focused on the impact of the program on FLTA knowledge concerning technology use and CALL practice, I will continue to examine how this group of individuals is benefitted, challenged and changed by this program. I plan to continue working with the FLTAs upon their return home. FLTAs are brought into a different culture on multiple levels – culturally, academically and socially. They are exposed to new and different practices and mentored by more senior instructors and supervisors. Many come from backgrounds with minimal to no experience utilizing computer and information technologies for language teaching or language learning. With this study, I hope, first and foremost, to gain a better understanding of how this program impacts FLTAs, and to also inform and improve the program. Additionally, I hope this dissertation serves the wider research field by adding to the conversation about what teachers know, how they learn what they know, what their beliefs are, and how teachers change as a result of their experiences and over time. I present to readers an account of two cohorts of FLTAs who come to the United States and fulfill their assignments. I examine how they have expressed themselves concerning technology and their hopes and perceptions of such. As mentioned previously, to aid in analysis and to provide a structure to the findings, I adopted the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), with an extension as proposed by Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013), and 4 subsequently refined by Rosenberg and Koehler (2015). This extension places a larger emphasis on different contextual aspects across different levels, such as the national culture, institutional practice and environment, and the interactions between the teacher and students. Throughout our time together, I asked the FLTAs questions such as what they thought certain technologies were good for, what they would change about the classroom, and how the program has taught them about using such technologies. Language teacher education and CALL teacher education research has at its core an aim to examine what teachers know, how they come to know what they know, and the connection between their knowledge and actions. This project has similar aims. Definitions A fundamental concept to this study is computer assisted language learning or CALL. Levy (1997) defined CALL as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (p. 1). This definition is intentionally broad, and with this term I include other research areas such as mobile assisted language learning (MALL). A closely related term is that of technology. For this dissertation, I view the term technology as referring to digital, internet, and communication hardware and software. I provide more discussion of this term in Chapter 3. Another important concept is knowledge. There has been extensive work throughout recent decades on the nature of knowledge, especially as it relates to beliefs (see Borg, 2015 for an overview). The general conception that I use in this dissertation is described by Verloop, Van Driel, and Meijer (2001), in that “beliefs are seen roughly as referring to personal values, attitudes, and ideologies” (p. 446) while knowledge refers to more factual propositions. Also, Pajares (1992) viewed beliefs as inseparable from knowledge, at least in the teacher’s mind. 5 Similarly, I conceptualize knowledge as being inseparably from knowledge although some differences can be distinguished between the two. I address this more in Chapters 2 and 3. Structure of the Dissertation For the structure of this dissertation, I begin the second chapter by discussing the literature on both general teacher education and then connect it with CALL teacher education. The discussion also includes research on factors impacting technology adoption by language teachers. I then present the TPACK framework and how it has been employed to inform CALL teacher education research. Also included is a discussion of how context has been considered using the TPACK framework, and the work of researchers who have argued for extending it to include a clearer definition of context. I then present the three guiding research questions. Following the discussion of the literature background, in chapter 3 I present the methods, materials and a description of the research context and participants utilized in this study. I also discuss my position as a researcher and my approach to analysis. The third chapter also ends with a discussion of how I have operationalized the TPACK framework and beliefs. In the fourth chapter I present the narratives of three participants from the first cohort of FLTAs, whom I worked with in the Fall. In the fifth chapter, I present the narratives of two FLTA participants who have since returned home, whom I worked with beginning in the Spring semester. Both chapters have a similar structure in which I present the individual narratives followed by a summary of the analysis. In the sixth and final chapter I discuss the findings in reference to the three research questions (presented in Chapter 2), utilizing the extended TPACK framework. I then move into an extended discussion of the results, providing my arguments for pedagogical implications for improving CALL teacher training and professional development. I then close with my planned 6 future directions for this line of research and a brief summary. 7 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND Language teacher education research is an important and growing area of research in SLA and there is developing recognition in the importance of preparing teachers for CALL. In this chapter, I first provide a brief overview of language teacher education. I then move into a brief discussion of the need for technology in language teaching, followed by an outline of the history of language teacher education with technology. Following the overview of CALL teacher education, I provide a brief overview of work that has been focused on identifying CALL competences generally, and frameworks for specific activities using technology. I then introduce the TPACK framework, followed by previous CALL research using TPACK. The chapter ends with a brief discussion on work with Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistants and the research questions. Language Teacher Training and Knowledge Traditionally, university language teacher education has been housed within applied linguistics departments, and as Crandall (2000) pointed out, rightly so because language teaching was the original focus of applied linguistics. Language teacher education has undergone multiple epistemological shifts in recent decades (see Borg, 2006 and Johnson, 2016 for an overview), ultimately turning towards a view of teachers’ mental lives (Borg, 2006). Johnson (2016) stated that given language teacher education’s history, the persistent question is: “What constitutes the knowledge base of language teacher education” (p. 123)? Language teacher education has largely been informed by language teacher cognition (see Johnson, 2006). As Borg (2003) defined, cognition refers to “the unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching – what teachers know, believe, and think” (p. 81). Language teacher 8 education researchers are interested in understanding multiple aspects of teacher cognition as a means to explore how teachers’ beliefs and knowledge impact their actions in the classroom. Richards (2008) highlighted that study of teacher cognition is concerned with how the “mental lives” of teachers are formed and what they are made of, as well as how teachers’ beliefs and thinking processes shape how they view teaching as well as classroom practice (p. 8). Such research informs how to develop teacher education programs to encourage effective teaching practices and well-rounded teachers. Like language teacher education more generally, language teacher cognition research has experienced shifts in focus. Burns, Freeman, and Edwards (2015) identified that language teacher cognition research has gone through multiple ontological generations. These different generations shifted beginning in the 1990s from being individualist to focusing more on the social, then to the sociohistorical, and finally shifting to viewing teacher cognition as complex, chaotic systems. These shifts reflect a recognition that teacher cognition cannot be considered in isolation from teacher contexts, as well as the individual history and beliefs of teachers. Kumaravadivelu (2001) pointed out that teachers’ past experiences that they bring with them into their teaching are not only shaped by their educational experience but also by the “broader social, economic, and political environment in which they have grown up” (p. 543). Further, these shifts in focus have mirrored the sociological turn in the larger L2 research field (Johnson, 2006). As Kubanyiova and Feryok (2015) stated, "language teacher cognition researchers regardless of their epistemological orientations and conceptual homes, must engage with questions of what knowledge can be of value to whom” (p. 442). Language teacher educators, therefore, are tasked with understanding what knowledge teachers need to be successful, and which kinds of knowledge would be best suited to teachers to prepare them to teach wherever that may be. 9 Based on its history it is clear that language teacher education is concerned today with a situated view of language teacher education; that is, it is concerned with examining teachers themselves, situated within particular contexts. Similarly, CALL researchers have been concerned with examining what teachers need to know in order to promote excellent teaching with technology, as well as improving technology integration. Technology and Language Teaching An important point to consider for language teaching is the role that technology plays (or should play) in the language teaching classroom. This is of particular interest since language teachers are typically the main provider of exposure for language students to both language input and technologies that could be used for language learning. Chun, Kern and Smith (2016) argued that for language teachers it is not possible to ‘opt out’ of using technology, in that it is so embedded in today’s world that it would make teaching “limited” and “artificial” (p. 65). The authors argue for what they term a ‘capacious view’ of technology and propose a set of four heuristic questions to guide teachers and researchers throughout the future. They are: Q1. What learning goals do I have for my students? Q2. What language, culture, and instructional resources do I have available? Q3. How can these resources be used and combined most effectively to serve the established learning goals? Q4. How will I assess how effective students’ use of these resources is in their attainment of the established learning goals? (Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016; p. 70) Central to the goal of the heuristic questions is the idea that technology for technology’s sake is something to be avoided and incorporating technology into the classroom requires careful contemplation of what technologies to use and when it can assist language educators in their 10 endeavors. As Chappelle (2006) pointed out, “second-language teachers today need to be able to choose, use, and in some cases, refuse technology for their students” (p. VII). In connection with teachers’ consideration of how to use technology is how best to train teachers to capitalize on modern technologies in their teaching. This point has been of concern for CALL researchers for decades, and research is still ongoing into ways to best support teachers in training to take advantage of the technologies available to them. In the next section I provide an overview of work that has been done in this area. An Overview of CALL Teacher Education Within the CALL teacher education literature, the instructor is positioned as being “pivotal” (Hubbard, 2008) the “lynchpin” (Guichon & Hauck, 2011), or playing a “central role” (Arnold & Ducate, 2015) for student exposure and experience with technology for L2 learning. In the past few decades, there have been drastic changes in the amount of and access to digital technologies for education. Not surprisingly, CALL research has been trying to grapple with the changes and focusing on evaluating how teacher training can best assist pre-service and in- service language teachers. In this section I present a recent history of the foci of CALL research, as outlined by multiple papers on the state-of-the-art at their time of publication. Hubbard and Levy (2006) identified that CALL teacher education was mostly bottom-up and ad-hoc, meaning that teachers who used technology in their language teaching did so on their own volition and often did not receive much, if any, formal training. At the time of publication there were few volumes and research articles specifically addressing the body of knowledge and skills that language teachers should have. They also recognized four general trends until that point in CALL education: the production of training and support materials, small and growing CALL teacher education research literature, frameworks attempting to define CALL practices 11 drawn from SLA, and the use of online collaborative learning techniques. The authors argue for a framework encompassing multiple possible roles for CALL education (discussed later). Central to the roles in the framework is the introduction of technical and pedagogical domains, and the authors suggest that these domains should guide CALL education. Inherent in the framework is that teacher education programs were getting better, but still had far to go in understanding how teachers could be best prepared to utilize digital technologies to improve the teaching and learning of language. Later in 2008, Hubbard explored the state of CALL teacher education research at that point. As Hubbard states: [T]he future of CALL, I would argue, is closely tied to the future of language teacher education because language teachers are the pivotal players: they select the tools to support their teaching and determine what CALL applications language learners are exposed to and how learners use them. (p. 176) After a review of how CALL research had been approached until that point, Hubbard identified that a common complaint of teachers is that teacher education programs were not able to adequately train their teachers in the use of digital technologies for CALL. Hubbard presented seven possible reasons for why language teacher education programs were not adequately meeting teacher needs. These reasons were: inertia (easier to maintain status quo), ignorance (lack in CALL awareness), insufficient time (teacher education programs are already full), insufficient infrastructure (lack of access to technology), insufficient standards (unclear or non- existent), lack of established methodology (too many options leading to bewilderment), and lack of experienced, knowledgeable educators. While some work had been done to address these areas, namely establishing standards (e.g., Healey, Hegelheimer, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, 12 Kessler, & Ware, 2011), many of these problems continue to plague CALL teacher education ten years later. As identified by Hlas, Conroy, and Hildebrandt (2017), many teachers still do not feel well prepared to use CALL technologies and have limited access to technology resources. In 2012, Reinders’ book chapter focused on language teacher education provided a model for technology training. Reinders pointed out that regardless of the specific changes in technologies, developments are increasingly requiring students to make decisions about their own learning. Thus, teacher education for CALL would need to assist teachers to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to help prepare students to deal with the increase in independence via digital means. More recently, Hanson-Smith (2016) recognized problems in teacher education and technology stemming from program foci being on the technologies themselves, along with many programs having only one course on technology for the classroom. Hanson-Smith then provided an overview of the resources available for language teachers for self-training and access to communities for furthering understanding. This aspect of language teacher education has not been widely explored, however Stockwell (2009) also addressed the need for teachers to continually educate themselves, as becoming familiar with CALL outside of formal training “is a very daunting task indeed” (p. 99). It is important to note that Hanson-Smith recognizes the difficulty of creating training programs to effectively meet teacher training needs, but through raising awareness of self-study options teachers could improve their skills and knowledge of CALL practice. In 2017, Kessler and Hubbard identified how many teachers and students are aware of different tools and practices with digital technologies. However, teachers still need knowledge of computer-assisted language learning skills to adapt them into their teaching contexts (p. 278). In 13 their state-of-the-art overview, Kessler and Hubbard recognized that some of the challenges identified by Hubbard (2008) had been mostly resolved—namely the lack of standards, lack of established methodology, and insufficient infrastructure. However, challenges that still remain include preparing teachers for change, preparing teachers for interactive materials, preparing teachers for a social future, and the challenge of “normalization”, or technology becoming so commonplace that it is taken for granted and training is no longer necessary. In parallel with the papers discussed above, multiple sets of standards have been established outlining competencies and expectations for language instructors' use of technology. The Modern Language Association (MLA; 2007) made the recommendation that “graduate studies should provide substantive training in language teaching and in the use of new technologies” (p. 7). While important, this recommendation has been identified as too general and lacks subsequent support in the document (Angus, 2017). From the education field, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE; 2008) established guidelines to “define the new skills and pedagogical insights educators need to teach, work and learn in the digital age” (ISTE.org). The TESOL technology standards framework (Healey et al., 2011) similarly established guidelines to “level the playing field and guide teachers toward more effective practice” and “give prominence to technological issues, help educators realize the potential benefits of technology, and prompt educators to learn to use technology in their teaching” (Healey, Hegelheimer, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware, 2008, p. 9). These standards served as an important benchmark to guide training and informing teachers and students what they should be aiming for. Other organizations such as The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL; 2013) also now include standards of technology use and integration. Healey, Hegelheimer, et al. (2008) and Healey, Hanson-Smith, et al. (2011) 14 further recognized there were previously no set standards to guide teacher practice in this domain. Common to the five papers previously discussed and with the establishment of the outlined standards comes the recognition that teachers’ needs for knowledge and skills to effectively utilize technology in the language classroom are different from traditional pedagogical knowledge and skills. Using technology for effective classroom teaching is not simply combining technology with current teacher practice, but is an important, separate skillset that teachers need training and support in to achieve success. In addition, there is an emphasis on the fact that CALL teacher education is still not as effective as it should be (Arnold & Ducate, 2015). So, there is further need for exploration of what teachers need to know to be successful, and how to improve training to accomplish such success. Through its history, CALL researchers have recognized that teacher training needs to arm teachers with a skillset that would serve to assist instructors in the present and into the future. In Garrett’s (2009) update to her seminal 1991 paper on the technologies available for use in the language classroom and their related approaches, she identified the need for language teaching to move beyond specific skills with specific software. She states that training should be in ‘CALL proper’ and not simply in technology use. She argues that without teachers receiving a solid foundation in SLA theory and pedagogy, this will lead to ‘superficial’ application and ‘no real integration’ (p. 733). Thus, language teacher education for CALL requires a specific, specialized set of skills in order to be effective. These skills lie outside of simply incorporating technology but require expertise with both technology and with SLA theory and approaches to instruction. As will be discussed in the next section, there are multiple research strands within CALL research that address this distinction. 15 Research on CALL Teacher Knowledge and Competence The knowledge and skills required by teachers to utilize CALL effectively has most often been included in discussions of what researchers term ‘CALL competence’ or ‘CALL knowledge’. As Hong (2010) put it, “The ultimate goal of CALL teacher education is to enable L2 teachers to integrate CALL technology into their classroom with confidence and knowledge” (p. 53). Thus, an important goal of CALL research is to evaluate what teachers need to know, and how best to equip teachers with such knowledge. Researchers have put forward frameworks for mapping the required knowledge and skills that CALL teachers need to be effective. These frameworks address more general needs, as well as those focused on specific activities or approaches to using a particular technology. Hubbard and Levy’s (2006; see Table 1.) framework for general CALL includes two domains, namely knowledge and skills, across a matrix of two levels of knowledge: technical and pedagogical. This framework provides a distinction between what a teacher knows about technology and how they can transform such knowledge into actions in the classroom to promote language acquisition. Further, Torsani (2016) presented three model areas in which language teachers need mastery for subsequent CALL integration to be effective. The first, the linguistic knowledge, refers to an understanding of how language learning occurs. Second, procedural knowledge is required as an understanding of how a program works or knowing different commands within it. The third, technical knowledge, is the combination of the first two. These model areas provide an outline for the construction of CTE activities. Each of the frameworks have in common an emphasis on specific competencies associated with CALL practices that is not simply the application of technology to SLA, representing a shift of focus from skills with individuals or practices but with how technology can be used to address major theories of SLA. 16 Table 1. Technical and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for CALL CALL Knowledge CALL Skill Technical Systematic and incidental understanding of the computer system, including peripheral devices, in terms of hardware, software, and networking. Ability to use technical knowledge and experience both for the operation of the computer system and relevant applications and in dealing with various problems Pedagogical Systematic and incidental understanding of ways of effectively using the computer in language teaching. Ability to use knowledge and experience to determine effective materials, content, and tasks, and to monitor and assess results appropriately. Note. This table was adapted from Hubbard and Levy (2006) Moving to frameworks for specific activities, Robert O’Dowd (2015) presented a model of competencies for telecollaborations, a CMC activity he highlights as “one of the essential” activities in foreign language education. In this model, forty descriptors are provided which are stratified across sections labeled (a) organizational, (b) pedagogical, (c) digital competences, and (d) attitudes and beliefs (2015, p. 66). These competences, as identified by O’Dowd, provide a good point of reference for what attributes and skills a teacher would need to successfully lead telecollaboration between institutions. Again, this model provides a distinction between pedagogical competence and digital competence – meaning there is a separation between an 17 understanding of different technological tools and how to effectively use them in the classroom to promote learning. Another activity, online teaching, has received much recent attention as many universities and language programs adopt more online components. In 2005, Hampel and Stickler presented a framework to represent the competences language tutors required for online teaching. The authors argue that online language teachers need different skills than those who teach face-to- face as well as teachers who teach other subjects online. They propose that the needed skills and knowledge could be represented in a pyramid, shown in Figure 1. The skills needed by teachers range from lower level skills to higher ones. The authors suggest that this pyramid be used to provide guidance for the development of online language teacher training programs. Figure 1. Hampel & Stickler’s (2005) skills pyramid for online language teaching 18 In 2009, Compton offered a critique of Hampel and Stickler’s (2005) framework, and presented instead a framework encompassing three areas, namely, technology in online language teaching, pedagogy in online language teaching, and evaluation of online language teaching. These areas are then stratified across three levels of teacher expertise: novice, proficient, and expert. Using these areas, Compton offered suggestions to improve current courses to train teachers across the different expertise levels, dependent on their future roles. As with previous frameworks, this conceptualization includes a consideration of pedagogy, technology, and the ability to evaluate the resulting combination. Comas-Quinn (2011) investigated the impact of a newly implemented blended learning course on teachers. She found that the teachers struggled with the changes and expressed these in the form of three tenets. First, some teachers showed evidence of poor understanding of the affordances of the asynchronous tools for learning. Second, Comas-Quinn found that teachers’ willingness to incorporate blended learning technologies were influenced by learner expectation and the ideas about what language teaching and learning should be. Third, the training that the teachers received was considered inadequate – it did not allow the teachers enough chances to improve their understanding and develop skills with the technologies. The author then argues that awareness raising and training to develop pedagogical understandings of blended-learning technologies should be prioritized, not just simply training instructors on the features of software. Comas-Quinn does recognize, however, that teachers’ values and beliefs, and contextual factors will ultimately play the biggest role in how teachers engage with blended learning technologies. In this study, we also see the identification of the need to combine both pedagogy and technology knowledge, with a recognition of the importance of contextual factors, and teacher and student attitudes and beliefs. 19 Coming from findings in this strand of research, Hong (2010) presented an argument for what he termed the ‘spherical’ model for CALL teacher training, considering individual teacher factors, contextual factors and teacher education. By adopting this view of training, Hong argues, subsequent integration of technology use can more easily be achieved. Central to the frameworks presented until this point has been identification of domains of knowledge or skills important for teachers, oftentimes with a consideration of teachers’ contexts or individual beliefs of teachers and students. Many times, these frameworks have been developed out of the findings of teacher training or professional development research. CALL Teacher Training and Professional Development Beyond defining the skills and knowledge that teachers need to develop, researchers have also focused on the effectiveness of different training programs on teacher’s abilities. One area of skills development is with tool evaluation. Hanson (2015) worked with two language teachers in Australia and New Zealand to co-construct narratives of their experiences learning how to incorporate blogs and wiki technologies into their courses. Through the narratives, it became clear that the teacher’s recognition of different affordances came from what they were able to actually do with the technologies in their courses. Another concern is training teachers how to safely and ethically use online materials in language classes, something reflected in the TESOL technology standards (Healey et al., 2011). In a report on two studies, Shin (2015) found that before a reflective session, teachers rarely took into account factors such as safety and fair use. However, teachers’ understanding of these concepts was improved through reflective practice, such as having instructors evaluate and reflect on how they selected what they used. 20 Yet another strand of research in TE for CALL investigates how different training formats promote the transfer of training from formal programs into classroom use. Typically, different CALL activities are employed by teachers less often than expected, although this lack of integration may be more a result of a lack of time and resources (Egbert, Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002). Chao (2015) identifies that much CALL teacher education research had until that point not adequately addressed the positivist and tool-centered view of a majority of the research. As a result, the author adopted a qualitative format to “seek a cross-contextual understanding of language teacher learning with digital technology” (p. 102) by focusing on nineteen in-service language teachers. The teachers were tasked with creating presentations in a CALL TE course focused on what the in-service teachers viewed as the connections between the course materials and the CALL TE course content. Eight months later, Chao interviewed four of the nineteen teachers to examine whether their views had changed since the course ended. Importantly, each of the instructors adopted or adapted the technologies and skills discussed in the course in ways that were best suited for their individual contexts. Chao concluded that although the course participants did not adopt technologies in a direct transfer, the participants showed evidence of change in their thoughts, practice and even identity as teachers. As Chao indicates, “it is true that the particular context a teacher works in is going to be much more influential and capable of determining whether or not and to what extent the teacher uses what is learned from the [CALL teacher education] class” (p. 113). Somewhat related to transfer of training, and less studied are the different factors that impact the use of technologies by teachers in language classrooms beyond pre-service training or in-service professional development, although there has been some earlier work done in this area (See Egbert et al., 2002, for an overview). Kessler and Plakans (2008) examined the role of 21 teachers’ confidence in employing different technologies and found that teachers highly confident in CALL practice used technology the least, whereas teachers who were considered contextually confident employed CALL practice most often and in the most creative and effective ways. Those who were the least confident only used technology as prescribed by the curriculum or institution. He, Puakpong, and Lian (2015) investigated the normalization of CALL in ethnic areas of China. They utilized a survey with follow-up interviews to examine factors that impacted the integration of technology and CALL practice in the language classrooms. From the 318 survey responses, they found that multiple factors were implicated in the normalization of CALL practice in English language classrooms. Most salient was whether the institution provided proper infrastructure, teacher training and teacher perceptions of usefulness. Tour (2016) examined how teachers’ personal digital literacy practices impacted classroom practice. Central to her study was the concept of digital mindsets. In 2009, Dooly evaluated the impact of a teacher training program on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by Spanish teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL). The purpose of their project was to examine how the teachers were able to incorporate what they learned in the professional development program in their actual teaching contexts. Their study provided insights into the prevailing ways in which the program participants continued using different technologies for CALL. Overall, she found that though teachers’ knowledge of technologies were higher than before the training, integration into actual practice did not increase. Dooly then problematized approaches to teacher training for CALL and advocated for reflective approaches. In that same year, Guichon (2009), in his paper on identifying underlying competencies necessary for online teachers, also identified his desire to illuminate the importance of reflective practice on teachers’ professional development. The 22 author concludes that using a self-confrontation method, via analyzing recorded teaching sessions led to teachers’ recognizing problem areas and working towards improvement. The literature reviewed until this point provides background to how researchers have conceptualized and investigated what language teachers should know in order to teach while effectively incorporating technology. Research on CALL TE has ranged from defining what knowledge is needed, to evaluating skills needed for particular kinds of CALL, to examining teacher beliefs and attitudes, to promoting reflective and situated approaches to teaching. All of the research has had the common aim of promoting the use of technology by teachers. In the next section, I present a framework from general education that was developed with a similar goal. The TPACK Framework Language teacher education (LTE) is a “microcosm of teacher education” (Crandall, 2000) and has often drawn from general TE. For this dissertation, I draw from the general TE field to utilize the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Framework (TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; 2009). Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced TPACK as a framework that integrates multiple aspects of knowledge identified as necessary for the successful integration of technology into the classroom. TPACK is an extension of Shulman’s (1986) work that first connected the domains of content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) into pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Johnson (2009) addressed the fact that historically language teacher education operated under assumptions that learning about language would naturally lead to learning how to teach language. Language teacher education viewed knowledge as having just two components: knowledge of language, and knowledge of theory, methodology and culture. However, in the 1980’s, research shifted from what teachers should know to who teachers are. This gave rise to 23 research examining teachers’ prior experiences and how that led to further development and impacted actions in the classroom. Thus, Schulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge was apt in identifying that knowledge was not made of separate components but that multiple domains overlapped for language teachers. An important aspect of Schulman’s conceptualization is the crossover between the two facets of pedagogy and content knowledge, giving rise to the term pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). As Cochran, DeRuiter, and King (1993) define, Pedagogical content knowledge is a type of knowledge that is unique to teachers, and in fact is what teaching is about. It concerns the manner in which teachers relate their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching) to their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach), in the school context, for the teaching of specific students. It is the integration or the synthesis of teachers' pedagogical knowledge and their subject matter knowledge that comprises pedagogical content knowledge. (p. 4) The authors go on to state, as well, that pedagogical content knowledge is “what makes teachers teachers rather than subject area experts” (p. 5). According to Mishra and Koehler (2006), content knowledge is knowledge about the subject matter at hand and pedagogical knowledge is a general understanding of pedagogy (e.g., how students learn, or a generic understanding of the learning process in educational contexts). Further, according to Mishra and Koehler, PCK is: concerned with the representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge, and theories of epistemology. It also involves knowledge of teaching 24 strategies that incorporate appropriate conceptual representations in order to address learner difficulties and misconceptions and foster meaningful understanding. (p. 1027) Thus, TPACK builds off of PCK with the addition of technological knowledge (TK). It is the intersection of the three domains so far mentioned, namely content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK) that gives rise to the framework’s namesake, TPACK. Figure 2 outlines the representation of the framework shared in Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin and Graham (2014). Inherent in this framework is a focus on the interplay of the three domains of knowledge and each area is used when an instructor successfully integrates technology into classroom practice. Mishra and Koehler (2006) observe that “a conceptually based theoretical framework about the relationship between technology and teaching can transform the conceptualization and the practice of teacher education, teacher training, and teachers’ professional development” (p. 1019). Table 2 also presents the separate domains of knowledge as conceptualized by Mishra and Koehler. This framework has contributed to a proliferation of publications and research focused on knowledge teachers require for effective technology integration. Koehler and Mishra (2015) identified that the TPACK framework is suitable for use in research under descriptive, inferential, applied, and analytic lenses to examine the phenomenon of teaching with technology. 25 Table 2. Definitions of TPACK Framework Domains of Knowledge Knowledge domain Definition CK PK “central facts, concepts, theories, and procedures within a given field” “deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning” and “knowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding” PCK “concerned with the representation and formulation of concepts, TCK TPK pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology” “the way technology and content are reciprocally related” “knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (continued) 26 Table 2 (cont’d). Knowledge domain Definition TPACK “the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones” Note. This table was adapted from Mishra and Koehler (2006) In general education research, TPACK has been a framework for studies focused on preservice teachers ranging from elementary teaching contexts to higher education (Wu, 2013). Most studies focused on TPACK focus on pre-service educators and the impact of formal training programs. Typically, studies employ a pre-test, post-test design and administer a self- assessment survey to measure change in levels of TPACK (Fisser, Voogt, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2015). Some researchers have called attention to the need for studies that examine TPACK from 27 other perspectives and to focus on other teaching populations, especially on in-service teachers (Phillips, 2013). Figure 2. The TPACK framework (as presented in Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin & Graham, 2014). TPACK and CALL Research As discussed previously, the TESOL technology standards framework (Healey et al., 2008) served as an important tool in helping to promote awareness of the need for additional teacher training in being able to effectively use technology to promote language learning. They did not address the crucial aspect of teachers’ knowledge of how to effectively utilize technology in the classroom. They provided important points of consideration and direction for preparing teachers to utilize different technologies, however they did not address the point of which 28 knowledge would be most useful to whom. The standards set forth goals that are broad and may require expert assistance to refine and help teachers apply to their future teaching contexts. The TPACK framework, therefore, provides a useful way in which to examine a teacher’s knowledge of how technology can impact the learning process. It also emphasizes that different contextual factors play into teachers’ abilities to utilize technologies, and how effective they may be. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) explained, "Developing theory for educational technology is difficult because it requires a detailed understanding of complex relationships that are contextually bound.” (p. 1018). By utilizing the TPACK framework, with the added ecological perspective afforded by the extension proposed by Porras-Hernandez and Salinas- Amescua (2013) discussed in more detail later, the impact of the contextual factors is forefronted and enable examination and exploration of how different factors can affect teacher cognition and training outcomes. As a result, utilizing this framework can provide a clearer picture of language teachers’ individual situations and which factors play into both knowledge development and enactment of such knowledge. There is a growing body of research using TPACK to frame teachers’ development of CALL knowledge and skills. Studies that have examined teachers’ knowledge in this domain have provided important insights. First, there is clear evidence that the TPACK framework can be used effectively to document knowledge development of how to combine effective learning, language content in order to promote second language acquisition using technology (Tseng, 2017). One of the approaches common in the SLA studies employing the TPACK framework is by using a learning-technology-by-design approach (see Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In this approach, Mishra and Koehler explain, more emphasis is on learning-by-doing in lieu of lectures and abstracted coursework or lesson planning. This approach gives “students the opportunity to 29 transcend the passive learner role and to take control of their learning” (Mishra & Koehler, p. 1035). Tai (2013; 2015) responded to a call to promote TPACK development by developing what she calls the TPACK-in-action model. Tai created this model to promote the learning-by- doing concept inherent in the TPACK model and to develop teachers’ understanding of TPACK itself. Within this model, Tai outlined five steps to guide professional development programs centered on developing TPACK. Bustamante and Miller (2013) investigated using the TPACK framework in a professional development program for German-as-a-foreign-language teachers. By using the TPACK framework with the ‘learning by doing’ approach, the authors concluded that their course was effective in enabling teachers to link the technologies they learned about directly to foreign language teaching. Kurt, Akyel, Kocoglu and Mishra (2014) examined whether pre-service English teachers reflected on their TPACK when creating lesson plans for a course built around the framework of TPACK. After creating the lessons, the participants presented the lessons and received feedback from their peers. The authors concluded that such a course was successful in helping teachers to reflect on and improve their TPACK as implemented in their lessons. Kurt et al. conclude that teacher training programs can be successful in promoting TPACK if the program combines coursework and fieldwork, or in other words, a learning-by-doing approach. Extending the work on whether TPACK increased due to training programs built with TPACK as a central tenant, Liu and Kleinsasser (2015) used a survey and interviews to examine the impact of an in-service training program on both self- efficacy beliefs and CALL knowledge. In their examination of six EFL teachers in Taiwan, the authors found that each of the participants experienced increases in their perceived self-efficacy in utilizing CALL in their classroom. Additional data demonstrated that each teacher experienced increases in their TPACK as well as the other three technology domains within the 30 framework (TK, TCK, TPK). TPACK development was not solely based on the evaluations of the teachers themselves but was corroborated with the evaluations of other university professionals and language students. This study provides support for in-service programs being a source for language teachers to improve their knowledge and their self-efficacy beliefs, which may lead to better transfer of knowledge from a professional development program into teaching contexts. Another researcher looked at if individual differences play a role in TPACK and the development of more knowledge. Cheng (2017) administered a survey to 172 in-service teachers of the Hakka language in Taiwan and found that demographic factors may play a role in differences among teachers’ different knowledge areas within TPACK. Cheng found evidence for effects of gender and age in content and technology knowledge. This highlights the importance of examining individual factors and context when considering knowledge using TPACK. Common to the studies utilizing the TPACK framework in CALL research is a focus on training effectiveness, or guidance in the creation of pre-service training or in-service professional development. As mentioned, there have been calls to extend the TPACK framework to examine teacher development over time, as well as to take into consideration contextual and other sociocultural factors that may have an impact on both the development of and deployment of teacher’s knowledge for technology use (Phillips, 2016; Porras-Hernandez & Salinas- Amescua, 2013). Extending TPACK: Situating Context As mentioned, TPACK is most often conceptualized as a framework for understanding the knowledge teachers need for technology integration. However, recently there have been 31 pushes to move beyond this conceptualization and researchers have named TPACK as an effective framework for exploring things such as identity (Phillips, 2013; 2016) and factors contributing to teachers use of TPACK (or TPACK enactment). In an extension of this view, Olofson, Swallow and Neumann (2016) present the TPACKing framework, in which teacher knowledge construction is an active process by teachers where the teachers create individualized TPACK knowledge to fit their unique needs. Importantly, Porras-Hernandes and Salinas- Amescua (2013) also argued for more consideration of context and its impact on the development and employment of TPACK. The authors argued that the original TPACK framework defined teaching contexts too narrowly. Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua draw attention to TPACK as a means for examining how teachers’ knowledge is constructed through reflection of practice, moving beyond traditional conceptualizations. The authors then advocate the use of narrative inquiry as a means for promoting reflection and subsequent knowledge construction. The authors argued for strengthening the framework by placing a larger emphasis on the role of context and on using methodologies from a more inductive approach to research. The authors advocated an extension of the TPACK framework by considering it across two dimensions: scope and actors. For scope, Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua contend that factors of context within macro–, meso– and micro-levels be considered as having important implications on the use of TPACK and the generation of knowledge. On the macro-level, taken into consideration are social, economic, technological and political conditions globally, as well as on the national scale. The authors then conceptualize the meso-level as the local community and institution. The micro-level is concerned with the in-class conditions for learning. The actors in this strengthened conceptualization take into account the factors of students and teachers themselves. This would mean that teacher’s characteristics, beliefs and values 32 outside of TPACK would be couched with the teacher-actor domain. For students, this takes into consideration their collective characteristics—their values, goals and expectations. Rosenberg and Koehler (2015a) utilized Porras-Hernandes and Salinas-Amescua’s (2013) extended framework to analyze the relevance of context in TPACK research until that point in a meta-analysis. They found that few studies actually identified the role of context, and those which did were not defined clearly or consistently. In a separate paper, Rosenberg and Koehler (2015b) built upon the extended framework developed by Porras-Hernandes and Salinas- Amescua by further delineating how teacher knowledge is conceptualized: knowledge of context and knowledge-in-context. Knowledge of context views context as something that can be analyzed separately from the teacher, while knowledge in context views the teacher and the context as being inseparable. Put another way, Rosenberg and Koehler identify knowledge of context as that which surrounds and knowledge in context as woven together with (p. 442). Importantly for this dissertation, the view of knowledge of context, or that which surrounds, is the view I have adopted for the project. The extended form of the TPACK framework taking into account scope and actors is influenced by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework on the ecology of human development. A representation of the framework can be seen in Figure 3. An important distinction, however, is that in the TPACK framework knowledge is the focus of the analysis and not individuals themselves. As Rosenberg and Koehler point out, knowledge of context is “that which surrounds teachers, as factors that affect teachers, or as something about which teachers easily develop knowledge” (p. 442). The authors also go on to say that this approach to “viewing context as that which surrounds teachers affords analyses of how context independently affects teachers or of how teachers develop knowledge of context” (p. 442). 33 Figure 3. The extended TPACK framework (Adapted from Porras-Hernandes and Salinas- Amescua, 2013) SLA and CALL researchers have begun to examine language learning and language teaching similarly borrowing from the field of Ecology. The Douglas Fir Group (2016) presented what they called a transdisciplinary framework for SLA that responded to the growth of the research field as it has been influenced by a variety of other disciplines. The group proposed that "[a] new SLA must be imagined, one that can investigate the learning and teaching of additional languages across private and public, material and digital social contexts in a multilingual world.” (p.20). They then proposed the framework, mentioning that it had been influenced by 34 Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework on the ecology of human development. Such a framework was positioned as a move towards taking into account factors across a range of levels, separated primarily into three domains: the macro, meso, and micro. In CALL research, Garrett (1991) identified three major components of CALL. They were pedagogy, theory, and technology. In her 2009 (Garrett, 2009) update she identified a fourth component, namely infrastructure. Within this component, she further identified three levels of infrastructure: physical setup of teaching and learning spaces (classrooms, labs), institutional professional development supports and the national support system and physical infrastructures. As she outlined, a fourth component, which she named infrastructure, includes contexts that impacts how the other three operate. She then explains that this component includes, first, the physical/technological setup of the teaching/learning spaces, second, the professional development support available at the institution level, and third, how language education is structured on the national level and how national institutions support it (p. 720). There has also been a growing amount of recognition of the need to consider particular contexts that teachers work within in order to encourage effective technology use. For example, there has been research focused on developing a more ‘ecological’ view of CALL (Lafford, 2009)—in that the use of computer technologies is highly contextualized and situated. Some work has begun to evaluate what impacts normalization of technology in schools (He, Puakpong, & Lian, 2015), and whether individual teachers are able to incorporate what they learned from professional development in the ways that they originally expected (Chao, 2015). It is not difficult to draw connections between what Garrett identified and the extended TPACK framework. I consider it to take into account the first three components identified by Garrett (1991; 2009), namely pedagogy, theory (which I view as being synonymous with content 35 knowledge), and technology through the TPACK framework at its core. Next, the component of infrastructure with its three levels are captured by the ecological system of context identified along macro, meso and micro-levels. Researchers in language teacher education have long recognized the importance of context on teachers across multiple areas including classroom practices (Basturkmen, 2012), self-efficacy (Faez & Valeo, 2012), and pedagogical beliefs (Li, 2013; Yuan & Lee, 2014). Similarly, CALL research, as has been shown, has concerned itself with identifying what knowledge (or competences) are needed (e.g., Guichon & Hauck, 2011; Hubbard & Levy, 2006), the effectiveness or impact of training or professional development in promoting such knowledge and/or skills (e.g., Dooly & Sadler, 2013) and teacher perceptions or attitudes towards technology use (e.g., Aydin, 2013; Hlas, Conroy, & Hildebrandt, 2017; Kessler, 2007; see also, Torsani, 2016 for an overview). Throughout all of the research, context is sometimes identified as important or even crucial to take into consideration. In CALL teacher education research, there are proposals to make CALL teacher instruction ‘situated’ (see McNeil, 2013 for an overview), wherein knowledge is considered inseparable from doing. By adopting this approach to teacher education, it is expected to better meet individual teachers’ unique needs and overcome the separation of knowing and doing often present in CALL teacher education courses. Still lacking, however, is a concerted effort to explore the direct impact of different contextual factors on teacher training and subsequent technology use in the language classroom. To that end, this project aims to address this area by examining a specific population of language educators that go through a teaching exchange, namely the FLTAs. By examining this group of individuals’ experiences in connection to the different contextual factors present within both 36 their home context and the context of the United States, I can examine how said factors contribute to or limit both knowledge construction and subsequent enactment. Previous Research on Fulbright FLTAs Fulbright FLTAs are a population of international teaching assistants (ITAs) in the sense that they participate in a year-long teaching exchange program. The experiences of ITAs have been the focus of some research (Gorsuch, 2016), and it has been found that ITAs need support beyond normal TAs in multiple areas including language, teaching and culture (Gorsuch, 2012a). Beyond, there has not been much work examining the needs of ITAs, prompting a call for a more developed research agenda (Gorsuch, 2016). What work has been done with ITAs has been focused on their professional identities (Wang, 2016) and their linguistic competence (e.g., Chiang, 2009). Somewhat less examined are the difficulties that ITAs encounter. Arshavskaya (2015) found that while ITAs benefitted from the opportunity to teach in U.S. academic institutions, they confronted challenges with classroom management, linguistic and communication problems, and difficulty adapting to the U.S. academic culture norms. The FLTAs may encounter difficulty with any one of these issues, however their experiences may be somewhat unique due to the fact that they are teaching their home languages in foreign language programs, oftentimes without any previous experience in doing so. The FLTA program participants are teachers of English in their respective countries but are given the opportunity to come to the United States to strengthen foreign language programs. This is accomplished through the FLTAs becoming teaching assistants for the foreign language courses of their native language offered at U.S. universities. This context is unique because the program participants are already in-service teachers but come to a completely new academic and social context to teach their native languages. At the beginning of their assignments, they receive 37 training in a formal orientation program and continue to receive support throughout their one- year assignments. For many FLTAs, participation in the program represents a multitude of firsts—their first visit to the United States, their first exposure to teaching their native language and, for many, their first time ever leaving their home country. Notwithstanding the uniqueness of their situation and the well-established nature of the Fulbright program, this population has not yet received much attention within SLA literature. The few studies that do include them do not focus on the impact of the program on the collective knowledge and/or beliefs of the FLTAs as teachers, or on examining how the unique experiences of the FLTAs impact their professional development over time and across the multiple contexts in which they work. Notwithstanding the different focus, there are important insights that can be gained about the impact the program has on its participants. For example, Kirkgoz (2017) used transformative learning theory to investigate the impact of the FLTA program across dimensions of education, culture and democracy for Turkish FLTA returnees. In addition, Kirkgoz examined what the FLTAs identified as major challenges for them. In the study, the author found that the FLTAs did experience challenges stemming from their inexperience teaching Turkish as a foreign language. These challenges included issues with the language itself, problems finding proper materials, and issues with adjusting to academic culture in the classroom. As for the impact of the program on the FLTAs, Kirkgoz reports that: It contributed to building up knowledge and skills, it taught them something new about the teaching practice and about students’ attitudes, and it led to changes in their established viewpoints about a particular educational issue or opened up new opportunities professionally. (p. 141) 38 While not specific to any knowledge set or skills, it is clear that the program did have important effects on participants’ teaching practices and provides opportunities for professional development. Uzum (2013a; 2015) investigated how Turkish and Uzbek FLTAs experienced socialization in their assigned university. Uzum focused on exploring the FLTAs’ pedagogical beliefs and practices regarding multiple areas of language teaching including the teacher’s role, feedback, and classroom culture. Findings from the study indicated that the FLTAs’ socialization processes were mediated by multiple biographical, contextual and dialogic factors. Uzum concluded that as a result of such factors, FLTAs were able to reconstruct their beliefs which in- turn led to changes in their classroom practices. In a related paper, Uzum (2013b) explored how a Turkish FLTA used different pronouns to enact different identities in both personal and professional contexts. Overall, the research on FLTAs at this point has found that the FLTA experience has an impact on their teaching practices, beliefs and identity. What has not been evaluated yet is how different FLTA’s knowledge of specific teaching practices (e.g., CALL) are shaped by their participation. The Current Study Previous literature on teacher education has been concerned with understanding the knowledge needed by teachers, and how teachers gain such knowledge. CALL teacher education research has similarly been focused on the competences, knowledge and skills needed by teachers. Those who have proposed frameworks for CALL teacher education have most often drawn distinctions between pedagogy, technology, and content knowledge. In addition, researchers have begun to call for research on the role of context in its shaping of teacher knowledge, and the use of CALL technologies. There is also a recognition of the potential for 39 reflective practice and situated learning to promote the transfer of training and integration of technology into teaching practice. While there has been research that has identified contextual factors as important in the construction and use of different forms of knowledge, there has not been work examining cases of specific factors and their interactions with a set of teachers. professional development of its participants, but so far this work has either been on aspects of identity or a general analysis of its impact. In an effort to improve both the CALL teacher education field and to improve the Fulbright FLTA program, this dissertation is guided by the three research questions in the next section. The work on the FLTA program has shown that the program has important effects on the Research Questions 1. What is the impact of the FLTA program on participants knowledge of CALL, as framed within TPACK? 2. What are the different contextual factors at play in the FLTA’s development of CALL knowledge during their assignments? 3. How does the knowledge of different contextual factors impact FLTA’s TPACK/CALL enactment upon return? In the next chapter I address the method, including a description of the participants, context, data collection and analysis used to address the three research questions. These three questions guided the analysis and selection of data collection methods. 40 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of an international teaching exchange program (The Fulbright FLTA program) on participants’ knowledge for the use of CALL and other technology in the language classroom, and whether/how such knowledge transfers back to the home teaching context. In this study, I worked with two groups of Fulbright FLTA teachers that came to the USA to teach their native languages at Michigan State University (MSU). I adopted qualitative methods in a multiple case-study design to examine the impact of the FLTA program on their knowledge of CALL practice and how to incorporate technology in pedagogically sound ways to promote language learning at home and in their host context. In order to address the research questions listed at the end of Chapter 2, I examined Fulbright FLTAs’ reported experiences and contextual factors to investigate the impact that the FLTA program had on their CALL knowledge. As mentioned, I have adopted a multiple case-study design. As Stake (2006) defined, a multiple case study is a “special effort to examine something having lots of cases, parts, or members”. Case studies have been widely used in SLA as third- person descriptive accounts of learners, groups of learners, or of teachers (van Lier, 2005). Case studies require multiple sources of qualitative data collection (Creswell, 2013; Richards, 2003) to understand the case or cases under investigation. The forms of data collection are outlined in the next section. These sources (interviews, observations, journal entries, and field notes) enabled triangulation of the data leading to in-depth examination of the experiences of the FLTAs. A case study design is especially apt for the focus of this study as I am interested in the experiences of the FLTAs over time (van Lier, 2005). Through this design, I could “particularize” the experiences of the focal group to draw insights of relevance and significance to a wider 41 population (Duff, 2012). A case study is also appropriate because of its flexibility. As I had not met the incoming FLTAs, when I designed the study, this design was flexible enough to allow me to better tailor the project to meet the needs and circumstances as they arose (Maxwell, 2013). Context of The Study In this section I provide an overview of the context of the program that each of the FLTAs participated in. I provide some information on the university that the focal participants were assigned too, as well as a description of the FLTA program and their assignments. Michigan State University Michigan State University is a publicly funded, land-grant research university in East Lansing, Michigan. As of Fall 2017, total enrollment was 50,019. Students at the university come from 138 countries, with over twelve percent of undergraduates and twenty percent of graduate students being international. Currently the university offers approximately thirty-five languages, with twenty-four being offered as options in the less-commonly taught languages program. The Fulbright FLTA Program The Fulbright FLTA program is sponsored by the United States Department of State, under the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs. According to the Fulbright website (“Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA)”, n.d.) the Fulbright FLTA program in the United States provides future or current teachers of English as a Foreign Language a chance to become better versed with American culture while providing support to foreign language programs at U.S. colleges and universities. Program participants are competitively selected to come and live in the United States for one academic year where they are given an assignment as 42 a teaching assistant for their native language. To participate in the program the individual must be either an in-service or pre-service English teacher with the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree. FLTA participants must also have a TOEFL–IBT score of at least 79-80 or an IELTS score of 6.0. Fulbright assignments are for one academic year. Each FLTA may be assigned to a university, four-year college or community college that requests them. The role of the FLTA at the institution is determined by the host institution within guidelines set by the Fulbright FLTA program. Each FLTA is permitted to work up to a total of twenty hours per week, according to J- 1 visa guidelines in the USA. An additional benefit for FLTAs is that they can participate in academic courses that are focused on providing professional development and training for their practices as instructors upon return to their home countries. Upon completion, the Fulbright program, in conjunction with United States visa requirements, requires FLTAs to complete a two-year residency in their home country before they are eligible to apply for additional visa status in the United States. This two-year residency requirement may be postponed if the FLTAs decide to pursue further education within the United States. If an FLTA were accepted into a PhD program, for example, they could continue studying and working in the United States until their studies were completed. They would then be required to return to their home country to fulfill their two-year residency obligations. Roughly two weeks before beginning their individual assignments FLTAs come to the United States. Larger groups of FLTAs attend an orientation session at one of a handful of universities in late summer before the start of classes at most universities on semester-system. MSU is one of the schools currently selected to host a week-long orientation for a larger group of FLTAs before they separate and report to their specific assignments. MSU receives between 60 and 80 FLTAs for this orientation week in the second week of August. The following, taken 43 from the website (“FLTA Summer Orientation (FLTASO)”, n.d.), outlines that the orientation provides: • An opportunity to gain insight into and begin adjusting to different educational norms and practices • Skills necessary to ease transition into the world of U.S. academic culture • Preparation to teach at a U.S. institution of higher education • Introduction to the latest and best practices in the field of language instruction • Preparation to succeed as a student at a U.S. institution of higher education The program structure includes sessions presented by different administrators and instructors at MSU. One piece of the orientation program is a session covering basic CALL practices and commonly used tools that the FLTAs may encounter in their assignments. Members of the Institute of International Education (IIE) are also present at the orientation to oversee the program and to help FLTAs complete their paperwork. As a part of my assignments as a graduate assistant, I worked with the larger group of FLTAs during the orientation week as an assistant and leader. I was responsible for welcoming the FLTAs as well as assisting them throughout the week. It was my duty to help the FLTAs get where they needed to be. In addition, I assisted with the multiple presentations as a support person and presented as a part of a panel on international and intercultural communication. After the week-long orientation, I was also asked to do a brief workshop with the seven MSU FLTAs on some of the major technologies that they would be using throughout their assignments. FLTA Assignments Each of the FLTAs receives a slightly different assignment, based on current needs of the language program and who is currently in charge of teaching. Multiple FLTAs fulfill roles as 44 instructors, meaning that they are responsible for conceptualizing, creating and executing a syllabus, lesson plans, and teaching materials. Others fill in roles as materials creators, substitutes or for providing extra help room hours and grading homework, tests and quizzes. The FLTA coordinator is ultimately responsible for all of the administrative tasks for the FLTAs, whereas individual supervisors (when present) assign the FLTAs their daily duties. At MSU, the FLTAs usually start as assistants before becoming fully in charge of a section of the course. However, there are some circumstances where this may not be the case. FLTA Program at Michigan State University Michigan State University’s involvement with the Fulbright FLTA program began in 2008 when the current FLTA coordinator and another colleague were asked if they would be interested in participating in the program. They submitted a successful application in that same year and received five FLTA participants that fall. Initially MSU received FLTAs to support the less commonly taught languages (LCTL) program, however the Institute of International Education (IIE) asked if the program could receive FLTAs who speak Russian. Since the answer was in the affirmative, the FLTA program has grown to include language instructors that the FLTA coordinator felt that MSU could accommodate. Currently the FLTA coordinator oversees and manages the FLTAs that are a part of the LCTL program, and the FLTAs that are assigned into CTL programs such as Spanish, French, Italian, or Portuguese, or Arabic and Chinese are supervised by a professor or instructor within those programs. The main staff in charge of the FLTAs assigned to MSU primarily includes the FLTA coordinator, and sometimes a graduate assistant assigned to her through the MA-TESOL or other doctoral programs. Each of the FLTAs receives an assignment to a dorm suite on campus, and they are all assigned to the same building. In addition, the FLTAs receive meal plans to eat in the on-campus 45 facilities available. Each of the dorm rooms are equipped with basic facilities such as a fridge and microwave but are not stocked with full-service kitchens. In addition to their teaching duties, each of the FLTAs is expected to participate in cultural outreach events. These activities usually consist of presentations to community groups or language introductions to local schoolchildren. Each of the FLTAs must participate in multiple events throughout their time at MSU. MSU also became involved in the larger, week-long FLTA orientation program after being asked by the IIE director to do so in 2010. Since then MSU has been involved with the orientation program every year. For the orientation, there are multiple co-directors for the program who are led primarily by the FLTA coordinator. In addition, there are multiple support staff and content experts hired from MSU’s language departments and graduate programs. The primary purpose of the orientation program is set and maintained by IIE and overseen by the Department of State. During the orientation the FLTAs stay in a hotel near campus, with meetings and presentations housed in a variety of buildings. Role of The Researcher In a qualitative case study, it is important to recognize the role of the researcher as the multiple roles that I inhabited impacted how the participants reacted and shared information with me. Throughout the time that the FLTAs were here at MSU I inhabited the role of researcher most often, and at other times as non-participant observer. However, I attempted to develop a relationship as a fellow colleague and mentor. I anticipate that the FLTAs viewed me as a technology professional and language teaching colleague. For Cohort A, upon their arrival in the US, I was one of the first individuals to welcome them at the airport and to provide direction and assistance as they settled in for their first week of 46 orientation. I spent their first week in August as a guide and assistant in helping the large group of sixty-plus FLTAs to navigate their new environment. On the first Friday of orientation I served as a guide to help the seven MSU FLTAs to travel to and from a downtown festival. I also assisted them all in navigating to multiple locations on campus and answered their questions and concerns. The week before classes were to initially begin, I was asked by the FLTA coordinator to present a brief workshop on the use of technology in the classroom with a specific focus on how to use Google Drive and Google Docs to support the language classroom. For Cohort B, I was able to introduce myself to the FLTAs during their first meeting in the Spring semester with the FLTA coordinator. I expressed to them my interest in working with them and their experiences and that I hoped to get to know them throughout the semester. I was then able to work with each of them separately as we met for interviews and observations. I offered my services as a language instruction professional, U.S. citizen and CALL professional throughout their time. I expressed my interest and concern for their well-being during their assignments and also emphasized my desire to assist them in carrying out their duties. Each time we met we discussed that the project should be a learning exercise for both myself and for them. I told them that I hoped our times together would lead to further reflections on their learning experiences. Throughout our time together, the FLTAs asked me for advice on a range of topics and I provided assistance to them as they applied for different PhD programs. Several also approached me on different occasions for advice about things like travel and American culture. It is through these experiences that I feel I can say that I was viewed as a positive resource for them in their assignments. In addition, I provided each participant a gift card for $30 to Amazon.com or eBay.com based on their preference. 47 Participants The data for this dissertation were collected from two separate cohorts of FLTAs. The timing for this project made it so that I was not able to work with one cohort throughout their entire year, so I worked with two separate groups, one in their second semester, and one during their first semester. As such, I selected a purposive sample consisting of all FLTAs that came to work at MSU during the semesters in which this project took place. After the initial purposive sample, convenience sampling was used since not all of the FLTAs participated in the project to the extent needed to be included in the final report. While I was able to interview each of the FLTAs at least once, not all of them kept reflective journals. The five FLTAs included in this dissertation were selected based on the amount of participation, namely the amount of interaction I had with them and how often they contributed to the reflective journals. The first group of FLTAs, henceforth referred to as Cohort A, was a group that I began working with beginning with their arrival at MSU in late summer, briefly before they were to begin their FLTA assignments. The other group, henceforth referred to as Cohort B, were FLTAs that I followed throughout their second and final semester (spring) as FLTAs. I began data collection for Cohort B during the final semester of their assignments and followed up with a few of them as they returned home and began working in their home contexts. For recruitment, I approached the FLTA coordinator for permission to invite each of the FLTAs to participate in the case study. I introduced the project to both the FLTA groups during one of their bi-monthly meetings with the FLTA coordinator. I then invited them to meet with me or set up a time where we could meet separately to discuss further details and sign IRB approved consent forms. As mentioned, all of the FLTAs assigned to MSU were invited to participate. 48 To protect the individual identities of the FLTAs, in this document I do not provide identifying information such as their language and home country. I do provide the region that each FLTA comes from. I also assigned each participant a pseudonym. Finally, I am not providing the age range or any other demographic information about the participants other than gender. Pseudonyms were assigned by me with approval from the individual participants. For each FLTA, I will provide information on their educational and work backgrounds. I will also provide some information on what each FLTA expressed as their desires for joining the FLTA program. Brief descriptions of what their assignments also entailed are included. In chapters four and five, I will present more information about their backgrounds as a part of the data analysis. After data collection and analysis, I have selected five total FLTAs to be included as a part of this report. Their information is presented below, in alphabetical order. Alex Alex is an FLTA from a North Asian country. Before coming to the USA for the FLTA program, Alex taught both secondary and high school students at a public English institution for multiple years. Before her FLTA assignment she had never visited the United States and expressed that she had never had interactions with native English speakers. Prior to the FLTA program she had not had any experience teaching her home language to speakers of other languages. At MSU she shadowed an instructor for her first semester and served as a substitute teacher for her assigned program. She had never travelled outside of her home country before the FLTA program. Upon completion of the program she plans to return to the same position as before. 49 Daria Daria joined the FLTA program from her home country in South Asia. Daria was an English instructor at a medical school in her home country. Prior to joining the FLTA program, she had taught for nearly ten years in her current job. In addition, she often held community English language courses in her home for local school children. She felt that the FLTA program was an opportunity for her to improve her English language proficiency and to be exposed to more language teaching methodologies. For her assignment as an FLTA she taught two online courses in the first semester due to one of the professors not receiving work clearance to come to the United States. She was the instructor of record for both a first– and second-year language course. During her second semester, she worked on materials creation for one of the courses. Gene Before accepting the FLTA assignment in the United States, Gene was an English instructor at a secondary school in his home country in Africa. He was not originally planning on pursuing a career in English education, however a professor at his institution convinced him to continue. Gene spent his first semester as an FLTA observing classes and teaching one class a week in his assigned program. With his experiences in the FLTA program, he hoped that he could return home and acquire better employment at one of the more prestigious private schools. Kyle Prior to coming to the United States, Kyle had spent over three years as an English language instructor for multiple online courses at a large university in his home country in the Middle East. The courses he taught included both synchronous and asynchronous components, but were, according to him, highly structured and limited due to university requirements and the number of students enrolled in the courses. He expressed his interest in coming to the United 50 States as an opportunity to improve his English proficiency and to become acquainted with American culture firsthand. As an FLTA, Kyle taught one language course to undergraduate students, with two synchronous online meetings and one face to face meeting per week. Pat Pat joined the FLTA program from her home country in South Asia. Before deciding to come to the United States, Pat taught for several years at both a private school and an English language center. Her teaching was focused mostly on teaching K-12 EFL learners, but she also taught adults in her language center job. She received both her BA and her MA in English language teaching. Pat studied under multiple native English-speaking instructors and received her MA from a program under the direction of a US university. Once she has finished her FLTA assignment she plans to return to her jobs at home. Pat taught one of the online language courses in her first semester. Most of the materials were created by a previous FLTA, however she spent a lot of her other time working on creating materials for the 200-level language course which she taught in the Spring semester. Data Sources As mentioned previously, I employed multiple data collection methods to both improve my understanding and analysis of the focal cases. In addition, utilizing multiple sources of data provides for triangulation of the data to ensure more internal validity. I interviewed each of the FLTAs throughout Spring (Cohort B) and Fall (Cohort A) semesters with a focus on their experiences concerning technology and technology practices. A journaling format was created for the FLTAs so they could each reflect on their experiences from time to time. Periodically when there were questions for the FLTAs to respond to I sent them emails with the prompts. 51 Towards the end of Spring and Fall semester (one each for the cohorts) I conducted a focus group discussion with each of the FLTAs concerning technology for language teaching and learning. For each of the FLTAs that were teaching, I visited and observed during their classes as both students and teachers (where applicable). I sat down with each of the FLTAs and had a focused discussion on their lesson planning and materials creation. Each of these instruments are discussed in more detail in the next section. Outlines for the data collection for both cohorts can be found in Figures 5 and 6. Semi-structured Interviews At the beginning of the semester in which I worked with the FLTA groups, I conducted an in-depth background interview with each of the FLTA focal participants. In this interview, we discussed their training and previous teaching experiences, as well as their initial views on technology use and the kinds of technologies they typically used in their classrooms. Following this background interview, I again interviewed each of the participants the following week, focusing on their practices and beliefs concerning technology use for language teaching and learning. After the initial round of interviews, I conducted follow-up interviews regularly with each FLTA. The questions I developed were based on what came out of the interviews in the previous round. Each interview was audio recorded and lasted between 30 and 65 minutes. After the interview sessions, I took note of any major topics or points for further exploration in an electronic project notebook using the Evernote software. Each of the interviews took place on campus in a private room with minimal disruption. I also interviewed the FLTA coordinator and each of the FLTAs’ supervisors and asked questions concerning the FLTAs in general and what major issues the FLTAs encountered throughout their assignments. The interview with the coordinator took place in the first month of 52 the semester, and the interviews with the supervisors occurred during the eighth week of the semester. The semi-structured interview format was most appropriate to allow for flexibility as each of the FLTAs came from different backgrounds and were involved in working within different departments and language programs. Before each round of interviews, I reviewed the information within the previous round and formulated questions that I wanted to explore further with the participants. These questions provided a solid direction for the interviews, but I maintained a semi-structured format to explore any other issues that became apparent during our discussions. Informal Conversations Outside of the scheduled rounds of interviews, I met with each of the FLTAs briefly on occasion to have what I have called informal conversations. These were typically brief meetings between 10 and 30 minutes, where the focus was on their experiences, and whether there was anything I could do to assist them in their assignments. I also used these meetings as a chance to follow up on anything that was mentioned in the interviews that I wanted to explore more with them. These interactions were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed in conjunction with the interview data. In the excerpts drawn from these conversations, I refer to these as informal conversations. Reflective Journals For Cohort A, at the beginning of their assignments in their first semester I requested that each FLTA keep a reflective journal focused on their experiences generally. For Cohort B, I asked them each to keep a reflective journal beginning in the third week of their second semester. I gave the FLTAs a choice between keeping an electronic journal in Google Docs or a 53 physical notebook, which I provided. For cohort A, all of the participants opted for the electronic format except one. In Cohort B, only two FLTAs opted for an electronic format. I also provided questions for the FLTAs to respond to throughout the semester, focused on topics that came up in the interviews and other data sources (Appendix G). For each participant, I followed up with specific questions in addition to taking into account all of the interviews and creating a set of general questions based on trends I saw across the data. I did not provide further guidelines outside of asking them to reflect on the things they were learning about and to do so at least twice weekly. For the electronic format, it had the added benefit of enabling me to periodically check the journals and to add additional questions for the FLTAs to respond to at their own leisure. For those with physical notebooks, I periodically emailed the FLTAs the questions and asked them to respond via email. For FLTAs with physical notebooks, I periodically photocopied their hand-written entries when we would meet for observations or interviews. Observations I observed the FLTAs on multiple occasions throughout their assignments. Most formally, I observed their classes (for those teaching face-to-face) and had a focused planning session with those teaching online or assisting. The teaching observations/focused planning sessions were audio recorded and transcribed for coding and analysis. For the in-class observations I used the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Classroom Observation Tool (ICOT). This tool provides an outline for how to approach documenting which tools are used, their purpose, and who uses them. It comes in the form of an interactive Excel sheet, and is available on the ISTE website for free download (“ISTE-ICOT”, n.d.). In figure 4, two screenshots of the tool are provided. 54 Figure 4. ISTE ICOT screenshot 55 Field Notes/Informal Observations I interacted with the FLTAs on many occasions as a resource and assistant in their assignments. As mentioned previously, I served as a guide throughout their initial orientation. I also prepared and presented a workshop focused on incorporating technology into the classroom, with a special emphasis on using Google Docs and Google Drive. Other opportunities for informal observation included sitting in on bi-weekly meetings with the FLTA coordinator and social events hosted by the university. For all my interactions with the FLTAs I maintained field notes to provide more information on their experiences. I kept notes in an electronic notebook in a program called Evernote. This program allowed for quick and easy searching and organization. I wrote brief notes after most interactions with the FLTAs including interviews and observations along with informal contact. Throughout the data collection and coding processes I also kept notes of progress and considerations of the data in relation to this project. Technology Language Contact Profile In the third week of the fall semester, I requested that the FLTAs in Cohort A log their contact with different technologies every day for one week. This was in the form of a spreadsheet document that provided spaces for the participant to report which technology they utilized, the purpose for use, duration, and purpose. The different purpose options were provided for them and included categories including language lesson preparation, entertainment, communication with friends, family or colleagues. Once a month thereafter, I asked the FLTAs to track their technology use for one week as well. At the end of data collection, I collected roughly fifty-three hours of audio recorded interviews and interactions with the separate FLTAs. I performed all of the transcription myself 56 and did only a verbatim transcription. I did include indications of pauses and filler words (uhms, etc.). Data Analysis All data were analyzed using the computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) Nvivo. In addition, I kept analytic memos (Saldaña, 2015) for each participant in the note keeping software Evernote. Analytic memos were notes kept outlining my thoughts and reactions as I analyzed the data. This enabled me to keep a record of how the analysis took shape and helped me in coming to my conclusions, In my very first analysis of the data, I adopted a qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2014) approach to analyzing the collected texts and interview transcripts, in addition to observation and field notes. For the analysis, I treated each FLTA as a separate case and searched for common themes within the data collected pertaining to each individual. After analysis of each case, I then compared the major themes across cases for differences and similarities. This led to a further narrowing into the most salient themes emerging from the data. After analyzing the data for three participants it became clear that each participant’s experiences would be better suited by presenting data in narrative format, and by using a narrative analysis approach. As the FLTAs shared their experiences with me, they often took the format of reflections and short stories illustrating what happened. As I also explored this form of analysis, it seemed well suited to explore the ongoing development of each of the participants. Case studies often utilize a narrative approach, and case studies are sometimes even synonymous with narrative analysis (Benson, 2014). As I traced the FLTA’ experiences across time I was able to construct narratives that addressed their experiences with contextual factors within both their home and at MSU. 57 May - August Initial Survey Collection September First Phase of Interviews FLTA Training & Orientation Observation August Classroom Observations Lesson Planning Interview October Figure 5. Cohort A data collection timeline (Spring) 58 November Interview with supervisors, colleagues Interview Phase 2 January Focus Group Final Interviews Check In Interview Interview with Supervisors December September– January L2 Technology Contact Profiles Journals & Journal Prompts January First Interviews March Third Interviews May FLTAs Return Home August - December Second Follow-up Interview Second Interviews February Focus Group April May - July Initial Follow-up Interview April–December Journals & Journal Prompts Figure 6. Cohort B data collection timeline (Fall) 59 I was most interested in examining the FLTAs’ experiences with technology knowledge and factors associated with their knowledge construction and enactment. As Benson (2014) notes, for Narrative Analysis: The outcome of the analysis is one or more narratives, written by the researcher, which bear on some research issue. Narrative analysis is not simply a matter of retelling stories that have been told as data, but of lending narrative coherence to nonnarrative data in order to bring out or highlight meanings in relation to the research issue in focus.” (p. 163) As a result, the narratives that I constructed focused on each FLTAs’ experiences with technology across contexts. I took the interview, observation, focus group, reflective writing, and technology language contact profile data and lent ‘narrative coherence’ in order to examine what the impact of the FLTA program was on the knowledge construction and enactment of CALL and technology. In order to code the data to construct the narratives, I utilized descriptive coding to create an inventory of the different topics present in the interviews, observation notes, reflective journals and my field memos (Saldaña, 2015). In this approach, I reviewed the data line by line and assigned a word or short phrase that described the topic of the passage. Coming from the coding, I created four topics within which the passages fell: (1) their education and background, (2) previous experiences with CALL and technology in their home context, (3) their experiences with CALL and technology as an FLTA, and (4) their perceptions, hopes, or expressed beliefs about the future, technology, pedagogy and the content they were teaching. Once I completed the first round of coding the data for one participant, I examined the inventory of coded passages for 60 reflections on experiences or short narratives. Simultaneously while coding, I constructed narratives, the final products of which are present in this dissertation. I have presented a representation of my approach to the first round of analysis in Figure 7. After the completion of one narrative, I re-examined the coded data for accuracy and to confirm my conclusions. I then analyzed the narratives to fit within the extended Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. In other words, I re-analyzed the data within the code inventories and coded them a second time to fit within one of the knowledge domains within the extended TPACK framework (see Chapter 2 and the end of this chapter). This framework provides a reference for how to discuss the different domains of knowledge that teachers employ any time they teach in the language classroom. Polkinghorne (1995) differentiated between two approaches to narrative in qualitative analysis: narrative analysis and analysis of narratives. In the first, narratives are constructed by taking non-narrative data and then the researcher provides a narrative structure. In the second, narratives that are already present within the data are the focus of analysis. For this study, I first utilized the former, with the latter being used to analyze the narratives I constructed through the use of the TPACK framework. Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, and Brown (2013) used a similar approach to data analysis for their case study narratives of forty-eight study abroad students. They first used narrative analysis to craft narratives for each participant, then analyzed the narratives to compare the cases for individual factors that led to different outcomes in terms of identity. Therefore, I first used narrative analysis to construct the narratives for each participant, then utilized analysis of narratives to apply the extended TPACK framework to examine how the different levels of context came together to impact the knowledge construction and enactment of each FLTA. 61 In summary, from the created narratives, I analyzed the experiences of each of the FLTAs and coded the experiences within the different domains in the TPACK framework. I also coded the data under micro–, meso–, or macro-level contextual factors. Figure 8 represents the second stage of data analysis. Validation In order to ensure accuracy of the narratives and the representations of the participant FLTAs, I emailed each of the FLTAs a copy of the narrative I constructed for them. Before doing this, I met with each separately and explained that I wanted them to be completely honest and that the goal of the narratives that I constructed was to ensure that I was representing them and their experiences as accurately as possible. I asked each to make notes of anything that they wanted to change, delete, or add within the narratives. I also asked them to consider whether the language they used was in line with what they meant to say, especially since multiple FLTAs brought up some of their struggles with the English language. After emailing the FLTAs a copy of their narrative, I met face-to-face again with participants in Cohort A to discuss their thoughts about it and whether they wanted to make any changes. The two Cohort B participants both responded via email about their perceptions of the accuracy of the narratives which I constructed. Notwithstanding this session to discuss the narratives, the analysis is still my own and should be viewed as such. In the member-checking with each of the participants, each expressed that the constructed narratives were accurate. Two of the FLTAs did request that I clarify a few of the points in the narratives to provide more context to their comments, however the narratives remained largely unchanged after meeting with the participants to check the accuracy and to ensure that what is contained in them is what they truly meant to express. 62 In order to ensure the accuracy of the transcribed interviews, I asked an undergraduate assistant to confirm the accuracy of my transcriptions by listening to the audio recordings while reading along with the transcriptions. Technologies of Focus While I recognize that technology is a very broad term and can mean very different things to different people, I decided to give the FLTAs a definition of how I conceptualized the term technology for this project. When talking about technology for this project and in this paper, it refers to computer technologies, digital devices, and the Internet. To make it clearer what I was referring to when I used the term technology in reference to the classroom, teaching, and learning I presented the FLTAs with three separate categories of technology, adapted from Trinder (2016): social media and communication technologies, news media and information media, and discipline specific and educational technologies. I provided a brief definition along with several examples that may fall into one of the categories. I explained to each FLTA that these were to only serve as a guide to help them understand what I was referring to, and to provide some more context for what they shared with me. A brief outline of those categories and examples I provided are found in Table 3. 63 Figure 7. Representation of round 1 data analysis 64 Figure 8. Representation of round 2 data analysis 65 Table 3. Technology Categories of Focus Category Examples Social Media and Communication Technologies social networking sites, blogs & apps, video, text, and audio chat, mobile devices News Media and Information Media news sites, special interest sites, forums Discipline Specific and Educational Technologies learning management systems, office programs, audio and video creation hardware and software TPACK Framework As outlined in Chapter 2, I adopted the TPACK framework (See Figure 2) as a lens with which to examine how FLTAs’ experiences in the United States impacted their self-reported abilities and learning experiences leading to new understandings surrounding CALL and technology for teaching in the language classroom. The TPACK framework can be conceptualized as a framework that can be used to document knowledge development of how to effectively combine language content and pedagogical practice in order to promote second language acquisition using technology (Tseng, 2017). Once the narratives were constructed, I analyzed them using the extended TPACK framework adapted from the suggestion of Porras- Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013). The focus of this dissertation is not solely on the nature of the knowledge that FLTAs developed from their involvement in the program, but also an examination of the role that context(s) played in both their construction of new knowledge and how they decided (or not) to utilize the knowledge they gained. In this section, I will outline how 66 I have defined the different domains of TPACK for this project, followed by how I utilized the extended framework to analyze the experiences of the FLTAs. Here, I provide a brief overview of each of the different knowledge domains within the TPACK framework, based on the definitions offered by Koehler, et al. (2014). The focus of this project was on knowledge development in the domains of technological knowledge, technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and the intersection of all three areas, for which the framework is named, is technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. A teacher enacting TPACK would be utilizing a technology to improve learning by exposing learners to language content in ways that promote second language acquisition. I also refer the reader back to Table 2 in Chapter 2, which provides the definitions of TPACK drawn from Mishra and Koehler (2006) that are not specific to CALL or SLA. Technological Knowledge Technological knowledge is knowledge of technologies that are available for teaching and learning. This also includes familiarity with different technologies generally, and an understanding of what technologies are available in the context in which a teacher works. Technological Content Knowledge Technological Content Knowledge is a result of the overlap of knowledge of technologies that are available and how they interact with or represent content knowledge. This overlap area refers to a teacher’s knowledge of different technologies available within their area of expertise. For this dissertation, I consider the FLTA’s knowledge of technologies or digital media available in the language they are teaching or their knowledge of technologies created specifically for language learning. An example coming from the FLTAs’ experiences is Daria’s discovery of a mobile app that she felt would be helpful for her students’ pronunciation, as shown in Excerpt A. 67 Excerpt A: Yeah Elsa speak—and it’s for improving the pronunciation of English pronunciation of [my language] people so I’m actually—I’m using that one. (Daria, Interview 5) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge This overlap area includes the domains of technology and pedagogy. The resulting area is considered as the knowledge of how to utilize technologies to promote learning and teaching. In this dissertation, I consider this area as evidence of an understanding of the pedagogical affordances of certain technologies. For example, as Alex outlined in Excerpt B, she saw firsthand some of the things that were done in her language class to facilitate in-class learning. Excerpt B: For our [language] class students also had to go through some preparatory tasks to be ready for the lesson. The tasks are posted on D2L. They can take their time, go through everything really thoroughly, get prepared, get some questions ready to ask before or during the class. (Alex, Interview 3) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge This domain is the result of the overlap of the three separate domains in the framework, namely technology, pedagogy, and content. This domain refers to the ability of a teacher to combine their knowledge of content with effective pedagogical practice with technology. For this dissertation, the FLTAs would show evidence of this when report utilizing a specific technology in a pedagogically appropriate way to promote language acquisition. In Excerpt C, Gene recounts how he utilized a music video from YouTube to teach a song and to help his students with vocabulary acquisition. 68 Excerpt C: I used YouTube in my class, what I did is to write the music down, I mean the lyrics down, and hand out the – the document I mean, the handout, to my students. [I] asked them to stand up as they are watching the first Version of the video. I was singing along with the music they were listening and following on the paper and after that I wanted to ask all of us to sing together ... after that I would have them to look at the words and their paper that I gave them and tell me which word was unfamiliar to them because there was some new words, and the class is intermediate and they have now a lot of vocabulary and [my language] and they started actually thinking [about] the unfamiliar word and I gave them the meaning, and the contextual meaning, because sometimes the word can mean something in this context and means something different elsewhere and the different contexts so that’s what I did, and I asked one of the students, anyone who was ready, to volunteer to-to sing from the beginning to the end from the beginning to the end… (Gene, Informal conversation 1) The Extended TPACK Framework The extended TPACK framework, as discussed previously, places a much more central focus on the role of context. As mentioned, Porras-Hernandez and Salinas Amescua (2013) proposed that the TPACK framework be strengthened by placing more emphasis on teachers’ knowledge of context and how this plays a role in the other domains of knowledge. The authors suggested that context could be disaggregated along two separate dimensions of scope and actor. Scope included the macro–, meso–, and micro-levels. The actors include the students and teachers. For this dissertation I have adapted the scope dimension and applied it to my analysis. The levels of scope and how I have defined them are discussed next. 69 Macro-level Contextual Factors Porras-Hernandez and Salinas Amescua (2013) first defined this level as pertaining to “social, political, technological, and economic conditions” (p. 228). In addition, this level can refer to national and global policies that may have impact on teachers’ technology use and learning. In this paper, I also adopt this view when considering the factors that have bearing on the FLTAs’ experiences. For example, from the data in this dissertation, one of the participants felt that it was difficult for them to share social media with students because of culture surrounding politics at home, as show in Excerpt D. Excerpt D: … I don’t want my private life the part of in the class here it is not very important, like still important, but it’s not political or anything—but in [my country] everything can be understood. The discretion—it is not very well developed so everything might be, everything might be related to your—their private life and their views can be different and they might be offended (Kyle, Interview 2) Another participant identified that in his home country, how teachers are viewed differed from the United States. This observation, he felt, sometimes made it difficult for him to incorporate different lesson plans or activities: Excerpt E: ...language teachers are sources of knowledge; therefore, students do not participate actively as I have seen here at MSU. At home, students are just passive listeners and expect to be spoon fed by their teachers. Here, I have seen teachers giving reading assignments to students and asking students to come and share their views... (Gene, Interview 2) 70 Meso-level Contextual Factors Similar to the macro-level, Porras-Hernandez and Salinas Amescua (2013) defined the meso-level context as associated with the same social, political, technological and economic conditions at the institution or community level. For example, one of the participants, Daria, outlined how in her university there was access to some technologies in her university, but also points out what she sees as some of the limiting factors to teaching. Excerpt F: … In my university all classrooms have, have a projector so, yeah, so I can bring my laptop and yeah—but mostly most of them are just, I can show them the videos or I can show them my PowerPoints only, yeah because, you know, for English just the video and PowerPoints and listening that’s all for English yeah but one bad thing for my university is the size of the class because we often have like 60 students for one class, yeah, and they study all subjects together yeah so that and that’s difficult for them to learn English. (Daria, Interview 1) Micro-level Contextual Factors The micro-level context pertains to the in-class conditions such as available resources and format of the class. It also includes the beliefs, preferences and goals of the teacher and the students. Factors in this area are important to consider, because often teachers may feel one way about the trends and factors in other levels, but then do something different in the classroom. Drawing from the data from the FLTAs, Alex outlines in Excerpt G how her views on approaching grammar teaching have shifted based on her interactions with the students. 71 Excerpt G: I was really strict on that before but here I realized that it it’s not that important as long as the person can express him or herself and talking to my [language] students I understand most of what they say, and I was really strict on that before but here I realized that it it’s not that important as long as the person can express him or herself and talking to my [language] students I understand most of what they say even though their grammar is not always that correct. (Alex, Interview 4) With this additional defining of context within the framework, the multiple variables at play can be examined with regards to their impact on whether a teacher is able to improve their knowledge. By using this framework growth of TPACK can better be evaluated as it is embedded within particular contexts. This can enable evaluation of the reasons why a particular teacher who is well-trained and experienced with using CALL may not employ it or integrate it, based on a variety of contextual factors. Summary In this chapter I outlined the context of the study, introduced the participants, identified the data collection and analysis. The case study format coupled with narrative analysis provides a good base with which to examine the FLTA’s experiences with technology and how different contextual factors come together to affect their construction of knowledge for using technology in the language classroom. I will utilize the TPACK framework to explore the knowledge development of the FLTAs throughout their assignments, and use the extension suggested by Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013) to evaluate the role of different contextual 72 factors both during their assignments in the United States but also the role of contextual factors on their technology use upon their return. In the next two chapters, 4 and 5, I present the cases of both Cohorts A and B. I start with Cohort A, consisting of Gene, Alex and Pat. They come from the group I worked with in the Fall of 2017. Their narratives are focused on their backgrounds and experiences as FLTAs. In Chapter 5, I present the cases of Kyle and Daria from Cohort B. Their narratives also include a discussion of their background, experiences as FLTAs, and finally a discussion of the contextual factors that play a role in their technology use since their return home. 73 CHAPTER 4 COHORT A: GENE, ALEX, AND PAT In this chapter I present the experiences of three of the FLTAs from Cohort A. This group consisted of the FLTAs that I worked with since their arrival in August and followed through their first semester. Coming out of our interviews, reflective journal entries, observations and focus group, I crafted narratives that provide insight into the multiple contexts that have impacted the experiences of each of the FLTAs’ TPACK development for CALL. I divided each of the FLTA narratives into three chronological sections, followed by a brief analysis of the FLTA’s experience with technology and evidence of their knowledge growth as framed within the TPACK framework. I then discuss how different levels of context came together to influence each participants’ experience with TPACK. In the beginning of each separate narrative I present a brief biographical history of the FLTA’s language and teaching background, while keeping in mind to protect their identity as much as possible. Next, I discuss each FLTA’s home context and the kinds of CALL and technology use that the FLTA had experienced there. I then present the experiences of each FLTA throughout their first semester as they related to me in the interviews and journal reflections. I supplement the narratives with data taken from my observations and informal discussions and meetings with the FLTAs, their supervisors, and the FLTA coordinator. With this chapter, I focus on answering the first two of the three research questions. Which, in review, are: 1. What is the impact of the FLTA program on participants knowledge of CALL, as framed within TPACK? 2. What are the different contextual factors at play in the FLTA’s development of CALL knowledge during their assignments? 74 I want to point out I recognize that the insights and conclusions that I make apply to the first semester of each of the FLTA’s experiences. Some FLTA’s experiences may shift in the second half of their assignments. This is one reason why I have included the experiences of two FLTAs upon their return in Chapter 5. I have also included some recognition of what the FLTAs plan for the rest of their time in this chapter, as well as a brief description of the assignments they will have. I plan on continuing this line of work with the FLTAs as they finish their assignments and return home, but this work will go beyond what can be covered in this dissertation. As I analyzed the data and evaluated the ways in which researchers have examined TPACK growth and CALL teacher education, it became evident that by drawing from the qualitative data constructing a narrative would most appropriately capture the different contextual factors that the FLTAs perceived (or did not perceive) as playing a role in their experiences. As will be seen, my primary focus is not an analysis of specific domains of knowledge development, but a discussion on different contextual factors that played roles in the participants’ development overall. It is also worth noting that in addressing the second research question, the factors at play for the FLTAs came from both their experiences in their home context and from their experiences in the United States. I have highlighted how the factors from the FLTA’s home context have contributed to or influenced their learning outcomes and views on their enactment both during their time as an FLTA and what they might expect once they return home. I end each narrative with a discussion of how the different contextual factors intersect and diverge across each FLTA’s first semester. This discussion is accomplished through examining different contextual factors using the extended TPACK framework argued for by Porras- Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013). This framework places a greater emphasis on different 75 levels of context and how these contexts play roles in teachers’ development of TPACK and their enactment. The three levels of context that I discuss are the macro–, meso–, and micro- levels. In review, the macro-level refers to the wider context of global trends and realities, along with national initiatives and cultural practice. The meso context includes factors such as the local institution and community. The micro-level includes the classroom, the teacher and students. I refer the reader back to Figure 3 in Chapter 2 for reference. Gene Gene taught English at a secondary school in his home country in Africa. He had been teaching for more than four years before applying for the FLTA program. Language and Teaching Background Previously, Gene worked manual labor jobs because he could not pursue further education beyond primary school because of family finances. This changed once he met with someone that had been studying to become a lawyer. Gene greatly admired this person and chose to pursue a similar path. Thus, initially Gene went back to school to become a lawyer. He was able to get good test results on national exams which enabled him to go to what he called a “very good university” (Interview 1, August). As mentioned, he wanted to become a lawyer but ran into some logistical issues with funding and prerequisites. As a result, he entered into the teacher training program with the hope of ending up in the law program. However, a late professor encouraged him to continue and, as Gene put it, this professor made him like teaching. This professor also expressed to him how the teacher training program could help him get a good job, especially because of Gene’s life circumstances. Excerpt 1: So, I talked to—I went to his office—somebody actually directed me to his office, to him. I went into his office and asked if I could change, if there is (continued) 76 no chance for me to—to change for the program that I was admitted at the University to go to the program that I wanted to, and he asked, “why?” “I don't think I can be able to teach”. He said “Well you are. You can be able to teach because first you got the very good results” and by the way he asked to know the reason that I’m not interested? And he said don't do it for being interested you are of a (…) when you finish it will be easy for you to get job. He actually—he was actually giving this advice based on the circumstances that I have. (Interview 1, August) Due to the influence of this professor, Gene decided to stay in the language teacher training program. The professor that convinced him to stay went on to mentor him throughout his training and provided feedback and direction on his coursework. The professor also gave him extra tasks and work to become more familiar with the field. As is discusses later, Gene continued to seek mentors throughout his time as an FLTA. Gene was interested in the security that came from pursuing an education that led to a good job. This view on getting good employment continued as Gene explained some of the reasons why he decided to come and work as an FLTA in the United States. For Gene, being a part of the FLTA program had multiple benefits, but what he pointed out in Excerpt 2 were the opportunities for improving his life situation that would come as a result of this program. Excerpt 2: Yeah, yeah those who were past in private school, yeah they probably good in English and they are the one securing good jobs that needs people with English proficiency—high level of English proficiency—but yeah I thought that my, this opportunity for me to be in this country where English is spoken as a native (continued) 77 language will increase the level and I will be able to at least compete in these schools because I have to go and apply to private schools while they are paying good, yeah, of course. (Interview 1, August) Because of his experiences and his understanding of the reality across the macro– and meso-levels in his home county, Gene felt that for him to move forward with his career he needed to be employed at the private schools where the ‘good jobs’ were. This also came from his previous experience as a teacher and feeling dissatisfied with the opportunities for him to teach the way he wished. Prior to joining the FLTA program, Gene was teaching for two years at what he felt was a less prestigious private school and dealt with students from a variety of proficiency levels. A major point that Gene addressed during the background interview is how much he disagreed with and was confused by the approach to language teaching in his home country. In my research on his home country and language teaching approaches, this is a view that is echoed by many teachers and administrators. This view may also have developed out of his experiences attending different workshops and trainings through his mentors and colleagues. He was exposed to many practices that were different from what he had experienced as a student. Gene shared instances of him receiving mentoring from his late professor, supervisors, and other colleagues. One opportunity he had was to attend additional training put on by the British Council, which he outlined in Excerpt 3. 78 Excerpt 3: Gene: nothing else maybe how to teach I had a program with British Council at home they were actually insisting how is English teachers in the region to go there to register for them to be able to let us know the way of teaching it. Jeff: mhmm. Gene: yeah and I—we did a lot. We did a lot because as I was teaching English. It was quite different when I finished the diploma because I did not even know how to elicit for example in the classroom the ICQ’s and how to use them. Jeff: ICQ’s are? Gene: They are the instruction of checking questions because we have this tradition of asking the students comprehension questions. “Do you understand?” as you said most of the students will say “Yes we understand” because sometimes they might be nervous. (Interview 1, August) In another experience, Gene recounted how the supervisor at one of his early jobs took him to multiple workshops. Gene expressed how he would like to become someone that “assist[s] other teachers”. In addition, he felt as though he needed to develop his knowledge of teaching and to gain the skills necessary to become an expert. As he pointed out, this made up a part of his dream to come to the USA. Excerpt 4: I did not—I did not even consider myself as a great candidate, but I think I thought I just need the program. I wanted, that was my dream to be a good teacher, I just need to be an expert. I just—yeah, I just need to be somebody who can help, maybe people at my whatever at my school or wherever they need help in the (continued) 79 language and they believe that I can serve—solve the problem. That's what I wanted. Yeah and God heard my prayer and I am here finally. (Interview 1, August) For Gene, the FLTA program offered him an opportunity to improve his skills and to work towards becoming a ‘good teacher’. Through his involvement in the FLTA program he felt he could gain the skills necessary to become someone who could help others and to secure better employment. It became clear in our discussions that he is highly motivated to improve himself, his life situation, and his abilities to assist others whether in teaching or in mentorship. The Home Context: Gene’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice Gene expressed that it was through his own motivations that he was so successful in his English. This was despite the practices in his home country which he expressed were not ideal and confusing at times. When asked about the kinds of things that he did with technology to learn English, he indicated that he would primarily watch YouTube videos on various topics. Because he had his own computer and was so interested in watching videos, he expressed he was able to overcome what he saw as some of the limitations in his home country, specifically that of not being able to interact with native English speakers. As far as technology use in teaching, Gene sometimes used PowerPoint presentations in his courses when teaching in his home country, and sometimes YouTube videos. As he explained, these things were able to expose students to native speaker pronunciation (in the case of YouTube), and the PowerPoint made things easier and more efficient to project than to simply write everything on the board. 80 Excerpt 5: So, we had computers. The other—we had Internet at our school, uh-huh, I have, the only problem is exposure to the things because I—we have the Internet but I did not even know the Google documents, the Zoom—what you introduce[d] to us and none of these other things so we only use the Internet to elicit for materials because, I find materials—an internet search for materials on the Internet and in my school, they recommend they recommend one textbook. (Interview 1, August) It seems that some of the limitations that Gene saw came from his lack of knowledge of what was available to him. This fact may also have linked up with his desire to seek mentors and to take advantage of professional development opportunities. Gene did report that he once used a listening activity based on a CD that he was given. He reported playing the audio and then providing the students with a quiz to measure whether his students could retain the information in the audio. However, he did this activity only once. This experience encapsulated for him an example of how his students’ expectations and institutional culture came together in what he felt was a roadblock in exploring use of technologies and other activities to promote students’ abilities in English. In a later interview, he discussed with me how he felt his younger students were not motivated like adult students. According to Gene, and due to the goals of instruction at his institution and the macro context of his home country, using activities like listening and comprehension checking were not normally done. Gene attributed part of the reason for this to large class sizes and the emphasis on preparing students to sit for national exams. The focus on national exams is a recurring theme for Gene, as he saw it as limiting what he was able to do in the classroom at home. The combination 81 of national examinations and student practices also contributed to what Gene felt were limitations in teaching. In Excerpt 6, Gene explained that depending on his role as an instructor, he may have been expected to cover large amounts of material specifically to enable students to sit for standardized examinations. Gene later stated that there was a need for what he called “conformity and uniformity” in the English language materials. He shared that this was because on the exams the policy makers in Gene’s home country “want the students to be—have similar knowledge”. Excerpt 6: So, students in form four has to do the national examination and I was teaching form four. That means I have to take student back through all of the form one, form two—reminding them everything. In our country students don't have this habit of, maybe going with the material from one class to another class. So, after they, after the first maybe class, after form one for example they will throw everything. Then they go in the other class with, uh, without any material, and not only sometimes revise of what they learned in their former class, so you find that form four, the examination of form four, is set from form one, so a teacher at form four needs to remind—to make sure the students remember everything from form one to form four. (Interview 2, September) In addition to the pressure of covering a strict regimen of course materials, Gene identified that he could not use videos very often because students did not have access to computers. While his school did have a computer lab, it was frequently booked. As a result, Gene expressed, “so that is why I have used the technology to only simplify the teaching in the classroom, not just getting busy writing everything on the board of which it would take a lot of 82 time sometimes” (Interview 2, September). Due to the limitations of access to different technologies for students, Gene shared that his practices were usually to make things less burdensome for him as a teacher. Gene also expressed that using just one textbook was not a good practice and that he would therefore use the Internet as a resource to supplement lessons and create engaging materials for students. This led to him emphasizing how the issue of copying materials from the Internet in Gene’s home country was something that was not seen as a problem. Excerpt 7: And you find sometimes the material does not satisfy the lesson so what I have to do is just to get into the Internet—yeah—we—the problem and good thing copying is not that big deal in my country so when I copy I cite under the—the—the—the document maybe for the students to go and refer but sometimes students won't go and refer so they can take, and I think this is fine. They are not independent like students in America, I guess everybody’s actually, they will find the materials on their own but at home, no. (Interview 1, August) During his FLTA assignment the FLTA coordinator stressed how to properly cite sources and use resources properly, and this may have led Gene to bring this point up in our interviews. What is most important is how Gene expressed the differences he saw in students in the United States versus back in his home country. In sum, Gene recognized multiple factors in his home country that impacted how technology was adopted and used. First, the issue of access to computers made it so that Gene most often used the computer to present materials and to facilitate course management. In our discussions, Gene indicated how access to technology was limited outside of the more 83 prestigious international private schools. Second, his institution’s large class sizes also made it difficult for Gene to see how to come up with ways to incorporate CALL activities. Third, Gene felt the national focus on standardized examinations, coupled with the student academic culture to be more passive recipients of knowledge from instructors required Gene to cover a lot of material that would appear on the examinations. As a result, it seems that for Gene he felt his opportunities to learn about and to utilize more technologies in his language teaching were limited. In addition, if there were tools that he could use he expressed that he was unaware of them. Gene’s knowledge of technology for CALL was therefore limited to more applications for his own learning and exposing himself to input. He did not have extensive opportunities to explore or learn about how he could encourage students to use technology to become communicatively competent in English. The FLTA Context: Gene’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA Early in the semester, Gene shared in his reflective journal about some of the things that he had been experiencing that were markedly different to him about how things were done. In Excerpt 8, he outlined first what he thought technology in the language classroom was, then follows this with the things he had seen being done at MSU. Excerpt 8: This week I have experienced different important aspects regarding technology and language teaching. The use of technology in a language classroom to me means the use of electronic tools and, or machines in a language classroom. These tools can be a computer, cell phones, radio, television etc. Here at MSU, I have seen teachers communicating with students through Emails. In my country, a teacher would ask the class representative to pass to students whatever information he/she wants to share with students. (continued) 84 I have also seen a teacher providing an assignment online and students are supposed to listen to a video and answer the questions right after listening to it. I have never seen this in my life. I think I shall emulate it to my future classes because the system is easy and convenient. In my country, language teachers are sources of knowledge, therefore, students do not participate actively as I have seen here at MSU. At home, students are just passive listeners and expect to be spoon fed by their teachers. Here, I have seen teachers giving reading assignments to students and asking students to come and share their views regarding the assignment. (Reflective Journal Entry 4, September) A recurring theme for Gene is how he found things that would make teaching and learning easier and more convenient. For example, how he identified the experience of seeing a teacher giving an online assignment to students, where they had to respond online. Gene emphasized how he had never seen things like this and related how he would try to use strategies like this because of how convenient and easy it was. Many times, in our interviews, Gene touched on how he felt the learners of English in his home country were more passive than the learners of learners in the United States. While not focused on technology per se, this perception may have bearing on what Gene saw as possible or appropriate in his home context when using technology. Thus, Gene’s reflections on how he used technology in his home context could be seen as more in line with viewing students as more passive. However, he saw that at MSU things were done a bit differently, where students may be seen as more active participants in learning. Based on our discussions and my observations, Gene 85 felt freer to experiment and incorporate activities that took advantage of the technological resources available to him in his class to involve his students using different technologies. As a part of his FLTA assignment, Gene observed multiple class sessions a week and served as a support person to the instructor of record. In addition, he was tasked with preparing lessons and materials for one class session per week. He was also tasked with participating in cultural events on campus and with running the language help room for students of his first language. Beyond course management, one use of technology that Gene expressed was important for him was how his supervising teacher utilized the technologies available to create a video for his students: Excerpt 9: Gene: Oh yeah then he [Gene’s supervisor], actually, uh, asked the students to watch it [the video], It's like a listening activity, But the level of the student is a bit ((unclear)) because—the second—here I think it's the intermediate class—and try to answer the questions after watching it. It was fantastic, then I maybe I have to learn that from him, and I will actually go and you see because he used the pictures, that show, uh, some features—features [of a country] and he was actually explaining about these features in the historic maybe perspective or some of the features, and yeah after that he posted a questions, like two exercises (…) Jeff: on D2L? Gene: On D2L yeah and that is a test that students should do before today's class and then submit so something good and I liked it I think I would do also, I will also do that. (Interview 2, September) 86 In Excerpt 9, Gene called what the supervising teacher did ‘fantastic’ and that he wanted to ‘learn that from him’. Taking control of materials creation and adopting more of a flipped design to the students’ learning is something that he would not have done in his home context previously. This point was further highlighted in a later interview, where Gene explained that the YouTube videos that he would use at home were for the purpose of explanation and not really embedded with a communicative learning goal in mind. He explained that he would show the video to expose the students to the language and then have them all work together in groups to create a presentation. He is learning from his supervisor not only how to create targeted materials, but ways to engage both the audio-visual technologies with the course management site. This was, as has been discussed, a change for him considering what he saw as passive listeners in his home. In one of our more informal meetings, Gene walked me through how he incorporated a music video in his native language in one of his lessons. Gene told me how this was something that was not possible at home and was a completely new way for him to teach language. He continued to engage with the students and asked them to try to discover why he chose the particular song that he did. According to him, he chose a well-known song that was a little older, because as he put it, many of the newer artists’ music would be difficult for learners. Excerpt 10: …I used YouTube in my class, what I did is to write the music down, I mean the lyrics down, and hand out the—the document I mean, the handout, to my students, asked them to stand up as they are watching. The first version of the video I was singing along with the music, they were listening and following on the paper and after that I wanted to ask all of us to sing together, one standing and, it’ll be shaking after that I would have them to look at the words on their paper that I gave them and tell me which word was unfamiliar to them because there was some new words, and the (continued) 87 class is intermediate and they have now a lot of vocabulary in [in my language] and they started actually thinking the unfamiliar word and I gave them the meaning and the contextual meaning because sometimes the word can mean something in this context and means something different else in the different contexts. So that’s what I did, and I asked one of the students—anyone who was ready to volunteer to—to sing from the beginning to the end, from the beginning to the end. (Informal Conversation, October) Gene was also involved in multiple classes as a student during his time as an FLTA. In one of his classes, the instructor emailed the students of the class to fill out a form about their backgrounds. This was a practice unfamiliar to him compared to how the professors communicated with students back home, as he outlined in Excerpt 9. Excerpt 11: We don't communicate with our professors through emails, there is another way of sharing information maybe the professor is the professor after the first meeting, will select the class representative. Uhuh—by the way the class representative is to be selected by the students and after that they will the class representative End of the professor will exchange the contact. Then we can actually have the Class representative contact. So anything that will come from the professor, will be brought to us by the class representative. (Interview 2, September) Gene expressed how using email or other forms of technology is something that he liked, and that they enabled the professor to “do things on your own and anywhere—from anywhere”. 88 Recurring in his discussion on which technology is most helpful is the idea that technology makes teaching more efficient. This point seemed to be one of the more important factors about technology use in the classroom for Gene. In his home teaching context, many of the instructors have heavy course loads and most of his classes were large, not to mention the requirements for grading. Outside of his teaching assignment and experiences as a student, on multiple occasions, Gene was exposed to new technologies that could be employed in his classroom. He often attended workshops geared towards supporting in-service foreign language teachers. I observed him a few times as I also was in attendance at these workshops, many of which focused on promoting particular tools or instructional approaches using technology. In one of his reflections, he expressed that he is not very familiar with certain tools, but that he hopes to use them in his classes. One example, Excerpt 12, was when he attended a workshop on campus that was focused on different technologies that could be employed in the language classroom. Excerpt 12: Early this week, I have had a chance to attend [a] workshop on the use of different technology in language classrooms, I am sure I will be planning to use technology resources like PollEV.com, Audacity, Kahoot, quizizz.com and the like. Thanks God, I have also learned how to use Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). (Reflective Journal Entry, September) Gene expressed how he has been exposed to new tools, but he did not have a clear plan to utilize them upon returning home. Instead, he simply expressed a desire to try to use them in his 89 teaching. This point, and other factors led to him expressing to me on more than one occasion that he hoped he could change his job. During his time as an FLTA, Gene developed technological knowledge of new tools, and pedagogical knowledge of how the tools could be used in the classroom. He gained knowledge of things he had never seen, or thought would be difficult to incorporate in his home context. At MSU, Gene saw the way in which professors communicated with students as being helpful. He felt that students at home were ‘passive listeners’ while students at MSU were more active and participated in their learning. Gene’s supervisor played an important role in demonstrating various different tools to him, as well as showing how they could be used effectively in the classroom. Gene saw firsthand how to take control of materials creation and how to promote language learning by doing so. Beyond his teaching assignments, Gene took advantage of multiple workshops to learn about new tools and how to employ them effectively in the language classroom. The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Gene’s TPACK Gene’s expressed history of being mentored and assisted by colleagues continued during his time as an FLTA. Through his work with the supervising instructor, he indicated that he learned how to use the D2L course management system to support in-class activities and to provide students with homework. In addition, he attended multiple regional conferences with a fellow professor at MSU. While at MSU, he also shared that he gained exposure to new practices with a variety of different tools. As he often discussed with me and reflected in his teaching journal, he hoped that he could become more confident and familiar with how to use the tools. In one of our last interviews, he walked me through how he has created an online Facebook page where he has been posting English learning materials using some of the skills he gained here. 90 Based on what Gene shared about his home teaching context, there was an important interplay between the macro–, meso– and micro-level factors that affected his learning and use of CALL practice and classroom technology. The macro factor of his country’s focus on national examinations and having English language knowledge as a requirement for further education has a tangible ripple effect across the other context levels. In my supplemental research on the language classroom in his own country, it is clear that the language policies are often considered confusing, incomplete and sometimes contradictory. In addition, access to English and resources are reserved for the wealthy who attend prestigious private schools. This was something alluded to in many of my discussions with Gene, where he expressed that he might be able to utilize some of the technologies and approaches to teaching if he were able to gain employment at one of these elite institutions. Gene also reported that in his home country students are viewed as more passive, making it harder to do the same kind of teaching that is done at MSU, where he felt that students were more active in their learning. The contextual factors on the meso-level in Gene’s home country—impacted by the national and institutional focus on preparing for examinations, also contributed to him expressing that he would be able to use some of the new technologies and practices that he was exposed to only if he succeeded in changing his place of employment. This was because of how his current institution did not have much access to things like projectors and computers for students to access. The structure of the school and number of students made it difficult for the institution to really provide the needed infrastructure to facilitate innovative and engaging uses of technology. On the micro-level at home, Gene discussed multiple factors that played a role in his experiences. First, he discussed how large class size made it so that he viewed his options as limited in terms of what he could bring into the classroom. Second, Gene reported that student 91 culture in his institution made it so that he had a strict requirement to focus on reviewing large amounts of pre-determined materials since students did not carry their previous studies with them. Additionally, Gene expressed that students in his country were very test-focused. This factor is connected to the second, in that because students did not carry with them the learning they had received previously, teachers in Gene’s position needed to review vast amounts of material to prepare students for testing. As expressed by Gene, students need to pass such tests to be able to move forward in their education. This makes it more difficult for him to see a way to really be creative in his classroom teaching. As a result, his views of enacting his newfound TPACK would be limited to either facilitating class management and instruction, or him finding another job somewhere else that has the infrastructure and academic culture that enables him to engage his students with more CALL or technology-based activities. At the macro-level in the USA, Gene felt students were more active participants in their learning, thus making it more possible for him to employ more interactive and communicative activities. Gene felt that the ability to be more creative played a role in exploration in creating materials for his students. At the meso-level, Gene connected with multiple colleagues, his supervisor and others that readily shared their knowledge and understanding with him. In addition, the fact that MSU adopted a course management system and had enterprise subscriptions to various tools enabled him to explore new possibilities. On the micro-level, Gene felt that his students were motivated to participate and had the capabilities to use their own smartphones and laptops to interact with materials. Gene’s experiences with his supervising teacher showed him how he could create targeted materials at the students’ level, and also how to utilize a course management system to engage students in assessments in their learning. In addition, in some of his training prior to beginning his teaching he was exposed to tools like 92 Google Docs and Voicethread. These tools were new to him, but he felt that they would be important for him to use based on their capabilities. Gene’s experience with using a YouTube music video serves as an example of both how he was able to develop his TPACK, but also how what he learned was tempered by what he viewed as possible in his home country. I asked him about whether this kind of activity was something new to him. His response was a very emphatic yes. Excerpt 13: Teachers in [my home] teach as how they were taught, a teacher is fronted in the classroom…giving all the information to the students. there is not this one-to-one participation in classrooms. Maybe after attending [a training] program because I attended the British Council program that I told you, then I started to—to change the modality of—change teaching in my class, and I that found students were very excited. They liked it. The problem was, if you need to make the classroom interactive that means you won't cover a lot of things that they will appear—the things that will appear on the examination. (Informal Conversation 1, October) According to Gene, doing this kind of music video activity would not happen because of factors across multiple levels of context. Teacher and student culture, access to technologies, and the macro-level focus on national examinations made it difficult for Gene to see himself using this kind of activity back home. Gene’s previous experiences with CALL in his home context were quite different than what he experienced in the United States as an FLTA. He felt he had access to more technology, his students were more motivated, had access to mentors and 93 professional development and was able to teach students in a way that he expressed would make them able to use the language, as opposed to teaching to an exam. During his experience as an FLTA, Gene recognized how the different technologies available for teaching were a skillset that helped him to be a more effective teacher during his time in the USA. When asked to reflect on what he will be able to transfer back home, he emphasized the need to change his employment. By doing so, he expressed that he would be able to be more creative in the classroom and have more access to the infrastructure to employ more of his newfound knowledge at home. Gene’s experiences were somewhat unique among the FLTAs in his cohort. While he did not have as much experience with technology as others coming into the program, he sought out mentors and professional development opportunities. He also tried to explore using new technologies in his teaching. Gene’s case stands in somewhat of a contrast to Alex’s experiences. Alex Alex was an elementary school English teacher in a public school. She came from a Slavic nation and had been teaching for multiple years before joining the FLTA program. Language and Teaching Background Alex began to learn English at a young age and expressed that she was ‘in love’ with the English language. Before joining the FLTA program she had never spoken with a native English speaker before and had never left her home country. Her love and appreciation for English grew out of her experiences in her home with her father. As she explained in Excerpt 14, she started to fall in love with English through music. 94 Excerpt 14: My father is a great music lover and of course we always had tape recorders, tape recordings of English-speaking musicians and singers and I listened to them. I have heard music and words and so on I think yeah that—yeah that was the first time I heard English and started to fall in love with it. (Interview 1, August) Later on, in high school and in university she had teachers that were very influential for her. Alex expressed how they gave her encouragement and she maintains contact with them. She also indicated that she was always considered very talented with English by her teachers. In addition to her teaching, Alex identified multiple practices she had outside of the language classroom that contributed to her language learning success. When asked about it, she responded with a brief list of reasons: Excerpt 15: All kinds—all possible kinds reading in the regional, watching TV in the regional, listening to music because it gives a lot of slang words and colloquial expressions. Textbooks of course, grammar books, authentic pieces of—of literature, I guess and magazines as well and newspapers so all of them add up to a good result. (Interview 1, August) For Alex, exposing herself to many sources of language input, especially things like entertainment and authentic media, added up for her success as an English speaker and language teacher. When asked about what was most helpful for her learning she did not pinpoint one specific source. 95 As for teaching experience, Alex began teaching directly after her receiving her Bachelor of Education and continued while she completed a master’s degree. The school she taught at was publicly funded and had an emphasis on the sciences and mathematics: Excerpt 16: I’ve been, since I graduated from my undergrad or grad studies, Uh, I started to teach. I taught—I had been teaching even while going through my master’s program simultaneously and then I got my master’s degree. I continued to teach, and it’s been five years by now of my teaching experience. (Interview 1, August) Alex taught at a school that is similar to a magnet school in the United States. When I asked her about how it compared to other public schools, Alex explained that it was considered ‘a bit better’ than other public schools. According to her, the school is newer and was founded by the head of their region a few years ago. The FLTA program was something brought to her attention before she even completed her training in the bachelor’s program. Her master’s research advisor suggested that she look into the Fulbright program. At first, she applied for the visiting research student program. She went as far as the second round of interviews but was not successful. She continued her teaching and expressed that over time she began to feel like she needed to do something for her personal and professional growth. This led her to the Fulbright program once more and that is when she encountered the Fulbright FLTA program. Excerpt 17: Alex: … of course I [] always dreamed of speaking to someone to actually use my knowledge of English and I had no opportunity for that, uhm, more than that I started teaching and I liked my job—I doubt that sometimes but I think that (continued) 96 I love it—and I really want to share this experience with my pupils—my students. I have 100 of them. So far, Jeff: Okay Alex: and I think my experience here and my knowledge I am getting will help them a lot in motivation maybe in their further studies and their English language learning as well and maybe even in their life purposes. (Interview 1, August) Alex viewed the FLTA program as an opportunity to grow professionally, fulfill part of her dream of speaking with native English speakers, and bringing back her experiences to her students. Although she says she sometimes questioned if she loved her job, it was clear that one of the reasons she became a part of the FLTA program was to improve herself as a teacher, so she could better serve her students. The Home Context: Alex’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice When asked about her experiences using technology for language learning, Alex responded that she was fortunate. She explained that in her school at home they had fairly open access to different technologies—the infrastructure was in place. Another point that Alex brought up was that her school had smartboards in each of the classrooms. Alex felt that if there was something that she wanted to try, she could. I also asked Alex about her technology use compared to colleagues at her school. In her response, it is clear that she sees herself as someone more capable than most colleagues. Excerpt 18: Unfortunately, it’s quite sad to say that but I’m much more better than other people because we have a lot of… not—they’re not old, and they’re not. They are senior 97 maybe or close to senior people and they are not used to work with such things but some of them of course are better than I am like IT teachers. But my lucky thing is that I am a representative of a younger generation. I grew up with it and I always use it every day for some kind of things. (Interview 1, August) When reflecting on her past experience using different technologies in her language classroom, she discussed how she had used “lots of internet things” (Interview 1). According to her, this meant things like British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) videos and audio-clips found on the Internet. She also indicated that in her school there were two computer labs available for student use. Each classroom had a computer or laptop for the instructor to use. In addition to the physical technologies available, Alex’s school subscribed to and used an electronic gradebook service. In our conversations, it was evident that she was more familiar with using the computer to project things but was a little unclear of how to use the gradebook software and did not use the available computer labs often. Alex felt she had access to support and the infrastructure was present for her to utilize different technologies to support her classwork. When I asked what she felt technology for language learning would be good for, her first response was to outline how it was helpful for course management. This meant things like grading homework or having students submit their homework electronically. She then outlined how this could include both worksheets and audio recording assignments. Alex also explained that different technologies could be used for exposing students to the speech of other speakers of the language. 98 Excerpt 19: They can be just some texts or dialogues or something for students to listen to some—someone else’s speech because they quickly got—get accustomed to their instructor’s speech and when it comes to some real-life situations or to some other teachers or some other speaking English or any other language they always get lost because they can’t recognize other people’s accents and voices and manner of speech and stuff. So it is for listening purposes, for some cultural peculiarities through watching the videos and listening to radio programs. (Interview 2, September) Another point she brought up was that using projectors or computers enable the instructor to use visual aids and using the smart board could promote active engagement with the students. When asked about what a typical activity was like that incorporated technology, Alex shared in Excerpt 20 what that looked like. Excerpt 20: A typical activity, it can be a warm-up activity, for example, when you ask a question to students from the very beginning of the lesson then you let them watch something, so that could—they could like, get the perception of what the lesson is going to be about and then you ask them some questions (Interview 1, August) Often, Alex used audio or video to introduce a topic or to use as an activity to check comprehension. She explained that in every class she taught she had her students listen to or watch a video. This was often followed by a brief quiz or some discussion questions for her students. 99 One of the follow-up questions I had for Alex was how difficult or easy she found trying to implement different technologies into her courses. She explained that normally in order to use technology a lot more planning and creativity was required of the teacher. However, she also expressed that videos could be used to slow down the pace of the class or to provide a break for the students. Overall, based on our discussions Alex felt that at home computers were available and her students had access to computers and other kinds of mobile technologies. According to her, there was not much that she thought would hinder changes to technology use in her teaching. She did point to the fact that she taught younger children, so utilizing some technologies would be difficult. Still, it appeared based on our interactions that Alex felt she could take the things she learned about in her FLTA assignment and adapt them to her home context without much difficulty. At least, the infrastructure was available so that would not be a major hindrance. The FLTA Context: Alex’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA Alex worked with one language instructor in the department. Her role was mostly as an assistant with regards to language expertise and being a substitute instructor whenever her supervisor or other instructors were travelling. In her first semester, she was not in charge of the lesson very often and was normally expected to follow the lesson plans provided to her by the other instructors. She primarily worked as an assistant to upper-level language courses. At MSU these courses are focused on literature and discussions of culture. This was borne out in my observation of her class. In the lesson, the focus was on an excerpt of dialogue and problem sets on a worksheet. Students often worked in pairs and then came together to discuss the answers to the problem sets and the meaning behind them. In my interview with her supervisor as well, it was clear that the FLTAs were viewed as a valuable resource and support in the language 100 classroom. Alex’s presence was considered an asset as she could offer insights into both the language and culture. This fact led Alex to feel like she was not as involved as she could be, which is brought up later. Alex decided to take a course on film and an additional language course. I asked her why she made the choices she did. Her response was that she loved learning languages generally and was always interested in the sounds of the language she began studying at MSU. In her first reflection (Excerpt 21), Alex identified how technology seemed to be a part of everything that happens in the classes she was a part of. She recognized how different the approach to both the technology use and the teaching are. Excerpt 21: Had first classes. Technology is everywhere—syllabus, homework, prep work, classwork. For instance, [my language] class is all technology-based. We do not use textbooks in class, all necessary information is on PowerPoint and handouts. Moreover, we are supposed to do both pre-and post work at home using Connect resources, they include listening, reading and some grammar tasks. This differs a lot from my usual image of studying, which is still mostly paper-based and grammar-focused. (Reflective Journal Entry 1, September) She mentioned a distinction to her ‘usual image’ of studying by indicating that she was used to language study that was paper-based and more focused on grammar. Not focusing on grammar was something she brought up in one of our later interviews. She pointed out she appreciated the approach to language teaching in the language course she was taking. However, she was unsure about some of her work because she felt like her understanding of it was lacking. 101 This emphasized how both the approach to teaching language and how classrooms are managed were something new for her. Later, when I asked Alex about which kinds of technologies or practices she knew the least about, she identified the term scaffolding. She asked me if I was familiar with the term, which I was. I then proceeded to ask her what she thought it was and where she had heard of it: Excerpt 22: Alex: we have been talking about it a lot and I have never thought of it actually, are you familiar with the word? Jeff: Scaffolding? Alex: Scaffolding, yeah Jeff: Yeah. So what do you mean when you say scaffolding? Alex: Uh, like watching one piece of a movie for example, some video—some short video for several times, for different purposes, one in the same pace of video, at first for vocabulary for example, uh the second time is for some grammar structures, the third time is for some cultural peculiarities. And stuff that was really new yeah, I haven’t tried that Jeff: Hmm, so where did you hear about that? Alex: We’ve been discussing it and some people even said that they don’t use it and they will never do, but I, I like the idea. (Interview 2, September) This is a contrast to her normal practice of simply playing a video for students as a break or as a warm-up activity. Her unfamiliarity with the terminology and desire to adapt her teaching to use the practice of scaffolding may indicate that her use of videos was more teacher-fronted. 102 In our first interview, I asked Alex about what kinds of things she might use technology for in her teaching while in the USA. Alex reported that she did see some social media being used in the syllabus for the class, which surprised her at first. Excerpt 23: Well again mobile apps and social media as well like twitter I have looked through the syllabus of the last fall semester and [the teacher] has some assignments regarding twitter and that surprises me because we have never used that, but I think it’s not bad because we can’t escape it the wise thing is to actually use it in their work. (Interview 1, August) In a later interview I asked Alex if she could share some of the things that she was using technology to do as a part of her assignment. Alex reported that although she saw some technology incorporation for particular assignment, actual use in the class for teaching or interacting in class was limited. Excerpt 24: Not much. Well material development is, is all computer-based because now we don’t write anything and so yeah, it’s internet use and PowerPoints and finding some other materials. But in class so far, it’s just PowerPoint mostly and the watching of movie[s]. (Interview 3, October) Her options were limited as far as teaching her own course, and this even led her at one point to express how she felt ‘helpless’ about things because she was not the teacher in charge. In our second discussion, Alex expressed how she had been in a dark mood recently and that she was not sure how to address some of the issues that she saw in the language classrooms. She 103 expressed a general feeling of unhappiness with not being able to do more to motivate students and encourage them to improve their language skills. She began by expressing her belief that teachers should inspire students, but that could only happen if the students were interested in the material to begin with. Based on her experiences in the classes she was assisting, she got the sense that the students were not the most motivated to learn her language. In Excerpt 25, she outlined how she felt limited in what she could do to help the situation of unmotivated learners. Excerpt 25: Alex: I feel my hands are tied Jeff: So, going back to your feeling of helplessness? Alex: Yeah Jeff: I see and why—what’s tying your hands? Alex: I guess it’s mostly because I’m not teaching. I don’t feel in control of the situation and, yeah. I believe I would be scared to death if I was a primary teacher. If I were a primary teacher, but this would be, I would have an opportunity to—to make the things the way I wanted them to be. (Interview 3, October) Her experiences in the language courses she assisted contrast to her experiences as a student in another language course. In that course, she expressed that almost everything they did was computer-based, even the course readings. Any changes that took place may have then come from her experiences as a student. The language class that she was taking may be the place that exposed her to the most salient changes between how she used technology in her teaching back home and how things were done at MSU. In connection with this point, I asked her in a journal 104 prompt to reflect on how her lesson planning and materials creation had changed as a result of her FLTA assignment. Excerpt 26: For me personally there are no huge changes yet, as long as I have not been teaching or preparing lessons yet. I am partially in charge of the [language] club and I made a presentation on [language] Rock clubs last Wednesday. As long as it’s music I had to use YouTube a lot, and as long as it’s a presentation, I used PowerPoint and Wikipedia and other resources like this. [Language] class involves some work on a [language] film, watching the episodes, reading texts and vocabulary. Everything is posted on D2L. (Reflective Journal Entry, Mid–September) As she also expressed in one of our later interviews, she felt that she had not learned much new in terms of using technology in the language classroom from her teaching duties. She only had the chance to prepare lesson materials for two class sessions. She did express that her approach to lesson planning was different due to the fact that there was not a textbook, so she had to turn to the Internet often to find and adapt materials. This was a common experience for all of the FLTAs. Alex was an assistant in courses in the upper levels, where the focus was more on content and not solely focused on developing language proficiency. This could be a large reason why she had not had to make many changes to her approach to teaching because upper-level courses were typically literature focused. The lack of a language learning focus could most certainly have affected her exposure to technology use in the language classroom or CALL practice. However, in her language course, the use of visual aids in the language classroom was something that she 105 brought up later in the same interview. It is worth noting again that this idea came from her experiences as a language student, not as a teacher or teaching assistant. I asked her to share what she thought she would take with her into her future teaching. Her response, in Excerpt 27, focused on wanting to use more visual aids to help with vocabulary. Excerpt 27: Alex: I would use more visual aids for kids, I didn’t before I started learning that language myself again, I didn’t really realize how important it was the visual aids and constant drilling of words and stuff. And I think I would try to, use internet together with the kids more. Jeff: mhmm Alex: try to use and use shows and interviews, maybe. Jeff: So these are things that you—you have done here but didn’t do before? Alex: I did before but not as much as I could and as I should. (Interview 3, October) The desire to use more visual aids was in response to how she thought she might incorporate some of the technology practices she was exposed to in the United States in the language classroom. She also stated that she wanted to use the Internet more, and in our other interviews she brought this up. She originally stated that using mobile devices to access the Internet was something that was not normally done because she worked with younger students. As a part of her duties as a teaching assistant, Alex said she did not see much difference in how technology was employed between teaching in her home context and as an FLTA. Although the use of the course management system was new to her, she was not involved in grading or creating materials. The bulk of her knowledge growth, according to Alex, came from 106 her experiences as a language student. She expressed how in the class she was taking things were done differently—all assignments were done through a course management website and the class utilized more visual aids. In addition, something that Alex brought up on occasion was how the course focused more on communication and meaningful activities. She indicated to me that she was a person that appreciated grammar lessons, so this was a struggle for her. In her experiences teaching as an FLTA, she developed more knowledge of some of the platforms that are commonly used in language courses at MSU, however she was not required to use them in her assignment. While she indicated she could see the usefulness, she did not express whether these were things she felt would be helpful in her teaching. Alex did report that she learned how to use scaffolding to more effectively incorporate videos in her teaching, but this was something that she had a discussion about and did not get many chances to put this into her practice. The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Alex’s TPACK For Alex, her home context was a factor in her experiences in the USA in that she recognized she was fortunate to have access to different classroom hardware and software. Based on our interactions, it appeared some resources would be available to her to make changes in her use of technology in the language classroom and even to incorporate some more CALL activities for her students. Her experiences as an FLTA did not result in major changes in her knowledge of technology use for CALL, and as she shared, she was doing pretty much the same things that she had always done in her home context. However, some growth did occur from her experiences as a language student. She expressed how she recognized more of the importance of using visual aids when teaching vocabulary. Her experiences as a language student in the USA caused her to consider how she could utilize something similar for her students back home. 107 For Alex, her home context did not seem to be a hindering factor for her in determining whether she could implement any changes in her teaching practices. In her FLTA assignment, she expressed she was not required to make any substantive changes to her classroom teaching style because of the focus of the courses. The fact that she did not have many opportunities to teach and was not expected to create many materials may have led her to not developing with regards to her CALL teaching practice or her TPACK development. On the macro-level at home (and in general), Alex recognized a divide in technology use between older and younger generations. This led to her expressing that she felt as though incorporating technology was easier and that she was more adept at employing activities in her language classroom than someone older. This was a common recognition by the FLTAs I worked with. Her view that it comes easier to her may have led her to not place a large emphasis on learning how to use technology more effectively during her FLTA assignment. In addition, as she reported, meso-level factors at her home institution made it so that she had access to and was familiar with a level of technology use and incorporation that did not contrast so much with the practices in the language classes she was a part of as an FLTA at MSU. In the meso-level at MSU, the institution and the department she was in did not have a strict focus on language learning in the upper level courses and this could have played a role in her not being exposed to as many new practices with technology. Also, her role as an FLTA meant that she was viewed as a support person and source of authority on language and culture. This meant that she was not often required to be involved with lesson planning and traditional classroom language teaching. Across all of the levels of context, there were obvious factors at play that impacted other levels. For example, Alex expressed in one of our later interviews how she felt that in the United States students may tend to feel entitled to their education because they are paying. This factor 108 may have played a role in how Alex felt about her students’ reactions to her and their interactions on the micro-level. She brought up on more than one occasion how she felt disconnected from her students. This fact may have been further compounded by the meso-level factor at MSU of how the language department viewed her role in the classroom as an FLTA. Because she was not looked to as mainly an instructor, Alex felt that she was not able to connect with her students in the same way had she been preparing lessons. This example shows an important interplay across the levels of context and how they are not separate, isolated domains. Alex’s experiences with her students at MSU may have also lent support to her view of the macro-level factor of students’ attitude of entitlement. Outside of her teaching/assisting assignment, her experiences with other FLTAs led her to the concept of scaffolding regarding videos. She expressed that she liked the term, but it was unclear whether she would be given the opportunity to explore its use in her teaching while at MSU. As a student, Alex reported being exposed to practices with technology that were more immediately recognizable as things she could incorporate into her teaching such as the use of visual aids in a more scaffolded way than she had done in the past. Alex expressed some frustrations and feelings of helplessness concerning student motivation and engagement. These feelings seemed to stem more from what she viewed as a macro-level of student culture, as she recognized this as something that happens even in her own country. The decision of MSU to not rely on a textbook for the language classes did prompt a change in her materials creation. During our discussion, she pointed out that lesson preparation was different here because she usually took textbook lessons and supplemented what was already there. Because there was no textbook, Alex relied on finding and adapting materials from Google 109 searches and other language teaching sites. Overall, Alex felt that there was not much change between what she was doing at home and what she did as an FLTA. Her experiences, however, were in contrast to the other FLTAs—and especially with Pat whose narrative is included next. Pat Pat taught for several years at a bilingual school in her home country in Southeast Asia. She was a co-founder of an English academy and received training for teaching English as a foreign language both during her undergraduate and master’s education. In our discussions, Pat expressed that she was very passionate about teaching and wanted to learn as much as she could in order to improve the education system back home. She also felt strongly about trying to take advantage of as much as she could to collect materials and information that would be valuable to her students back home. Language and Teaching Background When asked about her background with English, Pat described how English was a required subject in her schooling. Pat began learning in primary school. As she explained in Excerpt 28, she felt her language education was ineffective because of the teaching approach at the time she was younger. For her, she considered her English education to have started once she entered university. Excerpt 28: I first started learning English when I was at grade 6 but I don’t think that it’s effective because in my, in [my country] it’s a long time ago that people always focus on studying grammar vocabulary with the grammar translation style so we don’t have much opportunity to practice listening and speaking, reading and writing. So when I—and the pronunciation wasn’t correct at all—so when I went move to the university I had to learn the pronunciation again and listening and speaking, even reading, and I started to learn 110 how to write something academically—write end of paragraph and an essay so actually my learning English actually be beginning when I come to the university (Interview 1, August) I followed up with Pat by asking about her English skills in comparison to her friends and colleagues. She emphasized to me how even though her friends had been studying since they were much younger their English was ‘terrible’ (Interview 1). She expressed that she had helped her friends to gain more background knowledge in English and to help them with their pronunciation. Later in our discussion she pointed out how many of her teachers did not have correct pronunciation and that some of those issues continue today. She also brought up how her country’s government had been investing a lot of money to improve language instruction. Pat still thought that such initiatives were not really helping but felt this was a good direction. Based on my research on her home country, there has been a large amount of movement in terms of working towards improving education systems. After receiving her bachelor’s degree, Pat went on to pursue a master’s degree in teaching English. Her master’s degree was awarded by an American university in collaboration with a university in her country. Her professor in the program flew in to her country from the U.S. to teach courses. Her experiences during her MA degree exposed her to some of the practices she encountered at MSU. Before joining the FLTA program Pat worked at a bilingual school that used, as she put it, “a lot of English together with [Pat’s language]” (Interview 1). Pat also worked at an English language center as a teacher and support person developing curricula and assisting with language teaching methodologies. As a result, she spent a lot of time teaching both during the day and in 111 the evenings. Prior to joining the FLTA program, Pat had not had any experience teaching her home language and had some exposure speaking with other native English speakers. I also asked Pat to reflect on some of the things that led her to apply for the FLTA program. She saw the FLTA program as an excellent chance to gain more experience and she had a desire to learn how to assist learners with disabilities. In Excerpt 29, she discussed some of the benefits of the program and what she hoped to gain from her participation. Excerpt 29: I am now a teacher of English as a Second Language (ESL). I have a passion for teaching and love working with students. I consider this program a golden opportunity for my teaching career because it helps to improve my teaching experience and my English proficiency. Additionally, I am interested in two courses including learning difficulties and community development which are not taught in [my country]. Therefore, after the course I expect to gain more knowledge to help my students to solve their learning difficulties better and educate them to become citizens who are more responsible for themselves and for the community. (Reflective Journal Entry, December) Later in the same entry, Pat mentioned how she also hoped to learn more about American culture to share with her students, and to study women who had fought for women’s rights. Pat joined the FLTA program so she could improve her teaching practice, help her students and to gain skills to improve her home country as a whole. The Home Context: Pat’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice When asked about the kinds of technologies she used in her language classroom, Pat responded that she was able to use quite a few things in her classes. In Excerpt 30, Pat discussed 112 with me how in her school she was encouraged to apply different technologies. This encouragement at the school level may have also come from the larger, national context as she identified that her country’s ministry of education had been involved in creating materials for use. Excerpt 30: We are encouraged to use a lot of technology in class because my school is quite modern and open to do that. I use the—they have the Internet so I use the PowerPoint I use, I use computers, I use the Internet in [my country] the Ministry of Education and Training they—they design an electronic book for the teachers to use like the iTunes learning… And uhm, my school also has some orientation some training for the teacher to use more learning softwares but sometimes sometimes—sometimes I’m lazy but in my English Language School I use the videos for teaching and use the iTunes learning …for family and friends to teach kids and I find it’s, it’s wonderful for this. iTunes—it’s wonderful we have everything. We don’t need to design PowerPoints myself, yeah, they have the videos, the flashcards, everything, the songs, just click and it—yeah and for the book designed by the Ministry of Education and Training when you click on the volume I can run and you don’t need to use the PowerPoint yeah and it’s saves you energy, but if you want to design some other activities you can use your own PowerPoint, but it helps I think, my country trying to apply more technology. (Interview 1, August) Pat references how she had both access to materials and how her country’s government had been involved in releasing materials that she used in her classes. She also highlighted how 113 her school offered support for teachers in the form of training workshops. Although she expressed that she felt she could be a little lazy, she clarified to me during the member check that being lazy was not due to not wanting to create more materials or work, but instead came from the amount of work that teachers needed to do elsewhere. Based on our interactions, it appeared that Pat was most familiar with using different presentation software and educational applications like iTunes tools to supplement coursework and to present information. Later on, in our discussion Pat expressed her access was something a lot of teachers did not have. Pat also recognized that her country was attempting to encourage the use of technology in the classrooms, mirroring her government’s efforts to improve language teaching overall. Excerpt 31: Technology helps a lot I think but not any school in [my country] can have this. I would in boarding schools in the capital but it—when it comes in my country a lot of mountainous areas even near the capital in the suburbs not every room has the computer and the technology to use. All the teachers want to have this to use that to get access with some materials, but they cannot. (Interview 1, August) A recurring point for her was how there were a lot of institutions that served students from the rural, mountainous areas and such students did not have familiarity with technologies associated with the language classroom. On the macro-level, her country’s government was pushing for improvement in teaching generally. This wider policy may have trickled down into individual institutions and made it possible for her to have access to more materials and technologies because she lived in a more 114 urban area. Her school provided access to projectors and some software to facilitate learning in the language classroom. The FLTA Context: Pat’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA Pat was in a somewhat different situation from other FLTAs from Cohort A, as she was in charge of teaching a distance learning language course with one synchronous meeting a week via a videoconferencing program. Thus, she was in charge of a first-year course, which was in a blended, flipped format. In addition, many of her students were not from MSU, but instead many were heritage language speakers from across the United States attending other universities. There was another teacher that taught the second-year course in her language. Some of the materials that she created were for the other course, which she shifted to teach during her second semester. In our discussions and in her reflections, she often brought up sources of challenge as she adjusted to a new format, teaching a language she had not taught before, and teaching students from a culture she had no experience working with. First, there were not many materials available for her to build off of when teaching her native language, and she expressed that this gave her a lot of work to do. Second, she had to adapt to the norms of copyright protection in the United States. This was especially important because she was creating materials for the university to utilize for future classes. Excerpt 32: It’s like I am writing a book. It’s the same—something similar to you had to writing a book a workbook for every unit because some of my other FLTAs, they just teach the offline face-to-face class. So they say that there are three websites and that and they use the website, they use the materials they use the tasks on the website. I couldn’t do that because it’s the online class and a lot, and for the whole US for the Big Ten project and the whole US. I couldn’t come to the website and take that and (continued) 115 download the exercises I couldn’t do that so they have more free time, like actually for— for this kind of work, sometimes it requires creativity as well so, if you want to be creative I think I need to keep myself to be happy as well... (Lesson Planning Session, October) In Pat’s journal reflections, I asked her to share some of her experiences of the differences between how she planned and created lesson materials as an FLTA and what she did at home. I asked her to think about the role technology played in her teaching in addition to her general approach. In her response, she highlighted what she viewed as a need for her to update her skills with technology. She viewed the practices in her online class as something newer or as building on what she already knew. Excerpt 33: When coming here teaching [my language] online, I have to update my technology skills. It’s a flipped class, so I have put more effort to prepare presentation materials to upload on the website for my students to work through before virtual meeting. Although I also have to prepare PowerPoint just like my lessons in my home country, I have to add audio reading aloud the words/phrases for my students to practice pronunciation themselves. I have to design the online quizzes which I have never done before. The format of the quizzes is similar to the test I did at home, but I have to learn new technical skills to make up an online quiz on D2L. I also have to find authentic materials for them because people teach [my language] as native language in another way. Authentic materials are above their levels, so I have to cut and adapt these materials to fit my students’ [language] competency. (Reflective Journal Entry, Mid–September) 116 A point that also came up in Pat’s reflections and my discussions with her was the amount of training and professional development she had received as a TESOL teacher. Pat contrasted her confidence of teaching English with her teaching her native language. She received a lot of training in TESOL, but this was the first time she was tasked with teaching her home language. Later on, in a different discussion, Pat recognized that the skills she gained from her TESOL training were able to transfer to her teaching her native language somewhat, but that it was still difficult and there were challenges she was not prepared for when teaching as an FLTA. Excerpt 34: I think I feel it more confident in teaching English than my first language. It’s because I have studied many years TESOL teaching methods and have 5 years’ experience of teaching English. I have never taught [my language] as a second language and taught online language course before, which makes me nervous. Although [my language] is my mother tongue, teaching [it] as a second language requires a lot of lesson planning and teaching skills and methodology. That’s the reason I could not fully be confident in teaching my mother tongue. I often observe my instructor’s lessons before I teach my own class. Thanks to [the FLTA coordinator’s] suggestions, I could design effective and interesting activities for my students. Another challenge for me teaching [my language] here comes from cultural differences between the US and [my country]. Therefore, I have to change my way of giving comments, correcting mistakes and dealing with misunderstanding. (Reflective Journal Entry, October) 117 Pat identified contextual differences between the cultures in which she taught. This compounded the tasks that she undertook in both preparing materials and preparing herself to be a teacher that is effective and uses appropriate strategies in her teaching. Overcoming cultural barriers is one issue, however she was also confronted with doing so in an online platform. In my interview with the FLTA coordinator, she expressed that Pat’s style of giving feedback was very quick and blunt compared to what her students were used to. After reviewing some of her recorded lessons with her, Pat said she recognized that her approach was affecting her students in a way that she did not realize. As a result, Pat made an extra effort to pay attention to how she interacted with her students in the USA. All of these factors came together and contributed to her feelings of nervousness and apprehension before starting her teaching. However, based on our later interviews, she was able to overcome some of her feelings through her own exploration and the support from the FLTA coordinator and other instructors. A further area where she experienced some challenges was in providing technical support to her students. In the beginning of the semester, Pat expressed in one of her journal entries (Excerpt 35) how some of her U.S. students’ practices were frustrating her. She prefaced what she wrote about by referring to the fact that they were from a younger generation and should be familiar with how to use particular technologies. What also came through in her reflection is some of her own personal beliefs concerning the use of technology in education and the language classroom. Excerpt 35: Although my students are almost young and born in technology era, they meet difficulties in using new technology. The main reason is that they do not read the instructions on the tech page. They just do it and email me to ask if problems (continued) 118 arise. They behave like high school students. Oh my god!!! They are not flexible too, so I give them some training about dealing with technology problems. (Reflective Journal Entry, Mid–September) It is of note that Pat stated that she stepped up to give her students assistance both with the problems at hand but also in attempting to give her students guidance with how to deal with issues in the future. As she expressed, she seemed to think that students in the younger generation would be accustomed to dealing with technologies, or at least be able to read through instructions and be flexible when they encountered technical problems. Another major factor for her learning how to run her online language course was spending time exploring the tools on her own and holding practice sessions with her friends and other FLTAs. The FLTA coordinator corroborated this in our discussions, stating that Pat had recruited other FLTAs to serve as students for mock lessons. When I followed up with Pat closer to the end of the semester she discussed how she had begun to feel much more confident in her abilities teaching online. A major point for her was also the support she received from the FLTA coordinator. The demonstrations and explanations that she received were a point that she often brought up when discussing her experience teaching online. Excerpt 36: I never taught [my language] as a second language. Sometimes [I] teach [my language] as a first language to [my country’s] people. It’s not [my language] as a second language and then, uhm, and then a lot of difficulties but now and after that when I get used to using Zoom, using D2L I feel more confident and thanks to the session of my instructor and [the FLTA] coordinator for make the virtual meeting more (continued) 119 communicative, actually we can make it the same like a face-to-face lesson and, so besides learning about technology I learned the thing that we can apply what we using face-to-face into virtual meetings to make it more interesting and more communicative. (Interview 3, October) After receiving assistance from the FLTA coordinator and the other teacher, Pat brought up how she learned to make the synchronous sessions almost like a face-to-face class. In my observation of her teaching, Pat utilized the Zoom platform to both facilitate whole class discussion, but also created break-out groups where her students worked together with one to two others to complete an activity (a built-in feature of the software). In this mode within the program, the students could only see and speak with their groupmates, and the instructor can switch between the groups. In her reflection of the lesson, she said she felt it went well and that she was able to incorporate activities that were communicative and meaningful. In a later interview, Pat revisited this idea of making the synchronous sessions more like a face-to-face class. She appreciated the ability to break her students into groups, as she had some heritage learners that were much more advanced in their speaking fluency. As a result, she indicated that she grouped them together for certain activities and spent more time with the non-heritage speakers to provide more needed feedback. In Pat’s FLTA assignment she felt a lot of apprehension and nervousness before starting because she was unfamiliar with teaching a language online, and she had never taught her mother tongue before. This was mitigated somewhat by the FLTA coordinator and the other instructor providing support and training, and through her own choices to practice. She continued to feel 120 like she had to work longer on making sure her materials were of good quality and original because of MSU’s involvement in creating online courses for the future. Pat came to the FLTA program feeling fairly confident in her abilities with technology for language teaching, however having to teach online coupled with other factors made her apprehensive and nervous before getting started. However, as she expressed to me over time, she was able to learn how to teach her online course in ways that were similar to a face-to-face course and began to feel much better about her abilities. In one of our later interviews she outlined how the biggest thing she was learning from her experiences was how to adopt a design that required students to come prepared to practice speaking during class time. The Intersections of Context and Its Role in Pat’s TPACK Pat felt confident in her abilities as an English teacher and had extensive experience and training to be such. She expressed at one point that she thought that she could transfer a lot of her knowledge into the FLTA teaching context, but things changed once she was confronted with a variety of factors. When I asked Pat to reflect on the biggest changes she saw in herself as a teacher at the end of the semester, she outlined how she had become more familiar with the tools associated with teaching online. She gained knowledge of Zoom, VoiceThread and how to utilize the D2L course management system to facilitate teaching. As discussed previously, she also felt that she had become better prepared to teach online courses through her experience—gaining more technological pedagogical knowledge of ways to approach teaching to encourage meaningful interaction and production during class hours in the synchronous online sessions. Excerpt 37: My biggest changes for me as a teacher here are familiarizing with a lot of technology and preparing materials for my lessons. First, this is an online course, so I have to learn how to use Zoom, Voicethread, how to use D2L to grade and (continued) 121 manage the content of my course, and other tools to build up a quiz or a dropbox assignment. Second, finding appropriate authentic materials for my second-year students challenges me a lot. I have to read a lot of resources on the Internet and try to memorize some literature texts I had learnt in [my language’s] literature courses at school. Actually, I have to read a lot more in [my language’s] literature in the US than at home. That sounds unbelievable, but that’s true. (Reflective Journal Entry, September) Pat reported gaining knowledge not only of new platforms for online teaching, but she worked towards cultivating an understanding of how to utilize the tools appropriately to create an interactive language learning environment even though she was teaching online. She was able to cultivate TPACK for online teaching in her home language. In one of our last interviews, Pat brought up how she felt the skills she was gaining teaching online at MSU would be very valuable in improving how online teaching was being done at home. According to her, many of the companies offering online language courses either did not include a synchronous component or were often just one-to-one tutoring sessions. In Excerpt 37 she also discussed her need to read a lot of literature from her home country because of her need to familiarize herself with how to teach her language effectively. She had to develop more of her pedagogical content knowledge of her home language to successfully convey it to her students in class. Pat also felt less confident in utilizing the D2L course management software to administer her courses. A big point of support for her was the FLTA coordinator and taking the time to familiarize herself with the tools on her own time. 122 Excerpt 38: It is easy to understand that I feel the most confident with PowerPoint, Word, Voice Recorder, and YouTube videos because I have used these applications for 9 years since I was an undergraduate student. I have never used Zoom or Voicethread before, but I have used something similar to Zoom like Skype. If I’m not clear, I will ask my instructor for help or search information on Google. Therefore, I feel confident in using these two softwares. To be honest, I feel the least confident in using D2L system especially online-quiz building. Although there’s a technology page for LCTL teachers, the system is the most complicated. Also, I have not enough time to [practice] designing online quizzes because I have been busy with creating homework and presentation materials. (Reflective Journal Entry, September) Pat’s experiences in her home context helped to prepare her for taking on the task of being an online teacher for a language she had never taught, to students in an institution she had never taught. On the meso-level her institution’s access to projectors and the Internet was not hard to come by and Pat had experience incorporating multimedia and activities. On the macro- level, her nation’s government had multiple initiatives to improve teaching and access to educational technologies. This resulted in materials that she could draw on to adapt to her classes. In the wider, global context there was a common recognition by Pat throughout our interactions that English has a much larger amount of ready-made materials. Pat pointed out to me multiple times that this led to her having to be more creative. This issues was common to each of the FLTAs as they confronted teaching a LCTL as opposed to teaching English. This, 123 again, was compounded by her FLTA assignment requiring her to create materials that were able to be a part of future language courses and property of MSU. In the USA, on the macro-level, her language was less commonly taught, and resulted in her teaching an online course to students spread across the United States. There was also a high importance placed on copyright protection which is something Pat did not think much about before. On the meso-level, she had to create her own materials and needed to familiarize herself with new conferencing technology and adapt her teaching to fit the D2L course management system. On the micro-level, Pat had to adapt her feedback style so that it was more in line to what her students expected. She also struggled with creating communicative activities that could be accomplished online. Due to her experiences as a teacher in her home country, Pat worked through the challenges she saw in her assignment as an FLTA by reaching out for support and experimenting with the technologies beforehand. She had already experienced using different technologies and attempting to improve the teaching in her classes, so she seemed well prepared. The biggest takeaway for Pat was the flipped approach to language teaching, which she felt would fit nicely into her home teaching context. Pat learned more about how she could employ different technologies to promote learning in an online context, but also recognized how what she learned could be transferred to her home context. Gene, Alex, and Pat’s TPACK Development and Contextual factors In the following section I discuss the experiences of all three FLTAs and compare across the cases. I report on the results of the analysis of the narratives previously presented and how they fit within the TPACK framework. I then discuss the experiences of the FLTAs and how they fit within the extended TPACK framework. 124 Knowledge Development—TPACK for CALL The impact of the program was different depending on the assignments that the FLTAs were given. For example, all of the FLTAs reported learning how to use the course management site, the videoconferencing software Zoom, and some audio software such as Audacity and the education platform Voicethread. In this way, each of the FLTAs experienced knowledge growth of the technologies available and received some understanding of how the platforms could be used to promote learning within the classes they would be teaching. At the very least, Gene, Pat and Alex gained technological knowledge of the D2L management site, the Zoom platform, some quiz websites and the audio software Audacity. However, Gene and Alex’s experience with such platforms did not extend beyond the first introductory meetings. A summary of the TPACK development of each of the FLTAs in Cohort A are contained in Table 4. Table 4. Cohort A Knowledge Development of Technologies Within the TPACK Framework FLTA Gene TPACK knowledge domain TK D2L, Zoom TCK TPK Alex D2L, Zoom Online quizzes, H5P Online quizzes Audacity, Voicethread Audacity, Voicethread TPACK YouTube integration Visual aids for vocabulary, Scaffolding videos Online instruction via D2L, Flipped class Pat Zoom Online quizzes Audacity, Voicethread Pat used the software platforms more often due to the nature of her assignment and increased in her TPACK of how to use the technologies to promote language learning. Pat often expressed how she had to become very familiar with the technologies she needed to use for teaching the online course. She not only gained exposure to these new platforms, but she often 125 expressed that she learned how they could be utilized to make the online course feel more like a face-to-face course. She reported growth in her understanding of how to use the videoconferencing tool to create an interactive learning environment for her classes. Pat also recognized the knowledge she gained as possibly informing her future practice as she expressed a desire to offer online teaching using what she learned. Gene’s supervisor introduced resources like the H5P presentation website. He also began to explore how to incorporate YouTube music videos into his teaching. This was all new to him, as he reported that doing such things were not possible in his home teaching context. In terms of the TPACK framework, then, Gene did gain knowledge of different technologies that could be used to promote learning in the classroom (technological knowledge), and he extended his TPACK by learning ways to utilize YouTube to promote language learning for his students. He reported using a YouTube music video coupled with the pedagogical activity of learning the song to learn language contained in the song. Outside of his classes, Gene was exposed to many different tools, attended different professional development workshops, and went to conferences. As a result of his experiences, Gene hoped to capitalize on his new knowledge of how to use technologies by improving his place of employment. In one of our latest interviews, Gene also expressed that he hoped to found a school of his own upon returning home. Alex was exposed to the platforms already mentioned. Beyond, in her teaching, Alex expressed that she did not learn about or how to use anything else. In her teaching assignments, she most often served as a substitute teacher. However, she did become more aware of the importance of utilizing visual aids and a custom software for language learning in the language course she enrolled in. 126 Taken together, each of the FLTAs’ separate experiences demonstrate knowledge growth of how to use technology for language teaching, but different contextual factors came together to impact the amount of growth and understanding. Next, I turn to a summary of the different factors that came together to impact the different outcomes for the FLTAs. Extended TPACK—Contexts and Their Role Similar to the discussion of the participants’ change in TPACK, different FLTAs had different factors that impacted their development of knowledge. For example, Gene recognized how the ways he was using technology as an FLTA were completely different, while Alex said that she did not really see any major differences between what she did in her home country and what she was required to use in the United States. While Pat had received training in TESOL and was an active professional at home, she was teaching another language in a new format for her. As a result, she expanded her repertoire of teaching skills, and worked on improving them throughout her time teaching. As discussed in the individual analyses, a combination of macro–, meso– and micro- factors came together to create an environment that enabled Gene to both be exposed to and experiment with new presentation technologies and the creation and incorporation of music videos and other tools, while for Alex factors combined to make it difficult for her to see any substantive changes to her knowledge or approach to technology use for language teaching. Gene’s history of being mentored and pursuing professional development was something that he was able to continue at MSU. While this certainly may be in large part due to individual differences, it was important that there were opportunities available to Gene to take advantage of. Also important for Gene was how limited he felt he was in being able to utilize some of the technologies in his work back home. In some of my follow-up interviews with him he expressed 127 how he was working on establishing his own school back home where he hoped he would have more access to, and freedom to use, different technologies he was exposed to at MSU. Alex did not indicate any major barriers to using any new technologies back home other than the age of her students. At MSU, she felt that she was not required to do much and could not exercise much freedom or explore new technologies because she was not planning lessons often. In addition, the current practices of the language courses in which she assisted did not were not things she felt were much different than what she did at home. Pat was required by her position to use different technology platforms to address the goals of the course. She felt that the structure of the course, specifically the flipped-classroom approach, and the influence of different technologies on its structure was something that she could bring home with her and utilize to improve language education. The fact that she was teaching her home language and there were not many materials also played a role in how hard she felt she needed to work. Through my work with the FLTAs from Cohort A, Alex indicated that her knowledge did not change much from her teaching, but she did learn some approaches from her experiences as a student. Pat expressed that she had learned quite a bit about how to approach online language teaching and tutoring, while Gene shared that he was learning a lot, and the things he was learning were sometimes very difficult for him to see how they could transfer back to his home institution. Pat felt she could transfer her new knowledge to improve the online teaching practices back home, Gene felt that some of the things he was doing could transfer only if he changed his place of employment, and Alex saw a confirmation of how she could put more emphasis on things like visual aids and videos for learning. 128 Even within the same institution, the different levels of factors came together to create very different experiences for the different FLTAs. While this is not surprising, it is important to consider what the different factors are and what roles they played in order to focus on how to improve the program and its outcomes for its participants. In the next chapter I present the narrative of two FLTAs from Cohort B. Their experiences are similar to those in Cohort A. However, I maintained contact with them upon their return home and through interviews and further reflective journals. As a result, I can extend their narratives to account for how what they learned at MSU transfers (or does not transfer) back into their home contexts. 129 CHAPTER 5 COHORT B: KYLE AND DARIA As outlined previously this chapter presents the case-narratives for two FLTAs that I began working with in their second semester in the United States and continued working with after they returned home. The format of the narratives follows a similar pattern as the previous three, with an added section discussing how what they learned or gained in the FLTA program translated into their home context upon return. The purpose for inclusion of the second cohort is to continue to address the first research question, and to address the third. For your reference, these questions were: 1. What is the impact of the FLTA program on participants knowledge of CALL, as framed within TPACK? 3. How does the knowledge of different contextual factors impact FLTA’s TPACK/CALL enactment upon return? I first discuss the history and experiences of Kyle and then present the case of Daria. For both Kyle’s and Daria’s narrative, I begin with a discussion of their language and teaching background, their experiences with technology before coming to the FLTA program, their experiences as FLTAs, and the subsequent employment of their knowledge for CALL upon their return home. I was able to interview Kyle once about six weeks after his return, and he provided three one-page reflections. The first he sent to me a few weeks after his return, the second about four months after his return, and the third six months after his return. I was able to interview Daria twice after her return, once about a month later and the second time six months after her return. Daria also provided a brief reflection to me about the biggest changes she had made as a 130 teacher and new approaches to technology use in her teaching. Both Kyle and Daria began teaching fairly soon after returning home. Kyle started teaching again within about three weeks, and Daria arrived shortly after classes had already started. Kyle Kyle joined the FLTA program from his home country in the Middle-East. He had been teaching for roughly four years at a large university in his home city. Language and Teaching Background Like other FLTAs, Kyle began learning English at a young age in school. Kyle felt that the English teaching in his home country was not very well developed, so he did not really begin learning until he was in high school. He chose to enter into a high school which emphasized training for students to eventually become teachers once he was eligible, and this led him onto the path of becoming a teacher through his university as well. It became clear through our discussions that Kyle was a motivated language learner and user. He loved to learn languages, and spent time becoming proficient in three languages beyond English and his native language. When asked about why he chose to study English and why he became so proficient he expressed multiple reasons: Excerpt 39: My desire came from the idea that it was easy to—to learn English because I got it easier than the others, because I was open to learn languages because sciences were hard for me. So, I wasn't really good at them—I had to study a lot, but I didn't have to study [languages] at all so I always had the desire and I just hate it when I cannot understand people. Just a little bit of a [another language] I can understand some sort of stuff and I love it—and without having for example, [another language] I have no idea what is going on. So, (continued) 131 I just hate being around [another language] people and they tend to speak [another language] all the time, which is another thing, so that is like my main concern I want to learn languages because of that I would say—I want to be international but I cannot stand if they speak their own languages and I cannot understand that. (Interview 2, May) Learning languages came relatively easy to him in comparison to other subjects. In addition, he was motivated to understand and be understood by people internationally. For Kyle, language was something that came easily and naturally to him. Perhaps this is in part because of him wanting to “be international”, and how this led him to want to understand and be understood. He also expressed that he found a lot of joy in reading literature in other languages and from other cultures. He began to study English as a requirement, but really took a liking to it throughout secondary school and decided to pursue language teaching as a career. Kyle entered university and received training to become a teacher at a university that he expressed was not very good: Excerpt 40: Uh languages uhm—not perfect but the classes I took about methodology they were kind of useless and when I started to teach at our – while applying the jobs at universities I re-did everything I would say, re-did all my studies because it wasn’t at a very good university I would say I had one or two great teachers – great professors but not most of them. (Interview 1, February) 132 Kyle’s demonstrated motivation and commitment to language learning is something that appears to have impacted his approach to teaching and desires for his students. As will be discussed more later, he often tried different activities and encouraged his students to be more engaged beyond what other teachers did. After his training in university, Kyle took a job teaching at a large university in his nation’s capital city. While he was working, he had many friends and colleagues apply to the FLTA program. For him, the FLTA program offered the opportunity to come and learn more about another culture. In addition, he had a strong interest in teaching his home language— evidenced by his joining a master’s program for teaching his language as a foreign language. For the first few years of his teaching, he taught face-to-face English courses. The university eventually asked him to teach online English courses. In these classes he taught over one- hundred students at a time. This was what he was doing just before joining the FLTA program. Kyle’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice When asked about how he viewed himself in terms of his abilities to use technology, Kyle indicated he felt a bit more capable than his peers. This view grew out of his position at work being primarily teaching and supervising online English courses. He served as a kind of support person, sharing that at one point he had to show an older colleague how to turn on their computer. The major issues that he helped other teachers with were audio and video problems during materials creation. As mentioned, he taught face-to-face courses in his first year at his current university and taught online courses both synchronous and asynchronous in his latter two years before accepting an assignment as an FLTA. He felt his experience with teaching online helped him to feel comfortable teaching an online course as an FLTA. 133 When I asked about Kyle’s personal feelings about technology for language teaching and learning, he was very quick to point out how easy learning a language in modern times could be for someone motivated. Kyle viewed the use of technology positively and as something that could be extremely effective. In Excerpt 41 Kyle expressed how modern internet technologies are especially well suited for language learning. Excerpt 41: I just love it because—it's just the reading passages—I love them. I learned lots of stuff from them—even they are not related, or I'm not interested in them. I just love reading the new stuff, that is a certain thing that I love them and to learn languages, you know. Everyone recommends you to watch series. That is awesome like that is a win-win situation. You can watch stuff that, you know, these TV shows that you like and it helps you learn English perfect. I love that. I started learning [another language], I started watching [a TV show]—it helps. So that is something good, like whatever you do and whatever you are exposed to help you learn languages and they are usually things that you can just personalize for your desire and you don't have to change anything you just need to add certain stuff to your lifestyle. Like you always use a mobile phone and you use the Internet when you go on to social media networking site you can have some [another language] friends and it helps you learn [another language] better or just instead of checking the same website just add another website and we have lots of time a day and instead of just wasting a lot of time just ten minutes it helps. (Interview 2, May) Based on our discussions, it is clear Kyle placed value on learning language autonomously. He felt that by engaging with media in the target language a few minutes a day 134 language learning could be improved. A common theme for Kyle is how he viewed the motivation of students and teachers affecting what is done in the classroom. His views on autonomous learning bled into his teaching practice. He discussed how he desired his students to engage with the language but expressed frustration in how students in his home institution did not seem to want anything but presentation of material and then quizzes. He felt that this was different for his students at MSU. Still, he said he tried encouraging his students to take advantage of one website that held a game where the goal was to fill in the missing lyrics while watching a music video. He assigned his students to visit that site each week. Kyle expressed at one point that “my main concern about the language is to be exposed”. He expressed that his views would sometimes be at odds with what he said was the grammar– and test-focused approach to teaching at his home institution and in his country in general. Not only were the teachers and administrators in his home country test-oriented, he said that his students had the same attitudes. As a result, Kyle’s use of CALL activities and technology in the classroom was sometimes limited to presenting materials or assignments, and quizzes. He later lamented how this expectation played into how he interacted with his students as well. Excerpt 42: If you don't test them, if you don't ask certain follow-up questions about the things that you want them to do like you—I cannot just say okay go find some music and then tell me which one you like the most, so we will work on that… (Interview 2, May) This fact made it difficult for him to feel he could create interactive activities or try to explore other options for engaging the students in English. He also pointed out that his students 135 and the overall culture at home made it so that they were not as motivated to learn English as they could be. According to Kyle, access to technology was not a major concern for students back home. In his view, his students were quite capable of accessing and using the required websites and materials. Kyle went as far as to say that students today are capable with technology because they grew up with it. He expressed that his students would expect some audio-visual technologies, and that they would be engaging and motivating for his students if he brought them into the classroom. Kyle also brought up how other issues sometimes limited the use of different technologies at home. One major issue was the reliability of internet and the university’s servers. He related how the servers would go down at least once a week making it hard to make sure students could access the course materials. There was also a quota on internet bandwidth, meaning that once a certain amount of data had been used up the Internet would be shut off. Nevertheless, he often used quiz websites to check grammar learning and comprehension. He also sometimes used Google Docs to send out surveys or quizzes to students. Kyle worked at what he called a huge university, with many online classes having more than 100 students. This made it labor-intensive to grade assignments and ensure everyone had access to materials. As a result, he said that he employed simpler activities during class to sometimes avoid assigning homework. He wanted to make sure that any graded assignments could be checked automatically. Large class sizes also led the course to be more teacher-fronted because they did not permit students to use their mics to interact with each other. Based on what he shared with me, Kyle was familiar with methods to create online quizzes, using a course management site, recording himself and creating video presentations. 136 This led him to feel very comfortable with the prospect of coming and teaching and online course in the United States, at least as far as technology use was concerned. His school at home had the infrastructure to be able to implement different kinds of CALL activities, however he felt he was a bit limited due to student motivation, large class sizes and the unreliability of the Internet and university servers. He also expressed that sometimes the university administration would put into place guidelines for how classes should be run, further limiting his feelings of flexibility and creativity. The FLTA Context: Kyle’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA While serving as an FLTA, Kyle was an instructor for one first-year language course and assisted with a second-year course. Both classes had an online component, and he worked with three students in total. One student was in the introductory course, with two students in the second year. His course had two online sessions a week, and one face-to-face session. Kyle was introduced to multiple new technology platforms, but he shared that they were fundamentally what he used at home. He explained that he did need some time to get used to using the new platforms, but that it was not too difficult for him once he got started. Kyle also experienced serving in a support role for the some of the other FLTAs while he was at MSU. He explained that while he was not relied on heavily, some of the FLTAs would approach him with questions about the learning management sites or how to use the video- conferencing software, Zoom. Excerpt 43: Kyle: I would say I—I was the most comfortable with—with new technology but I think they did pretty well I used to help with certain stuff Jeff: So, what kinds of things would you help with? Kyle: I don't know I just showed them how to use in D2L sometimes or, (continued) 137 or with this Zoom for example one of the teachers you know checked my class to have some insight and sometimes I just used to help with certain technology stuff like how to change a setting or that kind of stuff. I would say like it was not like, you know, in the class no I—I think I've shown someone how to use this breakout rooms in Zoom [or] something. (Interview 2, May) The biggest thing that Kyle learned from his teaching online in the USA and at MSU was the differences in the focus of the instruction. He expressed that from his FLTA experiences he felt that the ways he did things at home were not as effective and limited when compared to what he did at MSU. In addition, he recognized that he did not have much experience using technology to teach language in a communicative way: Excerpt 44: In a nutshell, the use of technology in my classes in [my home country] was quite limited since I didn’t have so much experience and independence, yet it is way different here and the online materials I have been provided with are way more fruitful compared to the ones I used to have. And since the methods I have been using here are more interaction based, I feel like the classroom atmosphere is more appropriate to have an informative learning environment. (Journal Entry 3, August) Kyle indicated that he felt the online instruction at MSU was more effective because it incorporated more communicative and interactive tasks. He expressed that he viewed his ways of teaching as outdated and that he needed to change his teaching methods (with and without 138 technology) to be more meaningful. While he felt that the platforms and things he was learning about new technologies were similar, what changed most for him was his pedagogical knowledge of how to utilize the technologies to be “way more fruitful”. Kyle also felt that the students at MSU were much more willing to participate in the activities he prepared than students were back home. He said that one of the students he worked with asked him about television shows in his language, for which Kyle offered a recommendation. Because the student asked him questions about the show’s format and some plot points, Kyle said that to him this meant the student was interested and engaged, which contrasted with student practices back home. For Kyle, this was just one example that students in the US were more motivated to engage with the language through the use of technologies, which he stated made the lessons more effective. Therefore, Kyle felt like he had more independence as a teacher to make recommendations and to encourage his students to adopt certain practices with technologies both in and outside of class. In his teaching, he felt that he learned how to promote a better learning environment through the use of technology because of the class structure and his students’ attributes. Similar to Alex, Kyle decided to begin studying another language while at MSU. In his course he learned ways of doing things that were completely new to him. One thing that he learned was a more effective way of incorporating video clips, something Alex also gained. Excerpt 45: I mean we use to like display some movies and some videos but they were not that related so I would say I just started using them in the classroom instead of like a separate object… because yeah the mid—visuals and movies—not the movies—right now my stance is like—no the movie should not be shown as a full movie but maybe like little short, I don't know, sections—segment so that I can work on them like (continued) 139 specific ones so it can be part of a class it shouldn't be the whole class all the time so that I would say changed a lot. (Interview 3, July) What is clear based on what Kyle shared with me and some of the things he showed me is that he was very active and engaged while teaching students at MSU. Kyle shared that he felt he was learning more effective ways to promote language acquisition compared to what he knew before becoming an FLTA. While he learned about some new tools, he felt they were not that different from what he was using before. The biggest area of knowledge expansion for him was with the approach to using the tools to promote meaningful and interactive activities. In the next section is a summary of how what he learned as an FLTA and contextual factors influence his use of newfound knowledge. The Home Context Upon Return: Context and Kyle’s Use of Knowledge In our first interview upon his return, Kyle indicated that he was already experiencing difficulties with his workload and his approach to teaching. The university administrators and department heads sometimes made things difficult. When reflecting on what kinds of things he might change, he pointed out how the school board makes changes often. Excerpt 46: I am not sure. I will try to implement some of the ideas here I used but they changed their minds all the time... the board of the school or just you know the president of the University just implements you know a certain rule so we cannot change them. (Interview 3, July) 140 In continuation of his difficulties in implementing changes to his teaching and technology incorporation, he was not told if he would be teaching until the last minute. This was obviously a frustration for him. He was also asked to teach many hours each week, making it difficult. Excerpt 47: Kyle: and I wasn’t like feeling so good. So I just found the book and I'm going with that, like, in the beginning it was so shaky because of that. I found a book for IELTS, actually, Collins speaking for IELTS I guess. Yeah and I started with that. There were these topics that started with people and relationships for example it just gives you some vocab and then some structure and then you combine them into your speaking parts. It's basically for IELTS, so there is lesson part one, part two, part three thing, but I'm just ignoring everything. So I just take the, you know, the important ones for me and also I use this taboos and issues book and I'm not quite sure about the publisher and also there's this A-Z discussions that I use. So, I basically go by the book because I didn't have time to get prepared at all Jeff: Wow—it—How often does the class meet? Kyle: like four days a week. Monday to Thursday. Jeff: For how long? A couple hours? Kyle: Four hours, Jeff: Wow. Okay. Yeah. Kyle: It doesn't seem viable at all. I know I told them in the beginning, but I mean, they don't care so I don't care. Jeff: Sure. Alright. Kyle: It doesn't make sense at all. (Interview 3, July) 141 The interactions that Kyle had been having with the administration and even other teachers was impacting his desire to implement new methods or to introduce new technologies and activities. In a later interview, Kyle pointed out that many of his students would not even attend the class he was teaching. This was most likely because the course he was teaching was not actually for credit, but an extra seminar during the off-months for the students. I asked Kyle to continue writing reflections about his experiences as an FLTA and how things went once he returned home. In one of his reflections, he listed how the things that he learned as an FLTA were not translating well. According to him, this was the result of multiple factors. As I read through what he attributed to making things difficult, I applied the levels of factors from the extended TPACK framework. First, on the meso-level, his institution decided to shorten the units in the academic year to two-month quarters. In addition, the university required students to pass exams in English in order to move forward – something that was not required before in the same way. This fact led him to focus his teaching on ways to help students pass tests. He shared that he tried to use multiple kinds of technologies to facilitate the classes and promote further engagement with English. In one of the written reflections he outlined how he tried to incorporate more activities and technologies back home. First, he attempted to encourage students to use different websites in which they could record themselves and submit their recordings to him for feedback. He also attempted to engage with the students via instant messaging by sending speaking topics of the day. With some initial success, Kyle recognized that when it worked, it worked well. However, students all lost interest after the first few weeks—signaled by their missing submissions—so he gave up. He also discussed how the university dictated the syllabus, and as a result the course was grammar based. Kyle felt this was 142 limiting for him because he thought that the new practices and technologies he learned as an FLTA were more communicative. Excerpt 48: Most of the class time is just doing exercises like “Fill in the blanks” or “Match the word with its meaning”, which gets everyone in the classroom bored as hell and they start giving up after a short while. So, I cannot blame the children for not being motivated. I would not say I am having lots of satisfaction out of what I do but hopefully someday soon we will have a better schedules and goals so that I might get more job satisfaction by equipping more stuff I decided to use after getting back from the US. (Reflective Journal Entry 2, July) Kyle planned to try new things that he learned as an FLTA. These were, namely, adopting activities that were more communicative and less grammar-focused, and attempting to utilize technologies such as VoiceThread and movies to promote more student interaction and output. It should also be of note, from the excerpt, that Kyle referred to his students as “the children”, even though he was teaching university students. It is clear that he felt frustrated both with the administration but also with his students. For Kyle, the individual tools and technologies that were used at MSU were not what he learned most about or from. Instead, promoting interaction and a communicative language teaching focus was emphasized and brought more to light for him. As he expressed multiple times in his reflections, he felt his old way of teaching was not as effective or impactful. Even so, he felt he was unable to overcome the grammar- focused nature of the courses. 143 Even though he planned to bring with him the practices he was exposed to as an FLTA, he was frustrated by his lack of progress and eventually decided to just do to what everyone else was doing. In a later email he shared with me how the narrative presented here reminded him how grumpy he was during that period of time. The Intersection of FLTA and Home Contexts: Change in TPACK At home, Kyle was a capable and well-informed instructor regarding technology use in comparison to his peers. He had experience teaching online courses and preparing materials. On the macro-level, his country placed a high emphasis on learning English, as it is a required subject from a young age. Kyle also recognized that students were capable of accessing websites and interacting via computers and mobile devices. On the meso-level, Kyle’s university provided access to the Internet, online course management software and everything he needed to create and present language learning materials. Looking back, Kyle shared that he thought that many of the other teachers focused on teaching grammar and taught to the test. He even felt that he did the same but wanted to change his teaching focus when he went home. On the micro-level, Kyle confronted large classes and the challenges associated with teaching online. He taught such large classes that it was impractical to assign homework and to let students activate their mics. He felt that he could address the responsibilities assigned to him, although he did express some frustrations. Kyle also felt his English students were not as motivated to engage with the language as his language students at MSU. Even though he was a highly-motivated teacher and had a strong desire to see his students engage with English language media outside of class, he gave up due to multiple factors at play. First, he felt that students were not interested in engaging with materials he created and presented. Second, he felt that students were lazy and did not feel 144 that learning English was very important. He shared how he felt this could be due to macro-level factors in his country’s culture. Excerpt 49: …we are not a global country. Like Europe—we are not in [European country], you're not a [European country] citizen is what—we are not a country which has lots of interactions with other countries. We are a closed society, so we don't interact with others and we are a bit lazy and lots of society is just lazy. I am also lazy, I would say. So, we don't put lots of energy into things. (Interview 2, May) The macro-level factor of an English requirement and standardized testing most likely trickled down through the meso-level—making teachers more focused on teaching the grammar and helping students to successfully pass the exams. It also seemed to impact Kyle’s interactions with students in the micro-level since they also expected a certain focus in the classroom and did not take well to his attempts to encourage student engagement with English outside of class. As an FLTA, Kyle’s pedagogical knowledge of how to utilize some of the technologies he was already familiar with shifted focus – he reflected that he learned how to utilize sites like VoiceThread, video conferencing software and a course management site to try and create materials for students that was more communicative and meaningful. He did not report that he learned much concerning specific technology tools and platforms to utilize for language teaching. However, he did point out that he gained more knowledge of how to combine his knowledge of technology with a different pedagogical approach – namely a more communicative and interactive one. Kyle expressed that these approaches were more “fruitful” and effective in teaching the language, something that he wanted to bring into his teaching upon returning home. 145 In this way, Kyle’s TPACK shifted and grew—as he gained knowledge of how to utilize technologies for pedagogical activities to promote language acquisition in a more communicative, interactive and task-based way. In the language course he took as a student, his TPACK concerning using video clips in the classroom grew as he was shown how the videos could incorporated in a more pedagogically sound way. Previously he only showed videos without much context and without establishing clearly defined goals. This fact may be one of the few things that he learned about using technology that he could effectively utilize upon his return home. Multiple factors came together to impact what and how he learned concerning technology use for language teaching, both for online courses and face-to-face. On the macro-level, his language was not commonly taught and therefore he worked with only three students. This also played a role in the micro-level of motivation of his students. A smaller class size lent itself to him having more freedom to tailor materials and to experiment with the new tools he had learned. In addition, he was able to encourage his students to interact with the language more frequently outside of class. On the meso-level, a more communicative language teaching approach was promoted in the school and language programs. This led to Kyle expressing that he thought how he approached teaching before becoming an FLTA was outdated and needed to be changed. This carried over into the kinds of technologies he wanted to use and how he wanted to employ them. The factors present across the three contextual levels combined for Kyle to make him feel that things back home could be changed to align more closely with what he was seeing done in the USA. Kyle’s new approach to teaching, coupled with his belief and desire to expose students to the language meant that he wanted to encourage his students to engage with more websites 146 outside of class time. When asked about what he might want to transfer back to his teaching, he indicated he wanted to utilize some of the tools and the approach he encountered in the USA. He still had plans on attempting to implement some of the things he learned, but the multiple contextual factors at his home institution make it difficult for him to see how. CALL and other classroom technologies played a large part in his teaching before and during his FLTA assignment, and a lot of the knowledge he gained as an FLTA concerned how to improve the activities and approach to teaching in that format. In summary, upon return Kyle was teaching face-to-face, had a large workload, and faced changing rules and policies concerning what to cover. While access was not mentioned as a factor impacting his abilities to use technology, it was more from the focus and approach to teaching that Kyle felt was limiting. Notwithstanding not being able to incorporate what he learned as an FLTA concerning technology in the language classroom, Kyle said he was hoping that things would eventually change enough so he could incorporate what he learned into his teaching. For now, however, Kyle reflected that he was not having much satisfaction (excerpt 49). Based on what Kyle shared, it seems that he is waiting for things to change so he can truly take advantage of his learning. In the USA, Kyle learned how to promote more interaction and have more meaningful activities in the classroom, however he did not have much chance at doing so because his students did not share his enthusiasm for self-study. In addition, the meso-level factors of large class sizes, shortened semesters, testing requirements, and pre-constructed syllabi made it difficult to implement any changes or to introduce new tools effectively. Any desires he had for things he learned as an FLTA coming with him were hampered. 147 Kyle’s experiences showed him a different way of doing some things, however he had trouble seeing past some of the barriers he confronted in order to make changes in his teaching. In contrast, Daria approached things differently. Her narrative is presented next, followed by a brief comparison of the two cases. Daria Daria was a teacher at a university in her home country in Southeast Asia for more than thirteen years before joining the FLTA program. Although she had extensive teaching experience before coming to the USA, she was looking forward to the opportunity to improve her teaching practice through her participation. Language and Teaching Background Daria began learning English while in elementary school. Her decision to do so was prompted by a family member who formed an English study group for children. These experiences affected her future education, as she entered a gifted program at a secondary school. She also chose to major in English while in high school, and then continued studying it throughout her four years as a bachelor’s student. She originally did not want to become an English teacher, but because she did not find employment elsewhere she entered into the teaching profession. She also expressed that her family and many in her home culture expected young women to do so. Excerpt 50: And, uh, in [my country], uh, the people are—especially parents often expect their kids —especially the daughters—to become teachers because they consider that – that job is like very easy to have more time with family, so yeah so people when, whenever they have a daughter they want their daughter to become teachers, yeah. (Interview 1, January) 148 After receiving a bachelor’s degree, Daria continued her education and obtained a master’s degree in Applied Linguistics. Daria taught English for thirteen years at a university with a specific industry focus in her home country. As a result, she had extensive exposure to English used in the medical field and was familiar with the English needs of medical professionals. She also held community English courses in her home for younger children and adults in the community. Daria had multiple goals for her FLTA experience, with the primary goal being a focus on improving her English skills. She also wanted to learn more teaching methodologies and to be exposed to American culture. She related her choice to join the FLTA program to the wider context in her home country and viewed the United States as a place where she could come and learn about ways to improve her education system back home. Excerpt 51: Actually, coming back I want to apply what I have learned [at MSU] to teach to my students, and I also want to—you know—to let [my country’s] people, the people around me understand more about the—the American people, the American society. Of course, I can’t tell them like everything about American society, or politicals or but— politics but I think I can like partly introduce them also and because I'm teaching at university and many of my students want to apply for scholarship to study abroad because, actually for us [my country’s] education system is—it is being like, very bad. And we really want to improve it, so we want to renovate it. So, I just hope that we can learn something from the, like the, how the American students are learning and how they are being taught at University so that we know more. My [home country] (continued) 149 friends and students can know more about that and sometimes maybe we can adopt something to our university. Yeah. (Interview 1, January) The opportunity to come and learn from the education system in place in the United States is an important factor for Daria, something that she very much planned to take back with her to improve the education at her own university. She also viewed the experience as an opportunity to become more familiar with the systems and terminology in the USA for her university’s industry. She felt that she could ensure that the English used in her university was more up to date and accurate. Through the FLTA program, she wanted to help students that would eventually travel or study in the United States, or even inspire some students to travel abroad who would not have otherwise. Daria’s Background with Technology and CALL Practice Daria shared that she had access to projectors in her classrooms when teaching back home. Normally, she said she would show videos, use a PowerPoint presentation or have her students listen to audio. She also explained that she would sometimes create short videos for her students, asking Australian or British friends to be a part of them. She said that she used her cell phone to record and then presented the videos in class. She wanted her students to hear the different pronunciation styles. Comparing her own technology use for teaching to other teachers, Daria expressed that she felt more adept with technology in the language classroom because she had always had an interest in it, and her husband is involved with technology as a profession. Excerpt 52: I think for other English teachers in my university I am a little bit better than them in technology and in applying technology in my teaching because I (continued) 150 have been interested in technology since I was in University and I often learned it personally like I—I learned it by myself and when I got married, my husband is a—he is like a expert of technology. So yeah, and he helped me out like in preparing the Word documents or like a PowerPoint and also the techniques I can use in applying or creating the lectures so, and I also got like a good knowledge of Internet's unlike other techniques… (Interview 1, January) Daria described herself as a curious person, and whenever she came across something new she would try it out and attempt to see how it would work in her classroom teaching. As mentioned, Daria had access to technology to facilitate presenting materials and exposing students to audio-visual materials. However, upon reflection Daria pointed out how a few factors at home constrained her freedom for creativity. Excerpt 53: One bad thing for my university is the size of the class because we often have like 60 students for one class, yeah, and they study all subjects together, yeah, so that and that's difficult for them to learn English and then another thing is we are under the pressure from the syllabus in the curriculum from the minister of education and training, so we need to follow that one… (Interview 1, January) In addition to the large class sizes and following the curriculum set by administrators, Daria indicated that the focus of teaching in her university was often grammar-based. She 151 expressed that she tried to implement more communicative types of activities but sometimes felt constrained because the course syllabus was dictated by those in authority. Excerpt 54: because, you know in, as I told you in [my country] now we still focus much on the grammar teaching and even now a lot of like communicative based methods have been applied in teaching but we do have the, like uhm, the control and like we are influenced by the minister of education and training rules so sometimes you want to do this and we want to do that but under that program we can't because of the limited time in class and we have to follow the exact textbook that they give us and also one more thing is just students don't understand the importance of learning the language. They just thinking "Oh, learning that language, this course is compulsory, so we need to do it, we need to like have a good mark, have a good grade on the test”, rather than like we can communicate in that language so that is also difficulty for us with English teachers in my country, so. (Interview 2, March) Due to her students’ focus on trying to pass the classes, it would sometimes be difficult for Daria to see ways of incorporating materials that were more communicative. This contextual factor may have led Daria to adopt technologies in her classes that were more for facilitating course management and tended to be more teacher-fronted. This was further compounded by the large class sizes and need to cover the syllabi dictated by those higher up in the administration and government. In our discussion Daria indicated that the focus on grammar and the teacher- fronted focus was not necessarily a negative thing, however she did not feel that students were gaining the levels of English ability that they could. Another major point was her students’ poor 152 pronunciation skills and how this meant that she needed to focus on their pronunciation to help them improve in order to perform well on exams. The FLTA Context: Daria’s Experiences with Technology as an FLTA During her first semester in the USA, Daria taught two online courses. Normally, teaching two courses would not happen but there was a visa issue with the other instructor, so she had to take over both courses. She was also in charge of materials creation because MSU was involved in an initiative to create online courses to be used in the future. The course was structured so that materials were uploaded to the course management site, D2L, where students were required to access them, study, and come to the weekly synchronous meeting prepared to practice. As a part of the online course, Daria had to confront multiple platforms that she learned how to navigate. First, she learned how to manage the synchronous meetings using the online Zoom platform. One thing that she mentioned was new for her was creating breakout rooms so that the students could be placed into separate groups. In addition, a struggle for her was making sure her gestures and facial expressions were clear and appropriate. For the first few weeks she was made aware that her facial expressions were not what the students normally expected when providing feedback and instructions to the students. The synchronous online meetings were recorded, and she worked with the FLTA coordinator to improve her awareness of how her facial expressions impacted her students. In addition to using the new platforms, her lesson planning approach was different because of the change in language. In our first meeting, Daria expressed she thought that she could transfer her understanding of how to teach English to teaching her first language, as well 153 as doing so online. However, it turned out quite a bit different than she expected. She made a comparison between how she used to teach and how she approached teaching here. Excerpt 55: Daria: online course is so much different from the—like the face-to-face courses. Yeah, because for example in, as my previous experience, when we teach the— the face-to-face courses we just need the textbook and the teacher may have like a lesson plan and then she will focus a lot on—base a lot on the textbook and she just like prepare lesson plans and goes to class and teach according to the lesson plan. But here in—but, and I think it's quite interesting—when here for like the less commonly taught language courses here I think we have very strange and completely different from what I imagined about teaching languages. Let me open the details. (opens up the laptop, navigates to the course management site) Jeff: So different how, would you say? What did you imagine it would be like? Daria: because in my imagination, I also think like, “oh it is an online course, so it is also like, we have, the Zoom”, and then we just teach like we’re teaching face-to-face, but actually here before having the Zoom meeting the students have to prepare a lot of stuff and a lot of, like they have to learn a lot before attending the Zoom meeting. (Interview 2, March) Similar to Gene’s and Pat’s experiences, Daria brought up how she began to take into consideration more copyright law and regulation in her materials preparation. Back home, she indicated that many of the instructors would simply use Google to search for what they wanted and copy and use it in their lessons. This made her materials preparation easier, but it contrasted to what she was required to do for her teaching here: 154 Excerpt 56: …When I compare whenever I prepare any power points or like a lesson at home, I may look it up in Google or like—like whatever pictures or to (continued) demonstrate what I, what I need to do I just take it, look, like download it from Google and I may reference the—for example some lesson plans other colleagues at other universities maybe abroad or even in [my country] and I just apply it in my lesson but here when I am required to prepare the [language] lessons for the online courses here we do need to follow strictly the plagiarism and copyright. Yeah and like what I can't find in Google with the, like the, advanced search that is labeled for free use or commercial use I have to create it myself or ask my friends at home to take a picture for me and send it to me… (Interview 3, April) After working as an FLTA and being required to adhere to copyright and plagiarism regulations, she expressed how she planned to bring those practices back with her. Although she felt that adhering to copyright protections would take more time for lesson preparation, she wanted to set an example for her students and other colleagues. Excerpt 57: I want to be like a—an, an example for my students to look at, so yeah, and perhaps my colleagues as well, yeah, because everything is free and just do it in [my country]. Yeah, but I think because—and I—you know I am an English teacher, it's kind of easier for me to access to the new knowledge or like skills in the world so, yeah. (Interview 3, April) Daria also brought up how in her home country, students and teachers did not often have access to up-to-date materials for her students’ research and other interests. Because she was 155 teaching English for a specific purpose, she would often wish to search for things and the materials and information would be locked behind a pay-wall. However, she took advantage of the access granted at MSU and began searching for and downloading materials and research articles for her students back home. In the second semester, Daria’s teaching load was lighter. She was not in charge of any courses but was instead tasked with creating course materials. As she expressed in one of our earlier meetings, she worked with family and friends to create materials that were meaningful and also provided exposure to culture, especially since there were not a lot of materials available for teaching her language. Again, this is something common to many of the FLTAs—access to quality materials was often limited and thus required the FLTAs to create materials for their classes. One example she showed me was a video she created in collaboration with family members back home. The course was discussing a major holiday in her country, and she felt lucky that her family was celebrating the holiday the month prior. She provided her brother an outline of what she wanted, and he then recorded a short video demonstrating activities typical to the celebrations, while also including simple scripted phrases. After demonstrating the video to me, she expressed how she had to be very creative in her materials creation and that it was a big challenge. For this particular video, her brother had to record multiple times to make sure everything matched what she wanted. A major difference for her was how in in the United States she was required to think through and create all of the materials and activities. This was different from her reliance on pre-made materials in the form of textbooks and workbooks that are plentiful for teaching English country. This came from the fact that there are not as many sources for materials for her language, and how she recognized that the approach to teaching needed to be more communicative. All of the FLTAs in this dissertation were teaching LCTLs in the USA. 156 Daria was not alone in her recognition of how this affected her materials creation and how she approached her teaching. All of the FLTAs addressed the limited amount of materials and textbooks a little differently—but all of them relied heavily on the Internet and online communities to find ideas and to gather materials for presentation to their students. In addition, like Pat, Daria created a lot of the materials from scratch in a digital format. As she pointed out, this was different from what would normally be done for lesson planning. This was because English teaching materials were more abundant and available, so a teacher could draw from the textbooks to craft lessons. Another point Daria brought up throughout our discussions of her work and her reflections was how her materials creation was less grammar-focused and more communicative for her online lessons at MSU. Everything she did she felt required her to be much more creative and spend a lot of time either searching for correct materials or making them herself. Excerpt 58: Actually, because, frankly, in my country for the courses in the University, I don't need to create so many things like this we just bank on the textbook—yeah and because we have the, the record[ings] and we have the tapes or like the CDs already so we just prepare the lesson plan that like we teach this in five minutes we teach that in ten minutes or something no and we just need to like for example all the—I just follow the textbook and, but like sometimes I need to think of something really interesting to have a warm up activities to teach something in a very like, easy way to understand for students but here I have to think of everything in those ones must be creative, attractive and very communicative so, yeah. (Interview 2, March) 157 In one of our meetings, Daria walked me through the course materials she created for her students. Much of what she was doing lined up with teaching from a communicative approach. For example, the video she had her brother create for her students was embedded within a larger unit aimed at getting the students discussing both major holidays in her home country but also how that might compare to what they already knew. When she did teach, she shared how the class time with her students at MSU was spent differently because of multiple factors. She felt her students at MSU were much more active, whereas in her home students were more passive learners. This was similar to the experiences of many of the FLTAs. Gene, Pat and Kyle also recognized differences in how their students approached learning at MSU and back home. In addition, Daria felt the focus of instruction at MSU was to enable students to communicate with the language, whereas at home students just wanted to be able to pass exams or to get a good grade in the course. In our last discussion before her return, Daria reflected how attempting to make changes to her course materials would be time consuming and often difficult. Because she was going back to teaching just ten days after returning home, she said that she may have to stick with a lot of the materials she had before. However, she expressed a desire to make changes where possible when she had the time and resources. The Home Context Upon Return: Context and Daria’s Use of TPACK Daria wanted to take with her some of the ways of teaching that she was exposed to. A major point for her in our last interview before going home was encouraging students to engage with the course materials and the language more often outside of classes. She relayed how she had never been exposed to the use of a flipped-classroom or blended model for teaching before her FLTA assignment. Through her time teaching, she began to see the model as something she 158 could try to advance in her English classes to improve teaching overall. She saw that this model could improve her students’ language learning. Before her return, Daria mentioned that it would likely take time and be difficult to affect change. She felt that the students would be more easily swayed to accept a flipped-classroom model, but the wider university culture would be the true barrier. Excerpt 59: in order to carry out those stuff I need to—I need approval from my boss, my colleagues and my University and also, yeah, if we can implement in all the courses of English courses in my university I think, time after time, the students will be familiar to the new way and if they like that maybe for example or after one semester they found out that all their English has been improved—I think that would be effective, you know. (Interview 2, March) In the first interview I had with her after her return, Daria felt that she was making some progress, however it was slow-going. In addition to her previous recognition of the need for institutional and administrative support, she expressed that she felt she needed to be cautious about discussing her experiences in the United States with her colleagues. Excerpt 60: I feel like they [the teachers] like compete and they want to be against me sometimes yes so, so like I have to behave, like, in a very small, silent and more calmer way. Like don't show off, don't tell them too much about America or otherwise they will not listen to me, you know? (Interview 4, August) 159 As she mentioned before leaving, it would be difficult for her to show other colleagues and administrators the value in adapting a flipped teaching model to their circumstances. Even though she felt that she had to behave in a small, silent way she attempted to use Microsoft OneDrive in one of her early classes to adopt more of a flipped teaching style. She created a public folder where she would put learning materials for her students. She adapted what she had been exposed to at MSU to fit what was feasible at home. Excerpt 61: I think the next two weeks I will try to apply the way that I have been teaching [my language] there. Like, I will keep everything in the OneDrive and then let them access to that drive and then like study beforehand and let's see the results. (Interview 4, August) After the initial trial in her first course, she felt that it was successful enough to continue. However, she switched to a more feature rich platform that was closer to a full course management site. This change was especially appealing for Daria because of the large class sizes and need to cover a large amount of materials. In addition, she felt that providing students with more materials outside of class could encourage them to engage with the language more often. In a broader view, and similar to Pat, Daria expressed that the government in her home country had been very active and involved in trying to improve the education system. This trickled down into her home institution where Daria reported that the administration decided to implement an improvement program to change approaches to teaching by the year 2020. Daria was an active voice for changing the approach to teaching and was invited to work with the administrators in developing the program for improvement in the English classes. 160 Daria is currently undertaking an action research project to gauge the effectiveness of the flipped-classroom elements she implemented. Based on student exam scores, she hopes to use results to provide support for rolling out more changes in the approaches to teaching more widely in the English program. In addition, she hopes to use the results to show students the effectiveness of the changes and to provide further motivation for them. The Intersection of Daria’s FLTA and Home Contexts: Change in TPACK Daria had access to some technologies that enabled her to present audio-visual materials and use presentation software to provide students with required materials. She is a motivated teacher and described herself as a curious person that explores the possibilities for any potential tools. Her technological pedagogical knowledge of how to use online course management and file sharing software was increased through her experiences. That being said, contextual factors across various levels impacted her previous uses of technology for language teaching and CALL. On the macro-level, teaching English in her home country was compulsory and led many students to seem less motivated to Daria. Also, Daria explained that in her country there was a large population of students from rural, mountainous areas that came to study in the cities. These students, according to Daria, were often poor and did not speak the language of instruction. On the more positive side, her nation’s government had been launching and supporting initiatives to improve education across all levels of study. This meant that pushing for change could be easier for her as there was already a national climate for improving how things were done. These macro factors thus played roles both on the meso-level and in the micro contexts. Multiple factors on the meso-level affected how she felt she could employ certain technologies for teaching. At her university there were large class sizes, and the administration often dictated what should be covered. Daria felt confident in her abilities and understanding of 161 how to use technology to address the needs of the students and her position before coming to the USA. Often, she reported using more teacher-fronted activities and most of her technology use was to simplify and facilitate the presentation of course materials. On the micro-level, dealing with the meso-factor of large class sizes made it so that Daria felt she could not provide individualized and focused instruction to her students. In addition, the macro factors of student demographics made it hard to prepare students who had poor language skills in the language of instruction to be successful in their needs to develop their English. These factors also contributed to Daria’s actions while in the United States. She was keyed into examining how the flipped classroom format and promoting interactive and communicative activities could lead to great proficiency outcomes. On the macro-level in her FLTA experiences, Daria’s language was less commonly taught, leading there to be fewer options for her to draw materials from. In addition, this macro factor led to there being fewer students of her language at MSU, ultimately leading to the university offering the language classes in an online format. On the meso-level MSU adopted the D2L learning management system and the online conferencing platform Zoom. Also, in the language program that Daria’s language is supervised by, online classes were taught with more of a flipped design, with a majority of the course materials placed online for students to study and prepare to practice during the weekly synchronous meeting. A combination of Daria’s home context, the large class sizes, students’ access to technology and the grammar-focus and student culture of ‘being passive’, may have led Daria to see the flipped model, as applied to a language classroom, as something that could be implemented in her home university to improve students’ English language abilities. By adopting more activities and having students engage with the materials outside of class, Daria felt that 162 students’ English abilities could be enhanced. Daria also felt it was important for her to encourage students to engage with the language on their own time. She expressed in our interviews that some of her new teaching focus was to show students what they can do with their smartphones to study English pronunciation. A Summary of Kyle and Daria’s Experiences As I did in the previous chapter, I close this one with a discussion of both Daria and Kyle’s experiences in comparison with one another. These are the results of the analysis of the narratives just presented. I first discuss their experiences as they fit within the TPACK framework, and then move to a discussion of the application of extended TPACK framework in reference to their experiences. Knowledge Growth—TPACK for CALL Daria and Kyle both learned the same platforms that the other FLTAs were exposed to. A summary of the knowledge growth of both Kyle and Daria across the different domains of TPACK are contained in Table 5. Both indicated working to become familiar with the Zoom platform and creating activities, presentations and quizzes to upload to the D2L course management system. Most important, as indicated by Daria, was learning about the flipped classroom model, and the blended teaching format. Upon her return home, Daria had been working to introduce learning management software to promote this flipped model. She indicated that it was helpful because of the amount of material that the students needed to cover combined with the large class sizes. 163 Table 5. Cohort B Knowledge Development of Technologies Within the TPACK Framework Kyle FLTA TK D2L, Zoom TPACK knowledge domain TPK Voicethread TCK Audacity Daria D2L, Zoom Online quizzes, Voicethread Audacity TPACK Communicative, Interactive approach via videoconferencing Online instruction via D2L, Flipped class Kyle, on the other hand, expressed that the tools he learned were not much different from what he was already doing before joining the FLTA program. The difference for him, however, was in the approach to creating activities utilizing the platforms. As he expressed in his excerpts, he felt his approach to teaching was ‘outdated’ and that it was not fruitful, whereas creating communicative and interactive activities like he did as an FLTA was a better way of doing things. Daria’s considerations of the importance of technology in language teaching also shifted. She expressed that before participating in the program she thought that technology was mostly just an additional tool that was not necessary. In our final interview, however, she expressed that it was something that could not be avoided. As a result, she said she is trying to promote with her students the use of cellphones for autonomous language learning. In applying the TPACK framework, my analysis would place the exposure to the new platforms as a part of gaining technological knowledge initially, but with the exposure to how to incorporate the D2L platform and using quizzes, this could be considered under the overlap area of technological pedagogical knowledge. In terms of the culminating overlaps in the framework, or technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK), Kyle’s TPACK for creating 164 interactive and communicative activities increased, as he began to realize that he was not utilizing such approaches in his teaching back home. Daria reported that the biggest takeaway for her was the flipped classroom and blended approach to teaching. While this style of teaching is not unique to language teaching, Daria’s cultivation of how to utilize the different platforms to promote language learning would, I argue, fall under TPACK. Extended TPACK—Contexts and Their Role Kyle and Daria reported experiences that were quite different upon their return home. In addition, some of the things that both Kyle and Daria took away from their experiences as FLTAs were fundamentally different. While Kyle indicated that he recognized what he was doing before as too grammar-focused and wanted to try and change how he used technology in his teaching, Daria shared that she wanted to adapt what was being done already to improve and meet the goals and expectations of all stakeholders. In this way, we see that the experiences of both FLTAs in the two different contexts of home versus in the United States had tangible and intersecting influences. Daria’s takeaways from her experiences teaching in the United States were things she felt she could continue to evaluate and try to implement slowly. Kyle saw how teaching was taking place in the USA and seemed to want to transfer directly most of what he learned. This resulted in different outcomes based on the contextual factors present surrounding them once they returned. On the macro-level, both Kyle and Daria were teaching students in a very test-oriented and grammar focused context at home. This was quite a bit different from the communicative and interactive approaches favored by the language program in which they taught as FLTAs. On the meso-level in their home institutions, Kyle had access to more technology infrastructure, he was in an online language teaching context which prepared him for teaching 165 online while teaching as an FLTA. While Daria had access to audio-visual materials and projectors, her experience teaching online and incorporating technology was more limited. The flipped classroom approach to teaching was new to her and she was very involved in materials creation. Overall, Kyle experienced setbacks and some frustrations in trying to implement change at home in part because of a combination of national, institutional, and student cultures surrounding language teaching. Kyle felt like much of this was outside of his scope of control and subsequently gave up in trying to incorporate some of what he learned because he was initially unsuccessful. He returned home with a hope of changing how things were done to improve his teaching and his students’ learning, but he felt the factors surrounding him did not enable him to do as he would have liked. He shared that he felt that other teachers and the administration did not care as much as he did about making changes, so he indicated that he decided to do the same. His students also did not express interest in what he was trying to ask them to do, as evidenced by missing assignments. Daria, on the other hand, experienced some success. There were a few factors that impacted what she felt she could accomplish. There seemed to be a lot of support on a macro- level for her to push for changes in pedagogy to improve. Although there were certainly factors that she felt might limit what she could try to incorporate, she shared that she was trying to search for ways to improve what was being done. She also had the opportunity to evaluate what she was doing in the form of action research and she shared that she hoped to share the outcomes of her research with students and other teachers to further push for change. While she reported that in her home teaching context teaching was often grammar focused and test-oriented, Daria has been working to incorporate a flipped classroom model as she shared she felt this approach 166 could facilitate what she was already doing and help students reach their goals. She shared that the platforms she had been using as an FLTA were not available to her but had begun exploring free alternatives and was having some success. She first began with Microsoft’s OneDrive application where she could distribute materials and was most recently changing over to utilize a platform called EdModo. She also reported that she was working on finding appropriate programs to promote students’ practice of pronunciation skills utilizing their mobile phones. As she also reported, teachers in her institution made her try to approach making changes in a ‘small, silent’ way. The fact that Daria’s university was trying to improve its approach to teaching across the institution presented her with the chance to try and push for improvement in the ways that she saw from her experience as an FLTA. While both Daria and Kyle showed evidence of knowledge growth for CALL, the combination of different contextual factors, and individual factors, led to differing results in their approaches and success in affecting change. While Kyle is waiting for the opportunity to make positive shifts, Daria is working on evaluating and implementing smaller changes that improve what is happening already. In the next chapter, I will move to relating the findings from the previous two chapters to the research presented in Chapter 2. I will also provide implications for the FLTA program, teacher training programs and for future research. Limitations are also pointed out, and I conclude with a brief review of the major findings. 167 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION In this chapter I summarize the analysis of the narratives presented in Chapters 4 and 5 with reference to the research questions and connections with previous work in CALL teacher education. I provide a discussion of the major findings in reference to implications that I see for improving the FLTA program and implications for the broader field of CALL teacher education research. I conclude by outlining future directions for this line of research. Research Question 1 In order to address the first research question: What Is The Impact of The FLTA Program on Participants Knowledge of CALL, as Framed Within TPACK?, I analyzed the data utilizing the TPACK framework as presented in Mishra and Koehler (2006). For example, a report of one of the FLTAs learning of a new technology that could be employed in the classroom would be considered evidence for expanding technological knowledge. If the FLTA described an experience of becoming aware of a new technology, software or website that is in the target language, or is geared towards language learning, that was considered evidence for growth in technological content knowledge. If the FLTA reported having an experience of learning or using a new technology or a technology in a new way to help the students learn something not related to the language, this was coded under technological pedagogical knowledge. If the FLTA reported or discussed using a new technology or using a technology in a new way to expose learners to new language input or in ways to promote language acquisition, this was considered a culmination of technology, content and pedagogy, or TPACK for CALL (see Figure 2). When considering all of the FLTAs’ experiences from the two cohorts together, it is clear that the FLTA program had an impact on the knowledge for CALL of all of the FLTAs. 168 However, the experiences and exposure to different technologies were varied based on multiple factors, which are addressed in the other two research questions. In addition, there is still the question of what this newfound knowledge means for them. All of the FLTAs went through similar training with the different technologies used at MSU. They each attended a week-long orientation before the start of their assignments, along with bi-weekly meetings and discussions with the FLTA coordinator to discuss the logistics of their teaching and to address any common issues. In my discussions with the FLTA coordinator, she expressed multiple times that training with the different technologies commonly used in the MSU language classrooms is a priority. However, she also recognized that she could only provide a crash-course in the different technologies and that the FLTAs needed to explore the technologies and their capabilities on their own. In our second interview together, the FLTA coordinator even pointed out that she did not spend much time on the pedagogy, but instead simply focused on the technologies. She made the decision to purposefully focus on how to use certain tools (e.g., features, access, etc.). As has been seen, many of the technologies that the FLTAs used came from their training in the program or were discovered or demonstrated to them in other capacities. While some of the FLTAs recognized the technologies, they used at home, these were most often PowerPoint or video sites like YouTube. Through the FLTA program all developed TPACK to some extent. In brief, Gene was able to cultivate a better understanding of how to effectively utilize music videos and some online websites for creating quizzes, and ways to incorporate audio-visual materials that promoted interaction and communication amongst his students. Alex felt that she gained a better understanding of ways to incorporate visual aids to help with vocabulary retention, although she felt like technology use in her assistant work was not different from what she did at home. Pat 169 felt like she not only gained mastery of the course management platform, but how to utilize the online meeting platform Zoom in ways that mimicked a face-to-face classroom—thereby creating an atmosphere better suited to language acquisition. In addition, she felt that the use of the flipped classroom model was important. In total, for her, she felt like she increased her TPACK in online teaching and tutoring and wished to bring that knowledge with her back home. Kyle felt that although he did not learn much in terms of new software, his knowledge of how to create interactive, communicative and task-based materials was important for him. He felt he gained knowledge and understanding of how to promote interaction using the tools he was already familiar with, but which he said he used in a very grammar-focused and test-oriented way. Daria also gained an understanding of how to promote language acquisition by tasking students with language study outside of class so that class time could be spent practicing and interacting using what students studied for homework. It is not surprising that the FLTA’s TPACK for CALL increased or changed. Research has shown that language teachers’ knowledge for using technology changes and grows as a result of training programs (e.g., Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Tai, 2015) as well as over time for in- service teachers (Haines, 2015). As is clear from this study, the program had different effects for the different FLTAs. A few of the FLTAs seemed to experience rather important changes, while others may have only become more familiar with some possible tools with no real integration of their knowledge into teaching practice. As teaching is highly contextualized, what different FLTAs need to know and do is expected to be different across both their host and their home contexts. What needs to be further examined are the factors that lead to the differential outcomes. Indeed, as Kubanyiova and Feryok (2015) argued, “language teacher cognition researchers, regardless of their epistemological orientations and conceptual homes, must 170 engage with questions of what knowledge can be of value to whom” (p. 442). Along this line of reasoning, I formulated the other two research questions to examine how or if the FLTAs perceived any value in what they were learning, both while a part of their assignments and upon their return home. Having an understanding of what teachers learn is important, but what is also important is an understanding of what factors play a role in whether what they learned can transfer, and what that transfer looks like. It is also important to consider what factors play a role in their knowledge development while in the training programs, since experiences differ. Therefore, the extended TPACK was utilized to examine the contextual factors and their roles on the construction of knowledge (Research Question 2) and the factors that impeded or facilitated change in teaching upon return (Research Question 3). Research Question 2 For Research Question 2: What are the different contextual factors at play in the FLTA’s development of CALL knowledge?, I drew from both cohorts’ experiences. As discussed in response to question one, the FLTAs each experienced different levels of growth in their knowledge for CALL. In order to answer this second research question, I analyzed the different contextual factors in the extended TPACK framework (see Figure 3) across the three levels as discussed in the second and third chapters. These three levels are macro, meso, and micro. The macro-level refers to global and national trends, including support (or lack thereof) on the national stage, such as from the government or within national educational culture. The meso- level refers to factors within the community and institution within which the teacher and students interact. The micro-level refers to the classroom itself as well as the interactions between the students and teacher. 171 Ultimately, what the different FLTA experiences provided was a better glimpse into how different instructors within a program can have very different outcomes. It is obvious that there are differences between the Fulbright FLTA program and a traditional teacher training program. For example, there was not a structured syllabus or learning outcome associated with the program, in addition to there not being formal training outside of the courses that FLTAs chose to take individually. The differences notwithstanding, examining a group of teachers going through a program that has a common aim can be instructive for both the program under investigation and the wider field of language teacher education. Moving into the analysis with the extended framework, on the macro-level while in the United States, all of the teachers were involved in teaching less-commonly taught languages. This meant that they were dealing with smaller class sizes (Goldberg, Looney, & Lusin, 2015), and often there were not a lot of pre-made materials available (See Robin, 2012). Each of the FLTAs were asked to tailor their teaching to fit within a communicative language teaching approach with a focus on communicative competence. This factor falls mostly under the meso- level but is also a part of the macro trend across universities in the United States. Only one FLTA, Alex, worked in classes beyond the first two years, while the others were all responsible for teaching first and second year classes throughout their assignment. These facts all contributed to both their opportunities for technology incorporation and the engagement of their students. It is reasonable to assume that many students in less-commonly-taught language-classes may consist of a different demographic (Brown, 2009), such as being a heritage speaker or wanting to learn the language for a professional goal. Indeed, Pat, Daria, and Gene reported that they had students that were heritage learners or were pursuing the language for a long-term goal. Thus, the 172 macro-factor of the less-commonly taught language impacted the micro-level of interaction between the students and the teachers and their goals. On the meso-level, MSU’s language curricula are often geared towards task-based teaching with a proficiency-based approach. This approach to teaching at MSU often differed from what FLTAs were used to, which commonly meant that they came from a context that was very grammar-focused and was heavily influenced by standardized testing preparation. In addition, course formats and the nature of the FLTA assignment was different for each FLTA. Pat’s, Daria’s, and Kyle’s classes were taught online and the FLTA was in charge, Gene was involved in assisting courses by teaching one or two sessions a week with a supervisor present, and Alex was viewed as a language and culture resource, while subbing sporadically as needed. MSU offered quite a few professional development workshops that were optional and open to the public, and the FLTA coordinator met with the FLTAs at least bi-weekly as a group to discuss common issues and upcoming events and activities. On the micro-level, most of the FLTAs reported that their students seemed more motivated and active in their learning when they compared the US students with the students back home. As mentioned, this could be due to the fact that their classes were smaller, and they were teaching languages that are considered less-commonly taught. In addition, students at MSU typically have access to smartphones, laptop computers and other electronic devices—something that was not as common for the FLTAs’ students back home. Examining the different factors at play during the program provides a better understanding of what led to the different outcomes for the FLTAs. This is a natural lead-in to evaluating what things can be done to improve or overcome particular challenge areas and promote more focused training in the future. For each of the FLTAs, the three levels of factors at 173 MSU as described are not isolated—as in, each level has connections with the others. Drawing solid distinctions between them is difficult, since it would be difficult to pinpoint when one level becomes more like another. However, this conceptualization has served as a useful scaffold to conceptualize and discuss the different factors at play in FLTA development. I would expect that the outcomes of the same FLTAs would be different dependent on changes in any of the factors already described. Research Question 3 In order to answer the third research question: How does the knowledge of different contextual factors impact FLTA’s TPACK/CALL enactment upon return?, I drew from the experiences of Kyle and Daria. In many ways, Daria and Kyle had similar experiences while working as FLTAs. Both taught an online language course, under the supervision of the FLTA coordinator. They both were responsible for creating the materials and assessments. In terms of what things, they learned to take with them, they differed in what they saw as valuable. Upon Daria’ return, she began working on incorporating the flipped classroom approach by posting materials for students to access in their own time to review and come prepared to practice during class time. She was also experimenting with ways to promote student use of pronunciation practice apps and having students engage with the language more outside of the class instead of making their only exposure to English instruction be during class time. She recognized that student culture, teaching practice, and infrastructure presented challenges to adopting major changes to practice. However, she saw areas where she could use what she was doing to improve and facilitate her work. Thus, on the macro-level, her government was involved in creating and supporting initiatives to improve teaching. Although, according to Daria, much work still needed to be done, she had support to try and make improvements. On the 174 meso-level, at her institution the administration was working to improve the instructional practices and she was a part of a push to promote some of the practices she used as an online teacher. She also had to contend with large class sizes and felt that adopting the flipped approach and bringing in more communicative activities would promote students’ abilities and help them to improve their test grades. Connected with this observation was her desire to pursue action research so she could provide the results to her students and other teachers to support her pushes for improvement. Is sum, the factors surrounding Daria upon her return did not limit her in trying to implement change. She was taking a more proactive role, and as she once put it, behaving in a “small, silent way”. Kyle felt like his environment back home was not as supportive and limited his ability to try and implement changes. He expressed frustration with the administration, other teachers, and the students themselves. While he hoped, he could bring in more communicative and interactive language learning activities, he felt that the administration did not care about such measures, other teachers just went with the status quo because of what he referred to as laziness, and students were test oriented, and did not care about learning English to communicate. Based on what he shared with me, he wanted to try an implement more communicative and interactive activities but could not do it because of the factors just listed. Therefore, he gave up trying to change or make changes and is instead hoping for a time where he sees that he could implement some of the things that he learned. There is plenty of room to make informed guesses concerning how things will turn out for the FLTAs in Cohort A—based on what they shared throughout this project. Even so, I will continue to follow Gene, Alex and Pat after they return home to get a better sense of how their expectations match up with the realities. It is still reasonable to assume that their experiences 175 would be different, based on multiple factors. For example, Alex and Gene come from TEFL teaching background at public schools in their home country. This means that they may be more limited in what they are able to do with their students because of students’ lack of access/ownership of technologies, and their cognitive capacities. As Gene shared in one of our later interviews, he stated that ‘students are corrupted by the system” in reference to how he felt test-oriented instruction and academic culture in the K-12 system did not lend itself to an environment where students could learn to actually use the language to communicate. Alex also pointed out in one of our interviews that she did not explore many options with her students because students were not permitted or expected to use things like mobile devices or computers. After considering the research questions in relation to the experiences of the FLTAs, next I will discuss the findings with reference to precious CALL research. Findings and Previous CALL Teacher Education Research As discussed in response to the first research question, the FLTAs were all able to demonstrate some knowledge growth concerning different classroom technologies. First and foremost, it is important to recognize how the format of the FLTA program differs from pre- service training and in-service professional development. While the FLTA program is slated to provide development for participant FLTAs, the FLTAs are provided with a short amount of training before beginning their assignments. Based on my observations and discussions with supervisors, most of the training for their assignments was ongoing throughout the semester. The daily experiences of the FLTAs could be considered to fall under situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991)—that is what they learned was situated within a real-world context. It also fits well with what Mishra and Koehler (2006) called the learning-by-doing approach to teacher education with technology (see also Bustamante & Moeller, 2013). The FLTAs were required to 176 utilize different technologies because they were placed within a community that had already established norms surrounding such use. Findings from this study provide support to the idea that providing student-teachers a connection with real-world experience can promote knowledge growth that leads to effective technology integration. The issue, however, is whether or how the knowledge they gained transfers back into their home practices or into their future teaching. It has been found that teachers often do not incorporate new or different technology practices after training or professional development (Chao, 2015). Creating training programs with a situated learning approach, or learning-by-doing has been promoted, in part, to address the lack of preparation that language instructors feel (e.g., Hlas, Conroy, & Hildebrandt, 2017), and to help teachers actively construct knowledge that will be of use to them in their individual teaching contexts (Dooly, 2009; Dooly & Sadler, 2013). As will be discussed, some of the FLTAs were more successful at constructing new knowledge and transferring such knowledge back to their home context. With the advent of technology standards for teachers, there is an established set of skills for teachers to aspire to in order to promote effective language teaching (e.g., Healey, et al., 2011). The TESOL technology standards (Healey et al., 2008) lists four purposes of the standards for teachers: to help teachers recognize the need for technology, for teachers to know what is expected of them in terms of knowledge, skills and curriculum implementation, for them to understand the need for continual learning, and to challenge teachers to reach the next level of proficiency in using technology for teaching. The FLTAs all recognized the need to integrate technology into their teaching. In my interactions with them, each FLTA at one point mentioned how technology incorporation was needed today. All of the FLTAs also showed evidence of understanding what was needed of them in terms of technology use, and they each recognized 177 the importance of continual development. For both cohorts of FLTAs, individual competence with basic computing technology was not at the forefront of concern. Instead, all of the FLTAs reported having to make more adjustments to their uses of technology to match what was done at MSU, and to build off of what they already knew. What was also most salient across the participants was becoming familiar with the specific platforms adopted by MSU and becoming familiar with the use of a learning management system, D2L in the case of MSU. The needs in their teaching context at MSU became clear to each of the FLTAs relatively quickly, and they all were able to adjust rather well to the new expectations. What was more difficult, however, was how the FLTAs saw what they were doing as feasibly transferring to their home teaching contexts. Since Mishra and Koehler (2006) first introduced the TPACK framework and positioned it as an extension to Schulman’s (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, both authors continually placed emphasis on how TPACK was to be considered in relation to the teachers’ particular contexts. As pointed out by Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013), among others, (e.g. Phillips, 2017), how context was conceived was lacking clarity and definition. With the extension argued for by Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua, it is possible to consider more of the factors that play a role on the learning of the FLTAs as well as if and how their TPACK gained in one context transfers. Much of the research that examined the TPACK for CALL of language educators was centered on analyzing whether particular training programs (e.g., Liu & Kleinsasser; Tai, 2015) enabled teachers to make gains in their TPACK for CALL. What had thus far been missing was connecting such knowledge growth with what value it had on teachers’ practices once they have exited the training program through analyzing what different contextual factors played roles in these processes. 178 Notwithstanding this limitation within CALL research using the TPACK framework, some CALL researchers have examined what led (or did not lead) to teachers implementing practices gained during their training. Grappling with the questions of what leads to transfer of CALL use by teachers from pre-service to in-service is something that has received some attention but has not been the focus of most researchers in CALL. In an earlier study, Egbert, Paulus, and Nakamichi (2002) found that language teachers typically used CALL technologies that they were familiar with even before they took a CALL course. Upon further exploration, it came to light that there were a number of factors that impact changes in the incorporation of technology, not the least of which were factors such as time, resources and technical support. The two FLTAs in Cohort B (Kyle and Daria) reported similar findings, with additional factors such as support from colleagues and student academic culture. Additionally, Gene, from Cohort A, reported that he felt he would not have any support in his old job. Son (2014) also investigated how teachers who took an optional CALL course subsequently integrated technology for language teaching. One of the most important findings was that the teachers appreciated the training that they received and became more aware of the potential for CALL in their language classes. These teachers, Son observed, were more likely to explore innovative uses for CALL in their individual classrooms. Also important was that others were less confident and unsure of how to incorporate CALL into their courses. Findings for the FLTAs are similar. While the FLTAs were able to become familiar with and use technologies at MSU that were new to them, or they learned a new way to approach using a particular tool, transfer was not guaranteed. In fact, I would argue, that findings here and of other research would point to expecting there to be minimal, if any, direct transfer of knowledge of tools from one context to another. What does transfer, however, seems to be a 179 teacher’s confidence and approach to technology use. For example, while Daria learned how to use Zoom, D2L, Voicethread and Audacity, upon return she did not have access to the paid programs and instead sought out free alternatives. Another important point is that there may not be transfer if contextual factors combine to limit what the teacher feels is feasible, or if what they learned does not seem to fit within their teaching context. Along these lines, Chao (2015) found that there is not a direct correlation to transfer of training to use CALL technologies in the language classroom. What did change, however, was how participants in the professional development course approached using technology. Applying this to the FLTA’s experiences, Gene expressed rather immediately that he thought that the things he was learning to do with technology for CALL in the USA would not easily transfer back to his old job at home. In one of our final interviews, he expressed that he felt “students were corrupted by the system”, in that because of the public-school focus on national exams that he could not teach in the ways he wanted. Instead, Gene hoped he could either find a new job or start his own school. In this way, he expressed, he would be able to incorporate the things he learned as an FLTA. Pat also felt there would not be a direct transfer into her teaching but felt what she knew could be used to improve and extend what she was able to offer her students. While she was trained to provide online instruction, she felt that certain elements of what she learned how to do could transfer back to her home country to improve online tutoring and synchronous online teaching. Kyle reported the most difficulty in seeing a way forward for change. While he recognized a need for change in his teaching approach and materials creation, he expressed frustration in not being able to make shifts in his teaching based on multiple contextual factors. It is important to recognize a difference between what Kyle and 180 Gene experienced and what Pat and Daria did. Kyle and Gene had difficulty seeing how what they were doing could improve or inform their future practice upon their return home. They both had a desire to make changes, but Kyle confronted difficulty in affecting change, while Gene felt that he simply needed a new job. Pat and Daria both analyzed what they were learning and seemed able to pick out things they could do to make important improvements to the practices back home. Kyle and Gene both felt that the practices in their home country were confusing, frustrating or wrong; they felt they needed to be completely changed, while Daria and Pat saw openings for improvement of what was already being done. While not the original intent of this dissertation, the results from this study can speak specifically to online language instruction. Three of the five FLTAs in this study were involved in online, blended teaching that adopted a flipped classroom approach. Daria, Kyle, and Pat each taught online, with at least one synchronous meeting a week for forty-five minutes. Kyle had already been teaching online, however Pat and Daria had never done so before. Comas-Quinn (2011) found that face-to-face teachers struggled to make the shift to a blended language teaching format. Comas-Quinn concluded by arguing that the ‘transmission of knowledge’ approach that CALL studies typically favor is not sufficient to provide instructors the support they need to fully take advantage of the pedagogical affordances within a blended or fully online platform. Pat and Daria showed success in making such a transition. Pat even recognized that the skills she was gaining enabled her to improve the online lessons to make them closer to face-to- face teaching. Daria felt that part of what she was doing could improve teaching in her home context, which was very test oriented and typically consisted of large class sizes. Based on my interactions and observations with the FLTAs, as well as the FLTA coordinator, it is clear that the FLTAs received the support they needed from the coordinator and 181 her assistant. Pat mentioned several times how with their help she felt she was able to overcome her difficulties. As Compton (2009) also argued for, teachers need to develop technological and pedagogical skills, combined with evaluation skills, to be able to be effective in online teaching. The FLTA coordinator brought up several times how she met with the FLTAs to walk through the software with them and had them each observe online course sessions before they began teaching. In addition, the coordinator had follow-up meetings with them throughout the semester in which the FLTA and coordinator reviewed a recorded lesson together. Kyle reportedly had little trouble teaching online, while Pat and Daria both had to make some adjustments to their feedback styles. Specifically, for Pat, similar to what Wang, Chen and Levy (2010) found, was that there was a process that Pat went through which included stages of being overwhelmed, to anxious, to finally internalizing and accepting the changes—even incorporating them into her future plans. The two face-to-face teachers, Gene and Alex, had quite different experiences because of a combination of factors in their home context and their experiences at MSU. While Gene identified multiple barriers to using CALL technologies back home, Alex did not share any immediately obvious limitations. This could be due to Alex not being aware of limits back home because she said she did not recognize much difference between the technologies used in her FLTA assignment and what was done back home. Although she was exposed to different usages of a learning management site and learned about multiple websites that could be used during class time, she did not perceive these as strikingly different from what she was already used to. On the other hand, Gene was very emphatic about how everything he was learning was different and new to him. Phillips (2017) argued convincingly that TPACK development and enactment is influenced by identity and socially mediated workplace, which seems to be the case for the 182 differences among the FLTAs. Alex often felt like her hands were tied and was disappointed in some of the student practices. In addition, her assignment did not require her to create lesson plans or utilize any new technologies. As a result, her exposure to new practices as a part of her teaching assignment was limited. She expressed at one point that she felt like she was not needed, so this may have led her to not being as proactive or engaged in her teaching, thus not forcing her to develop new knowledge for CALL in her teaching. However, Alex did glean some new understandings about how to utilize videos and visual aids more effectively from her experiences as a language student. Gene, meanwhile, was active and engaged both in his language classes and the professional development opportunities on campus. Implications The pedagogical implications from this study can be applied to FLTA program at MSU and at other institutions, as well as to teacher training courses and preparation programs. Based on the fact that the FLTAs were all able to increase in their knowledge of technologies to use in the language classroom, albeit in different ways, it may be beneficial to assist them in their efforts of seeing what could feasibly transfer from their previous experience to their time as FLTAs, as well as what they might be able to take with them upon their return home. This could take shape in both programmatic changes and approaches to training. First, I would see value in having the FLTAs come together and share what they have learned and its meaning for them. The creation of a teaching support group, or regular meetings to discuss experiences with technology could be something of value for the FLTAs. Tseng, Lien, and Chen (2016) found that encouraging such a support group was instrumental in promoting the TPACK of foreign language instructors. While I recognize that the FLTAs meet regularly already with the FLTA coordinator, having a structured support group focused on pedagogy and technology could be of 183 value to increase the amount of exposure to different tools and encourage the FLTAs to explore what their peers have been doing. This group could also promote discussion of the various contextual factors that influence technology use and may lead to fruitful exploration to enable individual FLTAs to grapple with envisioning how what they learned in the USA could benefit them upon their return. To that end, training for FLTAs that prepared them not only for their FLTA duties but also in preparation for their return home (with regards to technology adoption) may be especially fruitful. Coming out of this study, some of the FLTAs were able to see directly where they could implement some changes in their teaching contexts back home. For example, Pat and Daria felt they could try to improve teaching through adopting a more flipped-classroom model. On the other hand, Gene and Kyle had less success in seeing ways that they could implement changes. Kyle wanted to try to transplant what he had learned and faced opposition. This resulted in frustration. Moving forward, Gene expressed that he could see no way for him to make any major changes in his teaching with CALL outside of changing his employment. Further training and preparation may help all of the FLTAs see a way forward that could encourage them to see openings and opportunities to adapt what they have learned back into their home contexts. Second, adopting a more critical and reflective approach to their experiences may be a highly beneficial way to encourage FLTAs to leverage both their previous experiences and their experiences as FLTAs in their future careers (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). The findings from this project can be seen to harken back to Kumaravadivelu’s (2001) postmethod pedagogy, including his propositions of particularity, practicality, and possibility. These three Ps, as often referred to, have stirred some debate within SLA research, however at their core they point to a need for enabling teachers to have opportunities to reflect on their context (particularity), engage with 184 examining their previous experiences (practicality), and creating plans for improvement (possibility). The end goal, therefore, would be to encourage FLTAs to construct their own individual models with which they can approach their teaching with technology, akin to what is argued for by Kumaravadivelu (2012). By adopting such an outlook, a focus on particular technologies and practices that may or may not be available or appropriate in the FLTAs’ home contexts is avoided. In addition, the opportunities for potential transfer can be brought to the forefront of experience to ensure that FLTAs can move forward, leveraging their knowledge of technologies to cultivate best practices in their individual unique contexts. This also brings to mind some of the core tenets of constructivist approaches to building expertise within ill- structured domains. Already, reflective practice has been shown to promote knowledge building through confronting and analyzing past experiences for CALL teacher education (Guichon, 2009). There are already some reflective practices present in the program at MSU, as the FLTA coordinator observes and sometimes records teaching sessions to review with the participants. In addition, the FLTAs are asked to write reflections on their experience sometime near the end of their second semester. It may be helpful to build on these practices to encourage the FLTAs to critically consider whether they can transfer what they are learning, and, if not, how they could adapt what they learn to address concerns they may encounter once they return home. I propose an approach similar to what I asked the FLTAs to do as a part of this research project, namely keeping reflective journals and having group discussions. A few of the FLTAs expressed their appreciation for the process, and I hope that their work with me on the project can serve them moving forward. This could provide opportunities for FLTAs to think about ways they could apply what they have learned into their home context—and consider the differences between the 185 approaches within both contexts. As I worked with the FLTAs, what often seemed missing was a uniformity and direction in working at making sure what they did as a part of their assignments was the most beneficial for them. Challenging the participants to consider where they came from, what they are doing while an FLTA and where they hope to go with their experience throughout their entire time as an FLTA could provide meaningful direction and ensure that they consider ways of improving their practice that they may not have considered without such practices. While some FLTAs are assigned supervisors, and others work with the FLTA coordinator, I believe that they all could be well served by developing mentor/mentee relationships with FLTAs that have come before, or perhaps other language teaching colleagues, or even other FLTAs that may have more experience language teaching. Some researchers have looked at the impact of mentor relationships for CALL teacher education (Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006), with findings pointing to mostly positive impacts to both attitude and knowledge for teaching for CALL. As Hubbard and Levy (2006) and Hanson- Smith (2016) observed, teacher training technology may most often occur in informal situations, mentoring relationships and through self-study. Through the implementation of such practices, outcomes and transfer of newly created knowledge for CALL may be benefitted. To summarize, I have included a list of suggestions that I think could benefit the FLTA program both at MSU and possibly other institutions. The list of suggestions I have created are meant to guide both future research and provide further direction of how to best help the FLTAs to leverage their experiences both in the United States and back in their home countries at the end of their assignments. I recognize that not all of these are feasible for each university. 186 1. Structure training to enable FLTAs to both be prepared for their assignments in the USA, but also to reflect on and consider how their training and experience with technology could transfer to their future teaching contexts. 2. Promote discussion and consideration of the differences between the teaching skills they are gaining by teaching their home language in the United States and teaching English. 3. Provide structured opportunities for the FLTAs to meet and discuss their learning experiences together. 4. Encourage FLTAs to maintain reflective journals of their experiences and learning. 5. Promote construction of individual action plans for each FLTA. This could be included in the reflective journals, or a culminating project that the FLTAs construct throughout their time in the USA. 6. Assign mentors to each FLTA. This could be other teachers in the institution, or, most preferably, an FLTA that has returned home already. 7. Encourage FLTAs that wish to take foreign language courses to do so. 8. Create a series of workshops or assign a CALL expert to work with each of the FLTAs to explore and develop their knowledge of how to effectively utilize CALL technologies both in the United States and in their home teaching contexts. This dissertation also contributes to future research into teacher cognition. Recent work has found value in exploring teacher cognition through various perspectives such as Vygotskian and Sociocultural theory (Golombek, 2015), Dynamic Systems Theory (Feryok & Oranje, 2015), and identity (Burri, Chen, & Baker, 2017). Kubanyiova and Feryok (2015) argued that cognition research needed to grapple with important questions such as how 187 teachers create meaningful learning experience for their students and how teacher education programs can promote such. Kubanyiova and Feryok’s argument centers on the importance of connecting research findings of what teachers believe, think, and know to what “end such understandings might serve” (p. 441). By adopting the TPACK and extended TPACK model, I have touched on not only what the FLTAs learned from their experiences but also looked at how their knowledge was constructed and how/whether the FLTAs felt such knowledge could effectively fit into their home teaching contexts. By including the ecological extension of macro–, meso–, and micro-levels, research is better able to evaluate the factors at play that addresses the need to understand what knowledge can be of most value within a particular context. With the research findings from this dissertation, I can argue for teacher education that promotes knowledge and understanding of individual teacher’s contexts but also how they have developed their understanding of their context in relation to the course materials and how they might impact their teaching practice and subsequent student learning. TPACK and Extended TPACK While measuring what the FLTAs learned using the TPACK framework can be informative and useful, the results of this dissertation speak to the fact that this is only part of the picture. The TPACK framework served as a useful heuristic with which to examine the different kinds of knowledge that the FLTAs developed as a result of their experiences. It is helpful in both recognizing what was learned, but also examining what could be improved—but it is only helpful as a first step if the goal is to identify areas of improvement and to examine factors leading up to knowledge construction, or barriers to enactment of knowledge. While the original TPACK framework did recognize the importance of contexts, Phillips (2013) and Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013) argued for a strengthening of the 188 framework by examining contextual factors. As Chao (2015) pointed out, much of CALL research has been focused around a transfer of knowledge approach, wherein expertise is transmitted to teachers and it is up to them to then take it into wherever they end up. This project, similar to Chao’s findings, points to the fact that even if a teacher gains extensive knowledge and experience with different technologies and approaches to CALL, there is no guarantee that even a very experienced teacher could effectively take advantage of technologies in a new context. CALL researchers have recognized the need for skills with technology that are not focused on specific technologies but have so far focused on skills such as tool evaluation (Haines, 2015) or how different technologies can connect with various SLA theory (e.g., Chapelle, 2009) or even developing confidence or self-efficacy (Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015). Research has found that generally teachers are unsatisfied with their training (Sharp, 2013), and that current teacher training with technology is limited and mostly non-sufficient (Angus, 2017). It is certainly true that teachers could use more training but moving forward it may be more beneficial to create effective training programs to encourage participants to adopt a reflective approach to their learning in order to ensure the greatest amount of transfer across contexts. While the FLTAs may represent a somewhat extreme example of differing contexts— at its core their struggles and successes can speak to CALL teacher education more generally— that is, that teacher training would benefit from systematic, structured approaches to negotiating how what they are learning in one context may or may not transfer directly into their future (or current) teaching context. Also important is a focus on individuals and encouraging them to construct their own understanding of what they can do. 189 Limitations and Future Directions The findings of this study are helpful and insightful in illuminating the impact of the focal FLTAs’ experiences. The findings of this study are limited in a few ways. First, the experiences of the FLTAs presented here are for participants in just one university. Second, the participants came to teach students in less-commonly taught language programs. This recognition is important on multiple fronts. As discussed previously, students in less-commonly taught programs may have different levels of motivation to that from the more common languages, thus playing a role in the perceptions that the FLTAs had as important factors in their experience. The number of students they were teaching were also smaller, changing classroom dynamics and the requirements for preparation and what kinds of activities were possible to employ. In addition, the format of the support available to the FLTAs in their various language programs and classes may vary widely based on the university in which the participants are assigned. A third point of consideration is the limited amount of actual classroom observation I was able to use, both in the FLTAs home context and throughout their assignments in the United States. The majority of the data was drawn from the interviews and journal entries, with the observations serving to support my analysis. There is no reason to doubt the validity of the FLTA statements and reflections, however a fuller picture of their experience could be offered through further means of data collection. This extends also to me not being able to follow the FLTAs in person and observe their teaching upon their return, or before they came to the United States to teach. As a result, the interpretations that I have made in relation to their experiences after coming home should be viewed with this point in mind. 190 It is also important to recognize that although I attempted to develop relationships where the FLTAs could share their experiences honestly, I was still mostly an outside observer. This points back to the need for more points of data collection. In the future, I plan to continue following the FLTAs and exploring with them the impact that their experiences had on their professional development and knowledge for teaching. I also see opportunities to explore the impact of this program on such factors as teacher identity, motivation, and self-efficacy. There have been pushes within the field to examine teacher development within sociocultural theory, which is an I area I plan to explore more. Some of the questions that I will continue to examine in the future can be addressed with the FLTA population or within language teacher education programs. Of further consideration would be examining student perceptions and the connection with the FLTA or teacher’s learning. Although the teacher may be reporting changes in knowledge for teaching and practice—do students notice? For FLTAs, how do the students in their home contexts perceive any changes in practice? What are the learning outcomes of a teacher changing practices in accordance with newfound knowledge? The role of language ideologies can also play powerful roles in the experiences of teachers. Each of the FLTAs reported on in this project came from less-commonly taught language backgrounds. As Robin (2012) identified, teachers of LCTLs face different challenges and limited options for materials and other kinds of access to technology. Do teachers teaching CTLs have different experiences? If so, how do they differ? As I view this project as a first step towards examining the impact of this kind of exchange program, I will work to develop interventions that can be implemented for the FLTAs in future cohorts. As discussed, these will most likely take shape as workshops, creating support 191 groups, assigning mentors, and encouraging reflective practices in a structured way. After the creation and (hopeful) implementation of such interventions, it would be valuable to examine the impact of such on the eventual outcomes for the FLTAs. Primary to the creation of such interventions would be the focus on encouraging the FLTAs to cultivate individualized models of practice. It is important to consider that this project was not specific in its focus on contextual factors. I purposefully did not come into the project with a strict focus as I wished to explore what the experiences were like with the FLTAs. It is limiting that my focus was more cognitivist in nature. Future research may be well served by examining factors using current theories and approaches from education and sociocultural theory. There have been prominent pushes to align CALL and language teacher education or closely with sociocultural theory (McNeil, 2013; Motteram, Slaouti, & Onat-Stelma, 2012), and findings have richly enhanced understanding of teacher’s experiences within specific, situated contexts. Moving forward, I hope to explore how such theories can improve teacher training. Conclusion This dissertation focused on how the Fulbright FLTA program impacted the knowledge of CALL practice of program participants. In addition, it examined how different contextual factors came together to affect the knowledge construction and technology integration of FLTAs. FLTAs’ experiences with new technologies had a positive effect on their knowledge of multiple platforms. Each of the FLTAs expressed that they became aware of new technologies and different approaches to using technology in the language classroom. All of the FLTAs reported changes in their knowledge across multiple areas of the TPACK framework. The depth and impact of this knowledge growth, however, varied based on multiple levels of contextual factors, 192 both with their knowledge development while at MSU, and the subsequent use of knowledge upon returning home. In addition, previous experiences at home tempered and directed the approaches that the FLTAs adopted to their learning and experiences while at MSU. While this dissertation was able to provide insight into the process of knowledge construction and technology use of a set of instructors, language teacher education remains a complex and highly contextualized domain. It is my hope that implementing the suggestions previously discussed can serve and assist the FLTAs and improve the FLTA program, as well as inform general CALL teacher education. 193 APPENDICES 194 APPENDIX A: Sample Questions from Interview 1 Definition of technology: Three types: Communication technologies: Messaging, audio & voice chat, Social media, News & entertainment technologies: Video games, media (movies, shows, news) Music Streaming Professional technologies: Office suite, projectors, Learning management sites, etc., language learning apps, quiz creation software, etc. When I say technology for language teaching, what does that mean to you? What is technology in the language classroom good for? How difficult is it to use technology in the classroom for you? What does a typical activity look like when you use technology in your classroom? What do you feel are the most useful technologies in the language classroom? What do you feel are the most beneficial technologies for language learning? What things do you feel you know the least about when it comes to technology? How do you see yourself using technology while you are here at MSU? 195 APPENDIX B: Sample Questions and Outline from Follow-up Interview 1 Review of things that have happened How have you adjusted? What have been some of your struggles? What things are different for you now? How does your experience match with your expectations? What is your job like now? How different is your teaching style? What things have you brought with you? What is the biggest thing you feel you brought with you from your experiences? What would you like to see more of during your FLTA experiences? 196 APPENDIX C: Sample Questions from Interview 2 How different are your job duties here from your duties back home? What kinds of things have you learned the most about? Ask the FLTAs to keep a journal mainly focused on their lesson planning/materials creation. Please discuss what kinds of things you plan and how you create the materials. Please include your thoughts and considerations as you went about creating or incorporating things into your materials. How have you adjusted your teaching/materials creation since beginning your assignment here? What is the biggest thing you have learned about using technology in the language classroom? What does the term Computer Assisted Language Learning mean to you? What is CALL good for? How much of what you are doing involves CALL? How is your teaching different here versus back home? How has your experiences here changed your approach to teaching? 197 APPENDIX D: Sample Questions from Lesson Planning Session What are your main duties? Can you walk me through your most recent lesson plan? Where do you get your ideas/lessons? How often do you teach? When do you plan? How is your planning different from what you did before? What is the focus of your lessons? 198 APPENDIX E: Sample Questions from FLTA Coordinator Interview How long has MSU been involved? Has it always been you? How many people involved? Can you tell me a little about how you became involved with the FLTA program? How long has MSU been involved with the FLTA program? Can you tell me a bit about the whole FLTA orientation? What have been the most common struggles for FLTAs, that you have seen? How have the FLTAs overcome these? Concerning technology, what is the general level of familiarity that you have seen the FLTAs come with? What changes with tech use have you seen with FLTAs once their assignments are complete? Can you tell me a little about the current FLTAs? What kinds of unique struggles, if any? For this group, what have been the biggest challenges that you have seen for them? What kinds of changes would you like to see in the FLTA program, concerning preparing the FLTAs? As the coordinator this year, can you discuss a little bit about what you hope the FLTAs will take from this program? I would like to go through each FLTA and see if you could share a little bit about your experience working with them – keeping in mind their major struggles, their biggest strengths, and perhaps what you feel is the biggest thing you think they will take away. Can you discuss a little about the experiences you have had working with the FLTAs and preparing them to use the technologies they need here at MSU? Can you discuss a little about any experiences with the larger group of FLTAs? Can you share a little about any training FLTAs receive to use the technology? How have the FLTAs taken to using the different technologies required by their assignments? 199 APPENDIX F: Sample Questions from FLTA Supervisor Interviews Could you share a little about your involvement with the language program? Involvement with the FLTA program? When/how did you become involved? Could you describe a little bit about how you involve the FLTA in your teaching/program? What have been some of the biggest challenges working with FLTAs? What strengths do the FLTAs bring to the program? How have the FLTAs dealt with the changes in teaching context, from your view? What kinds of technology do you typically use in your language classes? How have you approached introducing these technologies to the FLTAs? In your view, how have the FLTAs used different technologies? What do you hope FLTAs take with them once they are finished with their assignments? Anything in particular you could share about your time working with XXXXX? Particular struggles or things that you have worked on with them? Based on your experiences with them, what do you think have been the biggest things they have learned? 200 APPENDIX G: Sample Questions from Journal Writing Prompts With regards to technology and in general, how has your lesson planning/materials preparation differed from before coming here as an FLTA? What are the biggest changes for you as a teacher? What kinds of technologies do you use currently in your FLTA assignment? What are the differences you see between preparing materials for teaching English and teaching here as an FLTA? How confident are you using different technologies in your teaching/assisting here? What are you the most confident with? What are you the least confident with? 201 REFERENCES 202 REFERENCES ACTFL/CAEP. (2013). ACTFL program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from http:// www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLStandardsAPRIL2014.pdf Adnan, M. (2017). Professional development in the transition to online teaching: The voice of entrant online instructors. ReCALL, 30(1), 88–111. Angus, K. B. (2017). Learning “about” and learning “through” technology: An analysis of syllabi from foreign language teaching methods courses. CALICO Journal, 34(3), 317– 335. Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2015). Contextualized views of practices and competencies in CALL teacher education research. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 1–9. Arshavskaya, E. (2015). International Teaching Assistants’ Experiences in the U.S. Classrooms: Implications for Practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 56. Aydin, S. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching and learning: The case of Turkey. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 214–233. Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative Knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391- 414. Barkhuizen, G. (2016). A Short Story Approach to Analyzing Teacher (Imagined) Identities Over Time. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 655–683. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295. Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Second language identity in narratives of study abroad. Springer. Benson, P. (2014). Narrative inquiry in applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 154–170. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3–31. 203 Borg, Simon. (2015) Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Borthwick, K., & Gallagher-Brett, A. (2014). “Inspiration, ideas, encouragement”: teacher development and improved use of technology in language teaching through open educational practice. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(2), 163–183. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. Brown, A. V. (2009). Less commonly taught language and commonly taught language students: A demographic and academic comparison. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 405–423. Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language(cid:1) teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 585-601. Burri, M., Chen, H., & Baker, A. (2017). Joint development of teacher cognition and identity through learning to teach L2 pronunciation. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 128- 142. Bustamante, C., & Moeller, A. (2013). The convergence of content, pedagogy, and technology in online professional development for teachers of German: An intrinsic case study. CALICO Journal, 30(1), 82–104. Chao, C. (2015). Rethinking transfer: learning from CALL teacher education as a consequential transition. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 102–118. Chappelle, C. (2006). Foreword. In Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL. John Benjamins Publishing. Cheng, K.-H. (2017). A survey of native language teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 692–708. Chiang, S. Y. (2009). Dealing with communication problems in the instructional interactions between international teaching assistants and American college students. Language and Education, 23(5), 461–478. Chun, D., Smith, B., & Kern, R. (2016). Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching, and Language Learning. Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80. Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Tentative Model for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–271. Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An 204 exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218– 232. Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99. Crandall, J. J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34- 55. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Dooly, M. (2009). New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training project. ReCALL, 21, 352. Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. Recall, 25(1), 4–29. Duff, P. (2012). How to conduct case study research. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Research methodologies in second language acquisition (pp. 95-116). Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell. Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of call instruction on classroom computer use: a foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108–126. Faez, F., & Valeo, A. (2012). TESOL Teacher Education: Novice Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness and Efficacy in the Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 450–471. Feryok, A., & Oranje, J. O. (2015). Adopting a cultural portfolio project in teaching German as a foreign language: Language teacher cognition as a dynamic system. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 546-564. Fisser, P., Voogt, J., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Measuring and Assessing TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 490–492). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. "FLTA Summer Orientation (FLTASO)”, n.d. Retrieved from https://celta.msu.edu/projects/flta- summer-orientation/ Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740 205 Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009 Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009. Modern Language Association Web Publication, (February). Gorsuch, G. J. (2012). The roles of teacher theory and domain theory in materials and research in international teaching assistant education. Working theories for teaching assistant development, 429-482. Gorsuch, G. (2016). International teaching assistants at universities: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49(2), 275–290. Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2), 166. Guichon, N., & Hauck, M. (2011). Editorial: Teacher education research in CALL and CMC: more in demand than ever. ReCALL, 23(3), 187–199. Haines, K. J. (2015). Learning to identify and actualize affordances in a new tool. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 165–180. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. Hanson-Smith, E. (2016) Teacher education and technology. in Farr, F., & Murray, L. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge. He, B., Puakpong, N., & Lian, A. (2015). Factors affecting the normalization of CALL in Chinese senior high schools. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 189-201. Healey, D., Hegelheimer, V., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2008). TESOL technology standards framework. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S. Kessler, G., and Ware, P. (2011). TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hedayati, H. F., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of implementing CALL. ReCALL, 26(3), 298–314. Hlas, A., Conroy, K. &, & Hildebrandt, S. A. (2017). Student teachers and CALL: personal and pedagogical uses and beliefs. CALICO Journal, 34(3), 336–354. Hong, K. H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating technology. ReCALL, 22(1), 53–69. 206 Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the Future of Language Teacher Education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175–188. Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL (Vol. 14). John Benjamins Publishing. International Society for Technology in Education (2008). ISTE standards: Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York: Routledge. Johnson, K. E. (2016). Language teacher education. In G. Hall (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. (pp. 121-134). London: Routledge. Kessler, G., & Hubbard, P. (2017) Language Teacher Education and Technology. In Chapelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (Eds.). (2017). The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning. John Wiley & Sons. Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173–188. Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269–282. Kirkgoz, Y. (2017). Exploring the Impact of the Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant Program on Grantees’ Educational and Cultural Beliefs and Practices. In J. Mathews- Aydinli (Ed.), International Education Exchanges and Intercultural Understanding: Promoting Peace and Global Relations (pp. 131–155). Cham: Springer International. Kissau, S. (2012). Perceptions of self-efficacy for two types of second language methods instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 295–317. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2015). TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 783– 786). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., and Graham, C. (2014) The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 439-451). New York, NY: Springer. Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language Teacher Cognition in Applied Linguistics 207 Research: Revisiting the Territory, Redrawing the Boundaries, Reclaiming the Relevance. Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435–449. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537– 560. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. Routledge. Kurt, G., Akyel, A., Koçoğlu, Z., & Mishra, P. (2014). TPACK in practice: A qualitative study on technology integrated lesson planning and implementation of Turkish pre-service teachers of English. ELT Research Journal, 3(3), 153–166. Lafford, B. A. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Modern Language Journal, 93(SUPPL. 1), 673–696. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University Press. Li, L. (2014). Understanding language teachers’ practice with educational technology: A case from China. System, 46, 105–119. Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 119–138. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications. McNeil, L. (2013). Exploring the relationship between situated activity and CALL learning in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(2), 215–232. Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C.-H., & You, J. (2006). Expert- novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL (Vol. 14). John Benjamins Publishing. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017. MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 2007, 234–245. Motteram, G., Slaouti, D., & Onat-Stelma, Z. (2012). An alignment of practice and theory. In H. 208 Reinders & M. Thomas (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-assisted Language Learning. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Nami, F., Marandi, S. S., & Sotoudehnama, E. (2016). CALL teacher professional growth through lesson study practice: an investigation into EFL teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 658–682. O'Dowd, R. (2015). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194-207. Olofson, M. W., Swallow, M. J. C., & Neumann, M. D. (2016). TPACKing: A constructivist framing of TPACK to analyze teachers’ construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 95, 188–201. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating in-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Educational Computing, 28(2). Phillips, M. (2016). Processes of practice and identity shaping teachers’ TPACK enactment in a community of practice. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1771–1796. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23. Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223–244. Reinders, H. 2012 ‘Blended and Online Instruction’. In: Burns, A. & Richards, J. (Eds.) Guide to Second Language Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 287-294). Richards, J. C. (2008). Second Language Teacher Education Today. RELC Journal, 39(2), 158– 177. Richards, K. (2003). Collecting and Analyzing Spoken Interaction. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL, 172–231. Springer. Robin, R. M. (2012). CALL and less commonly taught languages. In H. Reinders & M. Thomas (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 303–321). Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. 209 Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015a). Context and Teaching with Technology in the Digital Age. In M. L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 440–465). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Schmid, E. C., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Collaborative research projects in the technology- enhanced language classroom: Pre-service and in-service teachers exchange knowledge about technology. ReCALL, 26(3), 315–332. Schreier, M. (2014) Qualitative Content Analysis. In Flick, U. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE. Sharp, S. (2013). Teachers Acquisition of CALL Expertise. In B. Zou (Ed.), International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 246–262). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Shin, S.-K. (2015). Teaching critical, ethical and safe use of ICT in pre-service teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 181–197. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher .15, 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, AZ, 1-22. Son, J. B. (2014). Moving beyond basics: from CALL coursework to classroom practice and professional development. In Son, J.-B. (Ed.). (2014). Computer-assisted language learning: Learners, teachers and tools (pp. 122-149). APACALL Book Series Volume 3. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: Teaching teachers to educate themselves. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99–112. Tai, S.-J. D. (2015). From TPACK-in-action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency developed and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 139–164. Tai, Shu-Ju Diana. (2013) "From TPACK-in-Action Workshops to English Classrooms: CALL Competencies Developed and Adopted into Classroom Teaching". Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 13335. Torsani, S. (2016). CALL teacher education: Language teachers and technology integration. Springer. 210 Tour, E. (2015). Digital Mindsets: Teachers’ technology use in personal life and teaching. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 124–139. Tseng, J. J. (2017). Exploring TPACK-SLA interface: insights from the computer-enhanced classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-23. Tseng, J. J., Lien, Y. J., & Chen, H. J. (2016). Using a teacher support group to develop teacher knowledge of Mandarin teaching via web conferencing technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 127–147. Uzum, B. (2013a). Foreign language teacher socialization: A multiple case study of foreign language teachers in an American higher education institution. Michigan State University. Uzum, B. (2013b). From “you” to “we”: A foreign language teacher’s professional journey towards embracing inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 69–77. Uzum, B. (2017). Uncovering the layers of foreign language teacher socialization: A qualitative case study of Fulbright language teaching assistants. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 241-257. van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J. and Meijer, P. C. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441– 61. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge-A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. Wang, H. (2016). International teaching assistants’ professional identity development at a US university: A multiple case study perspective. The University of Alabama. Wang, Y., Chen, N. S., & Levy, M. (2010). Teacher training in a synchronous cyber face-to-face classroom: Characterizing and supporting the online teachers’ learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 277–293. Wiebe, G., & Kabata, K. (2010). Students’ and instructors’ attitudes toward the use of CALL in foreign language teaching and learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 221–234. Wu, Y. T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 73–77. 211 Yuan, R., & Lee, I. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System, 44(1), 1–12. 212