Digital Teaching and Learning: Perspectives for English Language Education. Группа авторовЧитать онлайн книгу.
offer support to learners with digital technologies.
w17. I can help learners take more control of their own English learning with digital technologies.
w18. I can design the use of digital technologies in lesson planning.
Assessment
w9. I can use digital technologies to assess English learning.
w15. I can analyze digital evidence on learners’ progress critically.
w21. I can use digital technologies to provide targeted feedback to learners.
Empowering Learners
w5. I can use digital technologies to make learners more engaged with English learning.
w6. I know how to provide alternative digital tools for learners with special needs, e.g. visual or hearing impairments.
w22. I can design personalized learning plans to meet individual students’ needs with the help of digital resources.
Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence
w2. I can equip learners with a positive attitude toward digital technologies.
w10. I can encourage students to solve technical problems.
w19. I can encourage learners to search for digital content.
w20. I can help students express themselves in English through digital means.
attitudes toward digital technologies: constructsThe second section is composed of four constructs and 22 items targeting student teachers’ attitudes toward digital technologies. Three items in the first construct are reverse items denoted by REV. Reverse items are the opposite of other items in terms of meaning and need to be reversely scored, i.e. 1=completely disagree and 6=completely agree in this study. They are used to prevent the respondents from answering the questionnaire too carelessly.
Personal Feeling toward Digital Technologies
w23. I am confident in my skills in using digital technologies.
w25. I feel comfortable when using digital technologies.
w28. Learning about digital technologies and using them is a waste of time. (REV)
w34. I enjoy using digital technologies in learning and teaching.
w36. I am worried about my data privacy. (REV)
w44. I think digital technologies save my time and effort.
w40. I think digital technologies are too distracting. (REV)
Attitudes toward Digital Technologies in Teaching and Learning
w27. Digital technologies make the classroom a better place.
w32. Digital technologies make English learning and teaching easier.
w33. Digital technologies can help communication between the students and myself both in and out of the classroom.
w37. Digital technologies must be used in current English learning and teaching.
w38. I think digital technologies can help form better assessments.
w43. I think digital technologies are appropriate for many English learning activities.
Attitudes toward the Influence of Digital Technologies on Students
w26. I think digital technologies can motivate students.
w31. I think digital technologies can satisfy students’ diverse needs.
w39. Digital technologies can improve learner autonomy.
w42. I think digital technologies are useful for students’ English learning.
Willingness to Use
w29. I think I will keep up with the new developments in digital technologies.
w30. I am willing to improve my skills in using digital technologies.
w41. I think digital technologies have greatly improved my learning and teaching and will continue to do so in the future.
w24. I should improve my digital competence in order to improve my future students’ digital competence.
w35. I think I can become a better English teacher with the help of digital technologies.
After going through the questionnaire items of digital attitudes above, reflect for yourself: Are you confident and comfortable using digital technologies? If not, why? What are your concerns and worries regarding the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning?
3.4 Results of the Study
framework for data analysisTo test the three research questions (RQ), we first established a framework as the guideline for data analysis (Figure 2) and then the data analysis was conducted with the help of an online SPSS website www.spssau.com offering a ‘Statistical Package for the Social Sciences’(cf. Grum & Zydatiß 2016).
Framework for the data analysis
The reliability analysis showed that the value of Cronbach α was 0.908, which meant the internal consistency of the questionnaire is excellent and the data could be used for further analysis. We used both parametric and non-parametric analyses. Usually, parametric analyses are adopted when the data are normally distributed and non-parametric analyses do not require the normal distribution. A normal distribution has a symmetric bell shape with equal mean and median located on the center of the distribution. Although the normality test showed that all data collected in this survey did not follow a normal distribution, parametric tests are “sufficiently robust to yield largely unbiased answers that are acceptably close to ‘the truth’ when analyzing Likert scale responses” (Sullivan and Artino, 2013).
It is important to “calculate and report Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency reliability for any scales or subscales one may be using” (Gliem and Gliem, 2003). The rules of thumb provided by George and Mallery (2003) indicate that a Cronbach’s α value above 0.70 was considered as the threshold to test for internal consistency.
| Cronbach’s alpha | Internal consistency |
| α ≥ 0.9 | Excellent |
| 0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 | Good |
| 0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 | Acceptable |
| 0.7 > α ≥ 0.6 | Questionable |
| 0.6 > α ≥ 0.5 | Poor |
| 0.5 > α | Unacceptable |
(Source: https://www.statisticshowto.com/cronbachs-alpha-spss/)