Considering digital technologies\u2019 widespread availability and influence in everyday life, the use of different technologies for educational purposes is an important subject for teachers and teacher educators to consider. Whether referencing specific low- or high-tech tools for learning and instruction or the collective grouping of these tools, technology offers the potential to impact positively students\u2019 learning and teachers\u2019 instruction (Alvermann, 2007; O\u2019Neil & Perez, 2003; Sternberg, Kaplan, & Borck, 2007).<\/p>\n
Adding technology to instruction does not automatically create a meaningful change in learning or instruction, however. As Bruce (2007) noted, \u201cSimply using computers or connecting to the network does not ensure that teaching is easier and more effective or that adolescents will be automatically well prepared to read, write, and live in the 21st century\u201d (p. 17).<\/p>\n
Meaningful technology use can support positive teaching and learning outcomes that include effective instruction, support for authentic learning, increased student learning, and alterations in teacher pedagogy (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Pope & Golub, 2000). Such outcomes require teachers and teacher educators to consider purposefully the application and integration of technology for classroom teaching and learning, including potential advantages and limitations to technology (Swenson, 2006). English language arts (ELA) teachers must also consider implementing different technologies as they relate to expanding conceptions of literacy.<\/p>\n
Rather than focusing solely on the single literacy of print, English teachers navigate multiple literacies (or multiliteracies) in the classroom, working across print, visual, and media literacies (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2006, 2008). To connect these literacies to their instruction and the students in the classroom, English teachers benefit from implementing the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) that allows them to \u201cdevelop nuanced and critical understandings of these technologies and the literacies with which they are associated\u201d (Swenson, Young, McGrail, Rozema, & Whitin, 2006, p. 353).<\/p>\n
This article describes how two English teachers implemented technology in their instruction to support student learning, a framework for understanding the use of technology in the ELA classroom, and a qualitative study created to examine our technology use for instruction. \u00a0The study\u2019s main themes are discussed: the role of the ELA teacher, the use of technology for ELA instruction, and the challenges and benefits of technology use in the ELA classroom.<\/p>\n
Technology in the English Language Arts Classroom<\/strong><\/p>\n Technology-enriched ELA classrooms have the ability to support student-centered, constructivist learning environments, which in turn, may offer advantages for student learning in the secondary English classroom. Technology has the ability to support students\u2019 higher order thinking skills, motivation, and engagement when used constructively.<\/p>\n In addition, teachers\u2019 instructional practices can be augmented when technology use aligns with their pedagogical beliefs. To support an active learning environment, teachers must engage students with technology, rather than simply using it as a reward (e.g., watching a movie, playing a game) or to project information (e.g., display a presentation; Ertmer, 2005; McGrail, 2007; Merkley, Schmidt, & Allen, 2001).<\/p>\n Many of the specific technologies integrated into English classrooms are used for creating certain products: a publishing program to create a brochure, for example, or word processing software to type an essay (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Leu, 2000). In many respects, the specific technologies available for the ELA are somewhat lacking when compared to other disciplines, where content-specific technologies are often more numerous, readily available, and more interactive (i.e., virtual manipulatives in mathematics, virtual museums in social studies and simulations in science; Alessi & Trollip, 2001). Instructional software exists to support and develop specific literacy skills, such as grammar and spelling, but these specific technologies are not always realistic for classroom use, as the timing and pacing of the instructional modules may require a great deal of time (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Merkley et al., 2001). Moreover, many of these technologies are geared toward elementary-aged students, using drill-and-practice games to support beginning literacy skills (McKenna, Labbo, Reinking & Zucker, 2007).<\/p>\n Technology used for more general purposes can be implemented effectively in secondary English instruction. Publishing programs, concept mapping and graphic organizer software, word processing and presentation software, and the Internet support students\u2019 efforts to locate information, create products, and organize information related to their study of English (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1997; Jones, 1994; Merkley et al., 2001; McKenna et al., 2007; Reinking & Watkins, 2000). Email, video conferencing, and discussion boards allow for engagement with those outside the English classroom, connecting students with the world beyond classroom walls (Merkely, Schmidt, & Allen, 2001).<\/p>\n Although technology developed specifically for ELA learning may be limited, the role of technology in the ELA curriculum is described as \u201cboth a facilitator and a medium of literacy teaching and learning\u201d (Sternberg, Kaplan, & Borck, 2007, p. 420). English teachers generally offer a positive view of technology and support its use in the classroom (Hunt & Hunt, 2007; McKenna et al., 2007; Merkley et al., 2001; Moynihan, 2007; Sternberg et al., 2007; Webb, 2007).<\/p>\n A limited number of studies, however, focus on English teachers\u2019 use of technology for instruction. Existing research tends to explore short-term technology interventions and focus on student learning rather than teacher instruction, such as integrating a specific technology-based intervention (Kamil et al., 2000). Though limited, these studies are useful in exploring the different issues of technology use in the ELA classroom.<\/p>\n Issues of Technology Use in the ELA Classroom<\/strong><\/p>\n English teachers must develop a level of technological skill that supports their usage of technology and their incorporation of technology in English instruction (Ruthven, Hessessey, & Brindley, 2004; Sternberg et al., 2007). Technology integration should be done to promote active learning and engagement rather than as an alternate means to deliver information (McGrail, 2007).<\/p>\n This integration of technology, instruction, and subject matter\u2014and the connections between them\u2014reflects the framework delineated by Mishra and Koehler (2006) as TPCK. As a framework for teaching with technology, TPCK requires that teachers are able to teach content-specific concepts using technology, implement strategies to support their pedagogy when using technology, and assess the abilities of different technologies to support student learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Implementing technology for student learning is a complex act with many different issues to consider; an English teacher\u2019s ability to develop TPCK can, therefore, support that implementation in meaningful and effective ways (Swenson, 2006).<\/p>\n English teachers must consider multiple factors before implementing technology into their instruction to weigh the pros and cons for student learning. First and foremost, having access to technology is an advantage, but access does not directly correlate with effective usage (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Sternberg et al., 2007). The use of any technology should enhance instruction for both the student and the teacher and add to student learning by supplementing instruction (Young & Bush, 2004). Consequently, the use of technology in the English classroom should not replace strong instruction, negatively influence the quality of instruction, or decrease student opportunity for creativity or replace key instructional materials.<\/p>\n By connecting a specific technology to instruction, students have the opportunity to use the technology that is appropriate for the academic setting (Young & Bush, 2004). For example, English teachers may first present persuasive writing in a formal essay assignment, with students using a word processing program to create their compositions. Students may then rewrite their persuasive essay to suit the medium of a blog or discussion board to better understand how writing differs in different venues and for different audiences.<\/p>\n In addition to these considerations, English teachers must balance the multiple challenges of using technology in the classroom, from the simple act of turning on a computer to troubleshooting problems with software. Teachers must manage limited access, poor or nonexistent technical support, out-of-date infrastructure, and few resources for implementing technologies into the curriculum. Even the desire to incorporate technology into instruction may be problematic, since time is limited time to learn about and become proficient with different technologies (Ertmer, 1999; McGrail, 2005; Ruthven et al., 2004).<\/p>\n Because technology is constantly evolving, teachers may struggle to stay aware of possible technologies and lack access to targeted information, such as practitioner-oriented articles that describe technology use for instruction. These issues contribute to the divide between the technology used in schools and the teachers\u2019 knowledge of technology\u2019s instructional applications (Hughes, 2005; Young & Bush, 2004).<\/p>\n Certain guiding principles can help English teachers determine if and when technology should be used for instruction. Teachers must first determine their goals for instruction and technology usage, then reflect on their instructional delivery with the available technology to determine the potential needs of students, such as scaffolding prior to a technology\u2019s use or additional time to complete a technology-infused activity. Teachers should determine if the technology\u2019s instructional advantages align with their teaching pedagogy, as well as their instructional goals and desire for technology (Hughes, 2005; McKenna et al., 2007; Ruthven et al., 2004; Sternberg et al., 2007; Young & Bush, 2004).<\/p>\n Teachers\u2019 personal experiences with technology, as well as previous successful instruction with technology, are important factors in determining technology usage (Hughes, 2005). Additionally, technology is more likely to be used when it allows teachers or students to be more efficient and effective in completing a task (Ruthven et al., 2004). Technology is also more likely to be used when teachers understand how the specific technology enhances instruction and provides individualized support for struggling students (Ruthven et al., 2004). When each of these factors are met, technology implementation is more likely to be successful for teacher instruction and student learning (Hughes, 2005).<\/p>\n While advantages exist to the effective integration of technology into ELA, McGrail (2005, 2006) said that, as of her writing, little research had been done specifically on how technology usage relates to ELA teachers\u2019 pedagogical practice or actual use of technology in the classroom. Long-term pedagogical change with technology integration often requires teachers to understand the value of technology during instruction for student learning, an element of TPCK.<\/p>\n As technology continuously changes, however, teaching practices and pedagogies may not. McGrail (2005, 2006) attributed this mismatch to a common barrier: lack of up-to-date and ongoing support for technology usage. Much of the existing training or professional development, at least at the time of her writing, focused on students using technology, generally, as opposed to teachers using technology for instruction (McGrail, 2005, 2006; see also Sternberg et al., 2007).<\/p>\n The Study<\/strong><\/p>\n A qualitative study using case studies (Litchman, 2006; Patton, 2002) was created to explore how English teachers use different technologies to support their ELA instruction. Case studies are comprised of a small sample of participants in order to understand a specific phenomenon. Stake (2006) best described a case study as creating a \u201cpicture\u201d for others to see and experience the phenomenon being studied. Case study research was an appropriate method for this study, as it allowed us to develop an in-depth understanding of teachers\u2019 experiences with technology and observe a phenomenon (technology integration) that would be difficult to measure without observations and interviews (see Creswell, 2007).<\/p>\n In this study, the following research questions were asked as we examined the experiences of two teachers surrounding technology:<\/p>\n Participants<\/p>\n Two ELA teachers took part in the study over the course of one academic semester. Kathy, an experienced teacher, was in her 14th year of teaching. Prior to obtaining her teacher certification at a small, private university, she had earned an English degree from a midsized public Midwestern university. At the time of the study, Kathy was also pursuing a master\u2019s degree in English education at a small, private college. Kathy taught two classes of ninth-grade English and three classes of 10th-grade honors English.<\/p>\n Susan, a novice teacher, was in her second year of teaching and had recently graduated from the English education program of a large Midwestern university. Susan was also pursuing her English as a second language (ESL) certification. Susan taught a combination of courses, including three ninth-grade English classes, two classes of English for ESL students, and one class of vocational 12th-grade English in the high school\u2019s alternative\/vocational school. She was on the school technology committee that explored technology available for instructional use.<\/p>\n Setting<\/p>\n Both teachers taught in the same suburban Midwestern high school, with a population of approximately 1,500 students in ninth through 12th grades and a graduation rate of over 85%. The school was located on the outskirts of a midsize city, drawing mainly middle-socioeconomic-level students from the local city\u2019s suburbs. The school day consisted of seven instructional periods, each 45 minutes long.<\/p>\n Observations for the study took place in Kathy\u2019s classroom. Susan, as a traveling teacher, also taught ELA in Kathy\u2019s classroom, allowing data collection to take place in the same setting. This classroom included two rows of student desks on each side of an open center aisle. The teacher\u2019s desk was at the back of the classroom with a computer and speakers connected to an electronic whiteboard (SmartBoard) at the front of the classroom. Each observed class consisted of 29 ninth-grade students. As ninth-grade English teachers, Kathy and Susan worked with other ninth-grade teachers frequently to create grade-level curriculum and sequence instruction.<\/p>\n Both teachers had access to one departmental computer lab, which was shared with approximately 15 other teachers. At the time of the study, the school was experiencing significant budget cuts from the state in addition to the removal of professional development days. As such, previously planned professional development focused on technology was eliminated. While the school had SmartBoards in classrooms and encouraged teachers\u2019 use of this\u2014and other\u2014technologies, limited resources existed to learn about the functions of the SmartBoard to support instruction. A schoolwide technology support staff member was available for technology troubleshooting and installation only.<\/p>\n Data Collection<\/p>\n In order to establish triangulation (Patton, 2002), multiple sources of data were collected: classroom observations, individual interviews with each teacher, and member checking of the data during the data collection. Data collection took place over the course of one 18-week academic semester. The teachers were observed 10 times each, with observations approximately 45 minutes in length. Susan was observed for one instructional period. Due to the timing of the school day, Kathy was observed for the last 10 minutes of one instructional period and the following full instructional period of the next.<\/p>\n All observations focused on several criteria: the process of introducing and delivering instruction; the observable benefits and challenges of the different modes of instruction; students\u2019 responses to instruction; transitions between instructional activities; classroom dynamics; and teacher characteristics. Observations were structured to allow a researcher to sit unobtrusively in the back of the classroom.<\/p>\n Kathy and Susan stated that they were comfortable being observed, as observations by practicum students and administrators occurred regularly in their classrooms. The researcher (i.e., the first author, Flanagan) did not interact with the teachers or the students during observations; thus, the researcher\u2019s role was strictly that of an observer (see Litchman, 2006; Patton, 2002).<\/p>\n The focus of this research study (i.e., instruction with and without technology) guided the observations and the notes taken (as in Creswell, 2007). For instance, a student\u2019s discussion of a favorite technology with a peer was not recorded, while a teacher\u2019s comment to a colleague about using PowerPoint was recorded.<\/p>\n Interviews were semistructured in nature with a generic set of questions developed for each interview. Questions were drawn from Kathy and Susan\u2019s experiences to better understand and explain instances in the data, as well as from known benefits and challenges with technology integration noted in research (Creswell, 2007).<\/p>\n Kathy and Susan were each interviewed three times: prior to the observations, approximately halfway through the observations, and at the conclusion of the observations. Each interview took place in a quiet location, such as Kathy\u2019s classroom after school or in the English Department workroom, although Kathy\u2019s second interview occurred via email due to scheduling conflicts. Member check (Litchman, 2006) occurred after the fifth observation and 10th observation; member check was 100% with both Kathy and Susan.<\/p>\n The initial interview focused on each teacher\u2019s pedagogy, instruction, planning for instruction, and examples of instruction, with questions focused on the teacher\u2019s use of technology. For example, the teachers were asked to describe instances when technology was successful or when challenges were experienced, planning processes with and without technology integration, the importance of technology in their practice, and their individual teaching philosophy.<\/p>\n The second interview questions were developed from classroom observations to clarify or explain an observation, with differences between specific interview questions resulting from differences in observations. Susan\u2019s interview focused on the strategies she used to keep students engaged during instruction and the technology she used for instruction, for example, while Kathy\u2019s focused on the challenges she faced with technology and her students\u2019 preferences for technology. Both interviews addressed potential instructional strategies if specific technologies were not available for use.<\/p>\n The final interview asked each teacher similar questions regarding preferred teaching methods, the role of technology in the classroom, and benefits and challenges to technology use. The teachers were also asked whether student behaviors and classroom practices were similar on days they were not observed. Specific questions were also developed from each teacher\u2019s observations: Susan was asked questions focused on her different usage of technology and students\u2019 interactions with technology, while Kathy was asked questions focused on her teaching experiences, teaching style, and students\u2019 engagement during different types of instruction. All interview questions were derived from observations and from common patterns with technology integration identified from the literature (see Ertmer, Ottenbriet-Leftwich, & York, 2006; Hughes, 2005; McGrail, 2005; McKenna et al., 2007; Ruthven et al., 2004; Sternberg et al., 2007; Young & Bush, 2004).<\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/p>\n For case study analysis, Creswell (2007) recommended that data be drawn from multiple sources, including interventions and extensive observations. With these, instances in the data emerge to create a case study of each participant\u2019s experiences. To examine the research questions, data were sorted into common codes for both Kathy and Susan.<\/p>\n First, for each research question, the data were read to identify specific instances of technology use during observations and interview responses. These instances were then used to create an initial set of codes to represent the ideas emerging from the data. For example, codes were created that identified lack of access to the computer lab, instruction without technology, types of technologies used in the classroom, and student engagement when using technology. Data were then sorted into categories to represent groups of codes. For example, all of the data corresponding to a challenge with technology were sorted into a category called \u201cchallenges\u201d; all of the data corresponding to how a teacher planned for instruction were sorted into a category called \u201cplanning.\u201d<\/p>\n Second, in order to best represent the data and explore the research questions, related categories were combined to created overarching, meaningful themes. Themes were used to describe events in the interviews and the observations for each teacher. Each theme combined several smaller categories of related ideas, such as collapsing the factors that mitigated the use of technology into one category labeled \u201cchallenges to technology use.\u201d<\/p>\n As one example, when observations suggested that the students were not paying attention to an audio recording of a novel (i.e., playing with pencils, needing redirection from Susan or Kathy, and using the incorrect book page), the occurrence was categorized as \u201cchallenge to technology use.\u201d The themes developed are as follows:<\/p>\n As with the interview questions, themes were derived from the data as well as from common ideas found in research related to technology integration. An individual independent of this research study reviewed 30% of the data for reliability of thematic coding and interpretation. In order to do this, the first author operationally defined each theme and gave examples from the data. Next, Flanagan and a rater coded several instances together without disagreement. The rater then independently coded the data, randomly selected from interviews and classroom observations across teacher. Reliability was 100%.<\/p>\n Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n Both Kathy and Susan incorporated different technologies into their instruction, guided by their self-explained views of teaching, using it to support their instruction and their students\u2019 learning. The teachers differed, however, in how they planned for and implemented the technology used in the classroom (see Table 1 for a summary of findings).<\/p>\n Table 1<\/strong>\n
\n
\nSummary of Findings<\/p>\n