Preparing in-service language teachers to designand implement technology-rich curriculum

Jared Keengwe & Jung-Jin Kang

Published online: 11 April 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This article examines a technology-rich curriculum project that was imple-mented in China with in-service teachers during a three-year period. The findingssuggest the need to support in-service teachers to implement new technology-richcurriculum. The findings also imply the need for curriculum designers to have a goodunderstanding of not only their team members, but also of EFL (English as a ForeignLanguage) teachers in order to provide appropriate and relevant technology-richcurriculum. The authors suggest important related topics for further research, suchas job-embedded professional development and professional learning communities.

Keywords English as a foreign language (EFL) . Teachers . Students .

Professional development . Technology . Curriculum

1 Introduction

In an era of technology advances and globalization, education systems need new andcompetitive reforms to enhance teacher quality. What and how teachers teach areimportant because students’ achievements and the quality of a nation’s schools arebased on teacher quality (Feiman-Nemser 2001). Since the emergence of moderntechnologies such as video, computers, and the Internet, educators and researchershave employed the potential of technology in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)/English as a Second Language (ESL) education (Chapelle 2001). A number ofpotential benefits are assumed in providing technology-rich instructions and curric-ula, such as providing students with high-quality linguistic and cultural materials,

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9195-y

J. Keengwe (*)University of North Dakota, Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USAe-mail: jared.keengwe@email.und.edu

J.-J. KangDepartment of Teacher education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAe-mail: Kangjun7@msu.edu

more communication opportunities, and synchronous and individualized feedback(Zhao 2003).

Technology-rich curriculum, as used in this article, includes online learning plat-forms, students’ textbooks and teachers’ teaching manuals, and a technologicalenvironment, such as computers in classrooms and video/audio labs. Using technol-ogy in EFL/ESL classrooms enhance students’ language skills and motivation(Cavanaugh 2001; Chun 2007), participation (Beauvois 1997), and collaboration(Zhao 1996). Saleh and Pretorius (2006) argue that EFL teachers need to “upgradeand expand their knowledge in the areas of recent teaching approaches” (p. 112). Theeffectiveness of technology-supported language curricula depends more on teachers’creative use of technology than on technology itself (Zhao 2003). Therefore, teachersneed to be well prepared to integrate technology into their language classrooms.

Some teacher education and professional development programs have suggestedthe role of technology to support EFL teachers (Egorov et al. 2007; Velazquez-Torres2006). Even so, without proper preparation or support, EFL teachers are faced withvarious challenges implementing technology-rich curricula (Velazquez-Torres 2006;Burns and Dimock 2007). These challenges come from various reasons including:teacher education programs do not provide experiences for their teachers in integrat-ing technology in their programs; in-service teachers do not get ongoing support andopportunities to develop new technology skills and methods; and there is a gapbetween the curriculum designers who design a curriculum and the teacherswho use the curriculum in the classroom (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Further,the stress of merely using technology; the separation of technology, pedagogy, andcontent; and complex interactions of those variables are problematic in realclassroom contexts.

Saleh and Pretorius (2006) argue that effective professional development programsfor EFL teachers need to focus on the integration of knowledge, skills, and content asopposed to separated knowledge or skills. In order for in-service teachers to effec-tively use technology-rich curriculum in their classrooms, curriculum designersshould communicate with them when they design, develop, and revise atechnology-rich curriculum, as well as provide ongoing support for the teachers. Thisarticle examines a technology-rich curriculum project that was implemented in Chinawith in-service teachers during a three-year period. The findings suggest the need tosupport in-service teachers to be able to effectively use new technology-richcurriculum.

2 Technology-rich curriculum project

Technology-Rich Curriculum (TRC) was implemented from 2007 to 2010 to developand provide a technology-rich EFL curriculum for Chinese English teachers in China(Li and Ni 2011). Over the 3 years of the project, the researchers surveyed Chinesestudents’ and teachers’ perceptions of learning, teaching methods, and technology usein their classrooms. Based on this survey and the literature review on this topic, theresearchers developed and implemented a technology-rich curriculum.

The purpose of the TRC project was to construct an interactive technology-richcurriculum, including an online learning platform, students’ textbook, and a teaching

610 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619

manual for Chinese elementary EFL teachers and Chinese students. The purpose of thiscurriculum was to help Chinese students learn English as a second language by usingtechnology resources. In order to support students’ learning of English, the curriculumprovides: 1) authentic and culturally sensitive materials for Chinese teachers andstudents, 2) task-based activities for students to organize and learn by themselves, and3) technology-rich activities, such as online, e-mail, or computer activities.

The researchers conducted a pilot study for one Chinese school and examinedstudents’ achievements. The researchers also conducted surveys with the Chineseteachers and the students in order to examine their perceptions of the curriculum aswell as the support that the teachers needed to implement the new curriculum.Through a pilot study and surveys from students and teachers, the researchers revisedand developed the technology-rich curriculum for the Chinese teachers. A teacher’smanual was developed after the pilot study to guide teachers using technology inclassrooms—to help teachers integrate cultural aspects of education into theirinstruction, and to evaluate students’ achievements.

Each TRC unit included four modules: (a) Net meeting: Students watch a Flashanimation provided contextual information to make it authentic; (b) Language Island:students are asked to describe their own experiences with the unit’s subject to encouragespeaking and communication. Short vocabulary-dense stories allow practice in reading,and letters from students to Tom and Mingming build writing competencies; (c) Studio:Students exercise their knowledge and skills by creating and presenting individualprojects online; (d) Wonderland: Students explore the online “Wonderland” whichallows further practice and fun activities with the language and the culture.

The TRC provided Chinese students with various opportunities to learn Englishthrough e-learning environments, authentic learning opportunities, and various gamesand activities. For example, computer and Internet-based textbooks provided studentswith opportunities to practice four language skills (listening, speaking, writing, andreading). Online activities provided authentic opportunities for students to commu-nicate with their teacher and other students using e-mail. Online games and activitiesprovided students with the opportunity to practice listening and writing skills thatthey learned in class.

The process of the TRC project included five phases: 1) planning, 2) developing,3) implementing, 4) analyzing, and 5) revising. In planning the project, the researcherssurveyed 507 teachers and 2501 students in Shanghai in the fall of 2007 (Li and Ni2011). During the second and third phase of this project, the researchers conducted a pilotstudy at two schools in Shanghai. In phase four, the researchers analyzed the students’pre- and post-test results in order to assess the effectiveness of the new technology-richcurriculum. Finally, based on the data analysis, the TRC project was revised.

2.1 Research questions

Two Questions guided this study:

1. How did Chinese teachers implement a technology-rich curriculum in theirclassrooms?

2. How did the research team understand the design of a technology-richcurriculum?

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619 611

3 Method

The researchers used two methods to investigate the lessons from the TRCproject: video analysis and interview analysis. These methods are discussed inthe following section.

3.1 Video analysis

Researchers and educators have used video analysis to improve teachers’instruction (Grossman 2005; Sherin 2003), provide feedback to teachers (Pennyand Coe 2004), and share learning experiences with other teachers (Rich andHannafin 2009). Rich and Hannafin (2009) argued that video analysis “made itpossible for pre-service teachers to systematically document, assess, analyze andadapt their own teaching practices” (p. 128). Masats and Dooly (2011) describedthe three categories of video analysis: video-modeling, video-viewing, and video-coaching. The researchers utilized video-viewing to capture in-service teachers’implementation of technology-rich curriculum. Specifically, the researchers viewed20 videos of Chinese teachers’ instruction and randomly selected four videos forin-depth analysis.

They were four 4th grade in-service teachers who were teaching English subject inone elementary school. These teachers had experience teaching English ranging from3 to 7 years. The researchers analyzed four one-hour videos of English teachersteaching four different classrooms in China. They also watched one session andobserved the teacher’s instruction, focusing on specific teaching activities, such ashow to use the technology. The researchers identified some issues related to herimplementation of the technology-rich curriculum. After watching one more session,the researchers shared the observation results and analyses to improve the inter-raterreliability of the descriptions.

Using the observation protocol, and focusing on the same four issues, theresearchers watched the remaining two videos and evaluated their activities. Theresearchers categorized the Chinese teachers’ classroom activities into four areas:a) roles, b) pedagogy, c) classroom interactions, and d) technology-rich curriculumuse. These categories and their definitions are provided in Table 1.

3.2 Interview analysis

The researchers also interviewed the curriculum designers of the TRC curriculum.The purpose of this interview was to examine how the researchers understood thedesign of a technology-rich curriculum. In order to develop an effective new tech-nology curriculum, educational researchers need to provide curriculum designerswith empirical research to show not only the responses of students, teachers, andschool administrators, but also how curriculum designers understand their rolesrelated to an effective new curriculum. Sense-making theory is an attempt to explainthe process of how individuals understand or interpret the experiences, environments,and given tasks that are meaningful to them. Weick et al. (2005) explained that sense-making “involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images thatrationalize what people are doing” (p. 409). Sense-making theory refers to how the

612 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619

curriculum designers understood the process of designing a new technologycurriculum.

The researchers interviewed the four curriculum designers for 30 minutes each atthe end of this project. The semi-structured interview questions asked about how thecurriculum designer experienced the process of designing the technology rich-curriculum (for example, 1) planning, 2) developing, 3) implementing, 4) analyzing,and 5) revising). Three issues emerged from the interview analysis; Curriculumdesigners’ challenges in designing the curriculum, their strategies in understandingthe process, and their expectations of the curriculum.

4 Findings

Question 1: How did Chinese teachers implement a technology-rich curriculumin their classrooms?

Four teachers’ instructions were analyzed on four levels: teachers’ roles, teachers’pedagogical practice, classroom interaction, and teachers’ technology use. First, the

Table 1 Categories and their definitions

Categories Subcategories and definitions

Teachers’ roles 1) Directing: Teachers direct learning and talk mostly. Provide informationor explanations. Control topic and pace.

2) Modeling: Teachers demonstrate a skill or strategy.

3) Facilitating/coaching: Students do most of the talking and work. Studentsinteract with one another, materials (technology) or problems.

4) Managing: Teachers manage behavior, materials, or solving computerproblems.

5) Integrating: Teachers integrate technology into each focal skill.

Teachers’ pedagogicalpractice

1) Grammar-translation method: Teachers introduce grammar and letstudents practice the content.

2) Communicative method: Teachers communicate with students aboutclass content.

3) Cooperative method: Teachers let students cooperate with other students.

4) New method: New or different methods?

Classroom interaction 1) Teacher and student interaction: Teachers interacts with students.

2) Students and students’ interaction: Students interact with other students.

3) Students and technology interaction: Students interact/use technology.

Technology use 1) Present information: Teachers use technology for presenting informationrelated to units.

2) Model a skill to large group: Teachers use technology formodeling/showing language skills/dialogue to students.

3) Use for practicing skills: Teachers let students use technology forpracticing their language skills.

4) Integrating: Teachers integrate/adapt technology into each language skills.

5) New use: new or different use of technology.

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619 613

teachers’ main role was to manage and direct classroom activities. At the beginningof the instruction, all four teachers demonstrated how to speak or pronounce.However, when integrating technology into each skill, they just showed examplesto students. The researchers reviewed the possibility of using technological, peda-gogical, and content knowledge which can help teachers implement technology inclassroom. The videos also showed teachers playing facilitating/coaching roles. Theyencouraged students to talk, cooperate, and communicate with each other. Theteachers went around and sometimes joined groups to motivate student participation.They began their instruction with teacher-centered methods, but facilitated studentparticipation through group activities. The four teachers followed the curriculum as ascript rather than using the curriculum creatively. This finding reiterates the criticalrole of teachers’ creative use of instructional technology (Zhao 2003).

Second, the teachers’ pedagogical practices were examined under four areas;grammar, translation, communicative, and cooperative method. All teachers intro-duced grammar and some words at the beginning of their classes. The teachers justshowed words through computer and explained them without interacting withstudents. Two teachers used grammar-translation method for their classroom whilethe other two called students to answer to their simple questions, such as what is this?Or what’s your name? The researchers observed two teachers communicating withstudents about the words and sentences they learned. Although the researchersexpected all teachers to use communicative approach to teach students, this expecta-tion was not met. In the video viewed, all students seemed to cooperate with otherstudents. The Chinese language teachers seemed familiar with grammar-translationand cooperative methods and less familiar with the communicative approach.

Third, the researchers observed classroom interactions focusing on interactionsbetween teachers with students, students with other students, and students withtechnology. Rather than interacting with each other, all teachers were more engagedwith directing and managing students’ activities. There were limited interactionsbetween teachers and students. For example, when teachers asked questions, studentsjust answered to the questions. However, one teacher tried to interact with somestudents. Rather than simply asking some questions, she tried to actively communi-cate with students. Interactions between students were observed in all videos. Allstudents seemed to like interacting with other students in group activities. There wereinteractions between students and technology. Due to video limitations, it was noteasy for researchers to observe and interpret how students used technology. Addi-tionally, all classes had one computer—interactions between students and technologydid not occur in the videos.

Four of ten videos that the researchers watched showed most teachers usingtechnology to supplement student learning. However, their use of technology waslimited—only showing cultural differences between China and America. Addition-ally, the four teachers did not connect the technology to students’ experiences. Forinstance, when one teacher talked about American culture, she just showed a “Hal-loween” video clip without talking about specific students’ experiences that wererelated to a Halloween party. Evidently, the teacher did not have any experience withHalloween, and she did not know how to integrate this video into the students’experiences. Another example was “Studio,” which is provided for students to createand present their learning through making PowerPoint for themselves. The teachers

614 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619

had no skills to integrate this activity into their instruction, and they did not haveenough time to implement this activity. These examples suggest the need for teachersto learn and familiarize themselves on how to integrate technology into their instruc-tion and with the use of various technology applications.

Question 2: How did the research team understand the design of a technol-ogy-rich curriculum?

The interview questions focused on how the research team understood the processof designing a technology-rich curriculum in terms of analysis, design, implementa-tion, and revision phases. First, the interview analysis revealed that the curriculumdesigners were not fully aware of the Chinese students, especially elementary stu-dents. Except for one research team member, the other members did not have anyexperience teaching elementary students. This made it difficult for the curriculumdesigners to develop content suitable for elementary level students. Second, researchteam members often had difficulty in agreeing on how to develop the curriculumbecause each member’s role was different, such as technology designer, contentdesigner, or content editor. Although each member had a different role, the researchteam members needed to understand other members’ processes and roles for a moreconsistent curriculum. Third, the research team members received various responsesto the curriculum from teachers and students, and this helped them to decide whetherthe curriculum was effective or not. However, getting feedback from them took sometime because of physical distance.

The interview analysis also showed that researchers needed to communicate withother researchers who had similar experience with teaching elementary students in thelocal area because they felt that getting feedback took so long. Weekly researchmeetings helped the curriculum designers understand the curriculum in more detail.Communication in the initial stage helped research team members become aware oftheir users and have shared purposes. Even though all of the research team membershad different ESL/EFL backgrounds, they understood common issues and thepurpose of the project through ongoing communication.

The researchers used empirical data, such as students’ pre- and posttest results tounderstand not only students’ language levels, but also the necessity of contextual-izing the curriculum for students. This data helped research team members revise thedifficulty levels of the curriculum, reduce culture difference, and increase teachers’resources. The team members also used the teachers’ video cases to understand howthey used this curriculum in their classrooms. Video analysis has been used to changeparticipants’ behaviors and is an important tool to help teachers’ instruction (Corwinet al. 1996; Borko et al. 2008). The research team understood the necessity ofproviding ongoing professional development because the video analysis showed thatthe Chinese teachers did not fully implement the technology-rich curriculum.

When researchers prepared a teachers’ manual and a revised curriculum, theyshowed the iterative sense-making strategies that they used in the initial stage. In therevision stage, their sense-making strategies were based on their understanding of thecontext in which Chinese teachers and students will use. Lave and Wenger (1991)note: “A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning isconfigured through the process of becoming a full participant in a socio-cultural

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619 615

practice” (p. 29). This argument reiterates that curriculum designers can clearlyunderstand their roles and the process of designing the curriculum through partici-pation in the whole process of curriculum development.

5 Implications

First, this study shows that the teachers’ need to integrate new technology into theirclassrooms may demand a knowledge framework different from that with which theyare familiar. Since Shulman (1987) emphasized the connection between contentand pedagogy knowledge, many researchers have studied these connections andrelations in improving teachers’ knowledge (Grossman 1991; Pierson 2001; Mishraand Koehler 2006). With more technology tools in the classrooms and the demand fortechnological knowledge among teachers, Technological Pedagogical ContentKnowledge (TPACK) has been regarded as an important framework to help teachersunderstand the connection of technology, pedagogy, and content in relevant educa-tional contexts (Mishra and Koehler 2006).

Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that the TPACK framework “allows us toidentify what is important and what is not in any discussion of teacher knowledgesurrounding using technology for teaching subject matter” (p. 1046). Theauthors suggest that TPACK can be used as an important framework to designtechnology-rich curricula and support teachers who will use the curriculum inEFL programs. Although this study showed that EFL teachers improved theirintegration of technology into the classroom, researchers need to study how aTPACK conceptual framework can help curriculum designers design technologyintegrated curriculum and support teachers to integrate technology into theircurriculum in EFL programs.

Second, this study shows that Chinese teachers need to learn how to integratetechnology into their classrooms, and they also need support from professionaldevelopment to apply their learning to instruction in an authentic context. The“job-embedded approach” (National Achieves and Records Administration 2009) isconceptualized as project-based learning that incorporates teachers’ real classroomcomponents into their training process. The authors suggest that a “job-embeddedproject approach,” using TPACK as a conceptual framework, is necessary for de-signing and providing professional development. The TPACK framework helpscurriculum designers and teachers understand the process of technology integrationinto EFL programs. The job-embedded project approach to professional developmentdirectly involves participants in the process of actually designing responsive solutionsto instructional problems in their real classroom settings.

Curriculum designers need to identify, analyze, and connect each TPACK factor:for example, (1) content components in the curriculum (EFL/ESL teaching)—language skills and culture; (2) pedagogical components in EFL/ESL teaching—thecommunicative approach and the task-based learning approach; (3) technologicalcomponents in EFL/ESL teaching—using technology such as the internet andcomputer software and choosing tools; and (4) dynamic operations in these threecomponents—integration and connection between the three components and relevanteducational contexts under TPACK. Researchers need to study how job-embedded

616 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619

professional development can help teachers not only understand each TPACK factor,but also integrate those factors in a relevant context.

Third, this project illustrates that ongoing professional learning communitiesshould be developed and provided for teachers to support professional development.The Chinese teachers did not have their own learning community where they couldshare their learning experiences. Researchers have valued professional learningcommunities as an important and powerful professional development approach forschool change and continuous teachers’ improvement (Salazar et al. 2009). Accord-ing to Salazar et.al., “A core belief of members of a professional learning communityis the concept of continuous improvement, which carries with it the philosophy of‘get it right, and then make it better and better’” (p.2).

This project shows that online learning communities for teachers and curriculumdesigners need to be developed and provided for supporting teachers’ learning(Lindberg and Olofsson 2009). There is a focus to provide a virtual environmentfor professional learning communities and support for preservice and inserviceteachers, (Goos and Bennison 2002) given the challenges for online learning com-munities such as, limitations of time and space, difficulty of using resources, and lackof face-to-face interactions (Lock 2006; Preece 2000), Additionally, researchers needto investigate how online learning communities can support in-service teachers tolearn and sustain new technology skills and new curriculum effectively.

6 Conclusion

Educational researchers envision developing innovative reforms and effectivemethods of teaching and learning. Even so, it is difficult for teachers to changetheir instruction because of their well-established beliefs and lack of support.Burke (2011) noted that deep structure, which is a composite of widely heldbeliefs about schools and professional development programs, limits teachers’thoughts and behaviors in implementing new technology-rich curriculum.Similarly, Chinese teachers need support from inside and outside their schoolsin order to implement new curriculum and to break away from their traditionalrituals and methods.

The finding showed that the Chinese EFL teachers used a technology-rich curric-ulum with traditional methods such as teacher-centered lectures, did not effectivelyutilize technology in their classrooms, and used basic technology applications. Thisfinding supports previous findings that educational reforms or instructional changesrequire teachers’ changes and educational support (Cohen 1995; Spillane andJennings 1997). Cohen (1995) argued that, “Teacher approached the reforms withlittle knowledge of the sorts of instruction that reforms desired” (p. 14).

Given that these teachers used technology as a teaching tool or lecturing tool toreinforce their conventional way of teaching, professional development is importantto help them to transition to a new way of teaching. Curriculum designers need to beaware that professional development on how to help teachers better uses the techno-logical components of the TRC needs to be in place if a change in pedagogy is tooccur. Otherwise the mismatch between the ingrained practices of these teachers andthe technological elements of the TRC will remain unchallenged.

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619 617

Spillane and Jennings (1997) reported results similar to the ones documented inthis study. They examined how coherent educational policies influence teachers’practices, and found that teachers need to learn and approach the reforms in the sameway. Chinese teachers used the new curriculum in traditional ways because of theprior educational experiences. Chinese teachers, as learners, need to learn anddevelop new pedagogy and teaching skills. Feiman-Nemser (2001) argued that, “Ifwe want schools to produce more powerful learning on the part of students, we haveto offer more powerful learning opportunities to teachers” (p. 1014).

Second, as Cohen (1995) noted, “New professional values and commitments alsoare difficult to acquire in isolation” (p. 15). This means that teachers need tocontinually learn, consult, and update their knowledge and curriculum with others.Continual professional development and professional learning communities using asystematic TPACK structure need to be provided to in-service teachers fortechnology-rich curriculum. Gomez et al. (2007) noted, “Teacher education is nevera finalized project and it is a continual process of growth and development providingfertile ground on which we can build in the future” (p. 2124).

Several design principles underlie professional development to help teacherseffectively deliver a technology curriculum, including a real-job project to facilitateboth conceptual and behavioral changes for teaching increasingly culturally andtechnologically oriented-environments. The effectiveness of these strategies, whichare designed to facilitate teachers’ transition to a new teaching philosophy andpractice in a technology-rich teaching environment, is worthy of further investigation.

References

Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication: Technology for improving speaking andwriting. In M. D. Bush (Ed.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp. 165–184). Lincolnwood,IL: National Textbook Company.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productivediscussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

Burke, M. B. (2011). Rituals and beliefs ingrained in world language pedagogy: defining deep structure andconventional wisdom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 1–12.

Burns, M., & Dimock, K. V. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for school communities: Beyond boxes andbandwidth. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning:A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Chun, D. M. (2007). Come ride the wave: but where is taking us? CALICO Journal, 24, 239–252.Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17.Corwin, R., Price, S. L., & Storeygard, J. (1996). Talking mathematics: Resources for developing profes-

sionals. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Egorov, V. V., Jantassova, D. D., & Churchill, N. (2007). Developing pre-service English teachers’

competencies for integration of technology in language classrooms in Kazakhstan. Educational MediaInternational, 44(3), 255–265.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustainteaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

Gomez, M. L., Black, R. W., & Allen, A. R. (2007). “Becoming” a Teacher’. Teachers College Record, 109(9), 2107–2135.

618 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619

Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2002). Building learning communities to support beginning teachers’ use oftechnology. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research inEducation, Brisbane.

Grossman, P. L. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education coursework.Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 245–257.

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K.Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and TeacherEducation (pp. 425–452). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press.

Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL teachers’ technology use in China: Patterns and perceptions. RELCJournal, 42(1), 69–85.

Lindberg, J. O., & Olofsson, A. D. (Eds.). (2009). Online Learning Communities and Teacher ProfessionalDevelopment. IGI Global.

Lock, J. (2006). New image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678.

Masats, D., & Dooly, M. (2011). Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: A holistic approach.Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1151–1162.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework forteacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

National Archives and Records Administration (2009, November 12). Department of Education, StateFiscal Stabilization Fund program: Final rule. Federal Register, 74(217), 58479–58525. Retrieved fromhttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27161.pdf

Penny, A. R., & Coe, R. (2004). Effectiveness of consultation on student ratings feedback: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 215–253.

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practices as function of pedagogical expertise. Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–429.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. Chichester, UK:Willey.

Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Scaffolded Video Self-Analysis: Discrepancies between PreserviceTeachers’ Perceived and Actual Instructional Decisions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,21(2), 128–145.

Salazar, D., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Fox, K., Nuanez-Lucas, L. (2009). Online professional learningcommunities: Increasing teacher learning and productivity in isolated rural communities. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/GE220YX.pdf

Saleh, S., & Pretorius, F. J. (2006). English as a foreign language: teachers’ professional development viathe Internet. Progressio, 28(1 & 2), 111–126.

Sherin, M. G. (2003). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. Advances in Research onTeaching, 10, 1–27.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard EducationalReview, 57, 1–22.

Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploringinstructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 439–481.

Velazquez-Torres, N. (2006). How well are ESL teachers being prepared to integrate technology in theirclassrooms? TESL-EJ, 9(4), 1–28.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense making.Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

Zhao, Y. (1996). Language learning on the World Wide Web: Toward a framework of network based call.Calico Journal, 14, 37–57.

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review andmeta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:609–619 619