Examining EFL Teachers' TPACK Perceptions, Web 2.0 Tools Usage, Workload, and Technostress Levels

Examining EFL Teachers' TPACK Perceptions, Web 2.0 Tools Usage, Workload, and Technostress Levels

Şadıman Hunutlu, Sevda Küçük
DOI: 10.4018/IJCALLT.315306
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine English teachers' TPACK perceptions in light of web 2.0 tools usage, workload, and technostress levels. The participants were 170 English teachers and the data were collected using snowball sampling and analyzed by applying MANOVA, and Multiple Regression with descriptive analyses. The results revealed that English teachers have positive TPACK perceptions with a moderate level of technostress and workload and they use web 2.0 tools, although not very often. Considering TPACK perception and web 2.0 tools usage, significant differences were realized based on workload and technostress levels. Teachers with low technostress are more eager to use web 2.0 tools, teachers using more web 2.0 tools have more positive TPACK perceptions and more web 2.0 tools usage increases teachers' workload. Web 2.0 tools usage, workload, and technostress levels are significant predictors of TPACK perception. Implications are discussed in terms of theoretical insights, practices for technology-integrated language learning environments, and further research directions.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Technology, which has a significant and facilitating role in all areas of life, also offers advantages in education. Due to recent technological developments and online communication tools accessible and user-generated online information has been available easier and as a result, the ways of communication between teachers and students have changed (Yuen et al., 2011). The current technology requires teachers and learners to improve their knowledge and digital competencies (Falloon, 2020; Sailer et al., 2021). With the changed lifestyle, technologies for teaching foreign languages have also changed. Therefore, the need for innovative teaching methods has increased for a better learning process (Semian, 2021). In this context internet-based, learning and learning with mobile applications are alternative and significant ways of language learning as students learn a language independently using digital tools or mobile applications and these platforms are time-saving for them (Lee & Hassell, 2021). Technology-assisted language education increases students' motivation, their potential to collaborate, and social awareness and encourages students to communicate and builds language skills needed both in and out of the classroom (Ahmadi, 2018; Arrosagaray et al., 2019; Blattner & Dalola, 2018; Chen & Yang, 2014; Nadeem, 2019; Reynolds et al., 2021).

With technological developments, not only students but also educators are interested in developing lifelong learning skills for effective training (Stanca & Felea, 2014). Consequently, EFL teachers need to follow up the technological developments to provide an effective technology-integrated learning environment (Raygan & Moradkhani, 2020). Technology-integrated environments enable teachers to adapt classroom activities to improve the students’ language skills (Ahmadi, 2018). However, the technology itself is not enough for EFL education, for all four skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) in English. The teacher should adopt suitable pedagogical strategies and activities for effective teaching practices (Young, 2003) with suitable technological opportunities in language teaching processes (Kessler, 2018). At the same time, teachers need to know their students’ thinking, learning, and subject matter in addition to technical knowledge for a better teaching process. At that point, the TPACK framework sets the edges of content, pedagogy, and technology in education and this framework is necessary for a good learning process while using technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). 21st-century teachers are expected to have a positive TPACK perception and provide technology-integrated planning, teaching, developing materials, and evaluating activities for effective teaching (Munyengabe et al., 2017). There are many factors that influence the use of technology in the classroom environment such as time sufficiency, school support, adequacy of technological resources, and teachers' feelings and perceptions about technology and web 2.0 tools (Habibi et al., 2020; Tseng et al., 2020). At the same time, organizing a technology-integrated class environment may cause concerns such as technostress or extra workload. These concerns may also be inhibitory to technology and web 2.0 adaptation (Alqurashi, 2011; Kale & Goh, 2014; Yurinova et al., 2021). Technostress, which is used to describe the difficulties encountered while using technology (Hsiao, 2017; Qi, 2019; Tarafdar et al., 2010) is also a frequently encountered problem for using mobile applications (Hsiao et al., 2017). Nevertheless, technostress may be reduced with digital literacy (Peng & Yu, 2022). Le et al. (2022) state that teachers' lack of technological knowledge also increases their workload which includes the entire responsibilities of teachers related to education both in and out of school. On the other hand, efficient technology-integrated education may reduce teachers' workload by shortening the preparation processes of paper evaluation or material preparation (Lyu, 2022). Although language teaching environments in which technology is well integrated contribute significantly to language education, teachers who have an important role in creating these environments are affected by many factors in this process. In this study, teacher-related factors affecting the effective technology integration process for language education were examined.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 13: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 12: 5 Issues (2022)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2011)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing