Teacher Training For In-Service EFL Teachers at A Thai University

Independent
research project:
EdTech Workshops for In-service EFL Teachers
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the qualification of
Diploma in TESOL
Submitted by: May Kyaw Oo
(13 November 217)
Word count: 3211 words
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Background and context 3
3. Research project design 4
4. Aim and objectives 4
4.1 Key features of the EdTech Workshops 4
5. Data collection 8
6. Summary of results 8
7. Suggestions for future workshops 9
8. Reflection and evaluation 10
9. Bibliography 11

Appendix A: Consent form and e-questionnaire 14
Appendix B: EdTech workshops contents 17
Appendix C: Collected data 18
Appendix D: Completed questionnaires in excel format 26
Appendix E: Signed consent forms 27

List of tables
Table 1: Research project summary 5-6
Table 2: Self-evaluation results of participants A-D (technology equipment) 18
Table 3: Self-evaluation results of participants E-H (technology equipment) 19
Table 4: Self-evaluation results of participants I-J (technology equipment) 20
Table 5: Self-evaluation results of participants A-B (technology competence) 21
Table 6: Self-evaluation results of participants C-D (technology competence) 22
Table 7: Self-evaluation results of participants E-F (technology competence) 23
Table 8: Self-evaluation results of participants G-H (technology competence) 24
Table 9: Self-evaluation results of participants I-J (technology competence) 25

List of figures
Figure 1: Research steps summary 7

1. Introduction
Developments in the field of information and communication technology (ICT) in recent decades
have opened up a new chapter in the language education landscape, and with this came the
expectation of the educators ability and appropriate expertise to use technology for maximum
benefit for the students and for the educators themselves. In the field of TESOL, having this
knowledge is increasingly considered an important and desirable qualification for both pre-service
and in-service teachers. In the research context, the 2014 TESOL International Association
Research Agenda stated the use of technological support to complement, supplement or reinforce
for learning as one of the key research questions to be explored as a much-needed research area
(TESOL Research Agenda Task Force, 2014). This perspective is reflective in my work context as
well with the recent refurbishing of classrooms to have a technology-rich environment for the
students and teachers. Whether technology should be used is not an issue, instead, the current
emphasis of the policy makers is to ensure that technology is used effectively to promote student
learning and retaining student numbers.
My research task focuses on developing and running two technology-integration workshops over
the course of one semester (4 months) for the in-service EFL teachers in my workplace. In the
following sections, I will provide a brief background of the research context, and the research aims
and methods adopted in the project. In the last sections, I will discuss the findings and provide
suggestions on running future technology workshops and conclude with a reflection of what I have
learned throughout the process.
2. Background and Context
For the past two years, I have worked as an EFL lecturer at a university in Thailand. I chose to
conduct a research on running technology workshops at my institution for two main reasons.
The first reason is due to the digital literacy needs of the teachers in my context. After talking to
several EFL teachers in my workplace, I learned that most teachers were not familiar with using
technology and also with using web-based tools and apps (applications) as part of the instruction.
Further investigation highlights that the there was a strong desire among the EFL teachers for a
training workshop on using technology and some web tools which can be integrated into the
lessons.
The second reason is the need for more continuous professional development (CPD) sessions at my
context. Continuing professional development (CPD) sessions are accepted widely as an integral
part of teacher education because only a continuing learning and training assures a high level of
expertise and enables the teachers to keep their professional skills and knowledge up-to-date
(Kirby, 2013; Guskey, 2010; Harding, 2009; Corcoran, 1995). Unfortunately, this is not the case in
my workplace. CPD sessions are infrequent events due to the expense and lack of other
institutions/ individuals who can provide such services to foreign EFL teachers in my context.
The students in my context are undergraduate level, aged between 17-22 with their level of
proficiencies ranging between CEFR A1 and B2. Most classes contain mixed-ability students. The
medium of instruction is English for all subjects.
I am convinced that running the technology workshops will highlight that not all CPD sessions
needs to be costly and collaboration and sharing knowledge among the teachers is also a form of
CPD suitable for my context. Bringing in the functional needs and using my prior experience on
running education technology workshops for MEd TESOL students at the University of Exeter, I
chose to carry out the research task on designing and running technology workshops which will
give the EFL teachers in my context practical experience in integrating technology into their
classrooms.
3. Research Project Design
Figure 1 summarises the steps and outcomes of each stage of the research project. The participating
teachers (participants from here onwards) volunteered to attend the workshops in their spare
time. A total of three workshops were run throughout the semester (4 months); a meeting before to
discuss their needs and expectations, and a meeting after to discuss the outcomes and to complete a
short e-questionnaire for the purpose for this research project.
The research project design section is divided into three parts. Firstly, I will list the aim and
objectives of the workshops. Secondly, key features of the workshops, and thirdly, data collection
and analysis strategies used to understand teacher learning in this project will be discussed.
4. Aim and Objectives
The long-term aim of the EdTech Workshops is to
form a community of practice among the teachers and provide informal support on effective
technology integration skills and knowledge as a form of CPD.
In order to achieve this aim, two short-term objectives were set for the current workshops.
To provide the participants with the basic technical skills needed as a form of scaffolding in
order to move onto exploring the Web 2.0 tools independently
To demonstrate selected Web 2.0 tools and collaborate on creating materials in the
workshops
4.1 Key Features of the EdTech Workshops
The EdTech Workshops were the first of its kind in the present context and the planning process
was led by practical aspects such as the time availability of the participants and the content of the
workshops was chosen based on learning and teaching pedagogies and CPD approaches. This
section will provide the details for these.
Continuing professional development (also known as teacher development) is necessary to help

teachers learn not only how to use technology but also how to provide meaningful instruction and
activities using technology in the classroom (British Council, 2015; Motteram, 2013; Ringstaff &
Kelley, 2002). Therefore, CPD workshops on technology integration need to be more than the
participants following the trainers instructions, but they should focus more on reflecting and
thinking critically of how this new-found knowledge can be integrated as strategies for better
delivery in the classroom and the students learning process. Therefore, one of the crucial concerns
in the design process was to provide enough time for teachers to reflect on the skills they have
learned and blend them into their lesson plans.
This led to choosing the appropriate CPD model for the context. Kennedy (2005) identified three
different types of CPD models: transmission, transitional and transformative, in the order of
increasing capacity for professional autonomy where teachers form their own support systems to
help one another within the organisation. A review of existing listerature on CPD studies shows that
the direction of research is heading towards adopting transformational approaches where the goal
is to support teachers in understanding and enhancing through practice (Edge, 2002; Ellis, 2009;
Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Kiely & Davis, 2010; British Council, 2014). However, as Kennedy (2005)
have pointed out, CPD models in practice are not exclusive to one another, and in fact compliments
one another. This is the case for this project with each workshop following varying models.
The objective of the first workshop was to familiarise the participants with basic digital literacy
skills which will be necessary for the second workshop on using Web 2.0 tools. The first workshop
serves as a scaffolding which is required for the participants to extend their zone of proximal
development (ZPD) which refers to the gap between what the learner can do alone, and what the
learner can do with guidance (Vygotsky, 1987; Pea, 2004). The first workshop follows the themes of
a transmission CPD model where the trainer, in this case myself, guides the trainees to follow a set
of simple instructions which serves as the basic skills neecessary for the second workshop. In
contrast, the second workshop focuses on creation and brainstorming where the participants have
to collaborateon producing resources which can be integrated in their lessons. Thus the second and
the third workshops are a cross between the mentoring and community of practice model.
The pedagogy planning of the components of the workshops was carried out with a constructivist
approach from the view point that learning new technical skills is an active, contextualized process
of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Vygotsky (1987) claimed that learning is
interactive in the sense that the learners must interact with ideas and knowledge in social settings
and take an active part in reconstructing these ideas and knowledge within their own minds. In this
case, the EdTech Workshops were not planned as out of context activities from the participants
environments but planned with keeping the organisations environment in mind and choosing the
Web 2.0 tools which will fit the types of courses and students from the context. Table 1 provides a
sumary of some important aspects of the three workshops. Appendix B provides the content
covered in the workshops.
Workshop Aspects Features
The workshops
Aimed to address the needs of the participants
Instructive design Integration of Web 2.0 technology not for its own sake
but to improve student engagement
Evaluated participant learning
Managed by a single mentor
Project management Anticipated outcomes were considered carefully to
answer the needs of the context
No funding was needed for the implementation and the

Institutional issues
maintenance of the project
There were 10 participants: 3 males and 7 females
All teachers have more than three years of teaching
Participants
experience
Teachers ages were between 25- 45
The project was about 50 hours in total, one semester duration
3- 4 hours (Workshop 1): basic computer applications
and usage
3- 4 hours (Workshop 2): using selected Web 2.0 tools
to create materials and activities which can be used in
Project schedule the lesson
3 4 hours (Workshop 3): using selected Web 2.0 tools
to create materials and activities which can be used in
the lesson
3 weeks for classroom practice
2 hours: evaluation
Evaluated in three phases:
Phase 1:
Comparison of pre-and post-workshop answers for the
e-questionnaire and creating rader charts to compare
differences using Excel
Phase 2:
Project evaluation
Further discussions on the learning experience during
the workshops
Phase 3:
Combining data from the questionnaire and inputs from
the discussions to identify prominent and recurring
themes to evaluate and modify future workshops
Table 1: Research project summary
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Data collection
Data collection Designed workshop
Needs Analysis (post-workshop)
(pre-workshop) structure
Workshop Participant
Participant Discussions e-Questionnaire Workshop contents Discussions
1, 2, and 3
Input: Input: Input: Input:

Used previously Input:
Identified the needs Used information Used information gathered information - Discussions
and expectations gathered during gathered from Step 1 and 2 and - Post-workshop
of the teachers step 1 Step 1 and 2 ongoing input from e-questionnaires
participants
Output: Output:
Output: Output:
- Ten participants - Content for
-Questionnaire - Ongoing feedback Output:
- Identified basic workshops
using Google from participants - Participant
expectations after (Appendix B)
Forms to measure for next workshop self-evaluations
finishing the work- - Workshop
progress
shop. schedule

Figure 1: Research steps summary
5. Data collection
This research project makes use of both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate its efficacy and
long-term implementation. Evaluations of courses in education usually take the form of a series of
items which learners are asked to rate using a form of Likert type response (Strongly Agree Agree
Neutral (Undecided)- Disagree Strongly Disagree) often with an open response area for general
comments (Shearman & Petocz, 2012). Using data from such surveys for student evaluations of
instructions and the quality of courses have been a part of the higher education for at least 90 years
(Algozzine, et al., 2004). When the collected data is reported, each response category is assigned a
numeric value, often between 1-5 and calculating averages (mean) and standard deviations for each
survey item using these values (Shearman & Petocz, 2012).
In the current research task, made up of twenty questions, the e-questionnaire measured two
categories: technology integration and teaching pedagogy and familiarity with technical equipment
in the class. The first is measured using a five-level Likert scale. The collected data were assigned
numerical values in the ascending order (Strongly Agree (5)> Agree (4)> Undecided (3)> Disagree
(2)> Strongly Disagree (1)) with the assumption that the participants choice of Undecided has a
higher precedence than Strongly Disagree and Disagree. The second category measured the
participants familiarity using technology equipment using a Likert scale but with different values
(0= No knowledge 4 = Can use with confidence). E-questionnaire using Google Forms was chosen
as a method to collect data because it allows the participants flexibility and ease of access while it
also demonstrated one of the ways how Web 2.0 tools can be used for productivity and classroom
learning. For the full sets of questions and consent form, please refer to Appendix A.
Qualitative data was collected through group discussions which were held before and after the
implementation of the workshops. They were in the form of open discussions where the
participants talked freely about their learning experiences more in-depth and shared their opinions
on the positive points and drawbacks of the workshops. Taking the multiple roles of the colleague,
mentor and the researcher, I raised some questions at the beginning to guide the direction of the
discussion and took notes while the participants shared their thoughts. Data from the e-
questionnaire and the group discussions were all considered in the evaluation process of the
research task. The next section will provide the discussion of the findings of the outcomes of the
project.
6. Summary of results
Guskey (2000) suggests that evaluation of impact takes place at five different levels: 1). Participant
reaction 2). Participant learning 3). Organisational support and change 4). Participants use of new
knowledge and skills and 5). Pupil learning outcomes. Using this list as a standard, the data
collected from carrying out the tasks evaluated the Tech Workshops at three levels: participant
reaction, learning and their use of new knowledge and skills. Organisation support and change and
the pupil learning outcomes were considered but data was not collected exclusive for these two
issues due to time pressure and other difficulties.
1. Comparing the participants pre- and post-evaluations showed a clear improvement in their
confidence in using technology equipment and some web tools after attending the workshops
(Refer to Appendix C) as most teachers demonstrated a significantly higher rating. During the
meetings, the participants highlighted that repetitive usage of the equipment in the class helped
them get over the negative barrier while a few teachers pointed out that knowing other teachers
were trying out new techniques also comforted them. Overall, the self-evaluation scores showed
that the workshops met the initial objectives.
2. All participants regardless of their level of confidence stated that they had limited opportunities
to practice different technologies.
3. Most participants found that they lack knowledge in combining appropriate web tools, whats out
there as one teacher put it, to match lesson topics. Most teachers were reluctant to integrate the
tools because they think the lessons will be overshadowed by technology rather than the language
needs of the students. In a study performed by Blackwell (2013), they also found that lack of
appropriate knowledge among the teachers was the main reason behind teachers failure to fully
utilise variety of technologies in their contexts. The lack of knowledge of teachers in their ability to
combine technology effectively was also found to be an issue among other research studies.
Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht (2008) for example, stated that teachers may not be
using computers to their potential as a cognitive tool due to lack of experience in the craft of
computer integration.
4. Almost all teachers would appreciate a CPD session such as this one in the future.
7. Suggestions for future workshops
The following suggestions for future workshops are based on the findings.
As mentioned by (Beausert, et al., 2011), teacher development is most effective when

encouraged by management. Therefore, my first suggestion would be for the institution to arrange
incentive-based training sessions for interested teachers. Most teachers had the interest but they
wanted more support and recognition from the institution. Insufficient training, time, and
incentives are the most commonly cited barriers for faculty behaviour change in teacher training
(Henderson, Finklestein, & Beach, 2010). Hence it is crucial for the institution to administer these
sessions. Incentives are necessary for continuous professional development of teachers (Aslam,
2013). Otherwise, the money the university used to modernise classrooms will not be exploited by
the teachers.
As Morrison (2013) pointed out, teachers should adopt a growth mindset and take control
of their professional development. Hence, teachers can continue the CPD process through a
Facebook group sharing information with one another from time to time. This suggestion was
realised as I have since then created a group for the teachers and have continued to share web tools
and tips. Daniel (2016) argued that training is a neceassary means of not only enabling teachers to
learn how to use such tools for such a purpose but also of redefining the way they think about the
process of acquiring and sharing knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Sharing live videos and
chat sessions on FB have allowed the CPD to continue with flexibility and created a closer working
environment in the faculty.
Gusky (2000) suggested that one of the ways to measure the impact of the CPD workshops
is to consider student learning. My last suggestion is that for future workshops, it would be
beneficial to conduct a research on student learning after using the web tools practiced in the
workshops. It would also be valuable to insightful to allow students to express their opinions in
which web tools they found the most useful. In a study carried out by Henderson, Selwyn & Aston
(2015), it was highlighted that digital technologies are central to the ways in which students
experience their studies. Although they also suggested that digital technologies are not
transforming the nature of university teaching and learning. As such, university educators perhaps
need to instigate enthusiasms for what might be achieved through technology-enabled learning and
develop better understandings of the realities of students encounters with digital technology
(Henderson, Selwyn, & Aston, 2015).
8. Reflection and evaluation
Overall, I am satisfied with my effort to bring higher awareness in technology integration to

the faculty as I received positive feedback from most teachers. Due to this, I intend to run more
workshops, however, adopting slightly different tactics. The main difficulty I encountered was
arranging times everyone was free. Since the workshops focus was to demonstrate how some web
tools can be used in lessons, I would record myself using them in the classes or alternatively, ask
teachers to observe the classes while the setup could be recorded and uploaded on our shared
social media page. This would save significant amount of time and even though the initial setup
might be time consuming, it would be much easier in the long run.
Another issue was my selection of the web tools. I was ambitious in thinking that I could
show more tools than the participants could master. As a result, it made the sessions longer than I
anticipated which resulted in reluctance from the participants and from myself for future sessions.
There is a significant amount of literature on juggling CPD with teacher workloads and I feel that in
this case less is more. From discussion, I found out that teachers would appreciate to know more
about some tools, e.g. Google Forms or Edmodo Quiz which will allow them to set up quizzes for the
students with time limit and the system will automatically check for them. For future workshops, I
would like to categorise web tools for specific skills such as reading or writing or for lexical lessons
and focus on each one for each workshop.
To conclude, despite the difficulties, I have learned a lot about mentoring and how I can take
charge of my CPD as well as my colleagues. Even though, institutions are expected to assist in
teacher development, I feel that as a teacher, it is my responsibility to continue learning and
developing my skills for the benefits of the students and the quality of teaching.
10

Bibliography
Algozzine, B., Beattie, J., Bray, M., Flowers, C., Gretes, J., Howley, L., Spooner , F. (2004).
Student Evaluation of College Teaching: A Practice in Search of Principles . College
Teaching , 52(4), 134-141.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to
exploratory practice. Basginstoke: Palgrave.
Aslam, H. D. (2013). Analysis of Professional Development Practices for School Teachers in

Pakistan: A Comparative Case Study of Public and Private Schools of Pakistan (Punjab).
International Journal of Human Resource Studies , 3(4), 311-326.
Beausert, Simon, Segers, Mien, Gijselaers, & Wim. (2011). The Personal Development Plan
Questionnaure: the development and validation of an instrument to assess the employee's
perception of personal development plan practice . International Journal of Training and
Development, 15(4), 249-270.
Blackwell, C. K. (2013). Adoption and use of technology in early education: The interplay of
extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes. Computers and Education, 69, 310-319.
British Council . (2015). Technology for Professional Development: Access, Interest and
Opportunity for Teachers of English in South Asia . London : British Council.
British Council. (2014). Teacher Educator Conference 2014. India: British Council.
Corcoran, T. (1995). Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Porfessional Development.

NJ: Constortium for Policy Research in Education.
Daniel, X. (2016). Teachers' Use of Social Networking Sites for Continuing Professional
Development. In I. R. (IRMA), Leadership and Personnel Management: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 866-889). Business Science Reference.
Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for individuals as

colleagues . Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). SLA and teacher education. In A. Burns, & J. Richards , The Cambridge guide
to a second language teacher education (pp. 135-43). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press .
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using

teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success . Journal of computing in teacher
education , 23(2), 55-61.
11

Guskey, T. R. (2010). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching,
381-391.
Hammond , J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? Scaffolding: teaching and learning in
language and literacy education. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching
Association (PETA).
Harding, K. (2009). What is CPD? Modern English Teacher , 18(3).
Henderson, C., Finklestein, N., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond Dissemination in College Science
Teaching: An Introduction to Four Core Change Strategies . Journal of College Science
Teaching, 18-25.
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2015). What works and why? Student perceptions of
useful digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher
Education , 42(8), 1567-1579.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional approaches and
issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Book.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of Continuing Professiona Development: A Framework for

Analysis. Journal of In-Service Education, 31(2), 235-250.
Kiely, R., & Davis, M. (2010). From transmission to transformation: Teacher learning in English
for speakers of other languages . Language Teaching Research , 277-295.
Kirby, J. (2013, September 05). What makes CPD effective? Retrieved Feb 29, 2016, from
Teacher Development Trust : http://tdtrust.org/what-makes-effective-cpd-2
Morrison, R. M. (2013, Jan 29). Professional development for teachers: how can we take it to the
next level? Retrieved October 23, 2017, from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/jan/29/professional-
development-teacher-training-needs
Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching .

London, UK: British Council .
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating
variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited
integration. Computers and Education, 51, 1523-1537.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technical dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical
concepts for learning, education and human activity. Journal of Learning Sciences ,
13(3), 423-451.
12

Ringstaff, C., & Kelley , L. (2002). The learning Return on our Educational Technology
Investment . San Francisco: WestEd.
Shearman, D., & Petocz, P. (2012). When "Strongly Disagree" Doesn't Mean Strongly Disagree.
Joint AARE APERA International Conference (pp. 1-9). Sydney : University of Western
Sydney .
TESOL Research Agenda Task Force. (2014, October 17). Advnacing Ecellence in English
Language Teaching. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from TESOL Internation Association :
http://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/pdf/2014_tesol-research-agenda.pdf
Vygotsky , L. S. (1987). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13

Appendix A: Consent form and e-questionnaire
EdTech Workshop Questionnaire

* Required
Research Information Sheet:
Dear Teacher,
You are being invited to take part in a research study for my DipTESOL research task. Please take time to
read the following information carefully. Thank you for your cooperation.
Information about the research study:

The title of the research is EdTech Workshops for In-service EFL Teachers. The research aims to address
your technological training needs by running three technology integration workshops. With this
questionnaire I aim to measure the effectiveness of the workshop and hope to use this experience to
provide further training for you should there be further demand for it.
You, the participant, will be notified in writing of your anonymity and the right to reject and withdraw from
the study at any time. The data will be gathered and analysed specifically for the purposes of this research
and will not be made available to anyone else other than myself. I will ensure that no output will provide
information which might allow any participant to be identified from names, data, contextual information or a
combination of these. My main interest is in your opinions on the mentioned topic and your opinion will
help me gather crucial information which can help fellow teachers get better technical training while it also
help us discover how we can assist in-service teachers with technical changes and expectations of the
21st century. Your opinion and your time is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
May Kyaw Oo
Email contact: maykyaw@gmail.com Phone contact: TH(+66) 98-280-9250
Consent Form:
I have been fully informed about the aims and purposes of the project.
I understand that:
there is no compulsion for me to participate in this research project and, if I do choose to participate, I may
at any stage withdraw my participation and may also request that my data be destroyed.
I have the right to refuse permission for the publication of any information about me.
Any information which I give will be used solely for the purposes of this research project, which may
include publications or academic conference or seminar presentations.
If applicable, the information, which I give, may be shared between any of the other researcher(s)
participating in this project in an anonymised form.
All information I give will be treated as confidential.

The researcher will make every effort to preserve my anonymity.
1. Please sign your name: *
14

Items for measuring technology, pedagogic and content

knowledge
2. Please choose the one which best represents your opinion on the given statement. *
Items for measuring technology knowledge.
Mark only one oval per row.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Undecided Agree
Disagree Agree
I know how to solve most of my
own technical problems.
I can learn how to use new
technology easily.
I keep up with important new
technologies.
I frequently play around with
new technology.
I have the technical skills I need
to use technology.
I can use technology tools to
process data and report results.
I have had sufficient
opportunities to work with
different technologies.
I have ability to design
webpages and to use authoring
software
I can use technology as a
collaboration and
communication tool among
teachers and students
I understand the legal, ethical,
cultural, and societal issues
related to technology.
I can use Microsoft Office and
PowerPoint to create material
I can choose technology tools
which will specifically enhances
my chosen teaching aim
I can choose technologies which
can give equal opportunities to
different types of learners
I can use technology tools and
information resources to
increase productivity
I can provide leadership in
helping other teachers to
coordinate the use of technology
and teaching approaches at my
school/institute
Items for measuring EFL teachers' familiarity to technology

tools in the classrooms
15

3. On a scale of 0 to 5, how would you rate your ability to use the following technology tools? *
Technology tools here refer to hardware/equipment resources which you are familiar.
Mark only one oval per row.
1 (No 5 (Can use with confidence and solve

2 3 4
Knowledge) minor problems independently)
Connecting PC with
projector
Connecting tablet
devices with the
projector
Using multiple screens
(switching one screen
to the next)
Using microphone
Using speakers to
listen to audio and
video materials
Powered by
16

Appendix B: EdTech Workshop Contents
EdTech Workshops: Web 2.0 Tools for the Classroom
An online bulletin Web-based creation An interactive reading

Student response
board which allows tool for student and platform where the
system for creating
real-time and delayed teacher presentation teachers and teachers
and administering
collaboration among and portfolio can highlight and
unique game-like
students and projects to create annotate texts as they
quizzes.
teachers. and iterate. read.
http://padlet.com http://canva.com http://kahoot.it activelylearn.com
Usability Usability Usability Usability

Cost Free Cost Free Cost Free Cost Free
Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement
Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration
Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy
EdTech Workshops trump cards May Kyaw Oo. For more resources and ideas, contact maykyaw@gmail.com.
17

Appendix C: Collected data
Participant A Participant B
Connecting PC
with the
projector
Connecting PC with
4 the projector
4
3
3
Using multiple 2 Connecting
screens
tablet devices Using multiple 2 Connecting tablet
(switching one screens (switching
screen to the 1 with the
projector one screen to the 1
devices with the
next) projector
next)
0 0
Using speakers Using speakers to

Using to listen to audio Using microphone listen to audio and
microphone and video Pre-workshop video materials Pre-workshop
materials
Post-workshop Post-workshop

Participant C Participant D
Connecting PC
Connecting PC with the
with the projector
projector 4
4
3
3
Using multiple
Using multiple 2 Connecting
screens 2 Connecting screens
(switching one
tablet devices
tablet devices
(switching one screen to the 1 with the
screen to the 1 with the
projector next)
projector
next)
0 0
Using speakers Using speakers

Using to listen to audio Using to listen to
microphone and video microphone audio and video
materials Pre-workshop materials Pre-workshop

Table 2: Self-evaluation results of participants A-D (technology equipment)

18

Connecting PC
Participant E Connecting PC
Participant F
with the with the
projector projector
4 4
3 3
Using multiple
Using multiple
screens 2 Connecting screens 2 Connecting
tablet devices tablet devices
(switching one (switching one
screen to the 1 with the screen to the 1 with the
projector
projector next)
next)
0 0
Using speakers to
Using speakers
Using listen to audio
Using to listen to audio
microphone and video
Pre-workshop materials Pre-workshop
materials

Connecting PC Participant G Connecting PC

Participant H
with the with the
projector projector
4 4
3 3
Using multiple
screens 2 Connecting tablet Using multiple
2 Connecting
(switching one devices with the screens
tablet devices
screen to the 1 projector (switching one
next) screen to the 1 with the
projector
0 next)
0
Using speakers to
Using listen to audio
microphone and video Using speakers to
materials Using listen to audio
materials Pre-workshop
Pre-workshop
Post-workshop
Post-workshop

Table 3: Self-evaluation results of participants E-H (technology equipment)

19

Connecting PC
with the
Participant I Connecting PC
Participant J
projector with the
4 projector
4
3 3
Using multiple
screens
2 Connecting tablet
Using multiple
screens 2 Connecting
tablet devices
(switching one devices with the (switching one
screen to the 1 projector screen to the 1 with the
projector
next) next)
0 0
Using speakers
to listen to
Using speakers to Using
audio and
Using listen to audio microphone
video
microphone and video Pre-workshop materials Pre-workshop
materials

Table 4: Self-evaluation results of participants I-J (technology equipment)

20

Participant A I can provide leadership in helping other

I know how to solve most of my own
technical problems
teachers to coordinate the use of 5 I can learn how to use new technology
technology and teaching approaches at easily
my school/institute
I can use technology as a collaboration
and communication tool among teachers
4 I keep up with important new
technologies
and students
3
I can use technology tools and information I frequently play around with new
resources to increase productivity technology
2
I can choose technologies which can give

1
I have the technical skills I need to use
equal opportunities to different types of
technology
learners
I can choose technology tools which will

I can use technology tools to process data
specifically enhance my chosen teaching
and report results
aim
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, I have had sufficient opportunities to

and societal issues related to technology work with different technologies
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint I have ability to design web pages and
to create material blogs using web resources
Pre-workshop Post-workshop

Participant B
I know how to solve most of my own technical
problems
I can provide leadership in helping other
teachers to coordinate the use of technology and
5 I can learn how to use new technology easily
teaching approaches at my school/institute
I can use technology as a collaboration and

communication tool among teachers and
4 I keep up with important new technologies
students
3
I can use technology tools and information
I frequently play around with new technology
resources to increase productivity
2
1
I can choose technologies which can give equal I have the technical skills I need to use
opportunities to different types of learners technology
I can choose technology tools which will I can use technology tools to process data and
specifically enhance my chosen teaching aim report results
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and I have had sufficient opportunities to work with
societal issues related to technology different technologies
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint to I have ability to design web pages and blogs
create material using web resources

Table 5: Self-evaluation results of participants A-B (technology competence)
21

Participant C
problems
I can provide leadership in helping other teachers to
coordinate the use of technology and teaching 5 I can learn how to use new technology easily
approaches at my school/institute
I can use technology as a collaboration and 4 I keep up with important new technologies
communication tool among teachers and students
3
I can use technology tools and information resources to
2
I can choose technologies which can give equal

1
I have the technical skills I need to use technology
opportunities to different types of learners
I can choose technology tools which will specifically I can use technology tools to process data and report
enhance my chosen teaching aim results
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and societal I have had sufficient opportunities to work with
issues related to technology different technologies
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint to create I have ability to design web pages and blogs using web
material resources

Participant D
problems
I can provide leadership in helping other teachers
to coordinate the use of technology and teaching
5 I can learn how to use new technology easily
3
2
1
I can choose technology tools which will specifically I can use technology tools to process data and
enhance my chosen teaching aim report results
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint to create I have ability to design web pages and blogs using
material web resources

Table 6: Self-evaluation results of participants C-D (technology competence)

22

Participant E
I know how to solve most of my own technical problems
3
2

1
material resources

Participant F
problems
3
I can use technology tools and information resources
to increase productivity
2

1
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint to create I have ability to design web pages and blogs using
material web resources

Table 7: Self-evaluation results of participants E-F (technology competence)

23

Participant G
problems
teachers to coordinate the use of technology 5 I can learn how to use new technology easily
and teaching approaches at my school/institute
students
3
2

1 I have the technical skills I need to use
opportunities to different types of learners technology
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and I have had sufficient opportunities to work with
societal issues related to technology different technologies

Participant H
problems
3
2

1
material resources

Table 8: Self-evaluation results of participants G-H (technology competence)

24

Participant I
I can provide leadership in helping other technical problems
school/institute
students
3
2 technology
I can choose technologies which can give 1 I have the technical skills I need to use
technology
learners
I can choose technology tools which will I can use technology tools to process data
specifically enhance my chosen teaching aim and report results
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and I have had sufficient opportunities to work
societal issues related to technology with different technologies
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint I have ability to design web pages and blogs
to create material using web resources

Participant J

technical problems
students
3
2 technology
I can choose technologies which can give 1 I have the technical skills I need to use
technology
learners
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and I have had sufficient opportunities to work
societal issues related to technology with different technologies

Table 9: Self-evaluation results of participants I-J (technology competence)
25

Appendix D: Completed questionnaires in excel format
Timestamp Please sign your On a scale of 0 to 5, On a scale of 0 to 5, On a scale of 0 to 5, how On a scale of 0 to 5, how On a scale of 0 to 5,
name: how would you rate how would you rate would you rate your ability would you rate your how would you rate
your ability to use your ability to use the to use the following ability to use the your ability to use
the following following technology technology tools? following technology the following
technology tools? tools? [Using Speakers [Connecting tablet devices tools? [Using multiple technology tools?
[Connecting PC with to listen to audio and with the projector] screens] [Using Microphone]
the projector] video materials]
Pre-workshops
6/19/2017 17:09:58 A 0 1 1 0 1
6/19/2017 17:20:05 B 1 3 1 2 2
6/19/2017 17:51:54 C 2 2 0 1 3
6/19/2017 20:43:42 D 3 3 0 1 4
6/19/2017 22:19:19 E 1 2 2 3 4
6/19/2017 22:24:12 F 2 3 0 0 5
6/19/2017 22:28:36 G 1 3 0 0 5
6/20/2017 8:10:07 H 0 3 1 1 3
6/20/2017 9:07:17 I 0 2 2 2 5
6/20/2017 11:44:38 J 2 3 3 3 5
Post-Workshops
9/20/2017 13:42:59 A 4 4 3 2 5
9/20/2017 14:40:19 B 5 5 4 3 5
9/20/2017 16:06:18 C 5 4 3 3 5
9/20/2017 17:53:18 D 5 5 4 3 5
9/21/2017 11:38:45 E 5 5 4 3 5
9/21/2017 23:37:38 F 5 5 4 4 5
9/25/2017 10:55:27 G 5 5 5 4 5
9/22/2017 12:20:23 H 4 5 2 3 5
9/25/2017 16:39:09 I 5 4 4 4 5
9/23/2017 20:25:52 J 5 5 4 3 5

A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J Total
Items for measuring technology, pedagogic and content knowledge Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
I know how to solve most of my own technical problems. 1 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 4 1 3 5
I can learn how to use new technology easily. 1 4 3 4 1 2 2 4 2 5 2 2 3 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 5
I keep up with important new technologies. 1 4 3 4 1 2 2 4 1 4 1 4 4 2 1 2 1 4 1 3 5
I frequently play around with new technology. 1 3 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 4 3 2 4 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 5
I have the technical skills I need to use technology. 1 4 3 4 1 2 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 5
I can use technology tools to process data and report results. 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 4 5
I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different
1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 5
technologies.
I have ability to design webpages and to use authoring software 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 4 1 1 5
I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, and societal issues related
1 2 4 4 1 1 2 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 1 4 5
to technology.
I can use Microsoft Office and PowerPoint to create materials. 1 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 1 4 2 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 1 3 5
I can use technology tools and information resources to increase
1 1 3 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 3 4 1 4 5
productivity.
I can use technology as a collaboration and communication tool
2 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 5
among teachers and students.
I can choose technology tools which will specifically enhance my
2 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 1 5 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 1 2 5
chosen teaching aims.
I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of
(the particular content), technologies and teaching approaches at 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 5
my school/institute.
I can choose technologies which can give equal opportunities to
2 4 2 4 1 3 3 4 2 5 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 1 4 5
different types of learners.
Self-assessed confidence score (numbers) 20 48 39 54 23 42 31 54 18 58 31 46 49 53 31 31 31 58 16 46 75
Self-assessed cofidence score (percentage) 13.3 32.0 26.0 36.0 15.3 28.0 20.7 36.0 12.0 38.7 20.7 30.7 32.7 35.3 20.7 20.7 20.7 38.7 10.7 30.7 50
26

Appendix E: Signed consent forms
27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Teacher Training For In-Service EFL Teachers at A Thai University

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Teacher Training For In-Service EFL Teachers at A Thai University

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Independent

EdTech Workshops for In-service EFL Teachers

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the qualification of

Submitted by: May Kyaw Oo

(13 November 217)

Word count: 3211 words

2. Background and Context

3. Research Project Design

4. Aim and Objectives

The long-term aim of the EdTech Workshops is to

4.1 Key Features of the EdTech Workshops

Continuing professional development (also known as teacher development) is necessary to help

Workshop Aspects Features

No funding was needed for the implementation and the

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Input: Input: Input: Input:

7. Suggestions for future workshops

As mentioned by (Beausert, et al., 2011), teacher development is most effective when

8. Reflection and evaluation

Overall, I am satisfied with my effort to bring higher awareness in technology integration to

Aslam, H. D. (2013). Analysis of Professional Development Practices for School Teachers in

Corcoran, T. (1995). Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Porfessional Development.

Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for individuals as

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using

Harding, K. (2009). What is CPD? Modern English Teacher , 18(3).

Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of Continuing Professiona Development: A Framework for

Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching .

Vygotsky , L. S. (1987). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Appendix A: Consent form and e-questionnaire

EdTech Workshop Questionnaire

Research Information Sheet:

Information about the research study:

All information I give will be treated as confidential.

1. Please sign your name: *

Items for measuring technology, pedagogic and content

Items for measuring EFL teachers' familiarity to technology

1 (No 5 (Can use with confidence and solve

Appendix B: EdTech Workshop Contents

EdTech Workshops: Web 2.0 Tools for the Classroom

An online bulletin Web-based creation An interactive reading

Usability Usability Usability Usability

Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy Pedagogy

Using speakers Using speakers to

Using speakers Using speakers

Connecting PC Participant G Connecting PC

Participant A I can provide leadership in helping other

I can choose technologies which can give

I can choose technology tools which will

I understand the legal, ethical, cultural, I have had sufficient opportunities to

I can use technology as a collaboration and

I can choose technologies which can give equal

I can choose technologies which can give equal

I can choose technologies which can give equal

I can choose technologies which can give equal

I can choose technologies which can give equal

I know how to solve most of my own

Appendix D: Completed questionnaires in excel format

Appendix E: Signed consent forms

Вам также может понравиться