Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/

Faculty and Administration in Collaboration:
Overcoming Technology Issues
Phillip Murphy and Dirk MacKenzie
Corresponding author: murphy@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Publication date: August, 2013
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ISSN 2187-4972	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

To cite this article
Murphy, P. and MacKenzie, D. (2013). Faculty and administration incollaboration: Overcoming technology issues. Working Papers in Language
Education and Research, 1 (2), 28-43.

Scroll down for article
	
  
	
  
	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
	
  
FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION IN COLLABORATION:
OVERCOMING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
Philip Murphy and Dirk MacKenzie
Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

ABSTRACTThe following study was conducted at a university in Japan
specializing in foreign language studies. One morning, when
university administration took a snapshot of student-computer
usage in a computer-equipped classroom, it was discovered thatapproximately 50% of computers were not in use. Consideringteacher demand for access to these classrooms, this result wasperceived by administration as problematic. This study, therefore,began in an effort to explain the situation more clearly. While theinitial focus was on factors influencing student-computer use inclass, it became clear that the larger issues of both Internet andtechnology access were also problematic. Accordingly, data werecollected via a teacher survey (N=68) with questions coveringclassroom design; Internet-connection speed; wireless Internet
access across campus; mobile-learning technology; performance ofclassroom computers; sharing of student computers; projection
systems; and support for existing technology and technologicalinnovation. Faculty perspectives were gathered (a) in order to gaina greater understanding of the technology-related needs for theteaching/learning environments and (b) to help improve access to
the Internet and technology across campus. Findings were used ina collaborative effort by educators, university administration,technicians and architects to improve Internet access, and toallocate Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) resources
more effectively in order to maximize usage. The implications of
the findings for both administration and teachers are discussed
below.

	
  

28	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
1. INTRODUCTION

The following study was conducted at a university in Japan specializing in foreign
language studies. One morning, when university administration took a snapshot of studentcomputer usage in one of the custom-built teacher-designed computer-equipped classrooms(Blended Learning Spaces (BLSs), see below), approximately 50% of computers were found to
be not in use. Considering the high teacher demand for access to these classrooms, university
administration perceived this result as problematic. In contrast, however, the result for lecturers
was not seen as problematic as computers are not always constantly used in lessons. In otherwords, technology needs vary depending on the lesson or activity: sometimes computers are notused, sometimes one computer per student is necessary, sometimes one computer per pair isneeded, and sometimes only one computer per group is sufficient. Nevertheless, the question
raised by university administration was extremely pertinent and stimulated the need for further
investigation. Given the (a) limited number of BLSs and computer-equipped classrooms and (b)the limited number of locations with wireless Internet access, effective allocation of theseresources was key to maximum usage. Therefore, in a bid to gain a greater understanding of thetechnology-related needs for the teaching/learning environments and (b) to help improve accessto the Internet and technology across campus, data were collected via an intra-departmental
survey of lecturers (N=68). The results are discussed below.
Another important goal of the project was to promote collaboration between those
involved in the design and construction of classrooms and facilities. In 2003, a learning centre
was opened as a result of a collaborative effort between educators, university administration,technicians and architects. The model adopted for designing the ‘2003 BLSs’ in the centre isshown below (see Fig. 1).
	
  

29	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  

Fig. 1 (The 2003 collaborative design model for BLSs)

In contrast, in 2009, another set of classrooms was constructed called the ‘2009 BLSs’; however,the classrooms were constructed for the lecturers rather than the lecturers being asked tocollaborate during the design process (see Fig. 2). Accordingly, a number of issues are associatedwith these rooms as discussed below.

Fig. 2 (The 2009 non-collaborative design model for BLSs)

Following discussion of the results from the survey, the conclusions comprise both suggestions
for promoting collaboration as demonstrated in Fig. 1 and also recommendations for futureclassroom development and technological innovation.
	
  

30	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Before discussing the results of the survey, the following section comprises a brief overview ofthe literature on Blended Learning and Blended Learning Spaces.

2.1 Blended learning
Blended learning is often defined as a combination of face-to-face classroom learning andout-of-class, online learning. That is, the blending happens asynchronously (Banados, 2006;
Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005; Kupetz & Ziegenmeyer, 2005; Neumeier, 2005; Rovai & Jordan,
2004; Stracke, 2007). Recent technological advances, however, have made it possible to connect
to the Internet with smaller, less intrusive devices, such as smart phones or tablets (iPads)
allowing a more synchronous blending of online and face-to-face activities within the same classsession and in the same classroom space. In language education, where learners may struggle tonavigate web pages or applications in a second or foreign language, and with the importance of
face-to-face speaking and listening practice, synchronous blending has a variety of potential
learning benefits.

2.2 Normalisation
Chambers and Bax (2006) use the term CALL “normalisation” to describe “a state where
computers are fully integrated into pedagogy” (that is, in the classroom), and “are used every day
by language students and teachers as an integral part of every lesson, like a pen or a book” (pp.
465-466, citing Bax, 2003). In order to achieve this seamless integration, they argue, “CALL
facilities will ideally not be separated from ‘normal’ teaching spaces” and “the classroom will

	
  

31	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
ideally be organised so as to allow for an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL
activities” (p. 470). A BLS is a physical environment that provides for both ideals.

2.3 Blended Learning Spaces
The term ‘Blended Learning Space’ has been used at Kanda University of International
Studies (KUIS) since 2002 to describe classrooms that can provide constant online access forstudents, computer-based multimedia tools, and flexible furniture for face-to-face activities. The‘2003 BLSs’ are square and spacious. Desks and chairs are lightweight, moveable, stackable andof adequate size. Technology found in these rooms includes 32 wireless laptops stored in acabinet, all necessary power packs and cables, a music/sound system, a teacher’s computer,satellite TV channels and a moveable projector. Large images can be projected onto the front
wall of each classroom, which is covered with white non-reflective paper. The ‘2009 BLSs’, incontrast, have curved walls and vary in size. The elongated shapes of the rooms result in a larger
distance from the back to the front of the rooms than the 2003 BLSs. Desks and chairs are also
movable and stackable, but they are heavier and smaller that those found in the 2003 BLSs.
Technology found in these rooms includes 32 wireless laptops stored in a cabinet, all necessary
power packs and cables, a music/sound system, a fixed teacher’s computer and a ceilingmounted projector. Images are projected onto a fixed screen on the front wall of the classroom;
however, images are not as large as those possible in the 2003 BLSs. Despite the differences,both the 2003 and 2009 BLSs have proven to be highly popular and they are in constant demand.
When the BLSs were designed, the goal was to build in as much flexibility as possible toaccommodate different modes of learning. As Johnson (2002) comments:

	
  

32	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
The Kanda instructional system has implications for the design and equipment ofclassrooms. Classrooms which facilitate individualized learning are desirably different
from those which require students to move through a course in lockstep progression. At
Kanda we have been fortunate to have been involved in the planning of new classrooms
which are ‘blended learning spaces’. These are rooms with wireless access to the Internet
and have furniture which permits flexible group arrangements to accommodate the need
for whole-class, small-group, pair, and individual study (Johnson, 2002).

BLSs are classrooms designed to blend the best of traditional classroom teaching with theflexible advantages of state-of-the-art technology. Students can work in various group formations
and/or with various media tools. There is no need for a “computer day” as teachers can blend
technology into their everyday pedagogy. What distinguishes the BLSs from other classrooms
across campus are the laptop computers with wireless Internet access available for each student,
and what distinguishes them from traditional computer labs is that the laptops are not always out
on the desks, but are housed in a cabinet in the corner of the room when not in use. A BLS canthus accommodate a variety of classroom setups (for example, group discussion, classpresentations, poster presentations, individual students at laptops, pairs at laptops, and so on).

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The survey conducted for this project comprised both institution specific and generalquestions. For the purpose of this paper, 17 questions with general application have been selected
for discussion (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire was administered online using Survey
Monkey (N= 68). Questions were asked in connection with the Internet, student computers,

	
  

33	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
projection systems/TVs, classrooms, support and technological/innovation. The results aredetailed below.

4. RESULTS

The first four questions were connected with Internet connectivity. For Question 1,
although four lecturers (9.8%) of the 41 respondents had no experience using the 2003 BLSs,
nobody strongly agreed that the connection was fast enough, four (9.8%) agreed, four (9.8%)
were neutral, 15 (36.6%) disagreed, and 14 (34.1%) strongly disagreed. Similar results were
found with Question 2 for the 2009 BLSs with 14 (34.1%) of the 41 respondents not having usedthe classrooms. Nobody strongly agreed that the Internet connection was fast enough, three(7.3%) agreed, four (9.8%) were neutral, six (14.6%) disagreed and 14 (34.1%) strongly
disagreed. For Question 3, 33 (80.5%) of 41 respondents strongly agreed that having wirelessInternet connectivity across campus was important, with five (12.2%) agreeing, two (4.9%)
neutral, one 2.4% disagreeing, and nobody strongly disagreeing. For Question 4, 23 (56.1%) of
41 respondents strongly agreed that having wireless Internet connectivity for mobile technology(for example, smart phones and tablet computers) in classrooms was important, with seven(17.1%) agreeing, eight (19.5%) neutral, one (2.4%) disagreeing and two (4.9%) strongly
disagreeing.
Questions 5, 6 and 7 were on the topic of student computers provided in the classrooms.
Firstly, in response to the question why lecturers might not always incorporate laptop use in their
BLS lessons (Question 5), 19 replies suggested that computers might not be necessary dependingon the lesson, nine lecturers were concerned about the set-up time involved and one lecturercommented that the Internet speed was simply too slow. Question 6 asked why lecturers’

	
  

34	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
students might not use one laptop each in BLS lessons. Among the replies, 19 lecturers
commented that they felt they could promote more face-to-face interaction, five commented thatthey could save time, five stated that it might be unnecessary depending on the lesson, two
lecturers commented that students could help each other, two lecturers said it was to reduce thedemand on the wireless connection, and one lecturer said that it might depend on student choice.
As for Question 7, why might only some students use laptops in BLS lessons, 12 lecturers
suggested that the reason was due to student choice or individualization, six mentioned that it
might be unnecessary depending on the lesson, four said it was due to group work, five statedthat it was due to differentiation or pacing where students can work through an assignment attheir own pace and may need computers at different time.
Question 8 asked whether lecturers had any comments about projection systems or TVs
at KUIS. In response to this question, five mentioned that the projected image in the 2009 BLSs
was too small, four mentioned that the flat-screen TVs in non-BLSs were good, three noted thatthe projected image in the 2003 BLSs was too small, three believed the old TVs in thedepartment were useless and there were two comments that the screens in the 2009 BLSs were
too reflective as projection surfaces.
The following three questions were connected with the type of computer-equipped rooms
that lecturers preferred. For Question 9, although four (9.3%) of the 43 respondents had neverbeen scheduled to use the BLSs, 28 (65.1%) strongly agreed that they preferred BLSs to normal
computer labs, six (14%) agreed, three (7%) were neutral, two (4.7%) disagreed, and nobody
strongly disagreed. For Question 10, 27 (62.8%) of the 43 respondents strongly agreed that they
preferred BLSs to non-BLSs, 13 (30.2%) agreed, 3 (7%) were neutral, 0 disagreed and 0 strongly
disagreed. For Question 11, although six (14%) of 43 respondents had no experience using the

	
  

35	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
BLSs, 19 (44.2%) strongly agreed that they preferred the 2003 BLSs to the 2009 BLSs, 10(23.3%) agreed, five (11.6%) were neutral, three (7%) disagreed and nobody strongly disagreed.
Question 12 provided the opportunity for lecturers to give general comments about the2003 BLSs. In the responses, two lecturers noted that these classrooms provided the best
environment, one noted the potentially beneficial access to satellite TV, and two lecturers notedthat the Wi-Fi was slow. Lecturers gave general comments about the 2009 BLSs in Question 13.
Challenges related to the use of technology in the classrooms were noted by seven lecturers, andchallenges related to the classroom environment were also noted by seven lecturers. There werealso comments about non-BLS classrooms in Question 14 with 10 lecturers mentioning the needfor new technology, and one further lecturer commenting about inappropriate classrooms interms of, for example, their small size and cumbersome desks
For Question 15, lecturers commented about support for existing technology. In responseto this question, 10 lecturers mentioned how finding support for troubleshooting in the use oftechnology could be problematic, four noted that support should be given in the use of wirelessand mobiles, and there was one final comment to highlight the importance of preparing andsupporting students for life after university with regard to training them in the use of technology.
When asked about the support available at KUIS for technological innovation in Question
16, two lecturers mentioned that investment was needed to update technology and six noted theimportance of collaborative support. The last question analysed here, Question 17, provided theopportunity to generally comment about technology. One lecturer noted that better dialogue
needed between all parties involved in technological policy and planning, five lecturers
highlighted the need for better technology and one lecturer explained the need for technicians to
support students, teachers and researchers.

	
  

36	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
5. DISCUSSION

Based on the results obtained from the survey, administration’s question about why only
half of the computers were in use at a given time can be answered in terms of both technologicaland pedagogical issues. With regard to the former, it is clear that access to the Internet andInternet speed are important considerations for lecturers. However, with approximately 50% of
lecturers not satisfied with the Internet speed in the BLSs, it was understandable that certain
lecturers chose to either avoid using the laptops or they used them sparingly in terms of both
numbers and time in their lessons. It appears, therefore, that technological issues in terms of thepracticality of actually using the technology, for example set-up times, and Internet speeds
deemed appropriate by lecturers, may have to take precedence in pedagogical considerations.
Whilst it was disappointing to find out that approximately half of the lecturers using the BLSs
found the quality of the computer/Internet technology to be unsatisfactory in terms of thetechnology itself, it was reassuring to know that technology was not always simply being used
for the sake of using it; lecturers were not using the technology if they considered it a pedagogic
hindrance. Indeed, lecturers noted that students did not use one laptop each for reasons such as
saving time and reducing the demand on the network.
Irrespective of the technological reasons for students not using a computer each,pedagogic reasons for using fewer computers were simply determined by whether the lesson
necessitated the use of computers. For example, 19 lecturers noted that they did not use one
computer each as one of their goals was to promote face-to-face interaction, four lecturers notedthat they wanted to promote group work so that students could collaborate, and two lecturers
noted that they wanted students to help each other. Another common answer from 13 lecturers
highlighted the desire to cater for student individualisation by providing student choice. Given

	
  

37	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
the potential for individualisation, five lecturers commented about the possibility of students
studying at different speeds and, therefore, possibly needing computers at different times.
Another important goal of this project was to promote collaboration between educators,
university administration, technicians and architects involved in the design and construction ofclassrooms and facilities. It was reassuring to see, therefore, that BLSs collaboratively designedby lecturers in 2003 were generally considered to be superior to the 2009 BLSs, which were
simply presented to lecturers. With 79.1% of lecturers preferring BLSs to computer labs, and
93% preferring BLSs to non-BLSs, it is clear that there is that positive support for BLSs isabundant. With only 7% in disagreement, 67.5% preferred the 2003 BLSs to the 2009 BLSs. As
for the reasons, two lecturers explained that the 2003 BLSs provided the best environment with
one lecturer adding that there was the bonus of satellite TV. It was also noted by seven lecturersthat there are technological issues associated with the 2009 BLSs; for example, five lecturers
noted how the image projected by the ceiling-mounted projector was too small, especially forstudents at the back of the classroom, and the boards used for screens were too reflective.
Additionally, seven lecturers commented about the inappropriate environmental challenges suchas the layout of the classrooms, the size of the classrooms and the type of desks. These issues
could have easily been avoided had lecturers been able to collaborate in the design andspecifications of the 2009 BLSs. Given that all fixtures, fittings and furniture had beencollaboratively hand picked by lecturers for the 2003 BLSs, it was reassuring and understandable
that there were no major negative comments in these areas apart from the fact that the older
technology and equipment naturally needed updating/replacing. Irrespective of the type ofclassroom, however, support for existing technology was an important need for lecturers. To
address the problematic issue of support for the use of technology, comments from lecturers

	
  

38	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
included calls for technicians to support students, teachers and researchers. In short, better
dialogue was recommended.
There were numerous comments about future opportunities for development andinnovation. Despite the fact that the 2003 BLSs were considered superior to other classrooms interms of the functionality, practicality, technology and the environment, there was a general
feeling that investment was needed not only for updating technology, but also for technologicalinnovation and support. Certain lecturers expressed their desire to prepare students and toprovide them with lifelong skills with regard to using technology. As an example, technologicalinnovation in terms of incorporating mobile technology was felt to be overdue. However, inorder to accommodate the possibility of both technological development and innovation,
improving Internet access across campus (92.7%) and improving Internet access for mobile
technology (73.2%) was thought to be crucial.
To minimise the chance of problematic situations from re-occurring with regard to theconstruction of facilities, results from the survey will form the basis for a presentation to begiven to university administration to ensure that the educators’ voices and opinions are heard.
The presentation will comprise a proposal to improve classroom design, Internet access and theallocation of CALL resources more effectively in order to maximize usage. Furthermore, a returnto the 2003 collaborative model for classroom design will be highly recommended.

6. CONCLUSION

Faculty perspectives were gathered through the administration of a survey in order to,
firstly, gain a greater understanding of the technology-related needs for the teaching/learning
environments. Based on the results from the survey, it is clear that challenges to pedagogy can

	
  

39	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
arise from technological and environmental issues. It appears crucial, therefore, for educators toplay a key role in the design of learning spaces so as to provide the greatest opportunity for thenormalisation of technology into pedagogy, hence the popularity of the 2003 BLSs. Interestingly,
this popularity is still evident despite that fact that the 2009 BLSs are six years newer. Faculty
perspectives were also gathered so that informed decisions can be made with regard to improving
wireless Internet access and allocating Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) resources
more effectively.
The results from the survey will form the basis for a presentation to be given to university
administration to highlight the pedagogic needs for lecturers. Above all, it is greatly hoped thatwireless access to the Internet will greatly improve both in and out of lessons. It is also hopedthat future classroom development will be undertaken collaboratively by educators, university
administration, technicians and architects to avoid some quite obvious pitfalls should lecturers be
excluded. Therefore, adopting the 2003 collaborative approach is highly recommended.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was presented at EUROCALL 2011 held in Nottingham in England, and was
supported by funding from the Research Institute of Language Studies and Language Education
at Kanda University of International Studies.

	
  

40	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
8. REFERENCES

Banados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL
successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal
23(3), 533-550.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31 (1), 13–28.
Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System (34), 465479.
Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective? Distance versus blended learning
in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL, 17(2), 197-216.
Johnson, F. et al. (December 2002). “Learner autonomy: from concept to curriculum.”
Symposium at the AILA Conference. Singapore, December 16-21, 2002.
Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005). Blended learning in a teacher training course: Integrated
interactive e-learning and contact learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 179-196.
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning parameters for designing a blended
learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163-178.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, M. J. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13.
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of ablended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57-78.

	
  

41	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
9. APPENDICES

9.1: Questions and results from the survey

Strongly
agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
disagreeNoexperience

1. The wireless connection is fastenough in the 2003 BLSs? (N=41)

0%

9.8%

9.8%

36.6% 34.1%

9.8%

2. The wireless connection is fastenough in the 2009 BLSs? (N=41)

0%

7.3%

9.8%

14.6% 34.1%

34.1%

3. Having wireless Internet connectivity
across campus is important (N=41)

80.5% 12.2%

4.9%

2.4%

0%

NA

4. For me, having wireless Internet
connectivity for mobile technology (e.g.
smart phones, tablet computers) inclassrooms is important (N=41)

56.1% 17.1% 19.5%

2.4%

4.9%

NA

5. Why might you not always incorporate laptop use in your BLS lessons?
·
Depending on the lesson, not necessary (19)·Set-up time (9)·Internet speed too slow (1)6. Why might your students not use one laptop each in your BLS lessons?
·
To promote face-to-face interaction (19)·
To save time (5)·Depending on the lesson, unnecessary (5)·So students can help each other (2)·To reduce demand on the wireless connection (2)·Student choice (1)7. Why might only some students use laptops in your BLS lessons?
·Student choice/individualization (12)·Depending on the lesson, unnecessary (6)·Differentiation/Pacing (5)·Group work (4)8. Do you have any other comments about projection systems or TVs at KUIS?

	
  

42	
  

Working	
  Papers	
  in	
  Language	  Education	  and	
  Research	
  Vol.	
  1	
  No.	  2.	
  August	
  2013,	  28	
  -­‐	
  43	
  
	
  
·
·
·
·
·

Projected image in the 2009 BLSs too small (5)Flat-screen TVs in non-BLSs are good (4)Projected image in the 2003 BLSs too small (3)Old TVs useless (3)White boards in the 2009 BLSs too reflective as projection surfaces (2)
SA

A

N

D

SD

NE

9. I prefer BLSs to computer labs

65.1%

14%

7%

4.7%

0%

9.3%

10. I prefer BLSs to non-BLSs

62.8% 30.2%

7%

0

0

0

11. I prefer 2003 BLSs to 2009 BLSs

44.2% 23.3% 11.6%

7%

0

14%

12. Comments about 2003 BLSs·
Environment best (2)·Satellite TV·
Wi-Fi slow (2)13. Comments about 2009 BLSs·
Technological challenges (7)·Environmental challenges (7)14. Comments about non-BLS classrooms·
Need technology (10)·Inappropriate classrooms e.g. size, desks
15. Comments about support for existing technology·
Support is problematic (10)·Wireless & mobiles (4)·Prepare students for life
16. Support available at KUIS for technological innovation·
Need investment (2)·Collaborative support (6)17. Any other comments about technology·
Better dialogue needed·
Better technology needed (5)·Technicians should support students, teachers & researchers

	
  

43