Observing the teachers – comparing the results with the student database

The following section will compare the notes from the observation up against the results from the teacher interviews. Additionally, the conclusions drawn from the teacher interviews will be compared to the student survey results to examine if the databases confirm or dispute the

primary research question of the present study. It should be noted that these observations will not be able to confirm or dispute Teacher C’ answers, due to the fact that her English lessons were not observed, as explained in chapter 3, section 3.10.

As illustrated in the section discussing the observations in relation to the students, the teacher (Teacher A) from session 1 of the observations had initially explained that ICT would probably not be used as frequently this lesson as they normally would. The reason for this was that the teacher had planned a test for the students, for which he needed to prepare them.

However, the observations showed the opposite. The teacher used the computer to illustrate different spelling and pronunciation of English variations (American and British English) using the online Cambridge Dictionaries (Appendix 7, nr. 8), using the big screen to illustrate an example of a summary (nr. 16), playing an audio file (audio book) from the textbook’s homepage (nr. 10), and showing YouTube videos of how to pronounce American English words versus British English, or RP English (nr. 22 & 23).¹⁷ The observations support the conclusions drawn from the interview with Teacher A. While it is evident that ICT are frequently used throughout the lessons, the implementation of ICT is mainly focused on what was described as formal education in chapter 2 (section 2.8. Jenkins et al.). This as also true for the students, who reported that the majority of the class would use computers for Word, Its Learning, and research (Table 4.6, page 57-8), with Word being the most time-consuming activity (Table 4.7, page 59). The instances of Facebook, 9gag (Appendix 7, nr. 12), and similar websites were not many in this class, but the fact that they did happen, suggests that Lund’s argument that people constantly move between contexts (chapter 2, 2.8) is in fact true.

The students had reported in the survey that even though they did not always use computers in English lessons (Table 4.5, page 55), the majority of the students would use computers in English lessons to check their social media pages with an average of twelve minutes per English period¹⁸ (Table 4.7, page 59). However, the teacher had made no implications that social media, blogs or computer games (Table 4.6, page 57-8) were employed for educational purposes, which indicates that these activities were only for the students’ entertainment.

The second session of observations supported Teacher B’s claims that he did not prioritize using ICT when teaching English, except in cases where it was necessary, according to the teacher. The teacher mainly used ICT to instruct the students on how to write essays and articles (Appendix 8, nr. 7), and presenting facts about Roald Dahl (nr. 4). The students were only instructed to use their computers to produce an essay on a topic of their choice (nr.

17  RP English – Received Pronunciation

18  Double periods – meaning twelve out of ninety minutes

13). However, the instances of non-curricular practices (or informal practices) were more frequent in this class than in the previous one, which was illustrated in section 4.4. Whether this has a connection between the teachers lack of variety in terms of implementing ICT in the English lessons, is not easy to say.

What observing this class told me was that the students had what the teacher called

“technical skills” that allowed them to effortlessly navigate between webpages and computer programs that are normally not recognized as resources for learning. Having the technical skills suggested that the students had hours of experience with the programs/website, which was proven in section 4.2 (page 49) where the majority of all the participating students reported to spend between three and six hours on the average weekday, and six to nine hours during the weekend, of which between one and two hours were dedicated to school related computer activities. This suggests that the remaining hours are spent on entertainment or communication, or perhaps a combination between the two. The results from question 6 and 7 in the survey suggested that students often multitasked at school, since some students reported they engaged with the different activities sporadically throughout the lessons. It is highly likely that students multitask when they engage with computer at home as well.

However, neither Teacher A nor Teacher B attempted to utilize the students’ informal digital skills to promote language learning. The answers and the observations proved that regardless of the fact that Teacher A had a positive attitude towards using ICT in teaching, the implementation of ICT in the English were restricted to ICT practices that are associated with formal education. Teacher B did not prioritize using ICT when teaching, which is in

contradiction with the priority ICT and digital skills have been given in Norwegian education (Chapter 2,section 2.6). The teachers seem to not fully understand how important it is for the students to develop digital skills that involve more than finding and evaluating reliability of information. While source criticism is an exercise in critical and independent thinking, which is an aspect of Bildung (Chapter 2, section 2.3), it is not the only aspect of digital skills the student will need when they interact with a globalized networked society. Communication across contexts and genres must be emphasized, as well as knowing how to interact and communicate with people of different backgrounds than oneself, which is common in contemporary society where we discuss international and foreign politics, world economy, pop culture, et cetera, over the Internet through a common language (English) that continues to develop new variants (Lund, section 2.9).