The Use of New Technologies in the French Curriculum: A National Survey

Author(s): Lara L. Lomicka Anderson and Lawrence Williams

Source: The French Review , March 2011, Vol. 84, No. 4 (March 2011), pp. 764-781
Published by: American Association of Teachers of French

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25800245

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association of Teachers of French is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The French Review

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The French Review, Vol. 84, No. 4, March 2011 Printed in U.S.A.

The Use of New Technologies

in the French Curriculum:
A National Survey
by Lara L. Lomicka Anderson and
Lawrence Williams

This article presents an analysis of the results of a national survey

of teachers of French on their use of new tectinologies for instructional
purposes. The survey was made available online to members of the
American Association of Teachers of French (AATF) during the 2007-08
academic year by the Commission on Telematics and New Technologies
(CTNT) of the AATF as an initial exploration of technology use by teach
ers in a variety of institutional settings. Our research questions are the
following:

1. Which new technologies (hardware or software) do teachers use

(or not use) on a regular basis, either for personal or professional
reasons?
2. Which available new technologies (hardware or software) would
teachers like to learn how to use?
3. Which institutional or social factors, if any, promote or constrain
the use of new technologies?

Review of the Literature

Technology continues to impact foreign language education (Luke

and Britten). It affects how instruction is delivered, how students access
and process information, and how learning is assessed (Otero et al.). The
role of the teachers is extremely important as they must be the imple
menters of technology in the classroom. In spite of some positive steps
toward integrating new tecrvnologies into the curriculum, such as laptop
initiatives for teachers (Donavan, Hartley, and Strudler; Slepkov) or
involving faculty in the planning of technology use (Fvice and Miller),
Slepkov suggests that there has been little, if any, positive change in

764
This content downloaded from
41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 765

teachers, despite the significant investment in professional development

and technology initiatives.
Godwin-Jones points out that "even those teachers not delving
deeply into CALL will be expected by their supervisors, their peers, and,
most importantly, by their students to enhance their teaching through
technology" (10). Teachers should be "informed users of technology"
(Godwin-Jones 10), computer literate (Daetsch; Kolaitis), trained in using
CALL materials (Burston; Hoch; Liontas), and have access to technology
support (Chapelle; Kabata and Wiebe). It is important to note here that
measuring "positive" or "negative" change in teachers is a rather com
plex issue since professional development and technology initiatives, for
example, can be implemented through a top-down process, which often
involves no consultation with teachers (and students) who are the
intended benefactors of such programs. We therefore wish to iterate that
the quantity and types of new technologies used by teachers should not
be considered as a measurement of teaching quality. Instead, our goal is
to promote familiarity and experimentation with new technologies as a
way for teachers to discover which ones might be effective and useful
within existing curricula and pedagogical frameworks.
Several researchers have conducted surveys on technology use in lan
guage learning over the past decade. Lam conducted a survey, published
in 2000, on why second language teachers do or do not use technology.
Her primary goal was to better understand the perceived technophobia of
teachers and to determine if fear is an underlying factor behind decisions
with regard to technology. Questionnaires and semi-structured oral inter
views were administered with ten teachers in order to elicit the reasons
behind decisions with regard to technology, including the factors that
influence teachers. Results suggest that technophobia is a misconception;
decisions with regard to technology are based on beliefs about perceived
benefits of technology for their students; institutions must consider the
needs of teachers and students before hasty purchases.
Arnold reported results from an online survey, published in 2007,
with 173 respondents (teachers) in the Southeast U.S. Her article dis
cusses the use of various computer applications and why teachers do or
do not use technology. Results suggest that many teachers work with
technology but barriers remain that hinder teachers from doing more.
These barriers include, among others, lack of training and equipment.
Further, she reports that teachers continue to question pedagogical bene
fits (see also Turnbull and Lawrence). She also found that younger teach
ers use more technology than older teachers. Finally the main reason for
technology use, according to her results, is convenience, and the main
reason for lack of use is time.
Winke and Goertler surveyed 911 students of basic (first two years)
college-level French, German, and Spanish (published in 2008) to create

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
766 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

a picture of their computer access and computer literacy in preparation

for discussions on implementing more tecrtnology-enhanced language
learning classes and to understand foreign language students' computer
access and literacy in broader terms. They report that "students in foreign
language classes today are as computer literate and computer savvy as
one would expect, especially in terms of their use of computers and the
Internet for personal communication" (496). They also claim: "One of the
major findings of this research project was that technology tools such as
headphones, microphones, webcams and digital cameras lag far behind
students' access to computers and the Internet in general" (493). They
point out that the dissemination of information is at times problematic and
that teachers may not be aware of all the available materials/resources
or what technology support can offer.
Specific to French, Turnbull and Lawrence conducted a survey of
French teacher and student perspectives on computer use in Canada
(published in 2001). In their work, they attempted to assess teachers'
beliefs, actual experiences in the classroom, influencing factors about
tecrtnology use (or lack thereof), as well as professional development.
Although their research is a decade old, it does point to some interesting
trends. Two hundred seventy-four teachers and students completed sur
veys, which were, in some cases, followed up with interviews. Their
results indicated that teachers wanted to see more research on how com
puter use could assist with language learning. According to their report,
students enjoyed computer use in French classes, and teachers seemed to
be open to and interested in using computers. However, 41% of the
teachers indicated they "have never used computer tecrtnology in their
classes and cite lack of access as well as a lack of training and knowledge
about how to integrate computer technology into their teaching as the
two principal reasons for this inexperience" (38).
Since we have little documented evidence about the specific uses of
technology among French teachers in the U.S., the AATF CTNT set out to
investigate these issues to benefit French teachers worldwide. The pre
sent study includes in its population sample only members of the AATF,
and although this is a limitation of the present survey, it is important to
note that this is only the first step in a long-range series of projects that
will also include non-members of the AATF.

The Survey

A questionnaire with eight different sections (see Table 1) was used

for this survey-based project. Section A (Demographies and Background
Information) asked participants for information on gender, age, amount
of experience, type of institution, and whether or not participants had
attended a workshop or taken a class on new technologies and foreign
language learning and teaching. Sections B trvrough F asked participants

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 767

about the use of computers and new (i.e., digital) technologies for gen
eral purposes as well as for teaching and learning French. The next sec
tion details the results of the national survey that explores technology
use, availability, and factors that might promote or constrain the incorpo
ration of new technologies in the French curriculum. Readers interested
in additional information (e.g., a list of all survey items) and results can
consult the online appendices (www.frenchteachers.org/technology).

Table 1. Survey Sections and Topics

Section Topic
A Demographics and Background Information
B Computer Availability and Connection Speed
C Use of Applications or Tools with Students

D Technology and Language Learning Skills

E Attitudes toward Technology
F Current Practices (i.e., uses of technology)

G Possible Uses of Technology

H Short Answers

Results and Analysis1

A total of 171 teachers of French participated in this study; how

all participants did not respond to every question. Of the 170
answered Al (gender), 146 (85.4%) were female, and 24 (14.0%)
male. Tables 2 and 3 show the age and the amount of (full-time) tea
experience of the participants, respectively.

Table 2. Age of Participants

Age n %
Up to 30 years 2
31-40 years 45 26
41-50 years 38 22
More than 50 years 68 39.8%
Total 171 100%

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 768 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

Table 3. Teaching Experience of Participants

Teaching Experience n %

0-5 years 24 14.0%

6-10 years 34 19.9%
11-15 years 25 14.6%
16-20 years 26 15.2%
More than 20 years 62 36.3%
Total 171 100%

The results reveal that just over 60% of the participants were over
age 40 when they completed the survey, and this corresponds closely to
the proportion of participants who had 11 or more years of full-time
teaching experience (approximately 65%). Table 4 shows the distribution
of the type of institution where participants were teaching French when
they completed the survey.

Table 4. Type of Institution

Institution n %

Elementary School 5 2.9%

Middle School 13 7.6%
High School 93 54.4%
College/University 57 33.3%
Private Language School
(and private tutors) 1 0.6%

[Not teaching] 2 1.2%

Total 171 100%

Table 5 provides the results of survey items A5, A6, and A7, which
are reproduced here:

A5. Have you ever attended a conference presentation on the topic

of using computers for foreign language teaching?
A6. Have you ever participated in a workshop on using computers
for foreign language teaching?
A7. Have you ever taken a course on using computers for foreign
language teaching?

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 769
Table 5. Results from Questions A5, A6, and A7
Item Yes No Total
n (%) n (%) n

Question A5 121 (70.8%) 50 (29.2%) 171 (100%)

Question A6 125 (73.1%) 46 (26.9%) 171 (100%)
Question A7 52 (30.4%) 118 (69.0%) 170 (99.4%)

The results reveal that in our survey, respondents are more likely to have
attended a conference presentation or participated in a workshop than
they are to have taken a course on teaching with new technologies. This
is not surprising since mainly younger, less experienced teachers have
gone through degree programs during and since the 1990s when such
courses began to appear in the U.S.
In Section B of the survey, participants were asked to report on their
access to a computer and an Internet connection at home, and two ques
tions were asked about having access to a computer at work. Almost all
participants (162, 94.8%) reported having a computer at home that was
used for teaching-related tasks, and most participants (152, 88.8%) indi
cated that their home computer was equipped with a high-speed Internet
connection. Similar percentages were reported for having access to a
computer at work in offices (149, 87.1%) and in classrooms (150, 87.7%).
Such relatively high rates of access to computers?either at home, in an
office, or in a classroom?demonstrate one type of skewing in our data.
We therefore recognize that our sample is most likely not representative
of the entire AATF membership. Instead, our sample population appears
to be a reflection of members who have access at home and at work to
computers with high-speed Internet connections. In other words, the
data from our survey represent current levels of access and practices of
teachers of French who already use computers?to varying degrees?for
teaching-related purposes.
The results from Section C regarding the use of applications with stu
dents are shown in Table 6. In the data collection instrument, participants
were given the following options: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Once/Twice
a Year, Never (not available), and Never (even though available). Daily
and Weekly were combined as Frequently (Freq.) in Table 6. This was
done because there are various types of new technologies that may not
be used every day, for whatever reason; this was also done since some
teachers might not see their students every day of the week. Monthly (on
the survey) is listed as Infrequently (Infreq.) in Table 6, and Once/Twice
a Year is labeled as Very Infrequently (Very infreq.). Shaded cells in the
main columns (with labels in bold) of Table 6 contain numbers that rep
resent over 50% of the total responses received.

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ble) [combined]

Freq. Infreq. Very Never Never (not Never Total

Section C: Number of Participants Who Selected Each Choice

C4 Database 20 22 21 83 22 105 168

C13 Clip art 36 39 46 41 8 49 170 C15 E-mail 131 18 7 11 4 15 171

C3 Spreadsheet 33 22 24 82 9 91 170 C5 Photo editing 16 29 46 56 24 80 171 C8 Internet 124 28 11 2 1 3 166
C16 Web browser 123 24 9 12 3 15 171

C10 iTunes (music manag.) 46 23 23 51 27 78 170

Cl Computers in general 124 26 14 3 4 7 171

^ C7 Desktop publishing 12 13 45 77 24 101 171

C9 Internet search engine 116 31 12 5 3 8 167 C12 Drill/practice programs 51 37 33 28 20 48 169
C6 Presentation software 53 36 61 17 3 20 170

C2 Word processing 97 31 23 14 6 20 171

C14 On-line dictionary 64 36 28 36 6 42 170
Cll Proofing tools 70 24 13 36 25 61 168

o-

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 6 170

14 41 170 24 68 171 48 90 170 37 81 171 59 94 171 4 13 171 50 71 171 21 34 171

63 113 170 135 159 171 108 146 169 131 158 169 100 133 170 102 148 169

9 1 2 24 8 1 2 27
3 17 60 42 2 6 15 38 1 2 18 46

43 46 40 27 18 33 52 44 20 14 23 50 14 31 45 44 35 21 21 35 81 57 26 4 50 70 38 9 23 10 4 33 52 17 31 21 89 24 24 13

C20 iPod/portable mp3 player

C28 Electronic white board C30 Video teleconference

C18 Digital still camera C19 Digital video camera

C17 Teacher utilities
C29 Portable computers C31 LCD projector
C22 Cable/digital TV

C23 DVD player

C26 Webcam
C21 Scanner

C25 Palm pilot

C24 VCR C27 PDA

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
772 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

In Table 7, only items with strong tendencies (i.e., technologies used

frequently vs. those never used) are listed, based on the results presented
in Table 6. Items selected for this table are those with more than half of
all responses indicating a noticeable pattern or tendency (i.e., the shaded
cells in Table 6).
Table 8 provides a more detailed analysis of the Never column from
Table 7, which combined Never-available and Never-not available. The only
items presented in Table 8 are those for which Never was selected by over
half the participants.
Section D of our survey is an experimental2 set of questions designed
to measure the degree to which teachers focus on a specific skill when
forced to choose only one skill that might benefit the most from the use

Table 7. Items with Strong Tendencies from Section C

Item Type of Technology Frequent Never

[combined]

C 1 Computers in general X

C 2 Word processing X

C 3 Spreadsheet (e.g., Excel) X

C 4 Database (e.g., Access) X
C 7 Desktop publishing (e.g.,
Microsoft Publisher) X
C 8 Internet X

C 9 Internet search engine (e.g.,

Yahoo!, Google) X
C15 E-mail X
C16 Web browser X

C19 Digital video camera X

C20 iPod/portable mp3 players X

C22 Cable/digital TV X
C25 Palm pilot X
C26 Webcam X
C27 PDA X
C28 Electronic white board X

C30 Video teleconference X

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Use of New Technologies 773
Table 8. Section C: Tendencies for Never [combined]:
Available vs. Not available

Item Type of Technology Never, Never,

yet available not available
n (%) n (%)
C 3 Spreadsheet 82 (90.1%) 9
C 4 Database 83 (79.0%) 22 (21.0%)
C 7 Desktop publishing 77 (76.2%) 24 (23.8%
C19 Digital video camera 42 (46.7%) 48 (53.
C20 Pod/portable mp3 players 50 (44.2%) 63 (55.8
C22 Cable/digital TV 35 (37.2%) 59 (62.8%)
C25 Palm pilot 24 (15.1%) 135 (84.9%)
C26 Webcam 38(26.0%) 108(74.0%)
C27 PDA 27(17.1%) 131(82.9%)
C28 Electronic white board 33 (24.8%) 100 (75
C30 Video teleconference 46 (31.1%) 102 (68.9

of various new technologies (see Table 9). This section is consi

experimental for three reasons. First, we would have preferred to
participants opportunities to explain how they have used these typ
technologies or how they might use them in the future, but it wa
sary to use the forced-choice question format for the sake of effi
Second, since most tasks involve or could involve more than one sk
mode of communication, we would have preferred to ask participan
rank all options (i.e., skills or modes of communication) instead of
ing a choice of only one. Nonetheless, using the forced-choice f
allows us to compare the degree to which teachers agree that a
type of technology does or does not have the potential for fosteri
development of a specific skill.
In Table 9, shaded boxes are those for which more than half
respondents selected the same skill as being the one that has th
potential for development with each of the items. Items D1-D3 are
what different in that they ask teachers to project how their use of
technologies could be used either to present information or to
students in a task with a focus on a specific skill. Given the m
interpretations of what the survey was asking here, these items (D
would require additional refinement. Identifying these and similar
provides the authors and the CTNT with information and idea

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
774 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

methodological adjustments that can be incorporated in subsequent

investigations.
The results from Section E are illustrated in Figure 1, which displays
the score of each participant, which was determined by totaling his or
her responses to all the items in Section E, a set of Likert-type statements
for which participants can select one of the following five options:
Strongly disagree (0 point), Disagree (1 points), Neutral (2 points), Agree
(3 points), Strongly agree (4 points). Since there were 33 items in this sec
tion, the lowest possible score was 0 (i.e., 0 point for selecting strongly dis
agree on all items), and the highest possible score was 132 (4 points for
choosing strongly agree on all items). The sum was used to create a score
for each respondent here since a single construct was being measured,
namely each participant's self-reported attitude toward using new tech
nologies for instructional purposes. In this type of analysis of Likert-type

Table 9. Section D: Potential for Development of Skills

Item Listening Reading Speaking Writing Total

Technology for teachers' presentations of content in class

D 1: Desktop publishing 2 60 1 98 161

D 2: PowerPoint 35 78 33 21 167
D 3: Smartboards 21 66 20 50 157

Technology for language-learning

D 4: Blogs 3 54 4 103 164

D 5: Chat/Instant messenger 4 31 20 107 162
D 6: Desktop publishing 12 21 0 138 171
D 7: Discussion boards 4 47 14 96 161
D 8: E-mail 0 39 2 123 164
D 9: Internet activities 13 131 7 15 166

D10: Podcasting 116 4 35 3 158

Dll: PowerPoint 16 71 33 43 163
D12: Smartboards 11 67 21 55 154

D13: Video conferencing 85 0 73 0 158

D14: Virtual reality 55 25 42 21 143
D15:Wikis 15 70 9 53 147

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 775

items, each extreme of the scoring scale represents a negative or positive

attitude. In this case, a high score indicates a positive attitude toward
new technologies for teaching and learning, and a low score indicates a
negative attitude (without suggesting one or more underlying causes).
Responses to Items E13 and E31 were "reversed" since the wording
reflected a negative statement or notion. This means that "Strongly
Disagree" would actually represent a very positive attitude or disposi
tion, so for these items, a 0 was changed to a 4, a 1 was changed to a 3,
and so forth. Although 171 teachers of French participated in the survey,
only the results of the 145 respondents who replied to every item in
Section E are included in the results from this section.
The results from Section E are considered highly skewed because
almost all respondents have a score in the top half of the range. Only one
participant scored in the lower half of the range, and this particular score
(52) represents a stark contrast between the first half of Section E (indi
vidual issues related to access and training) and the second half of this
section (attitudes toward new technologies as effective tools for language
learning and teaching). This participant consistently replied Strongly
Disagree on the first half and Strongly Agree on the second half, demon
strating that an individual's attitude toward technology is certainly mul
tifaceted. Overall, most participants scored in the range between 80 and
110 (see Figure 2), as suggested by measures of central tendency for this
section (mean, 95.1; median, 94; mode, 91; standard deviation, 13.7).

Figure 1. Section E results: Scores of participants

Section E Results

130 i

40
30
20
10
0
P

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 776 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

Figure 2. Section E results: Number of participants in scoring groups

In order to uncover any potential correlated patterns between atti

tudes toward the use of new technologies for learning and teaching French
and selected variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (two groups/levels of an
independent variable) and Kruskal-Wallis (more than two groups/levels
of an independent variable) procedures were run on the scores from
Section E for each respondent. Gender, amount of experience (in years),
and age were not found to be statistically significant factors influencing
or correlating with participants' scores in Section E, the measurement of
attitudes toward using new technologies for learning and teaching
French. The same is the case for the following two variables: Question
A5, attendance at a conference presentation on new technologies and
Question A6, participation in a workshop on new technologies. How
ever, the mean ranks of Section E scores for students who had previously
taken a course on new technologies (86.05, n = 44) were significantly
higher (P = .014) than those of respondents who had never taken a course
on the use of new technologies for learning and teaching (67.32, n = 101).
Differences among mean ranks were also found to be statistically signifi
cant (P = 0.011) using Section E scores with the independent variable
Institution Type, Item A4. Elementary school teachers had the highest
group mean rank (92, n = 5), followed by middle and high school teach
ers (75, n = 9; 80, n = 79), then university-level teachers of French had the
lowest group mean rank (57, n = 50). For this item (A4), groups with
fewer than five members (i.e., Private Language School instructor) and

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 777

participants who did not respond to every item in Section E were

excluded from the analysis since five data points is a widely accepted
minimum for Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney procedures.
Although a statistically significant relationship was found using the
scores from Section E with the independent variables Institution Type
and Previous Technology Course Experience, no additional data are
available. Nonetheless, these two findings indicate that further explo
ration of these factors could prove to be helpful in understanding atti
tudes and dispositions toward the use of new technologies for teaching
French (and possibly other subjects).
Table 10 provides the results from Section F, a series of yes/no ques
tions. Although some of these types of technologies have been used in
other sections, the yes/no format removes the notion of frequency/infre
quency since many teachers only use certain types of technology as
needed (i.e., not necessarily every day, week, or month). Table 11 pre
sents the results of Section G, which also contained a series of yes/no
questions. Over half of the participants (90, 52.6%) replied yes to all four
questions (G1-G4) about using more technology, and only 9 (5.2%)
replied no to all these questions. The ranking of items G1-G4 indicates
that time, training, having more ideas, and having networking access
from school are the reasons?in order of most to least selected?respon
dents provided as impediments to incorporating more technologies or
different uses of new technologies into their teaching. In the second part

Table 10. Section F: I Currently Do the Following

Activities as Part of My Teaching...
Item Yes Rank
n(%)
F 8: Use French-language search engines 149 (87.1%) 1
F 6: Access French/Francophone realia 144 (84.2%) 2
F 9: French language on line dictionaries 132 (77.2%) 3
F 4: Read French-language newspapers on line 119 (69.6%) 4
F 3: Listen to French-language radio on line 92 (53.8%) 5
F 1: Watch French-language TV programming
online 91(53.2%) 6
F 2: Watch French-language TV (e.g., TV5) on
a TV set 63(36.8%) 7
F 7: Listen to French-language podcasts 52 (30.4%) 8
F 5: Read French-language blogs 43 (25.1%) 9
F10: Use French translation software 42 (24.6%) 10

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
778 FRENCH REVIEW 84.4

of Section G, there is a clear positive correlation from respondents indi

cating that the newer a certain type of technology is, the greater respon
dents' interest is in learning more about it.

Table 11. Results from Section G

Item Yes Rank
n (%)
I would use more technology if...

G 1:1 had more time. 147(86.0%) 1

G 2:1 had more training. 138 (80.7%) 2
G 4:1 had more ideas on how technology could
improve instruction. 134 (78.4%) 3
G 3:1 had networking access from school. 108 (63.2%) 4
I would like to learn more about...

G 8: podcasts 136 (79.5%) 1

Gil: virtual simulations (such as Second L
G 6: wikis 112 (65.5%) 3
G 7:blogs 104 (60.8%) 4
G10: discussion boards 103 (60.2%) 5
G 5: webcams 94 (55%) 6
G 9: chat 83 (48.5%) 7

In this section we will revisit our r

shed light on French teachers' views
use. First, we hoped to gain an unde
gies (hardware or software) that Fren
either for personal or professional rea
responded to the survey, the most
ing, E-mail, and the Internet for task
newspapers, authentic material, on
engines. Survey results seem to ind
rely on technology, their implement
does not extend beyond traditional us
vey indicated that they would like
tools; however, it may be that teache
how technology can be used effective
tional best practices (Roblyer).

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 779

Our second question addresses the availability of new technologies

(hardware or software) and the specific tools that teachers would like to
learn how to use. The tools that had the greatest potential for develop
ment include video conferencing, podcasts, Internet activities, blogs,
chat, and discussion boards. We found it interesting that teachers men
tioned writing as the skill with the most potential for development with
regard to new technologies. Dialogue that takes place in blogs, chat and
discussion board?all belong to a new hybrid form of communication
that links both speech and writing where "the interactional and reflective
aspects of language [are] merged in a single medium" (Warschauer 472).
While teachers see this development as beneficial to students, they have
not had the opportunity to learn more about and use these tools in their
language classrooms.
Our last question examines the institutional or social factors that in
fluence the use of new technologies. The challenges that teachers face come
as no surprise: time, training, having more ideas, and having networking
access from school are the reasons respondents provided as impediments
to incorporating more technologies or different uses of new technologies
into their teaching (see Arnold, for example). Finding time is a challenge
common to many educators and perhaps as Arnold suggests "the biggest
challenge" and the "main barrier" to technology use (175).
So as we conclude we return to a question posed earlier in this paper:
Are teachers of French informed users of technology? In fact, results
indicate that most teachers have attended conference presentations or
workshops on using computers for language teaching. These types of
training events, while helpful and informative, do not often provide par
ticipants with hands-on or in-depth training on a particular tool. One
way of gaining more extensive training would be to take a course on
technology in language teaching, which, according to the survey, few
teachers have had the opportunity to do. Certainly more extensive train
ing experience would help teachers to become more informed users of
technology. Godwin-Jones suggests that "before being able to evaluate
effectively CALL programs, teachers need to add to their pedagogical
knowledge a fundamental understanding of the workings of computers
and networks" (10). Repeated exposure to, hands-on experience with and
formal training using technology can all assist teachers in gaining a more
solid knowledge base.
While this survey offers only a glimpse into the views and uses of
technology, it does lead us to some possible ways that AATF could pro
vide additional assistance and training to French teachers nationwide. It
is worth noting that the results of this survey do not advocate that the
amount or kind of technology used is implicit in good teaching. We con
tend, as Colpaert suggests, that educators should focus on the learner
rather than the technology. Given that the emphasis should be placed on
learning and the learner, Salaberry underscores the importance of task

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 780 french review 84.4

design: "The success of a technology-driven activity will likely depend as

much, or more, on the successful accomplishment of pre- and post-activi
ties than on the technology activity itself" (59). Although our survey
offers a glimpse of the types of technologies that are used as well as their
uses in the classroom, we must remember that technology is simply a
tool that is used in language learning. We must consider the learners them
selves, our purpose and goals, and task design.
Perhaps at future AATF conventions or even through online courses,
the CTNT could provide more extensive training for technology imple
mentation and task design, including both "how-to's" as well as peda
gogically sound ideas for technology use in the classroom. The CTNT is
working toward developing more systematic publicity strategies for its
Web site as the site offers both useful and pedagogically sound activities
and information on teaching with technology. It would also be beneficial
for the Commission to develop a new survey that deals specifically with
pedagogical approaches and technology use and how teachers use tech
nology to teach specific aspects of French, such as writing, cultural
awareness, and the interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational modes
of communication. Finally, the Commission hopes to continue to provide a
regular column in each AATF Bulletin so that members can stay up to
date with the latest developments in technology for language learning.

University of South Carolina

University of North Texas

Notes

Tn some cases, the results presented in this article do not produce a total of 100% since
missing (i.e., unanswered) items were included in the final percentages.
2An experimental set of questions is one that manifests potential methodological flaws
and/or does not follow a widely used methodology. Although this section does indeed
provide information about participants' perspectives, it will require some revision in future
studies.

Works Cited

Arnold, Nike. "Technology Mediated Learning 10 Years Later: Emphasizing Pedagogical or

Utilitarian Applications?" Foreign Language Annals 40 (2007): 161-81.
Burston, Jack. "Using Systeme-D in a Classroom Environment." CALICO Journal 8 (1991):
51-57.
Chapelle, Carol. "CALICO at Center Stage: Our Emerging Rights and Responsibilities."
CALICO Journal 23 (2005): 5-15.
Colpaert, Jozef. "From Courseware to Coursewear?" Computer Assisted Language Learning 17
(2004): 261-66.
Daetsch, Willard. "Challenges and a Few Cautions." CALICO Journal 7 (1990): 11-18.
Donovan, Loretta, Kendall Hartley, and Neal Strudler. "Teacher Concerns during Initial
Implementation of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative at the Middle School Level." Journal
of Research on Technology in Education 39 (2007): 263-86.

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Use of New Technologies 781
Godwin-Jones, Robert. "Technology for Prospective Language Teachers." Language Learning
and Technology 6 (2002): 10-14.
Hoch, Frances. "Computer Literacy and the Foreign Language Teacher." CALICO Journal 3
(1985): 17-32.
Kabata, Kaori, and Grace Wiebe. "Challenge of Developing and Implementing Multimedia
Courseware for a Japanese Language Program." CALICO Journal 22 (2005): 237-50.
Kolaitis, Marinna. "Putting Computers in their Place." CALICO Journal 7 (1990): 51-54.
Liontas, John. "CALL Media Digital Technology: Whither in the New Millennium?" CAL
ICO Journal 19 (2002): 315-30.
Luke, Christopher, and Joy Britten. "The Expanding Role of Technology in Foreign
Language Teacher Education Programs." CALICO Journal 24 (2007): 253-67.
Lam, Yvonne. "Technophilia vs. Technophobia. A Preliminary Look at Why Second Language
Teachers Do or Do not Use Technology in their Classrooms." Canadian Modern Language
Review 56 (2000): 389-420.
Otero, Valerie, et al. "Integrating Technology into Teacher Education: A Critical Framework
for Implementing Reform." Journal of Teacher Education 56 (2005): 8-23.
Rice, Margaret, and Michael Miller. "Faculty Involvement in Planning for the Use and
Integration of Instructional and Administrative Technologies." Journal of Research on
Computing in Education 33 (2001): 328-36.
Roblyer, Margaret. "Why Use Technology in Teaching? Making a Case beyond Research
Results." Florida Technology in Education Quarterly 5 (1993): 7-13.
Salaberry, M. Rafael. "The Use of Technology for Second Language Learning and Teaching:
A Retrospective." Modern Language Journal 85 (2001): 39-56.
Slepkov, Howard. "Teacher Professional Growth in an Authentic Learning Environment."
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 41 (2008): 85-111.
Turnbull, Miles, and Geoff Lawrence. "Core French Teachers and Technology: Classroom
Application and Belief Systems." Final Report of the Canadian Association of Second
Language Teachers. 2001.
Warschauer, Mark. "Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice."
Modern Language Journal 81 (1997): 470-81.
Winke, Paula, and Senta Goertler. "Did We Forget Someone? Students7 Computer Access
and Literacy for CALL." CALICO Journal 25 (2008): 482-509.

This content downloaded from

41.92.13.121 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:40:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms