ISSN: 2187-0594

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

iafor
The IAFOR Journal of Education
Volume II – Issue II – Summer 2014

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

IAFOR Publications
Executive Editor:
Joseph Haldane
The International Academic ForumThe IAFOR Journal of Education
Editor:Bernard Montoneri, Providence University, Taiwan
Associate Editors:
Cassandra Atherton, Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Australia
Askhat F. Safiullin, Chonbuk National University, South Korea

Published by The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications. Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward, Aichi, Japan 460-0008
The IAFOR Journal of Education
Volume II – Issue II – Summer 2014
IAFOR Publications © Copyright 2014
ISSN: 2187-0594
Online: iafor.org/iafor/publications/iafor-journals/iafor-journal-of-education/

Executive Editor, IAFOR Publications: Joseph Haldane
Design: Bernard Montoneri
Cover image by Enokson/Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vblibrary/8465390209
CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The IAFOR Journal of Education
	
  
	
  

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
Volume II – Issue II – Summer 2014
Edited by Bernard Montoneri

The IAFOR Journal of Education
	
  
	
  

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Notes on Contributors

Steve R. Entrich is a research assistant at the Chair for Social Scientific Educational Research at the
University of Potsdam, Department for Education, Social Scientific Educational Research, Potsdam,
Germany, where he studied History and Educational Sciences. Following that, he studied Japanese
Language at the Humboldt University of Berlin, before staying at the Faculty of Social Sciences ofDoshisha University as a “visiting graduate student”. Currently, he researches shadow education in
Japan, wherefore he recently stayed at the German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ Tokyo) as ascholarship fellow. E-mail: entrich@uni-potsdam.deMaria Spante, PhD, Department of Economics and IT, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
Program director for the master program of Informatics with specialization of work integrated
learning. Research interest and publications focus on possibilities and constraints related to the use of
information and communication technologies in processes of learning, communication andcollaboration. E-mail: maria.spante@hv.se
Asgjerd Vea Karlsen, Assistant professor in Pedagogic at Buskerud and Vestfold University
College, Department of Pedagogy, Norway. She is working within the field of ICT in learning.
Interactive Whiteboards are one of her special fields. She is teaching how to implement digital tools
into different subjects. She has published books about digital competence and articles about how tousedigitalportfolioasaneducational

tool

in

the

learning

process.

E-mail:Asgjerd.v.karlsen@hive.no
Anne-Mette Nortvig, PhD student at University of Aalborg, Department of Learning andPhilosophy, Denmark, in the field of ICT and Learning and lecturer at the University College
	
  
1
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Zealand in a research program for Technology and Educational Design. Her publications andresearch interests are concerned with the changes and opportunities that digital technology creates inrelation to learning, space and meetings between people. E-mail: amn@learning.aau.dk
Rene B Christiansen, PhD, Research Program for Technology and Educational Design, University
College Zealand, Denmark. Working in a research program for Technology and Educational Design.
Main focus for research and publication are design based research, education and teaching as design,didactical innovation and development of teaching strategies using information and communication
technologies such as synchronous learning environments. E-mail: rbc@ucsj.dk
Greg Chung-Hsien Wu is currently entering his third year of Ph.D. studies in TESOL at the
Department of English, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. Before his doctoral pursuit, he has
been teaching in mid-Taiwan for over a decade. His academic interests are centered on ESP, EAP,
English writing, and Socio-cultural Theories. E-mail: chwu2@pu.edu.tw
Shaila Shams is a lecturer in the Department of English at Independent University, Bangladesh(IUB). She gained her second Masters degree in Applied Linguistics with TESOL from the
University of Sheffield, UK. Previously she had obtained a Masters degree in Applied Linguistics
and ELT and Bachelors in English from the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. She is a member ofthe Editorial Board of Chaos, a creative writing journal of the Department of English, IUB. Her
research interests chiefly include World Englishes, language planning and policy and second
language acquisition. E-mail: shailashams1@gmail.com
Dr. Marilyn L. Balmeo is currently the Department Head for Professional Education in the Schoolof Teacher Education, Saint Louis University, Philippines. She had been teaching for 18 years in the
	
  
2
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

tertiary level and had been a research adviser both in the undergraduate and graduate levels in the
University. She had been able to present several of her research works in varied national andinternational forum and conventions. She is also a trainer and speaker in education-related topics andactivities. E-mail: malyn_balmeo@yahoo.com
Erika Mae A. Nimo: She is currently a fourth year student in Saint Louis University, Philippines,
taking up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education specializing in Special Education.
Aubrey M. Pagal: She is currently a fourth year student in Saint Louis University, Philippines,
taking up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education specializing in Special Education.
Stephanie C. Puga: She is currently a fourth year student in Saint Louis University, Philippines,
taking up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education specializing in Special Education.
ArisDafQuiño: She is currently a fourth year student in Saint Louis University, Philippines, taking
up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education specializing in Special Education.
Jaleen L. Sanwen: She is currently a fourth year student in Saint Louis University, Philippines,
taking up Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education specializing in Special Education.
Esther Smidt is an Assistant Professor of TESOL in the Department of Languages and Cultures at
West Chester University. Her research interests include distance education, computer-assisted
language learning, immigrant identities, immigrant education, and second language teacher
education. E-mail: csmidt@wcupa.edu
Brian McDyre is a recent graduate of West Chester University’s MA program in Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages. He holds a BA in English from Penn State University. His research
	
  
3
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

interests include the use of technology in education, computer-assisted language learning, andcognitive linguistics. He is currently conducting research on effective pedagogical approaches in
distance education at the university level. E-mail: BM798941@wcupa.edu
Jennifer Bunk is an Associate Professor of Psychology at West Chester University. She teaches
online and hybrid courses in industrial/organizational psychology and research methods. She isinterested in understanding distance education through a psychological lens and also researches
workplace stress, workplace incivility, and work-family conflict. E-mail: JBunk@wcupa.edu
Rui Li is the Executive Director of Distance Education and Instructional Design at West Chester
University. She has taught online/blended courses both nationally and internationally and her
research focuses on distance education and technology as cognitive tools. E-mail: rli@wcupa.edu
Tanya Gatenby is an Associate Professor and Masters of Public Health and Health CareManagement Track Coordinator at West Chester University. Her research focuses on distanceeducation, health and wellness, underserved populations and health care access. E-mail:TGatenby@wcupa.edu
Roopa Nagori is a lecturer teaching on the MBA and Business and Management Postgraduate
programs in Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College. She has an experience of 15 years intraining and teaching adults in various countries like India, Singapore and the UK and has beensupervising Masters level students to complete their assessments and research projects. She isparticularly interested in developing teaching techniques to suit the learning preferences of learners
from different cultural and professional backgrounds. Her research interests relate to cross-culturallearning and development practices. E-mail: roopa@nagori.net
	
  
4
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Matthew Cooper is currently an Academic Director (Post Graduate) for Resource Development
International (RDI) and previously a lecturer and course director for undergraduate and post graduate
courses both in the UK and internationally. He is currently researching towards his Ph.D in theInternational branding of UK higher Education. Research Interests cover a wide variety of themes
from distance learning pedagogy to international marketing and cultural adaption and adoption.
Matthew is a member of the RDI research committee and as such is actively involved in encouraging
and mentoring his peers to publish and to engage with research. E-mail: mcooper@rdi.co.uk

	
  
5
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
6
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Journal of Education Editors

Editor: Dr Bernard Montoneri
Providence University, Taiwan
Bernard Montoneri earned his PhD (African, Arab, and Asian Words; History, Languages, Literature)and his BA in Chinese from the University of Provence, Aix-Marseille I, France. He is currently an
Associate Professor at Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan. He teaches Literature (European,Children, American, and British) and languages (French, English, and Italian). Bernard has publishedmore than 32 journal and conference papers, 5 books and has obtained 16 teaching or research
projects. His research interests include European literature, children literature, English writing,automated scoring systems, teaching and learning evaluation, data envelopment analysis, networking,and teaching methods. He is a reviewer for top academic journals such as Review of Educational
Research (impact factor: 3.169; rank: 3 out of 203 in Education & Educational Research), American
Educational Research Journal (2.393), Teaching and Teacher Education (1.322), and European
journal of Operational Research (1.815).
Associate Editor: Dr Cassandra Atherton
Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Australia
Cassandra Atherton is a senior lecturer at Deakin University. She has written several articles onacademic public intellectuals for international journals and is currently writing a book, Wise Guys,on the changing role of the public intellectual in academe, based on her interviews with Noam
Chomsky, Harold Bloom, Camille Paglia, Stephen Greenblatt and others. A book interviews withthese American public intellectuals, entitled In So Many Words, is forthcoming from Australian
Scholarly Press. She has written a critical monograph, a novel and a book of poetry.
	
  
7
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Associate Editor: Dr Askhat F. Safiullin
Chonbuk National University, South Korea
Askhat F. Safiullin earned his PhD (International Studies) and his BA in International Relation fromthe Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. He is currently an Adjunct Professor at Chonbuk
National University, Jeonju, South Korea and Adjunct Professor at the Graduate School ofInternational Studies at Yonsei University, Seoul. South Korea.
He is also a Visiting Professor at Sonkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea. He teaches a wide
spectrum of subjects in International Relations ranging from Diplomacy and Global Governance tothe Korean Research Design. Askhat has published a number of journal and conference papers and achapter in a book. His research interests include International Relations and related spheres, andeffective teaching and learning methods.
Members of the Editorial Board
Associate Professor Beena Giridharan
Curtin University, Sarawak Malaysia
Beena Giridharan is the Dean, Teaching and Learning at Curtin University, Sarawak. She is
responsible for strategic and academic leadership and continuous improvement in teaching andlearning across all programs offered by Curtin Sarawak. She attained a doctoral degree in Applied
Linguistics and Education from Curtin University, Western Australia. Her Master’s degree (firstclass) is in English Language and Literature, and her Bachelor’s degree in Science (first class). She
has been a fellow of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia(HERDSA) since 2006. She won the 2006 Carrick Australian Award for University Teaching and theCurtin Excellence in Teaching and Innovation award in 2006. As a member of an OLT (Office of
	
  
8
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Learning and Teaching, Australia) funded project entitled ‘Learning Without Borders’, she has
investigated leadership roles in Transnational Education (TNE) and internationalization of
curriculum. She is a reviewer for the Pertanika-Journal of Social Sciences and for the Higher
Education Teaching and Learning Journal. She has been an invited speaker at several national
conferences. Her research interests include vocabulary acquisition in English as a second language,
higher education practices, transnational education, work-integrated learning, and ethno-linguistic
studies in indigenous communities. She was a visiting professor at the Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, Virginia, USA, between 2007 and 2008. E-mail: ebeena@curtin.edu.my
Associate Professor Yilin Chen
Providence University, Taiwan
Yilin Chen (PhD in Drama and Theatre, Royal Holloway, University of London) is an Associate
Professor at the Department of English Language, Literature and Linguistics, Providence University
in Taiwan. She studies Shakespeare and theatre history from 1600 to the present. She has publishedin several drama and theatre journals. Her most recent publication is “Staging Sexuality in an Allmale Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet” in Studies in Theatre and Performance (Routledge 2014),
which investigates the audience’s receptions and diverse erotic tensions generated in thecontemporary cross-gender Taiwanese Shakespearean production. Her current research interests are
the global dissemination of Japanese manga Shakespeare and the representation of gender andsexuality in manga adaptations of Shakespeare. She is also funded by the Ministry of Education toundertake a MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) project on the subject of Global/Local
Shakespeare in 2014. E-mail: yc276@yahoo.com

	
  
9
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Assistant Professor Massoud Moslehpour
Asia University, Taiwan
Dr Moslehpour is assistant professor of Business Administration and Foreign Languages at Asia
University. He has obtain his Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri,
in December 1995 (Support Areas: Higher and Adult Education; Curriculum Development; Spanish).
His major areas of interest are: Marketing, Management, Culture and Foreign Languages. During thepast ten years he has written several textbook related to: Internet English, Culture through Movies
and Presentation Skills. He has also published several journal articles in various international peerreviewed journals in the areas of: Purchase Intention, Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, andFreshman English and Internet Addiction. E-mail: writetodrm@gmail.com
Research Assistant Steve R. Entrich
University of Potsdam
Steve R. Entrich is a research assistant at the Chair for Social Scientific Educational Research at the
University of Potsdam, where he studied History and Educational Sciences. Following that, hestudied Japanese Language at the Humboldt University of Berlin, before staying at the Faculty ofSocial Sciences of Doshisha University as a “visiting graduate student”. Currently, he researches
shadow education in Japan, wherefore he recently stayed at the German Institute for JapaneseStudies (DIJ Tokyo) as a scholarship fellow. E-mail: entrich@uni-potsdam.de

	
  
10
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table of Contents

Notes on Contributors

1-6

Journal of Education Editors

7-10

Editor’s Introduction

13-16

German and Japanese Education in the Shadow - Do Out-ofSchool Lessons really contribute to Class Reproduction?
Steve R. Entrich

17-54

Cross-border collaboration in history among Nordic students:
A case study about creating innovative ICT didactic models
Maria Spante, Asgjerd Vea Karlsen, Anne-Mette Nortvig, and Rene B.
Christiansen

55-86

Teaching the Genres of Comparison and Contrast in English
Writing: From the Perspectives of Cooperative Principles
Greg Chung-Hsien Wu

87-116

Efficacy of Online Social Networks on Language Teaching:
A Bangladeshi Perspective
Shaila Shams

117-148

Integrating Technology in Teaching Students with Special
Learning Needs in the SPED Schools in Baguio City
Marilyn L. Balmeo, Erika Mae A. Nimo, Aubrey M. Pagal, Stephanie
C. Puga, ArisDafQuiño, and Jaleen L. Sanwen

149-180

Faculty Attitudes about Distance Education
Esther Smidt, Brian McDyre, Jennifer Bunk, Rui Li, and Tanya
Gatenby

181-210

Key Principles of Peer Assessments: A Feedback Strategy to
Engage the Postgraduate International Learner
Roopa Nagori and Matthew Cooper

211-238

Guide for Authors

239-242

	
  
11
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
12
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
It is my great pleasure and honour to introduce Volume 2, issue 2 of the IAFOR Journal of Education.
This issue is mostly a selection of papers submitted during:
1.

The fourth annual Asian Conference on Education (ACE 2012), 'Learning andTeaching Through Transformative Spaces', held in Osaka in October 2012. ACE attracted
450 registrants and invited speakers from more than 40 countries; it was IAFOR’s
biggest conference to date. 130 papers were submitted online in December 2012.

2.

The inaugural European Conference on Education (ECE 2013). The First European
Conference on Education was held alongside the Inaugural European Conference on
Technology in the Classroom (ECTC 2013). The two conferences were held in Brighton,
UK, in July 2013. The event attracted 350 delegates from over forty countries.

The Future of Education
This journal is proud to introduce scholars from all over the world. Most of the studies presented inthis issue discuss the benefits of using Information and communications technology (ICT) in theclassroom, notably for students with special learning needs (Balmeo et al.). The recent developmentof ICT has brought rapid and profound changes in the fields of Teaching and Education. Millions ofusers, including a large number of teachers and students, are engaging on social networks such as
Facebook (Shaila Shams) and using technology to connect with people from all around the world. A
growing number of studies demonstrates that 21st century technology supports educational activities
by notably allowing participation, interaction, resource and knowledge sharing, distance education(Smidt et al.), as well as local and international collaboration (Spante et al.).
The first paper is authored by Steve R. Entrich. This is a fascinating study into higher achievement
rates in Japan compared to Germany when examining PISA-results. The outcome that shadow
	
  
13
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

education is the most important factor in higher achievement is an incredibly interesting andinformative conclusion which demonstrates that ways that Japan overcomes any disadvantage intheir family background. This study is relevant to more than just the Germans (or indeed as acommendation for Japanese education), it will allow other countries who do not achieve as highly asJapan to consider this factor in their students’ lives. The graphs and tables are clear and illustrate thedata in a scientific and compelling way. This is a persuasive and impressive study.
The second paper by Maria Spante, Asgjerd Vea Karlsen, Anne-Mette Nortvig, Rene B. Christiansen
uses Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model to analyze classroom
observations, students’ video productions, texts and photos distributed and shared on a mutual blog,
real-time interaction and teachers’ communication in the subject of history in elementary schools in
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Spante et al. show that the number of students working together
should preferably be limited when dealing with complex tasks, and all involved users need to know
how to use the chosen technological tool to support communication and collaboration. Spante et al.
suggest to provide support to both students and teachers so that technical and organizational issues
do not overshadow the added value offered by cross-border collaboration.
Greg Chung-Hsien Wu touches upon an interesting sphere of English education as it attempts to
explore different genre of writing while assessing them using Cooperative Principles. Wu's six-week
study of five undergraduates voluntarily recruited in a university located in central Taiwan concludes
that Cooperative Principles can successfully be implemented in L2 writing instructions and caneffectively sharpen learners’ awareness in rhetorical and discoursal aspects of L2 writing. L2 writing
instructors are advised to encourage students to prepare collaborative dialogues during the classroom
and to give them written feedback either randomly or regularly.

	
  
14
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The next paper, written by Shaila Shams, investigates the effect of using Facebook in language
classrooms at tertiary level in Bangladesh. Participants of this study were first year first semester
university students doing a foundation course in English focusing to improve their listening,speaking, and writing skills. The participants were divided into two groups. Group 1 was the control
group who was taught traditionally and non-digitally without using Facebook. Group 2, along withclassroom teaching, received help from the instructor through Facebook and did tasks assigned on
Facebook. It works as a motivational platform which encourages, liberates from fear and introversion
and engages students into the practice of collaborative learning and therefore increase of skill in thelanguage. However, it appears that when teaching students with already advanced skills in thelanguage, this method will not help the students to increase their skills much further.
The next paper is co-authored by Marilyn L. Balmeo, Erika Mae A. Nimo, Aubrey M. Pagal,
Stephanie C. Puga, ArisDafQuiño, Jaleen L. Sanwen. In this study, the respondents included 53
teachers from the different schools offering special education in Baguio City. They answered toa self-made questionnaire consisting of 43 named hardware technologies and 13 named
softwaretechnologies. Whiteboard resulted to be one of the most available technologies in teaching
students with special learning needs, followed by Multimedia Software and electronic dictionary.
Esther Smidt, Brian McDyre, Jennifer Bunk, Rui Li, and Tanya Gatenby uncover faculty attitudes
about distance education in the context of a mid-sized mid-Atlantic state university. Data sources
consist of posts from two of six discussion boards written by 21 faculty participants during an Online
Faculty Development Program. The findings of this study suggest that faculty are concerned about
the conversion of face-to-face courses to online courses. They are also sensitive about anonymity
issues, specifically about whether student photos should be optional and discussion comments should
be anonymous. The study suggests that online courses should offer authentic, meaningful, and long	
  
15
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

term learning. Faculty should be trained in various learning tools as well as how to use them to create
meaningful and authentic learning environments.
Finally, Roopa Nagori and Matthew Cooper discuss experiences from four implementations of ‘Peer
assessments’ in a MBA program in the United Kingdom. Results from these implementations
demonstrate the benefits and challenges involved in peer reviews as a feedback strategy forinternational students studying on postgraduate programs. The researchers realized that low levels of
engagement with feedback needed to be addressed in time for students to modify their own thinking
and behavior to improve learning. Findings show improvements in summative scores for the higher
ability students were observed; all the learners agreed that the peer feedback should be made apermanent feature of the program, with adequate tutor planning and student preparation. The mainbarriers in giving feedback were lack of experience and hesitation in critiquing peer’s work.
Please note that we welcome original research papers in the field of education submitted by teachers,
scholars, and education professionals. They may send their manuscript even though they did notparticipate to one of the conferences held by IAFOR. We also welcome book reviews, reviews of theliterature in the field, and contributions introducing key educational scholars. The next issue
scheduled for February 15, 2015 will also be a selection of papers submitted during the above
mentioned conferences. IAFOR publications are freely accessible on the website (Open Access).
Moreover, there is no publication fee for authors. Please find the guidelines at this end of this issue.
Follow the new guide for authors if you wish to submit your paper. Finally, do not hesitate to join us
on LinkedIn via the group entitled IAFOR Journal of Education.
Best regards,
Bernard Montoneri

	
  
16
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

German and Japanese Education in the Shadow - Do
Out-of-School Lessons really contribute to Class
Reproduction?
Steve R. Entrich	
  

	
  
17
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
Considering the great impact the first PISA-results caused in Germany and Japan, this study seeks toprovide an explanation for the continuous higher achievement rates of students in the PISA-winnercountry Japan compared to their German peers. Another great difference between the twoparticipants that was detected in PISA is the correlation between students’ social origin andeducational achievement, which is still very strong in Germany but not in Japan. The author assumes
the reason for these differences lay outside the formal school system, in the sector of shadow
education. The so called juku-industry in Japan provides out-of-school lessons that seem to enable all
Japanese students to achieve top results regardless of their social origin. In Germany the increased
use of Nachhilfe is seen as an indicator for the downfall of the compulsory school system and aproblem that seem to widen the gap in education levels all the more. If in Japan almost every
household regardless of its social status sends its children to out-of-school classes, the assumptionthat people do invest in further education in terms of extra classes at juku believing this will have aneutralizing effect on disadvantaged family background suggests itself. Consequently the author
intends to refute the prevailing assumption of researchers in Germany and Japan stating that out-ofschool lessons just contribute to the reproduction of class structure. Using secondary data as well as
PISA-data the author wants to show that shadow education helps to counteract educational
disadvantages through the provision of various educational opportunities.

Keywords: Shadow education; Comparative education; Out-of-school education; Social disparities;
Germany, Japan, PISA 2009.

	
  
18
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
The publishing of the first results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
caused a public, political and scientific debate about education in Germany. Germany’s hope for a
top position was unfortunately not a reality. Instead, the OECD certified that German students showat best mediocre performance within the study. In addition, students’ social origin correlated strongly
with educational achievement in Germany (Stanat, Artelt, Baumert, Klieme, Neubrand, Prenzel,
Schiefele, Schneider, Schümer, Tillmann, & Weiß, 2002, p.12). German researchers began to ask
how Germany’s educational system could have performed so poorly amid other OECD countries andwhat was done differently in PISA winner countries such as Japan? Not only were Japanese students
able to achieve top results. The influence of students’ social origin on the performance in PISA wasthe lowest in Japan amid the participants (ibid., p.12). The Japanese seem to have found a way toneutralize disadvantaged family background through education enabling all students to achieve ahigh level of education regardless of the wealth of their parents. Considering that the formal school
system possesses no apparent significant differences that could clearly explain the Japanese successover Germany (von Kopp, 2000, pp.181-82) another explanation had to be found. Not only can theformal school system be held responsible for the success of its students. Also education outside ofschool has to be acknowledged to understand the Japanese success (Schümer, 1999, p.46). These
responsible out-of-school lessons are called shadow education.
Shadow Education and its Implications
A shadow education system is an educational system of private institutions and organizations
operating alongside the formal school system. Stevenson and Baker (1992) defined shadow
education as “a set of educational activities that occur outside formal schooling and are designed toenhance the student’s formal school career” (p.1639). Also shadow education is supposed to
	
  
19
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“improve student’s chances of successfully moving through the allocation process [while it is] firmly
rooted within the private sector” (pp.1640-42). Based on this definition, Bray (1999, 2010)
identified three main points of essence: (1) shadow education is academic in nature, clearlyexcluding all non-academic forms of out-of-school education, like arts or sports lessons, from thisdefinition; (2) shadow education is used as a supplement, and is therefore not covering classes
outside the school spectrum, like language classes for children with migratory background; and (3)shadow education is private, meaning all non-professional forms, such as parental help withhomework, or unpaid remedial classes at school are excluded from this definition, since shadow
education is commercial in nature and always fee based (Bray, 2010: 4).
Figure 1. Different Types of Out-of-School Education

	
  
20
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

In conclusion, only these types of out-of-school education are characterized as shadow education
which are professionally organized by private providers (professional) and school subject related(academic) (Figure 1). As recent research indicates, these out-of-school lessons show a positiveeffect on academic achievement (e.g. Baker, Akiba, LeTendre & Wisemann, 2001; Guill & Bonsen,
2011; Haag, 2001, 2007; Hosenfeld, 2011; Konakayama & Matsui, 2008; Mimizuka, 2007; Ojima &von Below, 2010; Southgate, 2009; Streber, Haag & Götz, 2011; Tomura, Nishimaru & Oda, 2011).
Today shadow education can be found all around the globe (Bray, 1999; 2010). Particularly in Japanthe use of out-of-school classes has a long tradition. The main providers are private schools, theacademic juku (gakushūjuku) - often referred to as cram schools (e.g. Roesgaard, 2006). After thegreat juku-boom (Rohlen, 1980) in the 1970s as a result of the extraordinary high increase of
educational aspirations of the Japanese population in the course of educational expansion, theJapanese shadow education system expanded steadily (Haasch, 2000, p.195; Dierkes, 2010a, p.26),
as illustrated in Figure 2. Instead of the Japanese government, which did not meet the educational
needs of worried parents, private operators promised help through the provision of supplementary
classes at their juku (Haasch, 1979, pp.43, 45-46; Drinck, 2002, p.263). A juku is a private for-profit
school offering all sorts of instructions in academic as well as non-academic fields. While nonacademic juku are concerned with naraigoto1, academic juku are school subject related and offer
private tutoring, enrichment as well as remedial classes or the preparation for tests and (entrance-)
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1

Naraigoto are afternoon activities often organized in clubs (bukatsudō) directly taking place on school grounds or at

juku. Whereas many students come together to build teams and train with each other in sports such as baseball or soccer,
other students explore their musical and artistic skills in singing and dancing classes or take piano lessons. Also, classes
are popular, where students learn to use the Japanese abacus (soroban), learn calligraphy or are instructed in martial arts(būdō) (von Kopp, 2000: 180; MEXT, 2008: 15).

	
  
21
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

exams. Besides, the variety of supply ranges from simple help with homework to courses that let
students expand their knowledge beyond their peers’ education level (Dierkes, 2010a, pp.26-27;
Komiyama, 1993, pp.82-87). Besides juku, lessons given by private home tutors and correspondence
courses are the most popular shadow education types in Japan. Currently almost every Japanese
student is taking or has taken lessons at juku (Konakayama & Matsui, 2008, p.131).
Figure 2. SSM 2005 'Use of shadow education in Japan by birth cohort' (atleast half a year, in %)
100%
90%

85.9%

80%
71.1%
64.1%
57.0%
51.1%

60%
50%
40%

40.0%
32.7%

27.8%

20.6%
8.2%
4.0%
0.9%

9.0%
1.8%

10.0%
6.3%

12.3%
12.0%

1935-1945

1946-1955

1956-1965

1966-1975

Juku or Yobikō

70%

14.9%
10.0%

1976-1985

30%
20%
10%
0%

Private Home Tutor

Correspondence Course

No Experience

Source: Social Stratification and Mobility Survey (SSM) 2005, own calculation.
The data for this secondary analysis, "German and Japanese Education in the Shadow" was provided by the Social Science
Japan Data Archive, Center for Social Research and Data Archives, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo.

Consequently the so called juku-industry, as this national supplemental private tutoring entity
external to the formal education system is entitled, provides one possible explanation for Japanese
students’ high performance in international large scale assessment studies, such as PISA.
Nowadays the phenomenon of rising demands for private supplementary education has also
increased in most western countries, such as Germany. In Japan, juku-owners promote that shadow
education will lead to the superior results of the Japanese youth compared to compulsory school
	
  
22
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

education (Dierkes, 2010a, p.25). In Germany, comparable programs are provided by Nachhilfeschools, whose heads make the same promises which operators of private educational institutions
make all over the world: they lure students with the promise for better pedagogical concepts that giveparents a way out of an educational misery – successfully as it seems. Particularly since the 1990s
the use of professional out-of-school lessons in Germany has strongly increased (Guill & Bonsen,
2011, p.307; Mayr, 2010, pp.10-11). The German Nachhilfe-system has expanded and became an
influential factor educationally as well as economically. Various conservative estimates suggest thataround 1.1 million German students yearly use Nachhilfe. This industry has approximately already aturnover up to nearly 1.5 billion Euros a year (Klemm & Klemm, 2010, p.20). Although thesenumbers may seem impressive, the German Nachhilfe-system with its approximately 3.000 to morethan 4.000 Nachhilfe-school branches is still in an early stage of development compared to theJapanese juku-system that generated approximately US$15.2 billion in 2012 (Yano ResearchInstitute, 2013).
While in Japan most shadow education has been professionalized and is mostly taking place at juku,
in Germany other forms of shadow education are still predominant. Only about 30% of all shadow
education in Germany takes place at juku-like institutions, the Nachhilfe-schools (Dohmen, Erbes,
Fuchs, & Günzel, 2008, p.53). In comparison, in Japan there are even more juku (almost 50.000)
today than formal schools combined (about 39.000) (BERD, 2007, p.2). This indispensable addition
to the public compulsory school system has become influential in such a way, that it is perceived theJapanese formal school system alone cannot prepare students for their later life course in a proper
way anymore (Sato, 2005). In promotion with this belief, local officials have advocated for the jukuschools as positive alternatives and actually pursue partnerships with those institutions to improvetheir learning opportunities (Dierkes, 2010b).
	
  
23
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The fear compulsory schools will not be able to sufficiently educate children anymore is alreadypresent in Germany, too. In general, in Germany students needing Nachhilfe is seen as a problem andan indicator for the downfall of the compulsory school system. The idea the compulsory school
system is no longer able to equip students with the needed armamentarium to succeed in school andthereafter is a national issue of concern. In fact, the high costs for private lessons seem to intensify
social disparities and widen the gap between rich and poor all the more, as some studies indicate(Schneider, 2004, 2006). While in Japan all social classes seem to be able to use expensive out-ofschool education, this is not the case in Germany. Whether it really is the costs that some German
parents cannot afford, the unwillingness to pay for supplementary education for their child, or it is
the nescience about what shadow education can possibly offer, has not been sufficiently researchedyet.
As social scientific research on education has proven, the socioeconomic background and parents’
educational aspirations in conjunction with the students’ academic achievement are decisive for the
making of educational decisions. The difference in educational prerequisites at the beginning of a
students’ school career (primary effect) and parents’ different cost-benefit considerations based on
their educational aspirations (secondary effect) result in educational as well as social inequality(Becker & Lauterbach, 2010; Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Esser, 1999). Hence, theseprimary as well as secondary effects of social origin exert great influence on educational pathways.
Parents tend to invest in the educational trajectory of their child as long as the expected returns to
education exceed the costs (Becker & Lauterbach, 2010, pp.15-19). If in Japan almost every
household sends its children to juku, parents might indeed think that an investment in supplementary
education will pay off for their children. This provides a reasonable explanation for the attested low
achievement range between Japanese students with high and low social origin in PISA.
	
  
24
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The Cause of the Achievement Gap: The Use of Professional Shadow Education
Before the question if out-of-school lessons contribute to the reproduction of class structure or if
shadow education may in fact counteract educational disadvantages through the provision of various
educational opportunities can be discussed, the theoretical framework of such a thesis has to be
determined. Of greatest interest for this work is to first prove if Japanese students are constantly
achieving better results compared to their German peers. Therefore, in the following some results ofthe most popular international student achievement study PISA will be presented.
Educational Achievement in International Comparison
After Germany has been absent from its participation in international student assessment studies fornearly 30 years, the empirical educational research in Germany was rediscovered as a powerfulmeans for educational policies in the late 1990s (Arnold, 2001, pp.161-63). Unfortunately, the hoped
for top-position within the PISA study of the year 2000 remained a dream. On the contrary, acomparatively low performance was attested (Figure 3). As we can see, it seems that Japanese
students achieve always significantly higher results in all fields of performance within the PISA
study than their German peers. Over the last decade, German students never reached the competency
levels of their Japanese opponents. In the PISA survey of the year 2000 Japanese students achieved
rank 1 in mathematics, rank 2 in science and rank 8 in reading literacy, showing nearly equally goodresults in 2009 (ranks 4, 2 and 5 respectively). German students on the other hand did not achieve
comparable results. With rank 20 in mathematics and science as well as rank 21 in reading, Germany
made it barely to the lower middle field in international comparison. Although the results forGermany were getting better over the years (2009: mathematics rank 10, science rank 9, reading rank17) ranks within the PISA top field could not yet be achieved.

	
  
25
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 3. PISA 2000 to 2009 'Positioning of Germany (BRD) and Japan within the different
competency fields (test scores and ranking)'
539
531
548
550

Japan Science
Germany Science

487

502

520
516

Germany Mathematics

490

513
504
503

Japan Reading

498
498

Germany Reading

497
495
491
484
440

460

PISA 2009

rank 15

rank 20

529
523
534

Japan Mathematics

rank 2
rank 3rank 9rank 8rank 4rank 6
rank 4557
rank 20520

rank 1

rank 10rank 14rank 16
rank 5rank 13rank 12522

rank 2
rank 2

rank 8rank 17
rank 15
rank 18
rank 21480

500

PISA 2006

520

PISA 2003

540

560

580

PISA 2000

Sources: PISA 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009; own calculation including only the PISA 2000-members.

Taking into account the limitations of the PISA study, such as cultural patterns, the questionnaires’
item style, and sample variations between countries (Hamano, 2011, pp.3-4); the significant
differences between the performance score means of German and Japanese students are still evident
and need further explanation.
Since PISA attempts to measure literacy, also described as ‘application ability’ (Hamano, 2011, p.2),
meaning the ability to achieve skills and knowledge instead of measuring the actual achievedknowledge and skills of students; the differences between Japanese and German students’ PISA
performances are not found in the regular schooling system of each country only. Additional
educational opportunities have to be taken into account as well.

	
  
26
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Quantity and Quality of Instruction in both Countries
One could assume that the higher achievement rates of Japanese students may be mainly caused bylonger study hours at school or better teaching quality. As will be shown in the following, this is not
the case.
The quantitative learning time of students in Germany and Japan today does not differ very much or,at least, in Japan the time spend in school is not significantly higher than in Germany. Table 1 shows
the medians of the number of class periods in both countries, also considering the three performancefields of the so far conducted surveys of the PISA study.
Table 1. PISA 2000 to 2009 'Number of weekly class periods per subject'
Country

Germany PISA
2009

PISA
2003

PISA
2000

Japan

mathematics

nativelanguage

PISA
2009

all subjects

valid659798656892637595636625

missing107194110100129397130367

median

4

4

5

32

valid

-

791269-707022

missing

-

93089

-

177336

median

-

4

-

30

valid

740064738005771749-missing

86752

88811

55067

-

median

4

4

4

-

valid

10741491073655

10736301081283

missing

39253

39748

39772

32119

	
  
27
	
  

scienceThe IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

PISA
2003

PISA
2000

median

4

5

3

31

valid

-

1162943-

1054582

missing

-

77111

-

185472

median

-

4

-

30

valid

1221428

1228372

1210646-

missing

225168218224235950-median5

54-

Sources: PISA 2000, 2003, 2009, own calculation.
One class period is equal to 45 minutes for Germany and 50 minutes for Japan.
The data of PISA 2006 is not considered, because no clear categories were defined.

Here a development in school learning time from PISA 2000 to PISA 2009 can be found. While inGermany the learning time increased in general from 30 (2003) to 32 (2009) class periods per week
and in the field science from 4 (2000) to 5 (2009) weekly class periods, it decreased in Japan innative language as well as in science about one class period from 5 (2000) to 4 (2009) and 4 (2000)
to 3 (2009) respectively. Further data as conducted by the OECD might show if the learning time inJapan differs very much prior to 9th grade or not (Figure 4).

	
  
28
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 4. OECD 2000 to 2008 'Compulsory instruction time in public
institutions, several age groups (in hours per year)'
950

Japan Age 12 to 14
900

Germany Age 12 to 14
850

OECD Age 12 to 14
Japan Age 9 to 11

800

Germany Age 9 to 11
750

OECD Age 9 to 11
Japan Age 7 to 8

700

Germany Age 7 to 8
650

OECD Age 7 to 8
600

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Sources: OECD 2002 to
2010, ch. D1.

Although the overall instruction time seems to even be slightly higher in Germany for 9- to 14-year
olds, a real difference in instruction time can only be detected for students of the age 7 to 8. Even thecomparison of instruction time in the three subjects related to the three performance fields of PISA
reveals no great differences between German and Japanese students aged 9 to 14 (own calculation on
the basis of OECD, 2002 – 2010, ch. D1).
A glance on public primary schools in both countries shows that there is a difference in the total
number of school hours, but no huge differences in the time spend for the PISA related subjects.
Only in native language real differences seem visual (Figure 5).

	
  
29
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 5. Instruction time 2011 'Compulsory instruction time in public
primary schools per subject and number of class periods'
0

5

10

15

20

Japan 1st Grade
Germany 1st Grade

25

30

35
Native Language
Mathematics

Japan 2nd Grade
Germany 2nd Grade

Science*

Japan 3rd Grade
Germany 3rd Grade

Foreign Language

Japan 4th Grade
Germany 4th Grade

Others

Sources: Numano, 2011 (for Japan); primary school regulations of the 16 different federal states of Germany.
One class period is equal to 45 minutes in Germany as well as in Japan.
*The subject science includes "Living Environment Studies" for Japan and "Sachkunde" for Germany.

Due to the reformation of primary education in Japan as initiated in 2008, the time for instruction inschool has increased for the first time in 30 years, since the gradual implementation of the yutori
kyōiku (no-pressure education) reforms in the 1980s. Especially for native language and science
more time is now invested (Numano, 2011, p.8). On the other hand, the curricula in Germany havealso been reformed since the implementation of curriculum and school structure reforms after thegreat PISA-shock in 2001 (Ertl, 2006). In conclusion it has to be stated that the differences between
the amount of instruction time in German and Japanese schools in the three above mentioned PISArelated subjects are not convincing enough to serve as an explanation for higher achievement rates.
The pure quantity of lessons is not that different in both countries, so a clear explanation for the
much higher achievement rates in Japan is still missing.
Against the prevalent view of researchers and politicians across the world, who tended to praise theJapanese education system for its high academic standards and quality (e.g. Akiba, LeTendre, &Scribner, 2007; OECD, 2012; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Stigler &Stevenson, 1991) or even tried to emulate Japanese education, like the United States did back in the
	
  
30
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

1980s due to the ‘A Nation at Risk’ report (Fujita, 2010, p.21); the quality of Japanese schoolingneeds actually to be viewed critically. In fact, the higher quality of teaching is mostly found inprimary schools rather than in middle or high schools (von Kopp, 2000, p.181f.). This was again
verified by a recent study carried out by Peter Cave (2011). Despite a number of education reforms
over the last 20 years, Cave found that Japanese middle schools continue teaching practices, which
can hardly be characterized as quality instruction. On the contrary, ‘exploratory thinking andindependent learning’ are maybe found at the primary school level, but not so thereafter (Cave, 2011,
p.149).
As Schümer (1999) noted, a possible higher quality of instruction and thus effectiveness is madepossible by an investment in extra classes outside of school (Schümer, 1999, pp.50-52). Nevertheless,until today the Japanese juku-industry has not been acknowledged for what it is: an indispensable
addition to the public school system (e.g. OECD, 2012, p.202). Even though in Japan everybody
seems to know that “[e]ducational achievement is prompted by a broad societal and educational
infrastructure, of which formal schooling is just one part” (Tanabe, 2000, p.125), the major role ofshadow education is rarely accounted for.
A possible explanation for the higher achievement rates of Japanese students in PISA is found in the
far greater investment in out-of-school education in comparison to German students. Consequently,
Japanese 10th graders have to receive longer instruction times by generally attending significantly
more out-of-school classes than their German peers (Figure 6). Taking into account existing researchon the effectiveness of shadow education in both countries, we can assume that lessons in the
shadow education sector are of considerable high quality since these lessons were found to contributeto students’ educational achievement (e.g. Guill & Bonsen, 2011; Haag, 2001, 2007; Hosenfeld,
	
  
31
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

2011; Konakayama & Matsui, 2008; Mimizuka, 2007; Streber, Haag & Götz, 2011; Tomura,Nishimaru & Oda, 2011). A generally higher investment in professional outside of school lessons inJapan thus provides an explanation for the higher achievement rates of Japanese students comparedto German students.
Figure 6. PISA 2009 'Weekly investment in of out-of-school lessons inGermany and Japan, per subject' (in %)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Germany

40%

45%

native language
mathematics
sciencesother subjects
total

Japan
native language
mathematics
sciencesother subjects
total

less than 2 hours a week

2 to 4 hours a week

more than 4 hours a week
Source: PISA 2009, own calculation.

According to PISA 2009 data, Japanese PISA-participants did generally use shadow education more
often. As we can see, especially in the three PISA-related subjects native language, science andmathematics (!) classes outside of school are attended to a high degree. However impressive theseparticipation ratios may seem, they only partly reflect reality. Due to definition inaccuracies it is notclear whether ‘out-of-school time lessons’ as mentioned in the PISA questionnaires are attended in
the private or public sector, nor whether or not they have to be paid for. Out-of-school lessons were
simply defined as “given at […] school, at […] home or somewhere else” (PISA 2009 questionnaire:
Q31, Q32). The extraordinarily high participation ratios in out-of-school lessons in PISA 2009 are
	
  
32
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

thus due to definition inaccuracies. Here not only shadow education was included into students’
responses, but unpaid and paid lessons in and outside of school, too. Contrary to this, the items inGerman were more accurate.
Nevertheless, these data show that Japanese students are extensively engaged in extracurricular
education, whereas this seems not to be the case in Germany.
Whether an investment in out-of-school lessons shows effects on the performance in large scaleassessment studies such as PISA depends somewhat on the type of lesson the students attend(Mimizuka, 2007). In PISA 2009, three different types of out-of-school lessons were defined:
enrichment, remedial, and lessons to improve students’ study skills (development lessons). Whereasenrichment lessons are used with the purpose to enhance the individual academic achievement level
above the school class level, remedial lessons are used by students with learning deficits.
Development lessons provide techniques to increase the students’ individual learning ability. As
Figure 7 shows, Japanese students use more out-of-school supplementary education of all types.

	
  
33
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 7. PISA 2009 'Participation in different Types of Out-of-School
Lessons in Germany and Japan (in %)'8.1%

Enrichment Lessons

46.6%

Germany

10.8%

Remedial Lessons

25.0%

Japan
Development Lessons

2.7%
21.2%

Source: PISA 2009, own calculation.
Enrichment lessons were defined as 'Zusatzunterricht für leistungsstarke Schüler' in the German PISA 2009questionnaire and as 'Gakuryoku o kōjōsaseru tame no benkyō' in the Japanese version. Remedial lessons
were defined as 'Förder-/ Nachhilfeunterricht' in German and 'Hoshū jugyō' in Japanese, whereas
development lessons were translated as 'Kurs zur Verbesserung deiner Lern- und Arbeitstechniken' inGerman and 'Hatten jugyō' in Japanese.

In general, the demand for remedial lessons is slightly higher in Germany, whereas Japanese students
favor enrichment lessons. Especially the high percentage of Japanese students participating inenrichment lessons (46.6%) compared to German students (8.1%) supports the argument that shadow
education contributes to the Japanese success in PISA, since enrichment lessons are mainly used by
students without learning deficits who aim at enhancing their academic achievement level above theoriginal requirements of regular school class.	
  Social Origin and Educational Achievement
Besides the only mediocre results of German students in PISA 2000, it became clear that the social
origin of a student plays a significant role for the level of educational achievement in Germany. In
Japan the correlation between social background and educational achievement was comparably low(Figure 8).

	
  
34
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 8. PISA 2000 'Differences between the average reading literacy of 15 year olds fromthe highest and lowest quarter of social structure'
Germany

rank 1

111

Japan

rank 31 (last rank)

27
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

The figure above shows the differences between the means of the performance of those 25% youths from families
with the highest social status of a nation compared to the performance of those 25% youths from families with thelowest social status.
Source: Stanat, et al., 2002, p. 12.

Here the range between the performance of students of the highest and lowest social quartile ofsociety was the lowest in Japan (27 points), but highest in Germany (111 points) in 2000. Even
though Japanese education is believed to have become more unequal recently (Fujita, 2010), Japan isstill one of the countries in which the impact of social origin on student performance remained
considerably low in international comparison. For the German case, the influence of social
background on performance in PISA 2009 seems was not as strong as it used to be in 2000, but there
still remains a big difference in comparison to the Japanese case. In Japan about 11% of resilient
students can be found among the 25% of those youths from families with a low social status.
Germany still belongs to the countries where students’ learning outcomes are strongly determined bytheir social origin (OECD, 2012, p.49). The reason for the nevertheless apparent improvement inGermany may be a result of reform measures undertaken in the different federal states of Germany.
Also the increased use of shadow education may play a great role here. The lower range ofperformance in Japan may be caused by the higher use of shadow education in all social quartiles.
Especially students with disadvantaged social origin may indeed be the ones to use out-of-school
education as a means to counteract their family background. Following leading sociological theories,
	
  
35
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 9 illustrates what causes may underlie the motivation of different social classes to invest in
shadow education.
Figure 9. Social Status and Shadow Education

In Figure 9, possible causal relationships are visualized theoretically before they will be translated
into our data analysis. Following decision theory based on Boudon (1974) and further developed by
Esser (1999) and Breen and Goldthorpe (1997), families with a high social status are trying topreserve their status. To achieve this goal a high level of education has to be guaranteed for theirchildren. Whether the school seems to not prepare their children enough for a successful life courseor the children’s grades are not what they ought to be, parents may be concerned in one way or theother. Therefore measures have to be taken to assure a high status. Here shadow education, although
it may seem as some kind of emergency solution, can serve as possible guarantor for educational
success. The expenses for this supplementary education seem to be tacitly approved by those parents.
In comparison, families with a low social status have the greatest opportunities in education.
	
  
36
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

However, those families may not realize the importance of a high level of education, because theymight just not realize the chance of social advancement. But even if they realize how importanteducation can become for their children, they might not have the financial resources to take theopportunity that shadow education may provide for them. Whether shadow education is accessible
for all social strata will be discussed in the following chapter.
In contrast, middle class families have to worry about status preservation so they will not slide down
the social ladder on the one hand or grab the opportunity to climb the social ladder on the other.
Again education is the crucial factor for both scenarios. It becomes clear, how influential primary as
well as secondary effects of social origin are for educational pathways. Here shadow education canadvance to become a chance to at least preserve the social status or even climb the social ladder. Of
course parents are also measuring if further investments in education will pay off in the end (Becker& Lauterbach, 2010, p.15ff.).
To make conclusions about the ability as well as the willingness of parents to invest in shadow
education in Japan and Germany, similarities and differences in Japan and Germany regarding theinvestment in shadow education have to be taken into account. The research questions are: Does thesocial origin play a role in who utilizes out-of-school classes in the two countries? Are all Japanese
students able to utilize out-of-school education regardless of their social origin? Some answers shallbe given in the next chapter.
Shadow Education as a Means to Counteract Social Disadvantages?
To verify my theoretical assumptions, I will use PISA data of the year 2009. In order to carry out myanalysis, besides the dependent variables concerning the participation in shadow education, suitable

	
  
37
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

covariates to describe the socioeconomic background of German and Japanese students will be
introduced in the following.
PISA includes a great variety of background data, such as the index of the economic, social andcultural status (ESCS). The ESCS index was derived from PISA variables which are all related tofamily background: the highest parental education in years (PARED); the highest parental
occupation (HISEI); as well as the number of home possessions (HOMEPOS). The variable
HOMEPOS was used as an approximate measure of family wealth (OECD, 2006, p.316). For ourfurther research all data was weighted to get unbiased estimates of population parameters. To
categorize the ESCS variable, it has been subdivided into three social classes: lowest 25% (lower
class), highest 25% (upper class), and the 50% in between (middle class).
Figure 10 shows the distribution of German and Japanese students who are participating in out-ofschool lessons according to social strata. Surprisingly, the greatest differences in the participation in
out-of-school education for different social strata are detected for Japan (Figure 10). Although all
Japanese students use shadow education far more than German students, it seems as if an investment
in shadow education increases with higher socioeconomic status of students. In comparison, in
Germany more lower class students attend Nachhilfe-classes. Especially enrichment lessons areattended by more low class students (11.1%) than high class students (7%) in Germany. In contrast,
remedial lessons are nearly equally used by all students (about 11%).

	
  
38
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 10. PISA 2009 'Use of out-of-school lessons in Germany and Japan,
per ESCS' (in %)Germany

0%

10%

20%

Enrichment lessons

30%

40%

50%

60%

low ESCS

Remedial lessons

middle ESCS
high ESCS

Development lessons

averageJapan
Enrichment lessons
Remedial lessons
Development Lessons

Source: PISA 2009, own calculation.

Although a high percentage of Japanese students is able to use shadow education, it seems as if
social strata have a greater impact on who uses shadow education in Japan than in Germany.
To get reliable results, I carried out several logistic regression analyses using the three different types
enrichment, remedial and development lessons in mathematics as dependent variable, as shown in
Tables 2 and 3.
First of all, model 1 (Table 2) only includes the ESCS of students as explanatory variable. In general,
both countries show similar results: students with a high ESCS have much higher chance toparticipate in out-of-school lessons of all types, except for remedial lessons in Germany – theparticipation in these lessons is only marginally affected by students’ socioeconomic background.
German students with a high ESCS are even less likely to receive extracurricular remedial teaching.
However, the pseudo R square of these models is far from satisfactory, meaning that there are several
other influences of greater importance than the socioeconomic status of a student.
	
  
39
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table 2. PISA 2009 ‘Logistic Regression Analysis predicting Students’ Participation in
Different Types of Out-of-School Lessons in Mathematics (Odds Ratios)’ Model 1
Enrichment Lessons

Remedial Lessons

Development Lessons

Exp(B)

Exp(B)

Exp(B)

Prob

Prob

Prob

GERMANY
ESCS
High

1.766

***

.866

***

1.611

***

Middle

1.238

***

1.093

***

1.233

***

.093

***

.231

***

.020

***

Low (ref.)Constant
N (weighted)

628560628679625884

R²: Cox & Snell

.004

.001

.001

Nagelkerke

.008

.002

.003

JAPAN
ESCS
High

2.081

***

2.069

***

2.296

***

Middle

1.518

***

1.478

***

1.374

***

.586

***

.351

***

.288

***

Low (ref.)Constant
N (weighted)

11027101103432

1103015

R²: Cox & Snell

.017

.015

.019

Nagelkerke

.022

.020

.027

***P<0.001; **P<0.01; *P<0.05
Source: PISA 2009, own calculation.

	
  
40
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

To increase the model fit of my analysis, further influential variables have to be considered, which
determine the access to shadow education. Following Ojima and von Below (2010), students’currently attended type of school is considered as one of the most influential covariates besides
ESCS.
In Germany basically we find a tripartite tracking system, consisting of the three secondary school
tracks Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule. While the Gymnasium is the only track thattraditionally provides the opportunity to get access to universities through the Abitur, Realschule
graduates have access to white collar jobs and other higher education fields. Hauptschule students
nowadays do not have as much access to higher education, well paid or prestigious jobs (Ojima &von Below, 2010, p.277). Today the number of comprehensive secondary schools, the Gesamtschule,is also increasing. At a Gesamtschule students also have the opportunity to get an Abitur andtherefore access to universities. Nevertheless, this school type is not yet a competitor for the tripartite
system (Maaz, 2006, pp.85-87).	
  	
  In Japan a single track secondary school system is found. Here all senior secondary school graduates
have the opportunity to access all different higher education institutions. However, two major tracks
can be divided though: a general academic (futsūka) and a vocational track (senmongakka). But, theJapanese academic high school system is also highly stratified through the prestige high schools havegathered according to the percentage of students that enter high ranked universities (Ojima & von
Below, 2010, p.277). To access these universities, solely performance counts, since entrance
examinations remain the deciding factor for entering (Takeuchi, 1997, p.184). Following Taki (2011),
the performance of students was used as a proxy for schools’ ranks due to a lack of data about theadvancement ratio of students to higher education. Academic high schools were classified into three
	
  
41
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

different ranks: General A, General B and General C high schools. Besides, we find a vocational
school track.
For the German case, a dummy variable concerning the current grade (1=10th grade; 2=9th/8th grade)of the students has also to be included in the analysis. Unlike Japanese students not all 15-year old
German students were already in 10th grade at the time of the survey.
When including the school type into our analysis, the impact of students’ ESCS decreases heavily(Table 3).
Table 3. PISA 2009 ‘Logistic Regression Analysis predicting Students’ Participation in
Different Types of Out-of-School Lessons in Mathematics (Odds Ratios)’ Model 2
Enrichment Lessons

Remedial Lessons

Development Lessons

Exp(B)

Exp(B)

Exp(B)

Prob

Prob

Prob

GERMANY
ESCS
High

.899

***

.895

***

.919

***

Middle

.886

***

1.095

***

.934

**

Gymnasium

.244

***

1.071

***

.361

***

Realschule

.495

***

1.172

***

.700

***

Gesamtschule

.659

***

1.095

***

.572

***

Class

.680

***

1.096

***

.482

***

Constant

.291

***

.203

***

.051

***

Low (ref.)School Type

Hauptschule (ref.)

	
  
42
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

N (weighted)

628560628679625884

R²: Cox & Snell

.031

.002

.006

Nagelkerke

.062

.003

.032

JAPAN
ESCS
High

1.521

***

1.521

***

1.756

***

Middle

1.291

***

1.224

***

1.206

***

General A

2.256

***

2.484

***

2.392

***

General B

1.569

***

2.867

***

1.472

***

General C

1.030

***

1.847

***

1.273

***

Constant

.521

***

.214

***

.235

***

N (weighted)

11027101103432

1103015

R²: Cox & Snell

.035

.045

.034

Nagelkerke

.047

.062

.048

Low (ref.)School Type

Vocational (ref.)***P<0.001; **P<0.01; *P<0.05
Source: PISA 2009, own calculation.

A high ESCS has no impact on the participation in either one of the three types of out-of-school
lessons in Germany anymore. In comparison, even though the chance that Japanese students
participate in out-of-school lessons has decreased also, there is still a 1.5 times (enrichment and

	
  
43
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

remedial lessons) to 1.8 times (development lessons) higher chance of students with a high ESCS toparticipate in shadow education compared to students from the lowest social quartile.
In conclusion, we have to acknowledge these first results. The German shadow education isfunctioning more as an instrument to neutralize disadvantaged family background than Japanese
shadow education. Although this would also be a very positive result of this investigation, there areother factors we have to consider before jumping to final conclusions.
Discussion
An explanation for the great class specific differences in the use behavior regarding shadow
education between the two countries can be found in the different motives why out-of-school lessons
are attended (Figures 11 and 12).
Figure 11. Studienkreis 2003 'Students' and parents' motives regarding the attendance ofNachhilfe-center in Germany' (in %)
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Achieving higher grades
Preparation for exams/tests
Closing gaps of knowledge
Acquisition of learning strategies

Parents

Help with homework

Students

Get to the next grade
Better/higher graduation
No remedial lessons in school
Source: Jürgens & Diekmann, 2007, p. 31.

	
  
44
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Following the data of a survey conducted by one of the two biggest German Nachhilfe-providers, theStudienkreis, which owns more than 1.000 Nachhilfe-center in Germany, it is the foremost objectiveof German parents as well as students to get better grades. Most German students seem to attend outof-school lessons because they have a certain problem at school. Besides getting better grades, theyseek to close gaps of knowledge or get help with preparations for school tests or with homework.
In Japan it is entirely normal for a child to go to a juku. Especially in middle school (7th to 9th grade)nearly everybody goes to a juku in the afternoon or evening. As the next Figure (12) shows, Japanese
students have also very different reasons to attend a juku.

Figure 12. MEXT 2007 'Students' motives regarding the attendance of juku in Japan'(per grade, in %)
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

70%

11.3%
15.4%
13.6%

Achieving higher grades

52.0%

Closing gaps of knowledge

52.9%
51.3%
51.6%

Easy understandable teaching methods

60.1%

60.1%

22.0%
20.9%
25.8%

Sympathy for the teacher

38.7%

To meet friends

48.2%
49.1%

31.8%
36.8%

To make new friends

27.2%

Enjoyment of learning
Parents are happy about it

60%

14.6%
3.7%
2.0%

23.0%

37.3%

9.4%

3rd grade

6th grade

9th grade

Source: MEXT, 2008, p. 34.

In comparison to German students, where nearly everybody uses shadow education to get better
grades (91%), just a mere 11% to 15% of Japanese students use out-of-school lessons to achieve
	
  
45
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

higher grades in school. It is of nearly equal importance to close gaps of knowledge. Besides,
particularly the better teaching methods play a role for attending a juku. In addition, more social
aspects seem important to Japanese students, too. Almost every second student (6th and 9th grade)intends to meet friends or make new ones (up to 37% in 6th grade) by attending a juku.
Based on sociological cost-benefit-assessments the assumption that those motives are also
determined by social origin make a lot of sense (Becker & Lauterbach, 2010, pp.15-17). While
wealthier parents can easier afford to send their children to juku the more disadvantaged families
may not. Considering the nevertheless high attendance ratio of lower class students in Japan, it
becomes clear that lower class students will not be able to attend a juku because they want to meettheir friends or something like that, but because they need a certain kind of education. Here, parents
decide to send their children to a juku because they assume that this is an investment worth being
given (secondary effect of origin). This would also explain the low achievement gap between
students of higher and lower social status in Japan, which was verified by PISA (OECD, 2012).
Conclusion
Although comparable school instruction time is found in Germany and Japan, Japanese students
achieve constantly higher results than their German peers. The assumption that the reason therefore
lays only within quality differences between the school instructions in the two countries is not
sufficient enough. Here the Japanese shadow education system provides a reasonable explanation for
those higher achievement rates. As could be shown, Japanese 10th grade students are much lessinfluenced by their family background in achieving educational success than their German
counterparts. Also, Japanese students of all social classes invest in shadow education to a highdegree. This means, shadow education may indeed be used to counteract disadvantaged family
background – although with some restrictions.
	
  
46
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

On first sight, the influence of the social origin of a student seems to be much stronger in Japan thanin Germany. Different educational aspirations of social classes as well as financial resources also
play a role for the shown differences between low and high ESCS groups in Japan. When it comes toquantity, students of low ESCS cannot compare with those of higher ESCS. But it seems as if lower
class students just invest in essential classes to get an education as good as the more advantaged
students. This would explain the high percentage of resilient students in Japan (about 11%). From
this perspective, shadow education can indeed function as possible instrument to counteract social
disadvantages. In Germany the social origin of a student does not seem to play a great role in who
uses shadow education and who does not. Students from lower classes do even invest slightly more
for supplementary education. Nevertheless, the small difference in the amount of use as well as thecomparatively low attendance ratio is not yet sufficient enough to be a cause for a decrease indisparities.

	
  
47
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher Quality, Opportunity Gap, andNational Achievement in 46 Countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369-387.
Arnold, K.-H. (2001). Schulleistungsstudien und soziale Gerechtigkeit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik,
47(2), 161-177.
Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wisemann, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow
education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national
mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–17.
Becker, R., & Lauterbach, W. (2010). Bildung als Privileg – Ursachen, Mechanismen und
Wirkungen. In R. Becker, & W. Lauterbach (Eds.), Bildung als Privileg. Erklärungen und
Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit (pp. 11-49). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
BERD (Benesse Education Research and Development Center). (2007). “Chōsa dēta kurippu!
Kodomo to kyōiku:” Juku, naraigoto – dai 1 kai [Survey data clip about children and education:
Juku and other learning activities, part 1]. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://berd.benesse.jp/berd/data/dataclip/clip0006/clip0006a.pdf.
Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in Western
society. New York: Wiley.
Bray, M. (2010). Researching Shadow Education: Methodological Challenges and Directions. Asian
Pacific Educational Review, 11, 3-13.
Bray, M. (1999). The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring and its Implications for Planners.
Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 61. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for
Educational Planning.
Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal
rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 9, 275-305.

	
  
48
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Cave, P. (2011). Explaining the Impact of Japan’s Educational Reform: Or, Why Are Junior HighSchools So Different from Elementary Schools? Social Science Japan Journal, 14(2), 145–163.
Dierkes, J. (2010a). Teaching in the Shadow: Operators of small Shadow Education Institutions inJapan. Asian Pacific Educational Review, 11, 25-35.
Dierkes, J. (2010b, June 06). While Policymakers are looking elsewhere, Japanese Education is
being reformed from below. Asahi Shimbun.
Dohmen, D., Erbes, A., Fuchs, K., & Günzel, J. (2008). Was wissen wir über Nachhilfe - Sachstandund Auswertung der Forschungsliteratur zu Angebot, Nachfrage und Wirkungen. Report onbehalf of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).
Drinck, B. (2002). Marktorientierung im japanischen Bildungssystem. Zeitschrift fürErziehungswissenschaft, 5(2), 261-278.
Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: the reception andconsequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619-634.
Esser, H. (1999). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen: Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln. Frankfurt
am Main: Campus.
Fujita, H. (2010). Whither Japanese Schooling, Educational Reforms and their Impact. In J. A.
Gordon, H. Fujita, T. Kariya & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), Challenges to Japanese Education.
Economics, Reform, and Human Rights (pp. 1-10). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guill, K., & Bonsen, M. (2011). Prädiktoren der Ianspruchnahme von Nachhilfeunterricht am Beginn
der Sekundarstufe I. Empirische Pädagogik, 25(3), 307-330.
Haag, L. (2001). Hält bezahlter Nachhilfeunterricht, was er verspricht? Eine Evaluationsstudie.
Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15(1), 38–44.
Haag, L. (2007). Wirksamkeit von Nachhilfeunterricht: Eine Längsschnittanalyse. Gelsenkirchen:
Bayreuth University.

	
  
49
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Haasch, G. (1979). Japanisches und Deutsches Bildungssystem. Versuch eines Systemvergleichs.
Tokyo: OAG.
Haasch, G. (Ed.). (2000). Bildung und Erziehung in Japan. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte,
Philosophie, Politik und Organisation des japanischen Bildungswesens von den Anfängen bis
zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Ed. Colloquium.
Hamano, T. (2011). The Globalization of Student Assessments and its Impact on Educational Policy.
Japan Academic Society for Educational Policy Proceedings, 13, 1-11.
Hosenfeld, I. (2011). Wirkungen von Mathematiknachhilfe bei rheinland-pfälzischen Schülern
fünfter Klassen: Eine längsschnittliche Analyse. Empirische Pädagogik, 25(3), 331-341.
Jürgens, E., & Dieckmann, M. (2007). Wirksamkeit und Nachhaltigkeit von Nachhilfeunterricht.
Dargestellt am Beispiel des Studienkreises. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.
Klemm, K., & Klemm, A. (2010). Ausgaben für Nachhilfe - teurer und unfairer Ausgleich fürfehlende individuelle Förderung. Report on behalf of the Bertelsmann-Foundation.
Komiyama, H. (1993) Gakurekishakai to juku - datsu juken kyōsō no susume [Credentialist society
and juku –Stop the entrance examination competition]. Tokyo: Shinhyōron.
Konakayama, A., & Matsui, T. (2008). Gakkōgai kyōiku tōshi no gakuryoku ni oyobosu eikyō nikansuru ikkōsatsu [An empirical study on how extra school education affects academic
achievement of Japanese high school students]. Tokai University School of Political Scienceand Economics Bulletin, 40, 131–158.
Maaz, K. (2006). Soziale Herkunft und Hochschulzugang. Effekte institutioneller Öffnung im
Bildungssystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Mayr, T. (2010). (Kommerzielle) Nachhilfe - kritisch beleuchtet. Was wir heute wirklich überNachhilfe wissen. Inaugural Dissertation. University of Bayreuth.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology - Japan). (2008). Kodomono gakkōgai de no gakushū seikatsu ni kansuru jittai chōsa hōkoku [National report about the
	
  
50
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

out-of-school learning activities of children]. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/20/08/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/03/23/1196664.pdf.
Mimizuka, H. (2007). Shōgakkō gakuryoku kakusa ni idomu: Dare ga gakuryoku o kakutoku suru noka. [Determinants of children's academic achievements in primary education]. The Journal of
Educational Sociology, 80, 23–39.
Numano, T. (2011). Primary Schools in Japan. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan.html.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2012). Strong Performers andSuccessful Reformers in Education. Lessons from PISA for Japan. Retrieved August 10, 2014,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118539-en.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2006). PISA 2003 Technical
Report. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2003technical-report_9789264010543-en.
OECD (2002-2010). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2010_eag-2010-en.
Ojima, F., & von Below, S. (2010). Family background, school system and academic achievement inGermany and in Japan. In J. Dronkers (Ed.), Quality and inequality of education (pp. 275–297).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Rohlen, T. P. (1980). The Juku Phenomenon: An Exploratory Essay. Journal of Japanese Studies,
6(2), 207-242.
Sato, M. (2005, July 28). 'Juku Boom' Cram schools cash in on failure of public schools. The Japan
Times. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2005/07/28/life/cramschools-cash-in-on-failure-of-public-schools/#.U4nEtCiOz3A.
Schneider, T. (2004). Nachhilfe als Strategie zur Verwirklichung von Bildungszielen. Eine
empirische Untersuchung mit Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP) (German
Institute for Economic Research: Discussion Papers 447). Berlin: German Institute for
	
  
51
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Economic Research (DIW Berlin). Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromwww.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/18299/1/dp447.pdf.
Schneider, T. (2006). Die Inanspruchnahme privat bezahlter Nachhilfe. Ein kaum beachtetes Themain der Bildungsforschung. In C. Tully (Ed), Lernen in flexibilisierten Welten. Wie sich das
Lernen der Jugend verändert (pp. 131-144). Weinheim, München: Juventa.
Schümer, G. (1999). Mathematikunterricht in Japan. Ein Überblick über den Unterricht inöffentlichen Grund- und Mittelschulen und privaten Ergänzungsschulen. In V. Schubert (Ed.),
Lernkultur. Das Beispiel Japan (pp. 45-76). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien-Verlag.
Stanat, P., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider,
W., Schümer, G., Tillmann, K.-J., and Weiß, M., (2002). PISA 2000 - Die Studie im Überblick Grundlagen, Methoden, Ergebnisse. Berlin: Max Planck Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2014,
from www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/Pisa/PISA_im_Ueberblick.pdf.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling:
Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1639–1657.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. Why our schools are failing and what
we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teacher’s for
improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Stigler, J. W., & Stevenson, H. W. (1991). How Asian teachers polish each lesson to perfection.
American Educator, 15(1), 12-20.
Southgate, D. E. (2009). Determinants of Shadow Education - A Cross-National Analysis. Doctoral
dissertation. Ohio State University.
Streber, D., Haag, L., & Götz, T. (2011). Erfolgreiche Nachhilfe: Kann das jeder oder bedarf es
besonderer Qualifikationen? Empirische Pädagogik, 25(3), 342–357.

	
  
52
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Takeuchi, Y. (1997). The self-activating entrance examination system – its hidden agenda and its
correspondence with the Japanese “salary man”. Higher Education, 34, 183-198.
Taki, H. (2011). Ni-Doku-Bei ni okeru gakkō torakku to shingaku kitai - shokugyō kitai. Gakkō toshokugyō no setsuzoku ni chakumoku shite [School Track and Expectations under Different
School-to-work Linkage: An International Comparison between Japan, Germany and the UnitedStates]. Sociological Review, 62(2), 136-152.
Tanabe, S. (2000). Education reform in Japan: Ways towards quality. Ways Towards Quality in
Education, International Conference Proceedings. Koper: College of Management.
Tomura, A., Nishimaru, R., & Oda, T. (2011). Kyōiku tōshi no kitei yōin to kōka: Gakkōgai kyōiku
to shiritsu chūgaku shingaku o chūshin ni [Determinants and effects of investments in education:
Focusing on out-of-school education and transition to private middle schools]. In Y. Satō & F.
Ojima (Eds.), Gendai no kaisō shakai: Kakusa to tayōsei [Modern class society: Disparity anddiversity] (pp. 267–280). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Von Kopp, B. (2000). Unterrichtsstil. In G. Haasch (Ed.), Bildung und Erziehung in Japan. Ein
Handbuch zur Geschichte, Philosophie, Politik und Organisation des japanischen
Bildungswesens von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. (pp. 181-183). Berlin: Ed. Colloquium.
Yano Research Institute (2013). Kyōiku sangyō ichiba ni kansuru chōsa kekka 2013 [Survey resultson the education industry market 2013]. Tokyo: Yano Research Institute. Retrieved August 10,
2014, from http://www.yano.co.jp/press/press.php/001162.

	
  
53
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
54
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Cross-border collaboration in history among Nordic
students: A case study about creating innovative ICT
didactic models
Maria Spante, Asgjerd Vea Karlsen, Anne-Mette Nortvig, Rene B. Christiansen
	
  

	
  
55
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
Gränsöverskridande Nordisk Undervisning/Utdanelse (GNU, meaning Cross-Border Nordic
Education), the larger Nordic project, under which this case study was carried out, aims at
developing innovative, cross-border teaching models in different subject domains in elementary
school, including mathematics, language, science, social studies and history. This paper provides anin-depth description and analysis of how four social science and history elementary school teachers
and their 70 students (5th–7th grades) worked together between November 2011 and December 2012.
Previous research regarding the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in history
education in elementary schools is limited, thus calling for contemporary investigations in thisparticular subject domain.
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, enhancing the combination ofteachers’ pedagogical, content and technical competence, was used as the analytical framework,
together with nation-specific curricula and the European Union’s recommendations regarding
students’ skills for lifelong learning. A range of empirical materials was analyzed, such as classroom
observations, students’ video productions, texts and photos distributed and shared on a mutual blog,
real-time interaction and teachers’ communication. The teachers tried out two ICT didactic models.
In the asynchronous model, the major focus was on the form and content of the video productions
being shared, whereas work with the synchronous model concentrated on the content and quality of
the communication. Notwithstanding obstacles, cross-border collaboration provided added value.
The nation-specific differences triggered curiosity and motivation to produce digital presentations ofhistory content to be understood by the students in the three nations, facilitating goal fulfillment incommunication skills and digital competence. However, achieving subject-specific goals in history
remained challenging. Keywords: E-learning; Collaborative learning; Cross-border; TPACK.
	
  
56
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
The need for educational innovations in several Nordic countries in Europe has become increasingly
pressing, since a number of studies have shown unsatisfying performance rates among Scandinavian
students (Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] 2012). Various voices have called
for institutional changes, control over the curricula and increased documentation of students’performances. At the same time, there is a need for local innovations and experiments in theclassroom, where the teachers create learning designs that are close to the requirements of their own
students and local contexts. Such dual challenges at different levels, institutional as well as local,
created the backbone for the Scandinavian collaborative project named Gränsöverskridande Nordisk
Undervisning/Utdanelse (GNU, which means Cross-Border Nordic Education). It is a European
Union (EU)-funded undertaking that involves cross-border collaborations for educational purposes,
supported by information and communication technology (ICT), among Danish, Norwegian andSwedish schools dealing with similar problems of unsatisfying performance rates among students,
according to international comparative studies (PISA 2012).
The project began in 2011 and extends to 2014. It aims to develop innovative, cross-border teachingmodels in a range of subjects by means of user-driven, practice-based, co-design processes between
practitioners and researchers (Johansson-Svensson, Rustand, Steffensen, & Sofkova Hashemi, 2013;
Pareto, Gynther, Lindhart, Vejbӕk, & Wølner, 2013; Spante, Karlsen, Nortvig, & Christiansen, 2013;
Svedäng & Spante, 2014) in order to create supportive learning models suitable for local school
contexts, as well as cross-border collaboration situations in the Nordic countries. The researchquestion that drove the initiative was: In what way and form could cross-border collaboration
models, supported by information and communication technology, enhance motivation and learningfor students as well as teachers in the Nordic countries?
	
  
57
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

One key feature in the GNU initiative is that all project participants (students, teachers andresearchers) are required to communicate in their own Nordic mother tongue, since the threelanguages are related, and the various Nordic curricula emphasize training in the Nordic languages.
Therefore, communicating in the mother tongue has become an important prerequisite for driving the
project that aims to enhance learning. This situation has quite a unique setting, suggesting that theseneighboring languages, different but still related, can be used to collaborate due to communicative
prerequisites that are absent in other settings, when foreign languages become crucial forcommunication.
In the first year of the project, the participants comprised 18 classes from 13 schools in the ÖresundKattegatt-Skagerak region of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The teachers and students wereorganized into Nordic class-match groups (consisting of students and teachers from one class in eachcountry). In these class-match groups, new cross-border teaching models were co-created, tested andevaluated using iterative processes, as pointed out in design-based research (Kali, 2008). Several
subject domains, namely, mathematics, language, science, social studies and history, were selected,
since students in the three countries have shown their need for improvement in these areas, andmutual efforts in the search for new learning models were set in motion by the GNU project initiative.
In this paper, we report findings from the work with the subject of history, covering studies not only
about past events and ideas but also how these historical events might influence actions and ideas in
the present time.
The structure and content of the paper are presented in the following manner. First, we discuss issues
related to the subject domain of history in general and the use of ICT for motivation in such learning
situations, then present the aim of the work reported in this paper. This is followed by the theoretical
	
  
58
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

framework that has guided the analysis of the activities performed by teachers and students during
the project period. Next, we provide the project methodology and how the empirical material wascollected and interpreted.
In the result and discussion section, we present the empirical material that has been structured andanalyzed in relation to the theoretical framework, that is, the TPACK model by Mishra and Koehler(2006), together with our findings and the problems in the cross-border setup. Finally, we offer theconclusion and suggest some benefits of cross-border collaboration (notwithstanding its difficulties)
that could be generalized to a broader spectrum beyond dealing with Nordic cross-border settings in
the subject of history.
Literature Review
Previous research on the use of digital tools in history classes
This paper focuses on project activities linked to the subject of history in Nordic cross-border
settings, including a range of new learning situations and challenges. Recent research shows that
history is often among the least favorite subjects of many students (Turan, 2010). They find history
simple, irrelevant and boring (Turan, 2010), but studies have found that the use of ICT increases
student motivation in active participation, recall rate and achievement (Haydn, 2001; Turan, 2010).
Different studies show that the use of technologies in history education in elementary school has apositive effect on students’ historical and critical thinking and their understanding of various
historical subjects (Brown, 2001; Haydn, 2001; Taylor, 2003). However, problematic issues havealso been identified, such as finding out how to improve the subject of history when using ICT(Hayden, 2001), as well as difficulties in planning for and using suitable ICT tools to support rather
than distract students’ learning goal achievements in the subject (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Lipscomb,
2002).
	
  
59
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Questions remain regarding when and how to use which types of digital technologies to support andenhance students’ learning in the subject of history in elementary schools. It becomes essential tofocus on teacher competence, since previous research has shown that didactic situations become evenmore complex when digital tools are used in elementary history classes (Hofer & Swan, 2008), andwhen teachers and students work together in a cross-border setting, the complexity increases further.
Cross-border collaboration in educational practice has been regarded as one of the major shifts thatwill permeate educational institutions in the near future (Lee, 2012), highlighting the need forresearch in actual cross-border teaching situations. Such research becomes crucial because potential
promises of a new pedagogical setup do not necessarily reflect the actual possibilities andparticularly so when ICT is used; previous research has demonstrated that access and use are often
problematic in learning situations in schools (Cuban, 2009; Jedeskog, 2007).
PurposeThis paper describes and analyses how four social science and history elementary school teachers
and their 70 students (5th–7th grades) worked together from November 2011 to December 2012. The
research question was how to didactically work with and improve history education via cross-bordercollaboration using various digital technologies. The purpose was to find solutions to the specificchallenges the Nordic history class-match groups encountered during the different activities in which
they were engaged while trying to reach specific goals for historical learning.
Within the framework of the research question, we present the learning designs that were created andevaluated in the GNU project and linked to activities in history classes. We discuss the findings
concerning technology and language that shift attention from content to technology as such.
Moreover, in the project, we found a need to specifically focus on not only the teachers’
technological, pedagogical and content knowledge, but also on their ability to create clear learning
	
  
60
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

designs in order to inform the students more precisely than in the traditional classroom how theircollaboration and individual work are supposed to take place. The work contributes to the knowledge
about what possibilities and constraints teachers need to consider in cross-border learning situations,where group work and student participation are major concerns for the pedagogical setup, before
spending time and effort to arrange for such learning models. The paper provides empiricallygrounded information about important issues to address, linked to the new pedagogical landscape ofincreased collaboration among students and teachers across national borders for mutual learning andenhanced understanding.
Theoretical framework
The teachers’ role is crucial for learning (Hattie, 2008) to be successful, they would have to confrontand combine both content and pedagogy simultaneously (Shulman, 1986). For didactic innovations
and evaluations of their pedagogical benefits, it becomes imperative to address different perspectives.
When the didactic situation has added complexities such as collaboration with external partners andcommunication via technical systems, models for such a complex analysis are needed. One suchanalytical model initiative has been proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), who expanded on the
Shulman (1986) framework and presented the TPACK model that incorporates technology,
pedagogy and content knowledge into a coherent whole. The TPACK framework has been
extensively used in a range of subject domains. Since all aspects of the model are present in theactual situations in the GNU project among the history teachers, the model has become a sensemaking analytical framework in which to analyze the complex, cross-border collaboration inpedagogical settings in order to present suggestions for cross-border educational setups. Enhancing
the combination of pedagogical content and technical knowledge of teachers in learning situations,
the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (see Figure 1) was used as an
	
  
61
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

analytical framework to position the teacher teams’ activities with the students, detecting where ICT
didactic strengths and difficulties could be found. This model has been successfully used in previous
studies in the subject of history in elementary schools (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Schul, 2010; Swan &Locascio, 2008). The TPACK model separates three specific skills of teachers, linked to pedagogical(PK), content (CK) and technical knowledge (TK) in learning situations within given contexts. These
three specific skills can be combined in various ways, such as pedagogical and content knowledge(PCK), pedagogical and technical knowledge (PTK) and so forth.

Figure 1. The TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2006)
When all three skills are present in a given learning situation, they reflect the TPACK combination.
The TPACK is a complex competence to achieve but possible to develop. In combination with theanalytical model, we also used nation-specific curricula from the three countries and the EU
recommendations regarding students’ skills for lifelong learning, enhancing digital competence,collaboration, and collaborative and analytical skills (Recommendation 2006/962/EC) (EU, 2006).
	
  
62
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Methodology
Aiming for sustainability in novel teaching models (Wang & Hannafin, 2005), the combination ofdesign-based research (Kali, 2008) and action research, as a methodology for stimulation and supportof innovation in learning and teaching models, has proven to be robust (Majgaard, Misfeldt, &Nielsen, 2011). During this collaborative process, a range of actions and documentations emerged.
The empirical material consists of students’ productions of videos, texts and photos distributed andshared on a mutual blog, teachers’ communications via e-mail and Google Docs documents, as wellas wikis, video uptakes from students’ real-time interaction on a digital system supporting video,
voice and texts (Adobe Connect [AC]). There were also documentations of classroom observations
by the researchers, as well as interviews with teachers and students from the three Nordic nations.
The material was analyzed by all researchers and focused on the activities of the teachers and thestudents and their expressed experiences.
Results and Discussion
A series of activities were conducted during the 2011– 2012 period. For each specific activity thatthe teachers planned and performed with their students, the researchers were also involved,
following the process from planning through performance and evaluations. The close collaboration
with and participation of these diverse actors (teachers, students and researchers) provided deep
insights into the various complex processes of collaboration in the cross-border setup for learning.
The activities presented in this paper are linked to the two general models put forward by theteachers – the asynchronous and the synchronous types. These models built on the teachers’ insights
into their restrictions and possibilities in each school such as schedules and availability of technology,
as well as in the curriculum in each Nordic country. We present the learning models in relation to the

	
  
63
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

timeline of each activity performed by the teachers and students. First, the asynchronous models are
discussed and analyzed in relation to the TPACK framework, followed by the synchronous model.
The asynchronous model
In the first activity, the Nordic teachers collaboratively planned to let the students produce a film thatwas organized in national student groups with the main purpose of saying hello to the students in theother two countries. Each video was then uploaded on a shared blog, and the students from the othercountries posted comments about the produced videos. This task was done so that the students could
start in a safe environment (as expressed by the teachers), get the chance to know one another andread texts presented in the three Nordic languages.
The second activity involved making a video presentation of their school, their town and the specificpart of the country where they lived. During the third activity, they were supposed to answer
questions from the students of the other countries about local historical persons, buildings, etc. The
answers had to be in the form of a video. This last activity was carried out such that the students
posed questions to one another and then responded in filmic language in order to awaken interest not
only in the presentation of their own country and culture, but also in the neighboring countries.
Danish students addressed their queries to Swedish students, who did the same to Norwegianstudents, who in turn posed questions to their Danish counterparts. Each group provided their
responses via video production (see Figure 2). The students were encouraged to reflect on thehistorical aspect and cultural identity of their familiar surroundings and were confronted with
(missing) knowledge about their Nordic neighbors (Nortvig & Christiansen, 2013).

	
  
64
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Figure 2. Model for exchanging questions and video answers in the Nordic collaborative work
The students worked in groups in their respective schools, planning and producing the videos to beshared later on the common blog. Some of the students’ questions that would be answered as videos
were:Tell us about one important historical person from your town.
Tell us about an important historical building.
Tell us about an important historical person, the most important king in Norway.
What did Denmark do in the Second World War?
During the classroom observations, it was noted that the students concentrated on preparing thevideos. The videos – alongside the questions – were uploaded on the common blog so that theteachers and students were able to comment on them. Classroom activities were also shared on themutual blog where they presented activities linked to the GNU project. Below is a written sample
blog post of the Swedish participants about the questions from Denmark, how they first translated
	
  
65
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

these questions from Danish to Swedish and reflected on how to answer them and organize the workof presenting the answers in video format:“Hello everybody, Mölndal calling
Today we started to work with the questions from Roskilde. We translated the questions to Swedish
and worked in groups in order to answer the questions and figuring out how to move on to the nextstage. How can we make videos of our answers?:)”Typically, the students made an oral presentation and showed some still pictures of a historicalperson. Some ambitious work was also created, such as one student group that used the local
museum’s historical interior as a scene for the dramatized setup that answered the question of how
the city got its current name. For a presentation about a historical building, the students usually founda local building and shot the video on-site. (for the blog where their content is uploaded in Swedish,
Danish and Norwegian, visit http://gnu-historia.blogspot.se/p/glasbergsskolan.html). The students
searched for information about historical persons and buildings, primarily from open-source online
sites such as Wikipedia.
One key component of the asynchronous learning model was to have the students comment on one
another’s work. Typically, the students made general remarks about the videos, as well as how theyexperienced the language and presentation, for example:“You speak quite quietly and not so clear, but the video was otherwise good.”“You talked very clearly, and we understood everything you said. Good pictures and videos
too :)”“Hello, just talk more clearly; all the rest is good.”

	
  
66
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“We received very good answers on the third video, and it was very nice. You also talked
very clearly!”
In the first phase of the GNU project, the collaborative activities that were planned and executed by
the teachers and students were all organized according to various asynchronous setups. These
activities are positioned in this case study in relation to the analytical framework of the TPACK
model presented by Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler and Mishra (2009).
Technological skills are important when a task requires creating a video. A lot of the students alreadyknew and liked to use Microsoft Movie Maker or iMovie to produce the video, and they used theschools’ digital cameras to take photos. Even though many students were familiar with different
types of digital tools and information and communication systems, others still needed their teachers
to guide and support them during their production activities, such as how to save pictures, makevideos with Movie Maker/iMovie, use Audacity and Wikipedia, etc. Nonetheless, the students’
overall competence in using these types of technical tools for video production was high at each
Scandinavian school involving the particular class-match groups.
The group of teachers had initially planned to let the students discuss and comment on the videos via
Skype. However, it proved too difficult because of technical problems, primarily because the schoolin Norway was not allowed to download and use Skype due to restrictive rules in that particularmunicipality. The students were a bit frustrated because they wanted to talk and collaborate with one
another in real time and see their peers; they asked several times if we could solve these problems.
Our observations revealed their high level of motivation to collaborate across national borders. An
asynchronous way of working did not fulfill this need to a full extent. Nonetheless, the asynchronous
model involved the use of a range of technologies, particularly those linked to the tools and systems
	
  
67
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

needed for video production. Generally, the four Nordic teachers demonstrated skillfulness in using
these various tools and systems while guiding their students in their work. Accordingly, we describe
the participant teachers as very competent in TK, following the TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler,
2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009).
In this part of the asynchronous period, the plan was that the students should discuss the videos’historical content. This discussion took place among their respective classmates in each nation.
However, we observed in the students’ feedback to one another that they were more focused on how
they generally experienced the videos and understood (or not) one another’s spoken language than on
the relevant content of the videos (see citations above).
Our empirical work showed that the students had difficulties in understanding what was said in thevideos. They became aware of the importance of speaking slowly and clearly, which could help themin the synchronous meetings that would follow. The asynchronous period made them ask for a closer
encounter with the students from the other two countries, which eventually led to a synchronous
period where the students could interact in real time. The strong focus on student-driven question
formulation and video presentation as group work was evaluated as activities, following therecommendations on the development of collaborative and communicative skills that are found inboth national curricula (Denmark: Fælles Mål 2009 Samfundsfag (Faghæfte 5), Sweden: Kursplan isamhällskunskap för gundskolan, Norway: Læreplan i Samfunnsfag) and EU recommendations(Recommendation 2006/962/EC) (EU, 2006). The focus on group work in the assignments was also
evaluated as a sign of the teachers’ high competence in PK, facilitating and supporting project-basedlearning (Grant, 2002).

	
  
68
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

However, the rather superficial presentation of the historical content in the videos, as well as the lackof focus on the content in the discussion of the videos (i.e., students commented on language andtheir general opinions of the pictures rather than the local historical content that each video
supposedly presented), were interpreted as signifying a rather low score for the teachers in thisparticular activity linked to CK. However, it is noteworthy that this critical evaluation is only basedon the actual content of the videos produced in this situation and says nothing about the general CK.
The teachers also said in follow-up interviews that the time devoted to the specific GNU assignment
became more of a technical focus when they were helping the students, rather than guiding them
towards a more insightful historical content focus, thus highlighting the necessity for content focus in
the next phase of the GNU project.
The synchronous model
The teachers wanted more focus on the content in the cross-border collaboration after working withlocal history in the asynchronous setup. They also wanted to address the students’ wishes to work inreal-time situations with one another.
Due to different municipality regulations in the three nations, as well as varying school IT policies(Lundh-Snis et al., 2012), finding an acceptable, real-time communication system proved to be achallenging task. In order to work synchronously at all, AC turned out to be the only option, since
the overall GNU project could guarantee secure and free access to this particular program. The AC
system allows users to communicate via chat, voice and video. It is possible to present PowerPoint
and PDF documents, pictures and movies, as well as cooperate with common notes and thewhiteboard. Additionally, users can share a common view of screens and programs. It is also
possible to divide students into different breakout rooms and to record meetings.
	
  
69
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The four teachers collaborated on the basis of their respective national curricula to find a common
denominator with which to work together. Children’s conditions in the 20th century were part of eachcountry’s curriculum in the subject and became the content focus. The teachers focused theirplanning on these questions: How did the children live their lives in the previous century? Whatsimilarities and differences could be identified in the three Nordic countries during this period?
What events had been significant in improving children’s lives in the Nordic countries during the20th century?
The three classes worked on these issues with the idea that cross-border cooperation would help thestudents connect major historical events with children’s everyday conditions during the 20th century,with special focus on the conditions for children in school. Students worked in class-match teams,
comprising a number of students from each school. Each group consisted of students from Norway,
Denmark and Sweden. The idea was that students would present and compare their findings to learn
from one another and draw conclusions based on one another’s presentations. Each group consistedof about 12 students (approximately 4 from each country, with some variations), and there were 6
groups in total, with 2 groups for each assigned time period – early, middle and late 1900s. The
ambition was to work actively with the understanding that the subject of history is not just about anumber of events without connections but also linked to experience and everyday life.
The three Nordic teachers designed the tasks for the students in a three-step sequential model:
Task 1) Students should find out how the situation was in their own country, with emphasis on
schooling. Inspired by the flipped classroom model, teachers posted presentations about parts of thecontent on the common blog, where students could take part in each country’s presentation.

	
  
70
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Task 2) Students would connect in AC to share what they found in their respective class-matchgroups in the different breakout rooms.
Task 3) Students should identify similarities and differences based on the information they received.
Students’ activities
Before the students met in AC, they prepared their work in their respective nation classrooms with
their group members doing task 1. Then they teamed up in their respective breakout rooms in AC toshare and discuss their findings for tasks 2 and 3.
First AC meeting
During the first time in the AC setup, it was apparent that the students had received different
instructions on what the task would involve and how they should have prepared for the first meeting.
The Danish students had prepared to talk about their own school day at the present time. The
Norwegian students had prepared PowerPoint presentations with statements regarding the conditionsof children in each period of the 20th century. The Swedish students had prepared for a conversationon their investigation about their designated time period, with handwritten notes as reminders ofwhat to say to the other students. Although the students found it difficult to deal with these variations,they made their best efforts to work with their tasks, while struggling with echo problems in thesystem and managing their online turn taking, so they could talk one at a time instead of all at once.
“We have not made a presentation, but we would like to tell you about it, if it’s okay with you.”
The preceding quote illustrates that they had received different instructions on how to prepare for thetask of presenting and sharing their information. So does another example below:

	
  
71
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“We will tell you about the skammekroken,” say the students in Norway.
“What it that?” the Swedish students ask.
The Norwegian students start telling about the disciplinary method where disobedientstudents were put in a corner of the classroom. In explaining the method, the Norwegianword ‘slemme’ is used, which is unfamiliar to the Swedish students, who immediately ask,
“What does ‘slemme’ mean?”“It means mean,” the Norwegian students reply.
While the two student groups in Sweden and Norway are having this conversation, theDanish students are posting in the chat, “We have mathematics, Danish, English, domestic
science, sports.”
The preceding quote implies that the Danish students had prepared to share information about theirown day at school, as well as how they dealt with a sound problem in the AC system by using chatinstead of voice communication. They also had trouble following the line of conversation between
the Norwegian and Swedish students who were talking about a special disciplinary method that wasused in 1950, as well as providing language clarification when the Swedish students heard a
Norwegian word they did not understand. The students demonstrated both patience and motivation toconnect as best as they could and share the information they had prepared, despite troubles with thecommunication channels in AC.
“Now let’s write what we have learnt about the schools in the beginning of the 20th century.”
The preceding quote indicates how they needed to deal with the sound problem and find new ways toshare information, turning to the chat function in the AC system and still focusing on the task at hand.
	
  
72
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The students also commented afterwards about their misunderstanding of the task:“Denmark did not understand the task. They thought they should write about when we started
and what subjects they had.”“Denmark talked about their schedule in school today, and Norway talked about the school,
how it was before.”“Denmark did not say much, but Norway made a Keynote presentation, but Denmark could
not get in, or rather, they did but said nothing.”“I thought we should discuss what we had to say and not make PowerPoints.”“I think we should be allowed to speak English because it is so hard to understand eachother.”
Second AC meeting
The second time, all groups had prepared PowerPoint presentations about the conditions for theschool children in each country during the designated time period, to be shared in AC. In spite of the
improved and combined activities, various problems continued for the students. All groups
experienced difficulties in how to present and share written text in AC. Due to this lack ofknowledge, it became almost impossible for them to read one another’s presentations. They were
loudly complaining about how their fellow students were moving their text on screen in AC. The
echo problem from the first time was still a major issue, and the difficulties in having a wellfunctioning, turn-taking model for communicating were also hard to surmount this time. The
students tried to overcome the echo problem and the turn-taking issues by using the chat function in
AC instead. For example, they commanded one another, as indicated in the chat: “One country
	
  
73
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

speaks at a time.” They also tried to guide the focus to the task at hand, involving each group in eachcountry to participate and contribute with comments such as: “Can you from Denmark tell something
about what happened in the 50s?” However, their enthusiasm to be in contact with one anotherseemed to have diminished, compared to their first AC meeting, when the enthusiasm wasinterpreted as high despite the obstacles.
Below are some examples about how they struggled in the AC system to upload and share their
prepared documents, making them lose focus on the content about children’s conditions at school
during the 20th century. At 11 minutes and 14 seconds in the video, the following series of actions
happen:Norway uploads their document, it disappears, it then comes back but is taken away again.
The correct presentation is uploaded.
The Swedish and the Danish students are reading the document. The Swedish students are
struggling with the text. Their teacher assists them.
Norway repeats the question, “What should we talk about?”
One Danish boy tries on the headset but quickly returns it to his classmate.
The uploaded document is scrolled up and down the screen, so it becomes very hard to read.
All student groups seem to concentrate on the activities at their respective ends; no extensive
collaboration is going on.
The Norwegian document is taken away; the Swedish document is uploaded and starts to be
scrolled up and down the screen.
	
  
74
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The above sequence from an AC meeting was quite typical. Students were struggling with turntaking, language issues and how to share prepared documents, but they tried to overcome theseobstacles. However, since they became more and more oriented towards the activities in theirrespective classrooms rather than collaborating in the AC system, we interpreted these observations
as decreasing enthusiasm for cross-border collaboration in the real-time setting due to the problems
with technology and rules for collaboration across borders.
Third AC meeting
The third time, they tried again to present the same prepared presentation as that of the second
meeting. They still encountered difficulties when trying to share the presentations, and this time there
were clear signs that the students’ patience was being challenged. They paid more attention to theirclassmates than to those they worked with in the Nordic class-match group setting, yet still trying,but seemingly more driven by duty than by motivation. Below is a typical situation in this third AC
meeting, which manifests their difficulties and signs of diminishing motivation (their focus is drifting
away from the actual task by doing other things; they are increasingly disconnected but still in sightof one another in the AC system, with video, sound and chat channels running):
The Danish students are asking why it is not possible to paste text into the document.
In the background, a Norwegian student is writing on the blackboard with big letters.
The Norwegian students reply that they do not know how to copy and paste text into the
document. Meanwhile, there is a constant echo sound in the system.

	
  
75
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“Isn't Justin Bieber just great!” the Norwegian student says. ‘Justin Bieber’ is written withbig letters on the blackboard. The Danish students are gesturing with their thumbs down, andthe Norwegian girl cannot believe her eyes.
The Norwegian students write in the chat, “We love him!!”
The Swedish students log on and wave to the other participants.
“Are you longing for Christmas?” the Norwegian students ask.
The Swedish students upload their presentation. The Norwegian presentation is uploaded
again.
“It's William's birthday today!” a Swedish student says and points to a classmate.
“Congratulations” is written in the chat.
The Swedish students start to sing to their classmate.
The lessons learnt from this synchronous phase and the model of synchronous cross-bordercooperation demonstrated that the assignment ended up being too difficult for the students. There
were too many (technological, communicative and language-based) obstacles to overcome, so
instead of working with their common assignment, they started chatting and trying to get to know
one another in a different way than the one the teachers had planned.
The selected real-time communication and collaboration tool was not really suitable to support thecomplex task that was supposed to be accomplished by the students. Relating such analysis to the
TPACK model, we claim that the techno-pedagogical knowledge (TPK) using AC was evaluated as

	
  
76
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

fairly inaccurate and revealed areas for improvement of all involved parties in future project
activities.
The idea to have students work in groups, be given themes to work with, select relevant information,
as well as try to diagnose differences and similarities in the historical events and impacts for children
in the 20th century, closely aligns with parts of the national curriculum in each country calling for thedevelopment of communication, collaboration and analytical skills. However, what looked like astructured yet creative plan turned out in reality to be far too complex in execution. An additionalburden in working with the pedagogical plan was the teachers’ initial misunderstanding of what thetask was really about. This situation came as a total surprise for all involved parties (teachers as well
as researchers), since the three teachers had established good relations, experienced previous coplanning sessions before and were all keen on communicating using e-mail, Google Docs and wikis
to plan and agree on the activities and schedules. In this regard, we suggest that PCK that followed
TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009) was evaluated as fairly high, butplanning turned out to be too difficult for the students in the cross-border setting. In the interview
with the teachers after the performed activities in the synchronous model, they all admitted being too
ambitious and learning the importance of designing tasks that challenge their students more
moderately, while retaining the idea of communication, collaboration and analysis, but perhaps notnecessarily in real-time setups for all activities in AC.
Judging from the experiences in both the asynchronous and synchronous models in this cross-bordercollaboration setting, we realize that the so-called TPACK proved to be quite a challenge for theteachers. The challenge entailed successfully combining pedagogical planning with technicalaffordance and subject content.
	
  
77
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Regarding the synchronous mode, the added complexity planned for and used in this particular setup
suggests that the level of ambition needs to be carefully managed. In this case, the learning content
was defined but still not supported with a pedagogical model that ensured that cross-bordercollaboration could provide structure and guidance in the learning process. It has become clear that it
is essential to invest time in carefully preparing what content to present and how to present it, as wellas identifying a collaborative model that supports rather than distracts from the focus of the subject.
The aim to enhance motivation and learning with cross-border collaborative efforts was difficult toachieve despite hard work from all involved actors (teachers and students); thus, they departed fromthe history content and became preoccupied with or distracted by technology in the didactic situation,
as reported in previous research (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Swan & Locascio, 2008).
These questions remain: “How can our understanding of TPACK support collaborative work in thesubject of history? How can we think about the connections and interactions among the knowledgeof content, pedagogy and technology with respect to teaching history in elementary school? How cantechnological tools help scaffold the students’ development in historical consciousness with crossborder collaboration?” It is important to emphasize that the use of ICT in education needs anunderstanding and reflection about what is sound teaching in relation to both pedagogy and content.
Pedagogical knowledge also refers to the ability to determine how ICT can support content andimprove the learning outcome, based on the TPACK model that calls for an integrated competence
among teachers, combining the skilful use of ICT, pedagogy and subject content.
Digital technology plays a role as a multimodal facilitator of the students’ communication andcollaboration. When the neighboring languages – even if they are both phonetically andgrammatically close – are difficult to understand, the students find it a bit easier if ‘the neighbors'
	
  
78
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

express themselves both orally and in writing. On the other hand, digital technology poses obstacles
too; the students often experience sound issues, such as echoes, noise or silenced microphones. The
students are extremely patient with these technical challenges, but when the sound is poor and theneighboring languages are hard to understand, they start addressing their classmates instead of thestudents in the other countries, and the added value of cross-border collaboration then diminishes asa formal learning approach. However, in the midst of technological and linguistic challenges, we alsofind that cross-border learning is flourishing, although in a more informal manner.
Conclusion
Different challenges should be addressed in the asynchronous and synchronous models. Starting withthe asynchronous model, we conclude that since video production has become a focus, the students
need their teachers’ guidance to integrate content into their productions. When productions are madeand shared, the historical content needs to really be discussed and analyzed in order to support
learning; otherwise, they pose the risk of students paying more attention to form than content.
Students seem eager to engage in real-time communication; thus, the asynchronous model needs to
be clearly promoted and encouraged as a complementary cross-border collaboration model. Due tothe students’ difficulties in understanding one another’s spoken languages, it is good forcommunication and future collaboration to use text in combination with voice in video productions.
Turning to the synchronous model, based on the observed activities and the outcome, tasks in such a
setup need thorough preparation and explicit limitations in order to provide added value to thelearning situation. The number of students working together should preferably be quite limited when
dealing with complex tasks, and all involved users need to know how to use the chosen technologicaltool to support communication and collaboration.
	
  
79
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Notwithstanding the obstacles, the major conclusion is that added value has been identified withcross-border collaboration, because the differences have triggered curiosity and motivation to
produce presentations for and work with ‘the neighbors'. Thus, we perceive clear indications of goals
being attained in both communication skills and digital competence, as written in the three nations’respective curricula and formulated in EU recommendations. However, further work remains inorder to achieve the subject-specific goals more precisely in cross-border collaboration. We note theNordic teacher team’s competency in technical, pedagogical and content knowledge, despitedifficulties in combining these skills with the specific content in the subject of history, according to
the TPACK model in the cross-border setting. The collaboration among the three classes could nothave been possible without technology, although technology issues and occasional language
problems sometimes dominate the scene over pedagogy and the subject of history. Increased efforts
are required to determine how technology can be used to support teaching history in elementary
schools when it is carried out in both asynchronous and synchronous learning environments. Our
study has contributed with some detailed, empirically driven recommendations, but these examples
are still limited and strongly connected to the collaborative efforts among the Nordic teacher andstudent participants in the cross-border, co-design project.
Additionally, cross-border collaboration imposes an extra workload. Therefore, it becomes of utmost
importance to provide support to both students and teachers so that technical and organizational
issues do not overshadow the added value offered by cross-border collaboration. However, it
becomes crucial to work actively with the emerging obstacles, that is, to engage vigorously inovercoming the barriers as a learning experience. We can also observe how these hurdles reveal
differences that make learning about ‘the other’ possible in richer and real situations, providing

	
  
80
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

authentic learning, compared to reading about these disparities in textbooks or other types of material
used for learning purposes in the subject of history.
Acknowledgements
The Gränsöverskridande Nordisk Undervisning/Utdanelse [Cross-Border Nordic Education] project
has received support from the European Regional Development Fund through the Interregional[Interreg] IVA Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak.

	
  
81
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Brown, G. S. (2001). The coming of the French Revolution in multi-media. History Teacher, 34(2),
193–208.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press.
European Union (2006). The Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of theEuropean Union. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.cmepius.si/files/cmepius/userfiles/grundtvig/gradivo/key_competencies_2006_en.pdf.
Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations.
Meridian. A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1). Retrieved August 10, 2014,
from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London New York: Routledge.
Haydn, T. (2001). Subject discipline dimensions of ICT and learning: History, a case study. The
International Journal of Historical Learning Teaching and Research, 2(1). Retrieved August 10,
2014, from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal3/haydn.pdf.
Hofer, M. J., Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A casestudy of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(2), 179-200.
Jedeskog, G. (2007). ICT in Swedish schools 19842004: How computers work in the teacher’s world.
Seminar.net International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 3(1). Retrieved
August 10, 2014, from http://seminar.net/index.php/volume-3-issue-1-2007previousissuesmeny-115/73-ict-in-swedish-schools-1984-2004-how-computers-work-in-theteachers-world.
Johansson-Svensson, A., Rustand, K. A., Steffensen, T., & Sofkova Hashemi, S. (2013). Students’use of situated semiotic structure in synchronic inter-Scandinavian communication. In
	
  
82
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July 2013 (pp. 158–163). Retrieved August
10, 2014, from http://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/students-use-og-semioticstructures-in-synchronous-computer-mediated-communication.pdf.
Kali, Y. (2008). The design principles database as a means for promoting design-based research. In
A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods ineducation (pp. 423-438). London: Routledge.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Lee, W. O. (2012). Learning for the future: The emergence of lifelong learning and theinternationalization of education as the fourth way? Educational Research for Policy andPractice, 11(1), 53–64.
Lipscomb, G. B. (2002). Eighth grader’s impressions of the Civil War: Using technology in thehistory classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 57-67.
Lundh-Snis, U., Nilsson, A., Nilsson, L., Pareto, L., Petersen, A-L., Sofkova Hashemi, S., Spante,M., & Wicke, K. (2012). Nordic Innovation Networks in Education: Dealing with Educational
Challenges with Cross Border Collaboration and User Driven Design, Uddevalla Symposium.
Portugal. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/nordic-innovation-networks-in-education.pdf.
Majgaard, G., Misfeldt, M., & Nielsen J. (2011). How design-based research and action researchcontribute to the development of a new design for learning. Designs for Learning, 4(2), 8-27.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nortvig, A., & Christiansen, R. B. (2013). Grænseoverskridende Nordisk Undervisning [Cross
Border Nordic Education] In S. M. Meyer, J. Ruben, J. H. Arnfred & R. Hallén (Eds.),
Europæiske scenarier - skandinaviske perspektiver (1. udgave ed.)[ European Scenarious –Scandinavian Perspectives] [Kbh.]: Alkvantor.
	
  
83
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Pareto, L., Gynther, K., Lindhart, B., Vejbӕk, L., & Wølner, T-A. (2013). A model for instructional
design in virtual Nordic classrooms. In Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July
2013 (pp. 230–241). PISA 2012 Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://projektgnu.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/a-model-for-instructional-design-in-virtualnordic-classrooms.pdf.
Schul, J. E. (2010). The mergence of CHAT with TPACK: A new framework for researching the
integration of desktop documentary making in history teaching and learning. THEN:
Technology, Humanities, Education & Narrative, 7, 9-25. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://thenjournal.org/feature/281.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Spante, M., Karlsen, A. V., Nortvig, A-M., & Christiansen, R. B. (2013). Cross-border collaborationin history among Danish, Norwegian and Swedish students: A case study about creating
innovative ICT-didactic models. In Proceedings of ECTC 2013, Brighton, UK, 11–14 July 2013
(pp. 137–149).
Svedäng, M., & Spante, M. (2014). Doing cross-border science experiments using ICT for coplanning, documentation and evaluation as a method for increased motivation to participate in,and learn about, science experiments. In Proceedings of SITE 2014, 25th International
Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, 17–21 March 2014 (pp. 2345-2352). Society for
Information Technology and Education.
Swan, K., & Locascio, D. ( 2008). Evaluating alignment of technology and primary source use
within a history classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2),175-186.
Taylor, T. (2003). Historical simulations and the future of the historical narrative. Journal of the
Association for History and Computing, 6(2). Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jahc/3310410.0006.203/--historical-simulations-and-the-future-ofthe-historical?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
	
  
84
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.tpack.org/.
Turan, I. (2010). Student attitudes towards technology enhanced history education. Journal of Social
Studies Education Research, 1(1), 152–167.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning
environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23.

	
  
85
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
86
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Teaching the Genres of Comparison and Contrast in
English Writing: From the Perspectives of Cooperative
Principles
Greg Chung-Hsien Wu
	
  

	
  
87
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
This pilot study aims at integrating a socio-pragmatic concept, Cooperative Principles, into an
experimental writing project on the genres of comparison and contrast. It reports on a six-week studyof five undergraduates voluntarily recruited in a university located in central Taiwan. In surveying
their writing momentum before and after the instilments of relevant knowledge needed for thesegenres of English writing, the researchers conformed to the qualitative paradigm, collecting the Pretest and Post-test writing products, distributing B2- and C1-leveled CEFR self-assessment
questionnaires over the first and last class sessions, conducting a self-reflection questionnaire survey
at the last session, and keeping a reflexive journal to trace the learning momentum of each of the five
participant. The instructional process was not entirely lecture-oriented; the participants wereencouraged and guided to construct knowledge in each of the class-based activities.
With content analysis and constant comparative method, the results indicated two primary facets ofissues essential for teaching the genres of comparison and contrast in a L2 writing setting. In
addition, constructs for teaching such writing genres were pointed out, and learners’ momentum wastransparently manifested by means of the established CEFR can-do statements. Other pedagogicalsuggestions were also included in this study and they were anticipated to inform future practitionersof diversified aspects in teaching the comparison and contrast genres linguistically, semantically, andpragmatically.
Keywords: Comparison and contrast; English writing; Cooperative principles.

	
  
88
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
As globalization progresses, English education at the tertiary level has been highly addressed in
Taiwan. Most EFL learners acknowledge the value of learning second language (henceforth, L2)
writing, but they may have difficulties transferring L2 reading to L2 writing, using appropriate
strategies or mastering the process of writing (Chen, 2001; Liu & Tseng, 2013; You, 1999; You &Joe, 2001; Wang, 2008). For L2 writing instructors, some may regrettably dawdle their time away
and intuitively find their learners’ writing capacity far behind their expectations. In response to L2
learners’ difficulties, some scholars suggest leading learners to critically think, read, and write(McCarter & Jakes, 2009; Vermillion, 1997), whereas others focus on university L2 writing in viewof the genre-based approach that advocates the targeted readership or discourse community in L2
writing (see, for example, Johns, 2003; Swales, 1990). Still others conduct empirical studies thatexamine the Chinese use in English composition process (Mu & Carrington, 2007; Wang & Wen,
2002). To be more specific, Mu and Carrington’s (2007) study concluded that, except for therhetorically organizing and cohesive strategies, “most of the metacognitive, cognitive, andsocial/affective strategies can be transferred across languages positively, at least from Chinesewriting to English writing” (p.15).
Despite all these aforementioned contentions, the process of writing entails a variety of cognitively
demanding activities that occur as a result of rhetorical situations, where various rhetorical appeals
have to be perceived, utilized or assessed. As learners initiate the processes of “planning (prewritingor prereading), drafting (initial writing or reading), revising (modifying and extending), and editing(correcting or rereading)” (Johns, 1997, p.12), they may simply draw on spoken forms of the target
language into writing. Eventually their instructors may be daunted by the inconsistency of stylisticfeatures, not to mention other problems such as loose organization or the lack of cohesion.
	
  
89
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Shifting from the sole emphasis on linguistic competence in the early 1980s, the teaching of L2
writing nowadays foregrounds the composing process and has developed itself into someinterdisciplinary field of inquiry in accordance with functionalism or discourse analysis (Leki, 1996;
Matsuda & Silva, 2010). Such a concern was brought to attention by McNamara (2003), who
asserted that “the context of use is increasingly understood theoretically as a social arena, as in
virtually all current work in discourse analysis (p.468)”. It is of higher significance that L2 writers
should be nurtured to deepen their awareness to balancing the elements of audience, purposes,
processes, and context in their own writing. That is to say, L2 writing concerns not only the
structural accuracy but also contextual appropriateness. Hence, the researcher cannot help but
wonder in what way L2 writing instructor can assist learners in composing a text that reflects
learners’ awareness in both linguistic well-formedness and contextual appropriateness.
In order to discover the aforementioned phenomenon, the researcher initiated a small-scale
experimental project, whose duration was a total of six weeks, and each session lasted for 1.5 hours.
This research took place in a private university located in central Taiwan. The researcher served as
the instructor of this series of courses, an there were five undergraduate students participating in thisstudy, three of whom were one-semester-long exchange students from Mainland China, and they
voluntarily signed up for this experimental series. Since this series aimed to incorporate the conceptof functionalism and discourse into this L2 writing instruction, the researcher relied heavily on
pragmatic functionalism as the heuristic subject matter knowledge in his writing instructions. He
focused on the genres of comparison and contrast initially in light of these two genres’ close liaisonsin everyone’s daily lives and, furthermore, because of the possibility of which L2 writers might begiven an opportunity to justify their ground by means of ample and well-chosen supporting details
for the issues of writers’ interests (Reinking, Hart, & Osten, 2002).
	
  
90
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Considering the discoursal aspects of L2 writing and the divergences the comparison and contrast
genres might bring about, the researcher employed Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principles, originally
postulated to analyze the verbal language in the field of pragmatic functionalism, as the underlying
framework for delineations of this study. Through this pedagogical undertaking, the researcher posed
two research questions:(1) How do Cooperative Principles assist L2 learners in their own writing?
(2) What is the essential construct needed for these two genres of writing, comparison andcontrast?
Review of Literature
Writing is a representation of a language user’s thought, belief, competence, and linguisticknowledge, and it involves the construction and end-product of a written text. Differentiated fromspoken language, writing entails different aspects such as purposes to fulfill, contexts to use, ordiscourse communities to address to (Hinkel, 2006; Matsuda & Silva, 2010). Silva’s early study(1993) clearly indicates that, despite certain similarities between L1 writing and L2 writing, salient
discrepancies exist ranging from composing processes to the features of written texts, and that L2
writing process is strategically, rhetorically, linguistically different from L1 writing process.
To cope with demanding challenges in L2 writing, strategy use seems inevitable for some learners,
for strategies may serve as effective ways of organizing or developing writing. Comparison andcontrast, among all the strategies, assist learners in choosing among possible alternatives. They also
allow learners to acquaint themselves with something less familiar or connected to prove a particularpoint (Donald, Morrow, Wargetz & Werner, 1996; Reinking, Hart & Osten, 2002). In order for L2
writers to strategically identify and associate the lexis that enable them to maintain their objectives
	
  
91
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

and communicate with their intended readers while still conforming to writing conventions, theconcepts of discourse community may come into play (Johns, 1997; Swales, 1990). On top of that,
Leech (1983) contends that the language use transcends the linguistic forms per se; the appropriate
use of these linguistic forms in a wide variety of contexts and situations should also be in focus.
Phrased by Grice (1975), the Cooperative Principles depicts the dynamics of interacting amongindividuals and enables effective communication in conversation that can be achieved in social
undertakings. Inspired by the socio-pragmatic use of natural language, Grice proposed four
principles, the first two of which are mainly relevant to the amount of information needed andprocessed by the hearer and the speaker (Grice, 1975, p.308; Cited by Leech, 1983):(1) Maxim of Quantity:
1.

Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of theexchange).

2.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

(2) Maxim of Quality:
1.

Do not say what you believe to be false.

2.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

(3) Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
(4) Maxim of Manner:
1.

Avoid obscurity of expression.

2.

Avoid ambiguity.

3.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity/verbosity)

4.

Be orderly.
	
  
92

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Resembling the scheme for the Cooperative Principles, Leech (1983) proposes a scheme for the
Textual Rhetoric that consists of the Processibility Principle, the Clarity Principle, the Economy
Principle, and the Expressivity Principle to embrace the stylistic preference in language use. These
proposed pragmatic principles cover a wide range, from those which are highly social in nature suchas Leech's Politeness Principle, to those which specifically cope with the form of sentences such as
Leech's End-weight and End-focus maxims.
Echoing with the socio-pragmatic facets of the aforementioned principles, the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (henceforth, CEFR) has successfully proven itself topromote the concept of ‘plurilingualism’ (Council of Europe, 2001) in conjunction with the culturaland linguistic diversities across Europe. Through six distinct scales composed of a compendium of
ascending level descriptors, the CEFR has made a great impact in learning to learn, teacher education,
course and curriculum design, and assessment across borders (Morrow, 2004; O’Sullivan & Weir,2011).
Taking on an supporting role in this study, the CEFR provides a set of guidelines within whichlearning/teaching objectives and achievement standards are identified and through which bothteachers and learners can thus make informed choices (Mariani, 2004; Newby, 2011). It also
provides learners with practical skills or strategies that demand cognitive and metacognitive
operations. The former ones entail making inferences, noticing, formulating grammatical rules, orclassifying items into meaningful categories, whereas the latter counterparts include the skills ofreflecting, evaluating, or even self-assessing (Mariani, 2004). Acknowledging abundant advice for
language practitioners, however, criticism arises on the issue of comparability and false assumptionof equivalence between descriptor scales (North, 2002; North, 2004; Weir, 2005). Despite the
	
  
93
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

deficiency to develop comparable tests from the CEFR, however, the CEFR is still believed to be “aheuristic device rather than a prescriptive one, which can be refined and developed by language
testers to better meet their needs (Weir, 2005, p.298; Cited by Shaw & Weir, 2007, p.1).” These
underlying features of the CEFR are deemed consonant to the research and pedagogical design ofthis study.
Research Design and Implementation
Qualitative researchers, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2000), “study things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bringto them (p.2)”. Aiming to explore the effect of Cooperative Principles on L2 learners’ writing
through the genres of comparison and contrast, the researcher conformed to the qualitative researchparadigm (Janesick, 1991; Merriam, 1998; O’reilly, 2005), selecting five “information-rich cases forstudy in depth (Patton, 1990, p.169)”. Each participant’s demographic information is provided in thefollowing table.
Table 1. Demographic Information of the ParticipantsParticipant

Gender

Grade

Major

Nationality

Lynn

FemaleJuniorEnglishTaiwanese

Vanessa

FemaleSeniorInternational Trade

Taiwanese

EleanorFemaleJuniorSociology

Mainlander

Lily

FemaleJuniorEnglishMainlander

Tracy

FemaleJuniorInformation Science

Mainlander

	
  
94
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

In addition to the selection of participants, the researcher utilized ethnographic techniques (Merriam,
1998; Nunan, 1992; O’reilly, 2005; Patton, 1990) to penetrate this study. The raw data collected forthis study included:(A) Pre-test and Post-test writings, whose question remained identical:“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Face-to-face communication
is better than other types of communication, such as letters, email, or telephone calls.
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.”(B) Participants’ self-evaluation of the differences emerged on both writings from the Pre-test
and the Post-test(C) CEFR Self-Assessment Checklists (Level: B2 and C1), focusing on three categories only:
strategies, language quality, and writing. [see Appendix I](D) Self-reflection Questionnaire(E) Instructor’s Reflexive Journals
Over the first week, the researcher borrowed the CEFR Self-assessment Checklists for both Level B2and Level C1 for the purpose of pinpointing the existing strengths and deficiencies of these five
participants. Immediately following that, each participant was required to complete the Pre-test
writing within the maximum length of 40 minutes. Four participants used up the full duration of 40
minutes, while it took less than 30 minutes for the only participant, Lily, to complete the Pre-test.
Over the following week, the researcher introduced the concepts of the block pattern as well as thealternating pattern, one pivotal set of writing constructs relevant to the genres of comparison and
	
  
95
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

contrast (Reinking, Hart & Osten, 2002). After the researcher’s lecturing, the participants perceived
better how to classify or categorize their ideas with better clarity. One week later, the Maxim ofRelation and the Maxim of Manner were firstly instructed and exemplified by means of the following
agenda: “Will you hire a new talent mainly depending upon his/her leadership skills or execution
skills?”The participants were gradually led altogether to incorporate the patterns instilled over the previous
week into these two newly-gained maxims, and they afterwards worked together to meaningfully
create, delete and allocate their responses to this given agenda. In the end, all of the six participants
agreed upon employing the block pattern to illustrate two of the major theses: leadership andexecution, under the former of which they expounded on the significance of delegating andamplifying employees’ strengths. For the second thesis, they originated two themes for further
elucidation: problem-solving and efficiency.
The next week, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality were introduced, and the researcher
gave a systematic outline of the advantages and fallacies of using each of the four maxims. All ofthese preliminary instructions were conducive to the last instruction on the concept of analogy overthe fifth week. After learning the essences behind analogy, the participants were instantaneously
given a task where they all needed to apply analogy in a mind-mapping application.
After five consecutive gatherings, the participants had thus acquired skills to write more relevantly,
consistently and concisely. Over the last session, they were firstly required to fill in both levels of the
CEFR checklists so as to trace and verify their learning progress. Then they were immediately asked
to complete the Post-test within the maximum length of 40 minutes, which was exactly the time
constraint on the Pre-test. In comparison, a stark contrast emerged was that each of the five
	
  
96
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

participants finished the task within 35 minutes and held a firmer attitude towards their processes ofwriting, including planning, drafting, revising and editing.
With the underlying pragmatic framework of Cooperative Principles in mind, the participants foundit fairly accessible to offer substantive critiques on their own writing products. More details
pertaining to course proceedings and instructions within these six weeks could be found in thefollowing table.
Table 2. Course Proceedings and instructions of the Entire Series

Week
1

Orientation

Remark

CEFR Self-Assessment / Pre-test.

Participants took turns narrating theirwriting problems and experiences ofattending composition classes.

2

Written feedback to each participant / The researcher assigned an article, Let
Instruction and illustration on the Kids Have Fun1, as an extended drill
block and alternating pattern.

3

and the first required reading.

Analysis of the first reading / The researcher assigned another article,
Instruction on the Maxim of Relation Becoming Helpless1, as the second
and the Maxim of Manner.

4

required reading.

Analysis of the second reading / The researcher assigned the third article,
Instruction on the Maxim of Quality Coming Home2,
and the Maxim of Quantity.

5

thetake-homeassignment.

Analysis of the third reading / The researcher reminded participants of

	
  
97
	
  

as

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Instruction and illustration on the anconcept of analogy.
6

in-class

writingtask

oncomparison/contrast.

CEFR Self-Assessment / Post-test / Finale.
Verbalfeedbackonstudents’writings.
NOTE 1: Both articles, whose major rhetorical modes were centered upon illustration andComparison/Contrast, were derived from a reader entitled Pattern and Themes.
NOTE 2: This article, whose major rhetorical modes were centered upon illustration andComparison/Contrast, was selected from a textbook entitled Strategies for Successful
Writing: A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader and Handbook.
On top of the aforementioned information, another research instrument was a qualitative selfreflection questionnaire oriented towards the participants’ self-reflection. The questions and essences
behind the questions could be observed in Table 3.
Table 3. Questionnaire questions for the participantsNo.
1

Question
What do you think an ideal English Writing Class should teach?

Essence
Structural

What do you think the most essential elements should be as a writer begins
2

to draft a comparison/contrast essay? Please list some underlying ones in an

Structuralorder of significance.
3

In what way is this English Writing Class different from the previous one(s)

	
  
98
	
  

ContrastiveThe IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

that you took, regardless of the length?
Have you gone through any alternations in concepts regarding English
4

writing? What have you gained the most from this short series of English

Descriptive

Writing Class?

The construction and corresponding essences of interview questions were based upon by Janesick’s(1991) suggestion as the theoretical underpinning. The researcher, in addition to up-close
observations of each participant, also kept a reflexive journal noting the undertakings of each session.
All these sets of data were carefully cross-referenced and interpreted by means of content analysis(Patton, 1990), which marked the procedures of coding, categorization, description, andinterpretation. Apart from the content analysis, the constant comparative method (Butler-Kisber,
2010; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were additionally used to compare elements
and sub-categories emerging during the process.
Findings
In the following section, the results are presented in response to the research questions: “How do
Cooperative Principles assist L2 learners in their own writing?” and “What is the essential constructneeded for these two genres of writing, comparison and contrast?”
Through a closer look at the triangulated sources of data, two primary facets are generated: brandnew pedagogical underpinnings and transparent learner momentums. Details pertaining to each facet
are depicted as follows:
Facet One: Brand-new pedagogical underpinnings
	
  
99
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

From the outset, the participants had indicated that this experimental series of courses seemed to be
an entirely different approach to learning English writing. Given congruently correlated andinstructions, all of the five participants reported they had learned more diversified ways ofdeveloping and expressing their arguments and that they all could immediately come in handy.
Among all of their new gains, in addition, they appreciated the concept of analogy the most. One
participant from Mainland China expressed clearly her perceptions towards English writing:{Quote 1} We were normally educated to simply mimic a [template] of English writing. You
demonstrated to us the important constructs on writing, and these constructs were frequently
repeated in your writing class, which did help me to remember how to write English
compositions in a brand-new way.
(Eleanor; derived from her questionnaire){Quote 2} At first, I thought English writing is to write whatever you think is true and [that]what we need to do is follow an existing pattern. Now, I realize that different skills can makewriting better. The concept of analogy and the Maxim of Relation are what I gained most fromthis series of classes.
(Lynn; derived from her questionnaire)
Moreover, thanks to the in-class analysis of all the required readings, the participants appreciated theresearcher’s elicitation in either exploring the embedded stylistic features or mapping out thepotential development of ideas. They accordingly learned how to heed their own writing locally andglobally. Two participants, for example, clearly specified the alternations they experienced in writing
English compositions in the following remarks:

	
  
100
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

{Quote 4-3} The teacher started with an overview of the assigned article and allowed us toinduce or generalize the specific features of that article. Following that, he made the hidden
styles of the article manifest to us, had us cross-check our findings, and pinpointed the pros andcons of our own writing products. Most of his reminders were new to me!
(Tracy; translated by the researcher from her questionnaire){Quote 4-4} Analogy is a new concept for me, and totally different ways of expanding andmodifying ideas in my own writing are what I truly gained in this short series.
(Lily; derived from her questionnaire)
Overall, the Cooperative Principles provided the participants with brand-new perspectives on
English writing. It has been evidenced in this study that these pedagogical underpinnings benefited
the participants most in globally planning and drafting as well as locally revising and editing theirown manuscripts.
Facet Two: Transparent Learner Momentums
From the learners’ perspectives, this course planning proved to be innovative and helpful. For the
researcher and the participants themselves, the CEFR checklists and Post-test writing served astransparent channels to reflect on their own momentums. As shown on the B2-leveled CEFR
checklists, one participant, Lynn, noted her progress in one of the Writing can-do statements: “I candevelop an argument systematically in a composition or report, emphasizing decisive points andincluding supporting details.” This descriptor has indeed been evidenced in her Post-test writing. She
could meaningfully churn out her content and she could even comment on her own progress
expressively.

	
  
101
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

To take another participant, Vanessa, for example, she appeared to be even more indicative of her
progress. Majoring in international trade, she bore sufficient English proficiency for conversational
purposes. In this regard, her Pre-test writing displayed a great number of informal uses of English,
and she apparently organized her argument incoherently. As the entire series approached the end, sheevaluated her own improvement on 8 out of 15 can-do statements in total. The most revealingstatement, for the researcher, was that “I can put together information from different sources andrelate it in a coherent summary.” In her Post-test writing, she linked the sentences more coherently,
showed a greater degree of grammatical accuracy, and paid closer attention to the appropriateness ofher language use.
With transparent momentums being observed on the rest of the participants, the researcher also
noticed their improvements by examining the benchmarks suggested by the Written Assessment
Criteria (Language Policy Division, 2009): range, coherence, accuracy, description, and argument. In
addition to the benefits arising from the instructions on the Cooperative Principles, it was evidenced
that those CEFR descriptors served as substantial self-referenced checklists. Learners could
accordingly reflect upon their own language learning and ensure themselves to move towards a better
command of language use.
In terms of planning, drafting, revising and editing their own writing, the participants have gained abetter control in sorting out their arguments with the aids of either the block pattern or the alternating
pattern. As they drafted their own Post-test task, they took heed of the quantity and the quality of
their manuscripts. When they attained the final phase of revising or editing their end-product, themaxims of the Cooperative Principles facilitated the participants’ examination in the relevance of
their argument and the manners of their writing style.

	
  
102
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Despite the orientation of the Cooperative Principles being mainly applicable to speeches andconversations, this study proved how they have been successfully implemented in L2 writing
instructions and how they have effectively sharpen learners’ awareness in rhetorical and discoursal
aspects of L2 writing. With both research question being answered, more thoughts arising from thequalitative analysis will be explicated in the next section.
Discussion and Conclusions
In the previous section, the effects of the Cooperative Principles on helping L2 writers to regulate
planning/drafting and facilitate revising/editing have been manifested, and the construct of analogy is
the most essential one among other forms of input to help L2 writers to fulfill the writing ofcomparison and contrast genres. Nevertheless, some potential pitfalls were also worth noting.
In contrast with the gains out of these brand-new pedagogical underpinnings, the participants did
flesh the content out to a linguistically and pragmatically well-written essay. Admittedly,
nevertheless, the teacher written feedback, deemed as a means of advice to facilitate students’improvements by Hyland and Hyland (2006), was not sufficiently provided. Being greatly valued
and highly rated by L2 learners (Tardy, 2006), the written feedback was given only in the second
week of this series mainly because of the limited instruction time. As essential as the teacher written
feedback seemed, it would certainly be better for L2 writing instructors to give written feedback
either randomly or regularly, depending upon the changing dynamics of their own course.
In addition, looking back at the instructions on the third week, the researcher led all the participants
to work together on a given question: “Will you hire a new talent mainly depending upon his/herleadership skills or execution skills?” Despite their obvious lack of working experiences, theycollectively brainstormed before they drew up the conclusion by constructing two major theses and
	
  
103
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

four corresponding themes, as earlier mentioned in the section of Research Design and
Implementation. The participants themselves attributed this pleasing result to the collaborative
dialogues during the classroom, and they enjoyed the interactive prompts given and triggered by the
researcher. The multiple roles the researcher played in this teaching scenario were in conformity withthe multi-layered dimensions of a teacher’s role in Webb’s (2009) study, ranging from preparing
students for collaborative work, structuring group interaction to “influencing student interaction
through teachers’ discourse (p.1)”. In this regard, teacher written feedback and collaborative
dialogue are advised to be the two pedagogical necessities of such a writing instructional setting.
Lastly, some limitations of this study are noted as follows. For a more comprehensive look at theessences of the comparison/contrast genres, the researcher suggests that an extended in-depth oneon-one interview could have been held in the middle of the series. If the researcher had heard themvoice their challenges or perspectives in the process, he might have instantaneously adjusted thecourse content. In spite of some limitations, this study may serve as a point of departure for
integrating the whole set of Cooperative Principles, oriented towards pragmatic functionalism, into a
process-oriented English writing course. It also provides a range of indications that can be ofreference to more instructors or practitioners, particularly those who consider adopting diverse
methodologies to sharpen or fortify L2 writers’ developing or monitoring mechanisms in their own
writing processes.

	
  
104
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Butler-Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative and arts-informed perspectives.
London: Sage Publications.
Chen, Y. M. (2001). The Writing Development of First Language and the Problems of University
EFL Writing. Proceedings of Eighty-nine annual NSC Linguistics Disciplines <Language
Teaching> Research, 121-144. National Science Council.
Donald, R. B., Morrow, B. R., Wargetz, L. G., & Werner K. (1996). Writing clear essays (3rd Ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Studies in Syntax and
Semantics III: Speech Acts, 183-198. New York: Academic Press.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the fours skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109131.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting
teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language
writing: Contexts and issues, 206-224. New York: Cambridge University Press.

	
  
105
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Janesick, V. J. (1991). Ethnographic inquiry: Understanding culture and experience. In Short, E. C.
(Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry, 101-119. New York, USA: State University of New York
Press.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the
dynamics of second language writing, 195-217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Language Policy Division, Strasbourg. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common
European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: A manual.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second
language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research, 27-37. New
York:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lincoln Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Liu, H. L., & Tseng, S. D. (2013). A study of college students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy
uses in reading-to-write tasks. Spectrum: Studies in language, literature, translation, andinterpretation, 9, 103-132.
Mariani, L. (2004). Learning to learn with the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common
European Framework, 32-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

	
  
106
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (2010). Writing. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.) An introduction to applied
linguistics (2nd ed.), 232-246. London, UK: Hodder Education.
McCarter, S., & Jakes, P. (2009). Uncovering EAP: How to teach academic writing and reading.
Oxford: Macmillan Education.
McNamara, T. (2003). Looking back, looking forward: Rethinking Bachman. Language Testing,20(4), 466-473.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised andexpanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrow, K. (2004). Background to the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common
European Framework, 3-11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mu, C., & Carrington, S. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students’ English writing
strategies. TESL-EJ, 11(1), 1-23.
Newby, D. (2011). Contextualization of the CEFR and other Council of Europe instruments within aEuropean context. In H. Jimbo, K. Hisamura, Y. Usui, M. Oda, & L. Yoffe (Eds.), A
comprehensive study on the framework of English language teachers’ professional development
in Japan. JACET Sig on English Education.
North, B. (2002). A CEF-based self assessment tool for university entrance. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.),
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, andAssessment, 146-166. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

	
  
107
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

North, B. (2004). Relating assessments, examinations, and courses to the CEF. In Morrow, K. (Ed.),
Insights from Common European Framework, 77-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. Oxon: Routledge.
O’Sullivan, B. & Weir, C. J. (2011). Test development and validation. In B. O’Sullivan (Ed.),
Language testing: theories and practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Reinking, J. A., Hart, A. W., & Osten, R. von der (2002). Strategies for successful writing: A
rhetoric, research guide, reader, and handbook (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Education.
Shaw, S. D., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second
language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silve, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research andits implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic
settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts andissues. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

	
  
108
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Vermillion, D. M. (1997). Developing critical thinking skills in EAP students. Unpublished masterthesis. Biola University, U.S.A.
Wang, E. Y. (2008). Argumentative Writing Strategies and Writing Process Strategies Used by EFL
College Freshmen and Juniors: A Case Study. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Changhua
University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16
Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable
examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281-300
You, Y. L. (1999). The contributing factors to the problem of lack of texture in EFL students’
writing. The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the
Republic of China, 343-361. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English
majored university student writers. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on
English Teaching, 106-119. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

	
  
109
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
APPENDIX I

Levelchecklist at regular intervals to update what you can do and what your priorities are.

Date

2 record what you cannot do yet but feel are important for you. Look at thisMy objectives
I can do thisUse this checklist to record what you think you can do in column 1, and in column

B2

1

3

Write the date of when you use the checklist in column 3.

If you have over 80% of the points ticked in column 1, you have probably reached
Level B2.

Use the blank spaces to add any other things you can do, or things that are importantfor your language learning at this level.

Strategies
I can use standard phrases like ”That’s a difficult question to answer” to gain timeand keep the turn while formulating what to say.
I can make a note of ”favourite mistakes” and consciously monitor speech for them.

	
  
110
	
  

2

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can generally correct slips and errors if I become conscious of them or if they have
led to misunderstandings.

Language Quality

1

2

3

1

2

3

I can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo ; although I can behesitant as I search for patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably longpauses.
I can pass on detailed information reliably.
I have sufficient vocabulary to express myself on matters concerned to my field andon most general topics.
I can communicate with reasonable accuracy and can correct mistakes if they have
led to misunderstandings.

Writing
I can write clear and detailed texts (compositions, reports or texts of presentations)on various topics related to my field of interest.

	
  
111
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can write summaries of articles on topics of general interest.
I can summarise information from different sources and media.
I can discuss a topic in a composition or “letter to the editor”, giving reasons for oragainst a specific point of view.
I can develop an argument systematically in a composition or report, emphasisingdecisive points and including supporting details.
I can write about events and real or fictional experiences in a detailed and easilyreadable way.
I can write a short review of a film or a book.
I can express in a personal letter different feelings and attitudes and can report thenews of the day making clear what – in my opinion – are the important aspects of anevent.

	
  
112
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Level

Date

checklist at regular intervals to update what you can do and what your priorities

My objectives

2 record what you cannot do yet but feel are important for you. Look at thisI can do thisUse this checklist to record what you think you can do in column 1, and in column

C1

1

2

3

are. Write the date of when you use the checklist in column 3.
If you have over 80% of the points ticked in column 1, you have probably reached
Level C1.
Use the blank spaces to add any other things you can do, or things that areimportant for your language learning at this level.
Strategies
I can use fluently a variety of appropriate expressions to preface my remarks inorder to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor while thinking.
I can relate own contribution skilfully to those of other speakers.
I can substitute an equivalent term for a word I can’t recall without distracting thelistener.

	
  
113
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Language Quality

1

2

3

1

2

3

I can express myself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only aconceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.
I can produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured speech, showing control
over ways of developing what I want to say in order to link both my ideas and myexpression of them into coherent text.
I have a good command of a broad vocabulary allowing gaps to be readily
overcome with circumlocutions ; I rarely have to search obviously for expressions
or compromise on saying exactly what I want to.
I can consistently maintain a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rareand difficult to spot.

Writing
I can express myself in writing on a wide range of general or professional topics ina clear and user-friendly manner.

	
  
114
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

I can present a complex topic in a clear and well structured way, highlighting themost important points, for example in a composition or a report.
I can present points of view in a comment on a topic or an event, underlining themain ideas and supporting my reasoning with detailed examples.
I can put together information from different sources and relate it in a coherent
summary.
I can give a detailed description of experiences, feelings and events in a personal
letter.
I can write formally correct letters, for example to complain or to take a stand infavour of or against something.
I can write texts which show a high degree of grammatical correctness and vary
my vocabulary and style according to the addressee, the kind of text and the topic.
I can select a style appropriate to the reader in mind.

	
  
115
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
116
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Efficacy of Online Social Networks on Language
Teaching: A Bangladeshi Perspective
Shaila Shams

	
  
117
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
It is now an established fact that the use of technology facilitates teaching and learning in language
classrooms. With the advancement of technology, social networking websites have emerged too.
Social networking sites have been quite popular among various age group users particularly theyoung users since their invention. Also, they are conceived to be able to motivate (Greenhow,
Robelia, & Hughes, 2009) and expose learners to the authentic use of the target language (Baralt,2011). However, very little research has been done, especially in Bangladesh, on how much thesewebsites can contribute to language learning and teaching though they seem to offer ample
opportunities. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the effect of using ‘The Facebook’, a social
networking website, in language classrooms at tertiary level in Bangladesh. Participants of this study
were first year first semester university students doing a foundation course in English focusing to
improve their listening, speaking and writing skills. The participants were divided into two groups.
Group 1 was the control group who was taught traditionally and non-digitally without using
Facebook. Group 2, along with classroom teaching, received help from the instructor throughFacebook and did tasks assigned on Facebook. At the end of the three months semester a test was
taken and the result of both groups was compared. Thus, this study shall try to provide an answer
regarding to what extent online social networks can facilitate second language acquisition.

Keywords: Online social networks; Bangladeshi language classrooms; Second language acquisition;
Facebook.

	
  
118
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
Today’s young generation is referred as the “Z-generation” or “Net-generation” as technology andthe World Wide Web are the two most familiar objects to them (Horovitz, 2012).This “Netgeneration” has been found to be applying different methods of learning from the earlier generations(Sandars and Morrison, 2007) as they are more “experiential, engaged and constantly connected”(Ramaley and Zia, 2005). It has also been suggested that the Net Generation students prefer
independent learning style and take the benefits of technology for better learning (Carlson, 2005).
The innovation and advancement of social networking sites e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter,
Hi5, etc. has increased further use of technology in this generation’s day to day life. These social
networking websites have also proven to be useful in language learning as they are more engaging
and inspiring for learners to use the target language, and minimizes learners’ fear and nervousness
and authority of the instructor (Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey, 1998; Beauvois, 1998 cited in Millis,2011). Moreover, the online social networks also provide an opportunity for both instructors andlearners to be exposed to the language through authentic activities and materials and thus canpromote constructivist learning through meaningful communication (Woo, Herrington, Agostinho, &Reeves, 2007). According to Chartrand (2012), the online social networking sites not only motivate
the Net-generation learners to use relevant learning materials, but also let the learner experience theauthentic usage of a language in communication. Since students can relate more if online social
networks are used for language teaching, this invariably promotes language acquisition to a great
extent.
However, the prospects and opportunities of the social networking sites in language teaching andlearning are yet to be discovered in the context of a south-Asian country like Bangladesh. Thus with
	
  
119
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

this trait in mind, it is quite intriguing to understand if using this kind of technology in education andclassrooms can be proven to be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the roleand effectiveness of using the ‘Facebook’ (a social networking site) in tertiary level English language
classrooms in Bangladesh. The paper also attempts to provide theoretical framework to the use ofsuch online social networks and to gain an understanding of further possibilities of the usage ofsocial networking websites in second language acquisition.
Literature review
English Language Teaching and Use of Social Networking Websites in Bangladesh
Bangladesh, being a post-colonial country has always seen the English language to be viewed withhigh regard socially and economically. Competency in English is seen as an opportunity provider for
higher education and it is a requirement for better employment (Sarwar, 2005). Therefore, English
plays a very important role in the education system of Bangladesh. It is mandatory from grade 1 andis the medium of instruction for tertiary level education in both public and private universities(Hossain and Tollefson, 2007). Unfortunately, the three types of schooling system prevailing in
Bangladesh- English medium, Bangla medium and Islamic education produces students withdifferent level of competency in English (Hossain and Tollefson, 2007). Also, the standard ofteaching English varies greatly between urban and rural schools which reflects in the result of public
examinations and is the cause of failure for many students in university admission tests (Khan, 2013).
All these factors contribute to a class of mixed ability students in tertiary level language classrooms.
This ‘mixed bag’ of students in the tertiary level education system has posed such a great problem inmodern Bangladesh, that universities, specially the private ones, have introduced foundation level
English courses, just to overcome this language barrier and make the students able to compete withthe ‘better-language-equipped’ students in the technical subjects pertaining to their respective
	
  
120
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

degrees. Such two courses being taught at the moment in the Independent University, Bangladesh are
English 101 and English 102.
English 101 is an elementary course designed to improved students’ listening, speaking, writing skill
and grammar. The grammar done in this course is of very basic level e.g. present tense, past tense,
use of preposition, modal verbs, character/ personality words, describing physical features of people,
etc. which are taught at the school level. However, as mentioned before, due to varied proficiency
level of students coming from different types of schools, it is pertinent to revise and reinforce theirEnglish language skills to operate in the university courses. English 102 focuses extensively on
improving students’ reading skills.
Thus for the sake of getting a clearer picture of what improvements can be achieved by any new
methods or techniques in teaching, this study has chosen one such course, the English 101 as theexperiential grounds for the investigation. The selection process of the course students will beelaborated in later sections.
Boyd and Ellision (2008) defined Social networking websites as “web-based services that allow
individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system”- where people cancommunicate with others. Such a social networking website called the ‘Facebook’ isimmensely popular among Bangladeshi youngsters and adults alike. With an approximate numberof over 37 million users of Facebook in Bangladesh and more than 50% of them being within the age
range of 18-24 years (www.socialbakes.com), this website enjoys a popularity in the country that by
far supersedes any other site in its league.

	
  
121
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  

Figure 1. % Facebook user age distribution in Bangladesh (www.socialbakers.com)
A class consensus of two English 101 course batches was also taken and results indicated that every
one of the students was familiar with the social networking website: Facebook. Naturally this caused
the selection of the said site as grounds for the investigation.
Theoretical Underpinning to the Use of Social Networking Websites in Language Teaching
The aim of this research is to determine whether the online social network, Facebook can facilitate
English language learning and teaching for Bangladeshi tertiary level students. The incorporation ofsocial networking websites into language teaching evidently derives support from second language
acquisition theories. The theory of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) motivates and provides
background to the use of online social networks for language teaching. TBLT is an approach tolanguage teaching which emphasizes on using tasks “as the core unit of planning and instruction”(Richards and Rodgers, 2011). Feez (1998, p.17 cited in Richards and Rodgers, 2011, p.224) pointed
out some important aspects of TBLT. He states that the tasks in TBLT focus more on“communication and meaning” where “learners learn language by interacting communicatively andpurposefully”. According to Ellis (2013, p.16) a task “requires learners to process language
	
  
122
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

pragmatically” and to be able to communicate the “appropriate content”. Nunan (1989, p.10) defines,
tasks should be able to “involve learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting
in the target language”. Freeman (2000, p.144) suggest that the tasks in TBLT enable learners to use
the target language in a “natural context”. Considering the above mentioned definition of TaskBased Language Teaching approach and tasks, a clear connection can be drawn with the activities on
online social networks.
Along with the support from TBLT theories, the use of online social networks in language teaching
relevantly reflects the theory of language socialization. According to Duff (2010, p.427), language
socialization is the process where “linguistic, pragmatic and other cultural knowledge” are acquired
through social experiences ultimately leading to the development of “cultural and communicativecompetence”. In simple terms, language socialization is the process through which learners explore
the underlying and implicit rules of communication and interaction using the language in a society. It
is important to be aware of the language practices in a society in order to be able to function inaccordance with the norms of a society (Duff, 2010, p.427). In one of her studies Duff (2009) has
shown that English language learners from different cultural backgrounds often struggle in classroom
interaction and discussion due to the non-existence of the concept of classroom discussion in theirown cultures. The inhibitions due to cultural differences pose great difficulty for both teachers andlearners in a language classroom even in Bangladesh; where in most cases the class constitutes of
non native English language teachers and learners as the traditional classroom setting is mostly
teacher dominated with little scope for participation. To reverse this process weakness it requires the
ELT teacher to go to great extents, to be able to break the students’ inhibitions in a free and frankclass participation. The teacher/instructor has to be more open towards a communicative language
teaching along with instilling a belief in the students about a more welcoming class environment.
	
  
123
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Such a reversal is often time consuming if not futile as class lectures tend to be ‘too little and too late’in a language learner’s life when such a university course is chosen with students already in a firm
belief about non-communication in the class room based teaching. However, because of the rapid
growth of technology and internet, online social networks can be used to address this niche inlanguage teaching in Bangladesh. Due to the immense popularity of online social networks which isvery common among students from any background in Bangladesh, this research decided to use theonline social network “The Facebook” and endeavored to attain usefulness of online social networks
in language teaching.
Online social networks can provide a platform for L2 learners “for community participation andidentity construction” (Rheinhardt and Zander, 2011). In a study where online social network“Facebook” was used for language teaching, they have found that the use of online social networks
in language teaching support in language socialization and hence promotes language acquisition too.
Harrison and Thomas (2009) also found in their study that the use of online social networks
promotes active language learning as both teachers and learners can participate in a “collaborative
learning environment” which provides opportunities for interaction and thereby helps in language
socialization.
The online social network, Facebook provides the facility of individual and group interaction to its
users. Users can also upload pictures, songs, create groups, sends messages, etc. on Facebook and be
therefore exposed to the authentic language (Baralt, 2011). Furthermore, it also provides a platform
to the learners to use the target language outside classroom for practical interaction purpose. In theseways, Facebook creates opportunities for learners to understand the social practices embedded inlanguage and apply those in real life interaction. Use of online social networks may motivate(Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009) and engage learners more with language practice as the
	
  
124
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

activities on the social network Facebook, establishes immediate communication and result. Bosch(2009) in the study conducted among 200 undergraduate students of the University of Cape Town ofSouth Africa found that Facebook usage for academic purposes offers potential advantages one ofwhich is reducing the power distance between teachers and students; while the students welcomed
the concept of using this social networking site for educational purpose. Eren (2012) echoes similarfindings in his study conducted in the University of Gaziantep, Turkey where students expressed
positive attitude towards the use of Facebook for language learning along with traditional modes ofteaching. A similar view is expressed in a study by Wang, Woo, Quek and Mei Lieu (2012)where itis suggested that Facebook can be successfully used for learning management too. Incorporating
Facebook in language teaching may also cater to the preference and need of independent learners of
the Net Generation by boosting their autonomous learning style.
The belief of this study was that, since students feel much more comfortable and at ease when using
this social networking site, it would be much easier for them to “open up” and effect a language
socialization culture. Also due to having mixed ability students in class comprised of students fromboth rural and urban areas and different schooling backgrounds, it was thought that, students with
better English language skills would feel an emotional onus towards their lesser able companions in
the class and would correct and help them in the principles of the language during interaction on thewebsite.
Methodology
This research was conducted among two groups of undergraduate university students. These students
were all in their first year and first semester with a median age of 18. The university of choice is
known as Independent University, Bangladesh and is considered as one of the top five (5) private
universities of Bangladesh.
	
  
125
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

At this university, every student has to go through an admission process of testing and selection
through their previous school-leaving results (up to 12th standard). After the selection process, thestudents are divided into two groups, the first group is considered as the group who can proceed
directly to the main course curriculum of their chosen degrees while the second group of students go
through a series of compulsory foundation courses. These foundation courses assist the second groupof “weaker” students to increase their level of competency to be at par with their counterparts in thefirst group. Of these foundation courses, emphasis is given mainly on their mathematical and English
Language aptitude.
One such course as mentioned earlier is the English 101. Since the number of students taking suchfoundation courses has traditionally been quite high, the students are then subdivided into smaller“sections” to maintain a class population of average 30 students per instructor at any one time.
This study has been conducted between two such sections of English 101, which were instructed by
the same instructor, the author. This course basically focuses on improving students’ listening,speaking, writing and grammar skills to enable them to converse in English and to understand class
lectures as the medium of instruction and study materials are in English. All the examinations arealso conducted in English. This research emphasized more on improving students’ writing skill andgrammar.
The two sections comprised of a total of 57 Students. The first group has 30 students in it and thesecond group comprised of a population of 27students. A gender analysis of the population of bothgroups was conducted and the results showed fairly even distribution of both genders in the group.
Thus the first group was taken as the “Control” group (33% Female, 67% Male) and the second
group was taken as the “Experiment” group (15% Female, 85% Male).

	
  
126
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

To ensure a fair distribution of the ability of students, both groups were subjected to a diagnostic test
which measured the level of English Language aptitude of the students. For simplicity purposes,
these tests were called as the “Start” test. The test contained a series of questions from the English
101 course content which would later be taught over the semester. The results revealed that theControl group were more apt in the Language achieving a class average of 68.31% marks while theExperiment group achieved a lower average mark of 65.42%.
A questionnaire survey was also conducted between both groups regarding their educational
background, results in Board Exams- Secondary School Certificate and Higher Secondary School
Certificate, location of their schools and colleges, (if in rural or urban area) etc.
An analysis of the groups’ School leaving English Language results further confirmed this difference
in result between the Experiment group and the Control Group. It is noteworthy to mention here that,
the English language test results of school leaving examinations are divided into four broad
categories with “A” being the highest and “D” being the lowest before a student fails and achieves an“F” in their exam. Whilst within the control group 77% students had achieved an “A”, 74% had
achieved the same grade in the Experiment group. On the other hand, 23% of the students in theControl group had achieved a “B” (with none achieving lower grades). In contrasting the Experimentgroup’s populace consisted of 22% students with a grade “B” and the rest 4% having achieved agrade “C” in their School leaving English results.
Thus, the Control group showed a considerably better result in their school leaving examinations
when compared with the Experiment group, further supporting their results achieved in the Start test
that was conducted.
An analysis of the urban: rural education of both the groups revealed identical results with bothgroups clocking 70% of their students with urban education and 30% from rural education
	
  
127
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

backgrounds respectively. Finally a survey of the number of Facebook users in the class revealed
that every student was familiar to and a frequent user (more than 3 times weekly) of the social
networking website Facebook.com.
When deciding the method of incorporating Facebook into the course instruction of the Experimentgroup, very close scrutiny was given to the amount of time the students would make contact with thecourse instructor. A clearer picture of the calculation is given as below:
Table 1. Lecture time calculation
No. of lectures in 12 week periodContact hours per lecture
Total Contact hours (24x 1.5)
Hours lost due to mid-term exam

24
1.5
36
(1.5)

Hours lost due to diagnostic test

(1.5)

Hours lost due to Class quizzes (6 x 15 min)(1.5)

Hours Lost due to survey & introductory class(1.5)

Net contact hours in any group

30.0

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Expected hours gained by each Facebook activity
Number of Facebook Activities
Total Hours Gained

0.5
20
10

Therefore average contact hours each class for experiment group(30-10=20/20=1)

1

As shown above, traditionally there are a total of 24 lectures (or 2 lectures per week) designated foreach group in a 12 week semester. Each lecture would last 90 minutes or 1.5 hours. However, withsix class quizzes of 15 minutes each to be taken during the semester means that (6x15=90) 90
minutes or 1 lecture worth of actual teaching time is lost each semester. 1 full lecture is used up to
conduct a “mid-term” examination, whilst for this study, 2 Lectures were used up for the diagnostic
	
  
128
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

test, survey and introductory class. This would mean that a total of 4 lectures were lost during thesemester leaving a net total of 20 lectures or 30 hours of class contact time for the students. Whilst,
this was the case for both the groups, the Experiment group was also subjected to Facebook activities
which were considered to add around 30 minutes of contact time each. There were a total of 20
Facebook “activities”, which will be explained more elaborately later on, meaning that there would
be an extra contact time of almost 10 hours for the Experiment group. This “extra” contact time washowever minimized by shortening each of the twenty lectures of the Experiment group by 30
minutes to stand at 1 hour each.
Incorporating Facebook into Teaching
As discussed earlier, it was decided to use the Facebook along with formal classroom teaching withthe experimental group whereas the control group would only be taught through traditionalclassroom teaching. A Facebook group was created for the experimental group at the start of thesemester. As Facebook is immensely popular with the young generation, students showed great
enthusiasm about this initiative.
The teaching through Facebook with the experimental group followed a method. Every week, a task
was posted on Facebook based on the lesson in the class. Students were given tasks on grammar,
description of pictures, writing on specific topics etc. These tasks were called ‘Contests’. In addition,‘Help Files’ were also posted on the same topics to clarify students’ understanding and increase their
engagement with the topics. Typically each help file would receive students’ discussions about the
topic of the help file. Students were also encouraged to interact spontaneously in the group. In
addition, student used to post status, comments or news freely which maintained the practical life
interaction on Facebook. Every student’s comments were corrected by the author if there was any
spelling or grammar mistake. It was observed that, even students were correcting each other’s
	
  
129
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

mistakes, which re-affirms the notion suggested by Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes (2009). As
mentioned before, the tasks or activities on online social networks are thought to “motivate” andengage the learners to learn the language with less dependence on instructors. The Experiment groupmembers were also able to use the language in “natural context” where the primary focus was onmeaningful communication which connects the theory of Task- Based Language Teaching and using
online social networks for language teaching. For example, a group member would usually post astatus about their day or some unexpected life event whereby other members of the group would give
feedback comments on the status. The only rule to be followed in the Facebook group was that eachand every member would have to post whatever they liked in English.
The Contest tasks were normally associated with Help posts and were comprised of questions
regarding to the topics that were being taught in the classroom. So basically, instead of asking verbal
questions in the classroom to re-affirm the understanding of a topic in a traditional setting where only
a few students would be able to communicate with the lecturer, these Contests allowed every student
equal chance to take part in the communication process. The Contest tasks assigned to the groupmembers had a time limit. Students were given two days’ time to finish each task. After two days,
the result was announced. Also, the response of each student containing grammatical or theoreticalmistakes was corrected and explained to the students either on Facebook or in the classroom.
At the end of the three months semester, a total of ten tasks were given to the students. It wasannounced beforehand in the class that the three top winners will be rewarded with material gifts
based on the number of wins. At the end, three winners, who had completed and won the tasks mostof the time were rewarded. The first prize was given to the student who had maximum number ofwins, followed by second and third position. A sample of the Contest posts, Help posts and winnerannouncing posts are given in the appendix.
	
  
130
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

At the end of the three month semester, a final examination was taken with an array of questions
styled in the same way as the diagnostic test. This marked test was conducted again to measure theaptitude of the students in both groups and their development in the topics taught during the semester.
Findings and Discussion
As mentioned before, a diagnostic test consisting of items from the English 101 course content was
taken in the beginning of the semester with both control and experimental group. A similar test was
taken in the end of the semester with both groups again to assess their progress. The average result ofboth the start and end test of the control and experimental group is shown below in the chart.

Axis	
  Title	  Figure 2 - Average marks of the "Start" and "End" tests of the students

74.00%	
  72.00%	
  70.00%	
  68.00%	
  66.00%	
  64.00%	
  62.00%	
  60.00%	  Start	
  Test	  Control	
  Group	  68.31%	
  Experiment	
  Group	  65.42%	  End	
  Test	  72.60%	  73.81%	  It can be observed that the control group outperformed the experimental group in the first test withan average score of 68.31% whereas the experimental group achieved an average score of 65.42%.
However, after three months, in the end test, the control group achieved a score of 72.60% whilst theexperimental group is seen to have improved slightly more and outperformed the control group with
	
  
131
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

an average score of 73.81%. This meant that the average improvement in the Control group was
6.28% while that of the Experiment group stood at 12.82% which was almost double. This result
almost evidently presents itself to prove that usage of social networking websites is an efficientmedium of technique when teaching English to second language learners. However, a closer look at
the scores of each group revealed some interesting facts which would prove this theory otherwise. Asa first step of the investigation firstly, each of the groups (both control and experiment) was
subdivided into five different subsets. These subsets of students were classified by the marks thatthey achieved in their diagnostic test which by their title were quite self-explanatory. The categories
were “<50%” for the students who failed in their diagnostic tests, “50%-60%” for students whoachieved equal to or more than 50% but less than 60%, “60%-70%” for students who achieved equal
to or more than 60% but less than 70%, “70%-80%” for students who achieved equal to or more than
70% but less than 80% and “80%-90%” for students who achieved equal to or more than 80% but
less than 90%. None of the students achieved more than 90% in their diagnostic test which was quite
reasonable as these students were assigned to this course due to their poor performance in English
Language in their previous tests respectively.
After this subdivision and assignment of students to different subsets, a comparison was drawn on
how much each subset of students has improved and the respective subsets were compared within
their own large group, i.e., the Control group and the Experiment group.

	
  
132
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Figure 3 - Control Group subset classification%	
  90.00%	
  80.00%	
  70.00%	
  60.00%	
  50.00%	
  40.00%	
  30.00%	
  20.00%	
  10.00%	
  
0.00%	
  Start	
  <50%	
  41.72%	  50-­‐60%	
  55.42%	
  60-­‐70%	
  66.52%	
  70-­‐80%	
  74.44%	
  80-­‐90%	
  82.95%	
  

End	
  

53.04%	  59.76%	
  71.53%	
  74.44%	  87.96%	
  

Avg.	
  %	
  Improvement	
  28.65%	
  7.88%	
  7.81%	
  

0.02%	
  

6.29%	
  When looking at the Control group % improvements in results, the increase of the students’ aptitude(attributed by the marks they achieved in their respective tests) was seen to be quite spread out, withthe highest increase in the failing group (28.65%) and lower but similar increases being noticed in
the “50-60%”, “60-70%” and “80-90%” groups with increase of 7.88%, 7.81% and 6.29%
respectively. This is quite acceptable as students with lower abilities tend to catch more in these
specific courses than students with higher levels. This is because these courses are designed such thatstudents with a background in learning English language but with poor skills in the Language are thepriority target of the teaching. However it is quite interesting to note that, the students in the “7080%” subset had almost no development in their test scores (0.02%).

	
  
133
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Figure	  	
  4	
  -­‐	  Experiment	
  Group	
  subset	
  classiﬁcaKon	
  

%	
  

90.00%	
  80.00%	
  70.00%	
  60.00%	
  50.00%	
  40.00%	
  30.00%	
  20.00%	
  10.00%	
  
0.00%	
  Start	
  <50%	
  42.34%	  50-­‐60%	
  54.38%	
  60-­‐70%	
  65.63%	
  70-­‐80%	
  75.69%	
  80-­‐90%	
  83.33%	
  

End	
  

53.75%	  66.29%	
  70.60%	  85.32%	
  85.00%	
  

Avg.	
  %	
  Improvement	
  30.43%	
  20.85%	
  7.22%	
  12.78%	
  2.48%	  A look at the Experiment group however showed a slightly different trend, with almost a linear
decrease in the improvement of students as their initial aptitude (attributed by the marks achieved in
the diagnostic “Start” test) increased. The lowest increase in this group was noticed in the “80-90%”
region. There was however a sudden spike in improvement in this trend for the “70-80%” subset
with almost double the improvement from the immediately lower subset (12.78%)

Figure 5 - % improvement Control vs Experiment group
35.00%	
  30.00%	  %	
  25.00%	
  20.00%	
  15.00%	
  10.00%	
  5.00%	
  
0.00%	
  Control	
  Group	
  

<50%	
  
28.65%	  50-­‐60%	
  7.88%	
  60-­‐70%	
  7.81%	
  70-­‐80%	
  
0.02%	
  80-­‐90%	
  6.29%	
  Experiment	
  Group	  30.43%	
  20.85%	
  7.22%	
  12.78%	
  2.48%	
  

	
  
134
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

As can be seen above, a second comparison was drawn between the subset of students across thetwo groups. This helps to clearly understand how the improvement has varied over the two groups.
The Experiment group (in blue) can be easily seen to be following a trend in its ability to improve as
it moves along the subsets, while the ability improvement of the Control group seems to havedrastically dropped when rising from the failing (<50%) students to the higher subset students. Whatis also interesting to notice is that, where one group failed in improvement, the other group seemedto almost always persevere with a common meeting place in the “60-70%” subset.
As seen in both groups, the only subset of students that gave results out of trend was the ones in the“70-80%” set. When revisited with the query of how they felt about the course, in the Experimentgroup, 100% of the students in this subset (70-80%) replied with a positive answer explaining thatthe course was very engaging.

Figure 6 - % of class population in subset as per Start Test
35.00%	
  30.00%	  %	
  25.00%	
  20.00%	
  15.00%	
  10.00%	
  5.00%	
  
0.00%	
  Control	
  Group	
  

<50%	
  
13.33%	  50-­‐60%	
  10.00%	
  60-­‐70%	
  23.33%	
  70-­‐80%	
  30.00%	
  80-­‐90%	
  23.33%	
  Experiment	
  Group	  14.81%	  18.52%	  22.22%	  33.33%	  11.11%	  Finally, a comparative study showed that the maximum number of students resided in the 60-80%
margin of marks (obtained in the “start” diagnostic test).

	
  
135
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Correlativity & reliability of Data
A scatter plot of the two groups’ result was drawn up with the x-axis or the independent axis as the% of marks obtained by each student in the diagnostic Start test. The y-axis or the dependent axis
was then populated with the respective students’ % marks obtained in the final End test. The results
were then also calculated through the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient using thefollowing equation to ascertain the correlativity and reliability of the data:

Figure 7 - Control Group scatter plot of data%	  END	
  test	
  100.00%	
  80.00%	
  60.00%	
  40.00%	
  20.00%	
  
0.00%	
  
0.00%	
   10.00%	
  20.00%	
  30.00%	
  40.00%	
  50.00%	
  60.00%	
  70.00%	
  80.00%	
  90.00%	
  100.00%	
  %	
  START	
  test	  The Control group data when plotted in the scatter diagram showed a very good trend of uniformity
with a strong to very strong correlation coefficient of 0.88868

	
  
136
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Figure 8 - Experiment Group scatter plot of data%	  END	
  test	  100.00%	
  80.00%	
  60.00%	
  40.00%	
  20.00%	
  
0.00%	
  
0.00%	
   10.00%	
  20.00%	
  30.00%	
  40.00%	
  50.00%	
  60.00%	
  70.00%	
  80.00%	
  90.00%	
  100.00%	
  %	
  START	
  test	  The Experiment group data when plotted in the scatter diagram also showed a fairly uniform trend indata with a strong to medium correlation coefficient of 0.74317. This weaker result could be
attributed to the abnormally higher improvement of this group’s “70-80%” subset students.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after analyzing all the data from the study, it can be said that a social networking
website does not work as a technical platform for students to learn new theories or hone their skills in
English as a second language, rather, it works as a motivational platform (Greenhow, Robelia, &Hughes, 2009) which encourages, liberates (from fear and introversion) and engages students into
the practice of collaborative learning (Liaw, Chen & Huang, 2008) and therefore increase of skill in
the language. This finding is also reflected in the survey by Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010)
where it has been stated by the students that Facebook – the online social network could facilitate
second language learning. Zaidieh (2012) points out a few benefits of online social networks thatthey are ‘flexible’, ‘repeatable’ and ‘convenient and accessible’ which make them a beneficial tool to
be used for educational purposes along with some drawbacks.
This means that, when teaching students with already advanced skills in the language, this method
will not help the students to increase their skills much further. This can be clearly seen when
	
  
137
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

comparing the results of the students in the Experiment group “80-90%” subset. The “80-90%”
subset of the Experiment group demonstrated only 2.48% improvement compared to a 6.29%
improvement shown by their counterpart subset in the Control group. One reason that could be
responsible for this phenomenon is as this course was of the foundation level , therefore the students
with the highest level of ability in English had little to gain from the course. Secondly but morelogically, the reason could have been because the higher ability students in both groups had advanced
skills when it came to socializing in English but were rather weak in a few technical concepts ofEnglish. Such students would profit more from class contact time where each concept would betraditionally taught and consequently assimilated efficiently by the learner. The “80-90%” subset of
the Control group received more of such contact time than the Experiment group whose regular classcontact time was cut short by 30 minutes in each lecture (as mentioned earlier). Thus for such “highskilled” learners, it could be safely said that a more technically focused class room based teaching
method would help improve their skills further.
On the other hand students with very poor skills are also seen to have gained little more from themethod, as seen in the “<50%” subset as in their case they are also learning new theories in English
Language. This phenomenon can be clearly appreciated when comparing the said subset students’
28.65% improvement of the Control group compared to the 30.43% improvement of the Experimentgroup. The second reason for the “80-90%” subset of both the groups stands to logic here also, butwith a slight spin. What it seems is that, the “<50%” subset students in each group are so weak in thetechnical concepts of the Language specially Grammar, that they are far from even “entering” alanguage socializing zone. For them, the language English is still a “Foreign” language for which
they are yet to learn the elementary principles. Such students again need rigorous traditional classcontact time where they are introduced to the basic principles of English. Rather than improving,
	
  
138
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

such students “learn” the principles for the first time perhaps due to various reasons including but notlimited to “seriously-flawed” teaching or learning practices during their primary and secondary
education. Thus a decreased class contact almost offsets the “motivational factors” and positive
impacts of such language socialization techniques. Such students therefore need to be firstly taught
in class room based environments where they would progress to become “medium-skilled” and only
then can further teaching methods be applied to “improve” their soft skills in the language.
Conversely the most surprising results were demonstrated by the students of the middle “50-80%”
subset. Where the general norm seemed to be that the Experiment Group outperformed the Control
group by a considerable margin. This is the group of interest where it seemed that the theory ofFacebook thrived. The “50-80%” subset students of the Experiment group were also the ones who
took part most actively in the Facebook activities. For these types of students, with fewer weaknesses
in the principles of English language, bulk of the issue was the practical usage and learning throughpractice of the principles of the language. It is these “medium-skilled” students of Bangladesh, who
are capable of understanding (and have somewhat learnt the theories) but have been suppressed by
the one-sided communicative and “punishing” system of the prevailing schooling system in the
country, who can benefit the most from this type of method (Chowdhury,2003) as online social
networks provide equal participation opportunities to students (Warschauer, 1995). By “punishing” itis meant that the flawed communicative language teaching practice prevailing in Bangladesh,
actually “injects” the student with theories of English language (in the forms of verbs, nouns,
sentence making etc.) but never allows them to practice or even use the Language in an un-inhibited
environment. The general English language student on the other hand is in an even unfavorable
situation outside the classroom where the nation speaks only one common language “Bangla” andlittle use is needed for a second language other than when attempting an aristocratic upper hand.
	
  
139
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Baralt, M. (2011). The use of social networking sites for language practice and learning. Ilha do
Desterro, 60. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/2175-8026.2011n60p277.
Boyd, D. M., and Ellison, N,B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/pdf.
Bosch, E. T. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the
University of Cape Town. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory
and Research, 38(2), 185-200.
Carlson, S. (2005). The Net Generation Goes to College. Washington: The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Net-GenerationGoes-to/12307.
Chartrand, R. (2012). Social networking for language learners: Creating meaningful output with web
2.0 tools. Knowledge Management and E- Learning: An International Journal, 4(1), 97-101.
Chowdhury, R. (2003). International TESOL training and EFL contexts: The Cultural
Disillusionment Factor. Australian Journal of Education, 7(3), 283-302.
Duff, P. (2009). Language socialization in a Canadian secondary school: Talking about current
events. In R. Barnard & M. Torres-Guzman Eds., Creating communities of learning in schools.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 165-185.
	
  
140
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Duff, P. (2010). Language Socialization. In: S. McKay & N. H. Hornberger Eds., Sociolinguistics
and language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 427-455.
Ellis, R. (2013). Task- Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eren. O. (2012). Students’ Attitudes towards Using Social Networking in Foreign Language Classes:
A Facebook Example. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(20), 88-294.
Freeman, L. D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., and Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digitalage: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher,38(4), 246-259.
Harrison, R., and Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in Online Communities: Social Networking Sites andLanguage Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 109-124.
Hossain, T., and Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language Policy in Education in Bangladesh. In: A.B.M.
Tsui and J. W. Tollefson, eds. 2007. Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 241-257.
Horovitz, B. (2012). After Gen X, Millennials, what should next generation be? USA Today, 4 May.
Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-05-03/naming-the-nextgeneration/54737518/1.

	
  
141
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., and Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment forlearning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4),179–187. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://pinarmanici.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/facebook1.pdf.
Khan, S. (2013). No Improvement in English, maths. New Age Online, 11 May. Retrieved August 10,
2014, from http://newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2013-05-11&nid=48802#.UiGdtj9UUY8.
Liaw, S. S., Chen, G. D., & Huang, H. M. (2008). Users’ attitudes toward Web-based collaborative
learning systems for knowledge management. Computers and Education, 50(3), 950–961.
Millis, N. (2011). Situated Learning through Social Networking Communities: The Development of
Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire. Calico Journal, 28(2), 345-368.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramaley, J., and Zia, L. (2005). The Real Versus the Possible: Closing the Gaps in Engagement andLearning. In: D., Oblinger and J. L. Oblinger, eds. 2005. Educating the Net Generation.
Educase. Ch. 8-1.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhardt, J., and Zander, V. (2011). Social Networking in an Intensive English Program Classroom:
A Language Socialization Perspective. Calico Journal, 28(2), 326-344.
Sarwar, B. (2005). The Spread of English: Causes and Implications. Spectrum: Journal of the
Department of English, University of Dhaka, 3, 28-37.
	
  
142
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Sanders, J., and Morrison, C. (2007). What is the Net Generation? The challenge for future medical
education. Medical Teacher, 29(2-3), 85-88. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01421590601176380.
Socialbakers (2013). Bangladesh Facebook Statistics. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromwww.socialbakers.com.
Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language
Classroom. Calico Journal, 13( 2-3), 7-25.
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., and Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as alearning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(3), 428-438. _1195 428..438
Woo, Y., Herrington, J. A., Agostinho, S. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Implementing Authentic Tasks in
Web-Based Learning Environments. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 36-43.
Zaidieh, A. J. Y. (2012). The Use of Social Networking in Education: Challenges and Opportunities.
World of Computer Science and Information Technology Journal (WCSIT),2(1), 18-21.

	
  
143
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix
TablesTable 1. Lecture Time Calculation
Samples of Screen Shots of Help Posts, Contest Posts, Result Posts and Students’ Posts
Help Posts

	
  
144
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Contest Posts

	
  
145
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Result Posts

	
  
146
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Students’ Posts

	
  
147
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
148
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Integrating Technology in Teaching Students with
Special Learning Needs in the SPED Schools in Baguio
City
Marilyn L. Balmeo, Erika Mae A. Nimo, Aubrey M. Pagal, Stephanie C. Puga, ArisDafQuiño, Jaleen L.
Sanwen

	
  
149
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
Leading-edge creation and development of technologies including those for the children with special
learning needs found common place in the educational system. Allowably, this study’s focal point
engages in the integration of technologies in the educational environments where students withspecial learning needs are housed. Respondents include 53 teachers employed in the special
education schools in Baguio City, who were to determine the availability and effectiveness oftechnology in their schools and the problems encountered in the integration of technologies. Results
indicate that availability and effectiveness of technologies are at limited level and that there areproblems encountered in technology integration. This is significant for the achievement of the aim ofstudents with special learning needs for they would be guided appropriately in the development of
their skills with the challenges of educational attainment and life itself.

Keywords: Technology integration; Special education; Baguio City SPED schools; Students withspecial learning needs.

	
  
150
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction and Literature review
Technology is a term that originated from the Greek word technologia, which is a combination oftechne, meaning “craft” and logia meaning “saying”. As a result, technology might be considered thearticulation of a craft. In a formal manner, it is a branch of knowledge that deals with the creation
and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society and the environment, drawing
upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science and pure science (Random House
Dictionary, 2013).
Technology, which is known to be a growing part of any society today pervasively, had broughtsignificant changes in the different fields like health, medicine, entertainment, business, trade andcommerce, leisure, etc. The use of technology is at least one unavoidable reality twenty years after
the introduction of personal computer (Matulac, 2013). Moreover, Matulac (2013) stated that closing
our awareness regarding the changes brought by technology would mean death especially to
educators. Lensing into education, it is also a key factor on the radical changes in the educational
system (Bates, 2011). It turned classroom environment from teacher-centered to student-centered one.
It increasingly moved the boundary of educational resources. The use of computer has transformed
the traditional concepts of education (Shirley, Philip & Jennifer, 2007) confirming the statements ofhistoric educationists: Thomas Edison (1922) ‘motion pictures would replace textbooks inclassrooms’, William Levenson (1945) ‘radio receivers would be as common in classrooms as theblackboard, and B. F. Skinner (1960s) ‘new technology devices would vastly increase students’interest in learning’ (Norman, 1999).

Researchers conducted worldwide indicate that using

technology has a positive impact on teaching and learning (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010).

	
  
151
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Technology’s use in education is becoming an increasingly important part of higher and professional
education (Wernet, Olliges & Delicath, 2000). The U.S. Department of Education National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) (NCES, 2010) reported that novice teachers were more likely to use
computers or the internet to accomplish various teaching objectives. The NCES (2000) cited by
Rowand (2000), mentioned that 39% of the teachers surveyed use computers or the internet to create
instructional materials, 34% used computers or the internet on administrative record keeping, andless than 10% have reported to access model lesson plans or research and best practices. Almekhlafi
and Almeqdadi (2010) stated that teachers with utmost nine years of teaching experience were more
likely to report using computers or the internet to communicate with colleagues compared to teacherswith 20 or more years of experience.
Some reasons for teachers to use technology in classroom instruction are to promote student
agreement, to teach 21st century skills, to stay current, to have hands-on interactive learning, to vary
instructional methods, to conduct research, and to communicate (Hakverdi-Can & Dana, 2012;
Hechter & Vermette, 2012a). As transformative tools, computer technologies can help all students
develop their ability for structured yet flexible inquiry and investigation so that they can link ideas,
explore solutions and examine consequences to create value from information (Donovan & Macklin,
1999). Kotrilk and Redmann (2005) pointed out the results of the National Center For Education
Statistics (2000) survey to which: 44% reported using technology for classroom instruction, 42%
reported using computer applications, 12% reported using practice drills, 41% reported requiring
research using the internet, 20% required students to use technology to solve problems and analyze
data, 27% had students conduct research using CD-ROMS, 27% assigned students to produce
multimedia reports and projects, 23% assigned graphical presentations of materials, 21% assigned
demonstrations or simulations, and 7% assigned students to correspond with others over the internet.
	
  
152
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

However, for many teachers, lack of personal experience with technology presents a challenge. In
order to incorporate technology-based activities and projects into their curriculum, those teachers
must first find the time to learn to use the tools and understand the terminology necessary forparticipation in those projects or activities (Starr, 2011). If these technologies are used properly, they
can be a tool for teachers as well as for students to help them gain experiences using newtechnologies. In relation to special education, teachers will need to understand how technology canbenefit student learning. Technology can allow teachers to access each and every child’s individual
learning style while providing a platform where students can work at their own pace. Technology canhelp teachers balance the limited instruction time by providing activities, project-based learning, andone-on-one coaching and peer support while making learning interactive and fun. Well-employeduse of technology in the classroom can allow teachers to tailor learning to student’s individual needs
while freeing up classroom time, leaving teachers more time for projects, one-on-one coaching, andmore creative activities (Starr, 2011).
Moreover, the use of technology needs to be re-conceptualized in areas such as students’ and learners’roles in using technology, how technology fits into the curriculum, what teachers should know, howteachers will learn about technology, and how the impact of technology be assessed (Budin, 1999;
Kotrilk & Redmann, 2005). As Matulac (2004) and Strommen and Lincoln (1992) mentioned, thekey to success lies in finding the appropriate points for integrating technology into a newpedagogical practice, so that it supports the deeper, more reflective, self-directed activity children
must use if they are to be competent adults in the future. Girgin, Kurt and Odabasi (2011) further
mentioned that not only do teachers need to learn how to use technology but they also need to learn
how to apply the technology to teaching and learning, where in they need to know which
technologies will most effectively meet children’s skills, abilities and needs.
	
  
153
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

There are really barriers that hinder the effective implementation of technology into classroom
teaching and learning, such as factors like access, time, resources, training, attitudinal effects, beliefs,
practices, institutional and administrative support, experience, and resistance are as well restraining
forces to technology integration (Earle, 2002; Gulbahar, 2008).
The Philippine government initiated that by the end of 2009, there would be a: 1) provision of
appropriate educational technologies to all public high schools; 2) provision of a computer laboratory
with basic multimedia equipment to 75% of public high schools; 3) provision of electronic librarysystems to all public science-oriented high schools; 4) training of 75% of public secondary school
teachers in basic computing and internet skills as well as in Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI); 5)
integration of ICT in all learning areas, when appropriate; and 6) private sector support.
Technology is arguably even more relevant in special education than it is in general education
because it makes the complex simple and it addresses the individual needs of the learner (TheInternational Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, 2007). Similarly, Johanson(1998) posited that to create learning activities and to set up inclusive learning environments thatenable the child with disabilities to learn and play along with other children, technology is needed. In
addition, Hasselbring and Glaser (2000), pointed out that technology has equalized holistic
development by giving opportunities to children with disabilities, their families, and teachers. The
integration of technology in teaching to Special Education and in learning has positive influences on
students’ motivation, attitudes, achievement, and peer interactions in the classrooms (Schofield,
1995). Hence, technology could enhance children’s educational, social, and cultural experiences(Girgin, Kurt & Odabasi, 2011; Saba, 2009). Technology is then potential to become a vehicle to
make education for all children with disabilities a reality in developing countries (ICEVI, 2007) like
	
  
154
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

the Philippines. Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) define technology for students with special needs
based on federal laws as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquiredcommercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improvefunctional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.”
Computer-based technologies’ integration into the classroom for regular students is recognized but
few have come to the realization that there are great benefits that technologies may afford students
with disabilities (Espique, 2009; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). A knowledgeable teacher who
understands technology’s potential for education is involved in the effective technology
implementation in the preschool special education classroom or in any classroom (Johanson, 1998).
However, Espique (2009) pointed out that many teachers are not adequately trained on how to use
technology effectively in their classrooms. Bauer and Kenton (2005) found that teachers, who werehighly educated and skilled with technology, were innovative and adept at overcoming obstacles, butthey did not integrate technology on a consistent basis both as teaching and learning tool.
Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) and Judge (2001) affirmed that the lack of appropriate technology
training in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs is the most cited barrier in using
technology in the classroom. They further added that the lack of adequate training has an especial
strong impact on students with disabilities because technology is often a critical component inplanning and implementing an educational program for them. According to Zhao (2007), mostteachers were willing to use technology, expressed positive experiences with technology integration
training, increased their use of technology in the classroom, and used technology more creatively.
Kolb (2012) explained that different people naturally prefer a certain single different learning style.
Various factors influence a person's preferred style: notably in his Experiential Learning Theory
	
  
155
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

model (ELT) Kolb (2012) posited three stages of a person's development and suggests that our
propensity to reconcile and successfully integrate the four different learning styles improve as wemature through our development stages. He as well mentioned that knowing a person's (and yourown) learning style enables learning to be orientated according to the preferred method. That said,
everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another –it is a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person's learning stylepreferences. In special education, many are limited to direct experience as a part of learning due tosome limitations that they acquire. But with the help of technology, experiential learning takes place.
In addition, with technology the child with special learning needs will be able to gain a more
concrete and more real scenario of what is learned inside the four corners of the classroom. Further,
Kolb (2012) mentioned that “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through thetransformation of experience.” Thus, transformation of the teaching learning process in theclassroom of children with special learning needs could be well acquired through the integration oftechnology.
Theory of Planned Behavior or Reasoned Action highlights the person’s behavior determination
through his or her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function ofhis/ her attitude toward the behavior and his/ her subjective norm. Moreover, intention is the
cognitive representation of person’s readiness to perform a given behavior, and it is considered to be
the immediate antecedent of behavior. To predict someone’s intentions, knowing these beliefs can beas important as knowing the person’s attitudes. Finally, perceived controlled behavior control
influences’ intentions that refers to people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior.
In the integration of technology in teaching students with special learning needs, the teachers must as
well be oriented in their intention and the intended way they would integrate technology in teaching
	
  
156
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

so that these students’ learning would be catered. There must be planned behavior that would also
refer for the teachers’ view of technology integration to be more deliberative.
Four areas of technology benefits that have not been thoroughly researched and are applicable tospecial education and technology has been delineated by Roblyer (2004). First is “research toestablish relative advantage,” that includes preventing inert knowledge (i.e., skills learned but neverused) and increasing cultural awareness and acceptance (e.g., internet projects to encourageappreciation of other cultures and improve attitudes about other ways of life). Second is “research to
improve implementation methods” that might include word processing and online chats andconferences. Thirdly is “research to monitor impact on important societal goals” that addresses
information literacy and visual literacy skills as part of high quality education for all students. Last is“studies to monitor and report on common uses and shape directions” that address how technologies
are used in practice and what impact they have on school life.
This study focused on the last need which is “studies to monitor and report on common uses andshape directions”. Specifically, it caters to a) the technologies integrated in classroom instructions inteaching students with special learning needs in the context of Baguio City, b) the extent ofeffectiveness of the technologies integrated in teaching students with special learning needs in
Baguio City, and c) the problems encountered in the use of these technologies in teaching students
with special learning needs.
This study can help special educators to have a deeper understanding in the integration of technology
in teaching students with special learning needs. Through this study, they will come up with easierand conducive ways to cater the needs of these students. For students, this study can provide clear

	
  
157
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

lines of information that not all technologies are for gaming, social networking and the like, but theyalso play a major role in supporting learners in a classroom setting.
Moreover, this study can provide future researchers with more information regarding the use oftechnologies in teaching students with learning disabilities. On the part of the researchers, this paper
can serve as a guide on how to present their lessons in a more meaningful way. It will also makethem aware of the needs and difficulties encountered by the learners and address these concerns tomake their learning more enjoyable and purposeful.
Methodology
This study utilized qualitative and quantitative approach. For the problems presented, descriptive
approach is employed, but predominantly quantitative method is utilized. The survey questionnaire
was formulated with the utmost care; hence, survey questionnaire method of formulation wasconsidered. It was validated by the experts in the field of technology and in Special Education; thenit was pre-tested at Benguet Special Education Department-Wangal, La Trinidad, Benguet who have
17 Special Education teachers. Using Kuder Richardson Formula 21 to test the reliability of thequestionnaire, it was considered reliable.
The self-made questionnaire consisted of 43 named hardware technologies and 13 named software
technologies that were assessed with their extent of use using a 4 point Likert scale (4=Always Used,
3= Frequently Used, 2= Sometimes Used, 1= Never Used), and their extent of effectiveness using a
4-point Likert scale (4= Always Effective, 3= Frequently Effective, 2= Sometimes Effective, 1=
Never Effective). Moreover, perceived problems in the integration of technology in teaching students
with special learning needs were assessed through a yes or no response. If the response is yes it is
	
  
158
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

equated to be a problem with the scale of 0.51-1.00. On the other hand, if the response is no, it isequated to be considered as a problem and is scaled to as 0.01-0.50.
Participants
The respondents to this study included 53 teachers from the different schools offering special
education, namely Special Education (SPED) Baguio, Bridges Learning and Tutorial Center, EasterCollege SPED Center, Just For Kids Tutorial Center, STI SPED Center, San Lorenzo Ruiz- deaf
Resource Center, and Northern Luzon Association for the Blind. These respondents were chosenbecause they belong to the context of schools who offer Special Education in Baguio City.
Settings and Arrangement
Guided with the letter approved by the Undergraduate Research Coordinator and the Dean of the
School of Teacher Education, the researchers personally asked the Schools Division Superintendent
for the Baguio City Division, Estela Leon –Cariño, Ed.D., CESO the permission to administer thesurvey questionnaire in the schools that offers Special Education in Baguio City. In addition, theresearchers asked the permission of the school heads of the schools before the questionnaires wereadministered. The researchers have personally administered the said survey questionnaire to be able
to discuss the purpose of the study and the way the survey questionnaire should be answered.
Findings and Discussion
For the acquisition of meaningful learning experiences to develop problem solving and higher order
thinking skills and to function in the world beyond the classroom, access to technology is an
essential element and its appropriate and successful integration into learning environments has thepotential to benefit all students (Blair, 2003). Only over 53% of the teachers do not routinely use
	
  
159
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

technology in the classroom and over half of the students responding to questionnaires reported thatthey use technology no more than once a week, unfortunately, this was the result in a large scale ofthe nationwide survey of teachers, students, and administrators (Abbott, 2003). In the report made byRodriguez (2007), the Philippines is ranked 48th in terms of preparedness and ability to absorb
advances and growth in information and communication technologies (ICT) among the 55 nations
included in the Information Society Index (ISI).
Study results show that in the special education schools in Baguio City, there is integration oftechnology, but not to an extensive level. This is in accordance to the fact that there is a relative
relationship between availability and effectiveness in the integration of technology. Ergo, the threemain concepts of this study that affects and collaborates together for the successful integration oftechnology in teaching students with special learning needs include availability, effectiveness, andthe problems encountered.
Table 1. Most available technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank

Technology

Mean

Descriptive Indicator

1

Whiteboard

2. 8490

B

2

Multimedia Software

2. 5492

B

3

Dictionary

2. 5094B

4

Computer

2.4905

C

5

Clock

2.4716C

Table 1 shows the most available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with thefollowing descriptive indicator: A- Always used (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently used (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes used (1.75- 2.49); DNever used (1.00- 1.74)

With the weighted mean of 2.8490 signified to be frequently used, whiteboard resulted to be one of
the most available technologies in teaching students with special learning needs in the SPED schoolsin Baguio City. It is approximately used three times a week for classroom interaction. With theobservation in the schools, whiteboard is commonly utilized by teachers and students for writing(through the use of a whiteboard marker) and for projecting pictures, videos and texts (through the
	
  
160
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

use of either an overhead projector or an LCD projector). With its affordability, considering its typeand size and with its usability for the betterment of the teaching- learning process, schools made away to provide it. A respondent said “I handled deaf students in my Algebra. I do not allow them touse calculators. My style of teaching makes use of whiteboard markers and whiteboard since
Algebra usually involves computation in problem solving”.
With a mean of 2.5492 interpreted as frequently used, Multimedia Software resulted to be the second
most available technology in teaching students with special learning needs. Experts advised thatteachers may use multimedia software to present more interactive, motivating, and relevant andplenty of action and novelty mannered lessons (Sponder & Hilgenfeld, 1994). Moreover, theelectronic means of linking various media in new and different ways in activities that can facilitate
fundamental learning and thinking is the educational role of multimedia (Haselbring & Glaser, 2000).
To affirm, multimedia can help deepen students’ conceptual understandings by linking visual
imagery and sound effects to information that is difficult to understand when presented in text alone(Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). The aforementioned roles of multimedia software and its accessibility
have furnished its result to be used recurrently in the classroom. Although, there is extensive debate
about the efficacy of laptop computers in the classroom, several studies have identified benefits suchas keeping students on task and engaged (Hyden, 2005), and helping students follow lectures via
PowerPoint or multimedia (Lauricella & Kay, 2010).
The third most common technology with a mean of 2.5094 is dictionary. It is an essential tool forteachers and students especially when it comes to words. Dictionary is as well the most reliable
source for defining words. In a study made by Man (1998) it was found out that there is a total of
66% of the students who answered they would use a dictionary very often or quite often during term
	
  
161
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

time. This tool is an exemplary tool for both students and teachers to be able to develop their sense ofcommunication. This comes in an affordable price depending on its type, size and publication. Its
affordability contributes to its accessibility and availability
The computer with the mean of 2.4905 is one of the most available technologies in teaching students
with special learning needs in the SPED schools in Baguio City. The researchers observed that, inorder for the students to experience manipulating the computers, a computer laboratory is taken as a
set-up. Moreover, other set-up noted from Tinio (2002) “in cases where no classroom is available at
all to be turned into the school’s computer room, computers are housed in the principal’s office orother administrative rooms”. The limited number of available computer units may have decided theschools to plan for a computer laboratory instead of having all classrooms equipped with computers.
Moreover, Rodriguez (2007) cited that the National Teacher Survey (2005) found that only 13
percent of teachers have one computer for every two or three students, and 10 percent have one-toone (1:1) ratio. When asked what the best ratio is for classroom teaching, a majority (54 percent) ofteachers replied that 1:1 would be their preference. The survey made in 2002 by the Philippine
Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture to the South-East Asian Ministers of Education
Organization Regional Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH),
reveals that there are only about 5,217 (14.28 percent) schools who have computers in thePhilippines (Rodriguez, 2007).
With the mean of 2.4716, clock is interpreted as frequently used. Scheduling of tasks is important tohumans. Work, personal care, transportation, and recreation are known to be included as life skills
which could be succeeded if there would be an employment of time management skill to direct thetasks under the aforementioned tasks (Green, Hughes & Ryan, 2011). In education, activities and
	
  
162
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

classes are needed to be scheduled, that is where clock enters. They may be always utilized knowingthat they are hanged on walls for time reference, but in this study, the focus points out on its usage inthe teaching- learning process. It is asserted that over the last few years there is decrease on the wayof describing time and this is made by moving away from analogue clocks proceeding to theutilization of digital clocks which are always accurate (Cotton, 2010).
Table 2. Least available technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
56

Technology
AbacusMean
1.0000Descriptive IndicatorD

55

Vibrating Watch

1.0556

D

53.5

Talking Calculator

1.1320

D

53.5

OCR

1.1320D

52

Raised Line Paper

1.1538

D

Table 2 shows the least available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with thefollowing descriptive indicator: A- Always used (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently used (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes used (1.75- 2.49); DNever used (1.00- 1.74).

Abacus (mean= 1.000), Vibrating watch (mean= 1.0556), talking calculator (mean= 1.1320), Optical
Character Recognition (mean= 1.1320) and raised line paper (mean= 1.1538) are included in theleast available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs in the
SPED schools.
Abacus, an old time’s calculator, is not widely used and is less and less popular in the system oftoday’s learning scenario. As for the vibrating watch, Green, Hughes Ryan (2011) posited that it isused as a self-regulation and time management tool for students and for people with Intellectual
Disability. For the talking calculator, it is only aimed at students with visual impairment. On the partof the raised line paper, a low-tech tool for teaching line orientation is essential to students withdysgraphia or difficulty in writing and for mathematical computations if students experience
difficulties aligning their work (Ministry of Education and British Columbia School Superintendent’s
Association, 2011).
	
  
163
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

On the other hand, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) existence had brought blind students’ability to place books or other print materials on a scanner and to have the text interpreted and readusing synthetic or digital speech. However, Gold and Lowe (2009) acknowledged that it is a hightechnology device that costs more than $3, 000.
Table 3. Most effective technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
1

Technology
Whiteboard

Mean
2.7169Descriptive IndicatorB

2

Computer

2.6792B

3

Dictionary

2.5849

B

4

Clock

2.5471B

5Laptop2.3962C

Table 3 shows the most effective technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: A- Always effective (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently effective (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes effective (1.75- 2.49); DNever effective (1.00- 1.74)

The study reveals that the use of whiteboard (mean= 2.7169) is frequently effective in teaching
students with special learning needs. Boards had a beneficial impact in motivating and getting theattention of students with special learning needs that gears towards effective teaching-learning
process (Somekh et al., 2006). Whiteboard nowadays is essential in the delivery of lessons in the
educational setting. It comes in different sizes and types that make it more accessible and easy tohandle. It may be permanently placed in the classrooms.
Computer’s extent of effectiveness have encircled the mean of 2.6792, which is under frequently
effective. In addition, the survey of the National Teachers Survey (2005) revealed that teachers rankcomputers as most effective for working on reading skills, writing skills, math drills and criticalthinking skills. To support, Gokhale (1996) mentioned that integration of computer simulation into
traditional lecture-lab activities enhances the performance of the students. Guided computer
simulation activities can be used as an educational alternative to help motivate students into selfdiscovery and develop their reasoning skills. Moreover, many studies (Christmann, Badget &
	
  
164
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lucking, 1997; Dwyer, 1994; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Liao, 1992; Losak & MacFarland, 1994; SivinKachala & Bialo, 1996) have shown that computers at school can have a beneficial effect not only on
student achievement but also on students’ learning motivation, on classroom atmosphere, and on theteachers’ willingness to experiment with new and innovative instructional approaches (Schaumburg,
2001).
This study also reveals that dictionary (2.5849) is frequently effective. This revolves to the notionthat its impact on the betterment of the teaching-learning process is great. Boonmoh (2003) claimed
that dictionaries are beneficial and facilitative in the teaching and learning context. Moreover, its
effectiveness involves skills and strategies that students acquire not only about dictionaries but also
about language (Man, 1998). In a study conducted by Dziemianko (2010) as cited by AlBulushy(2012), to determine students' actual use, the students consulting the electronic dictionary performedmuch better than those using the paper dictionary. Those who support the use of the dictionary
presume that it is more useful with receptive and productive tasks. They also argue that it is a better
learning tool since its use affects students' withholding of meaning and gives higher chances formore effective recovery of learned words. More recent studies (Chan, 2011, 2012; FrankenbergGarcia, 2011; Laufer, 2011) have proposed improving learners’ language awareness as part ofdictionary-skills training.
Clock’s extent of effectiveness reaching the mean of 2.5471 is specified to be frequently effective.
This technology is observed to be effective in the way the tasks of the students are assessed.
Schedule and duration in an activity where the students work are the areas that the teachers as
respondents consider.

	
  
165
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Laptop, having been effective in its integration to classroom activities with the result as a basis
earning 2.3962, is concluded to be sometimes effective. Noted that, in the report made by Demb,
Erickson and Hawkins-Wilding (2004) mentioned by Lauricella and Kay (2010) 16% of overall
laptop use involved typing papers. On the other hand, Arend (2004) noticed that laptops are being
used in bulk for writing papers, using software programs, searching the Internet, and completinggroup projects.
Table 4. Least effective technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
52

Technology
Vibrating Watch

Mean
1.2264

Descriptive Indicator
D

53

Dual Time Watch

1.2641

D

54.5

OCR

1.3018D

54.5

Talking Calculator

1.3018

D

56

Smart Board

1.3996

D

Table 4 shows the least effective technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: A- Always effective (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently effective (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes effective (1.75- 2.49); DNever effective (1.00- 1.74)

Included in the technologies assessed to be never effective are vibrating watch (mean= 1.2264), dual
time watch (mean=1.2641), optical character recognition and talking calculator mean which have thesame mean at 1.3018, and smart board (mean= 1.3996). The vibrating watch and dual time watch areutilized for time. A clock may have been used to surrogate their function in the classroom instruction.
To have a clear view, it is asserted that over the last few years there is decrease on the way ofdescribing time and this is made by moving away from analogue clocks proceeding to the utilizationof digital clocks which are always accurate (Cotton, 2010).
Optical Character Recognition, talking calculator and Smart Board are signified to be never effective.
From the allowable time, the researchers have not really come across Smart Board and Optical
Recognition Character in the schools that served as respondents. This may have been due to the factthat the schools could not provide it for they are of high value. For example, the SMART board costs
	
  
166
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

$5000, depending on size and features for its installation only, not considering the material itself(Preston & Mowbray, 2008). Moreover, because of its non-provision, teachers have not come acrossit yet- thus concluding for these technologies to be not effective in their presumption.
Table 5. Most common problem in integrating technology teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
1

Statement
Mean
Descriptive Indicator
The school does not provide the existence of new 0.5577
P
technologies due to its cost.
2
My students have no sufficient hardware and0.5192P
software skills that make instructional time being
consumed by technical issues rather than thecontent of the lesson.
3
There are limited available technologies to be
0.5
pused in my classroom.
Table 5 shows the problems encountered in the integration of technology in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: NP- not a problem (0.01- 0.50) and P- problem (0.51- 1.00)

Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) mentioned that one of the serious considerations for all schools is thecost of the technology needed to help students with disabilities participate in regular classroom
settings, especially the computer systems needed for students with more severe disabilities.
Moreover, it was cited that funding for technology can be obtained from a variety of sources, butthese sources are not always adequate. For example, two federal acts attempt to address the needs ofstudents with disabilities, but their goals exceed their funding levels.
However, because of limited funding, school districts are not obligated to purchase a specificcomputer technology, even if it is identified as potentially beneficial. Individual schools are often
hesitant to provide the necessary technology because they must fund these purchases themselvesrather than rely on the school district’s resources (Hasselbring& Glaser, 2000). Tremendously, costof technologies varies from upwards of $3, 000 for certain high- tech devices and as little as a few
dollars for low- tech devices as it was confirmed from Gold and Lowe (2009). It is accepted as wellthat “many AT electronic devices are expensive, hard to use and hard to keep track ” (Green, Hughes& Ryan, 2011).
	
  
167
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“My students have no sufficient hardware and software skills that make instructional time being
consumed by technical issues rather than the content of the lesson”, garnered a mean of 0.5192. The
result indicates technological knowledge to be a problem in technology integration. Hence,technological knowledge must be modeled and emphasized (Ludlow, 2001; Martin, 2004; Martin &Crawford, 2004; Martin & Crawford, 2005). Students are perceived to acquire basic skills regarding
technology manipulation by the end of their fourth year according to the school’s goals (Tinio, 2002).
The basic skills targeted include operating a computer and writing documents with a word processor,
calculating with spreadsheets or writing simple programs. It is remarkable that with this set- up,students are still on their way to suffice their skills in handling the technologies available. However,Wartella, Schomburg, Lauricella and Robb, Flynn’s study (2010) suggested that technology must be
introduced to children before the age of 3. Furthermore, operational skills, functional skills, strategic
skills, and social skills are important skills in successfully incorporate technology (Green, Hughes, &Ryan, 2011; Behnke & Bowser, 2010).
Having a mean of 0.5, teachers employed in the special education schools noted that there are limited
available technologies to be used in their classrooms. In surveys conducted, some schools reported
that principals decided that all the computers that were received from the Department of Education
will be placed in their office as an interim measure while waiting for a secured computer room.
Computers are made available to students’ use although clearly, the set up is not ideal and may limit
access (Tinio, 2002). Reiterating the experiences of most schools, technologies with limited numbers
are handled by the principals or the heads and are reserved by the teachers if ever they are needed.
This denotes that there are no permanently situated technologies in the classrooms. Another thing
considered is the security of the technologies, where some classrooms in the schools do not reallyhave security tools (e.g., security locks).
	
  
168
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Table 6. Least common problem in integrating technology teaching students with special learning needs
Rank

Statement

Mean

12.5

I don’t have sufficient knowledge in manipulating technology in
my classroom.
The technology does not improve my creativity.

0.0769Descriptive
Indicator
NP

0.0769NP

12.5

Table 6 shows the statements assessed as not included as problems encountered in the integration of technology in teaching students with special
learning needs with the following descriptive indicator: NP- not a problem (0.01- 0.50) and P- problem (0.51- 1.00)

Sufficient knowledge in manipulating the available technologies in the classroom (mean= 0.0769)
have been noted to be one of the least common problems in the integration of technologies inteaching students with learning needs in the SPED schools in Baguio. Bauer and Kenton (2005)
found that teachers, who were highly educated and skilled with technology, were innovative andadept at overcoming obstacles (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). Gulbahar (2007) as cited by
Almekhlafi and Almeqdadi (2010) stated that teachers and administrative staff felt themselvescompetent in using ICT available at the school. Moreover, the survey result that newer educators
were less likely to believe their training to use technology in several areas was adequate, but they
were still more likely to be satisfied with their overall knowledge and ability to use technology. This
is in contrast to what is practiced wherein computer training for further skills enhancement is only
duly implemented in the high school level- specifically in the area of Technology and Home
Economics (THE) (Rodriguez, 2007).
Technology not improving the teacher’s creativity (.0769) is also one of the least common problems.
In reference to creativity, knowledge on manipulating technology may have brought the teachers andrespondents to discover the unlimited capabilities of technologies that could allow them to express
their creativity. In addition, it is known that as teachers integrate technology they could come acrossan evolutionary process (Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 1997; Dwyer, 1999) which includes entry, adoption,
adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2005). Anent this, assurance that
	
  
169
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

through the extraordinary storage and delivery capabilities of computers and advancements insoftware and communications technologies today by the educators, it is possible to present learning
information in new meaningful ways, engage various senses, record and assess learner’s choices andperformance, and suggest remedial feedback based on the learner’s performance (Akour, 2006).
The study shows that there are available technologies integrated in teaching students with special
learning needs but to a limited level only. Much of these technologies are provided by schoolthemselves. Some technologies available in the schools that served as respondents depend on thestudents that they cater. The generally used technology-computers, dictionaries, clocks, whiteboards,
etc- could be observed in the schools. On the other hand, technology utilization, when teaching
students with special learning needs is effective. This is because it helps not only the teachers todeliver well the learning, but also the students to be able to effectively grasp the learning. Thus,
teaching-learning process is undertaken more effectively with the use of technology. Results showthat there are problems encountered when integrating technology in teaching students with special
learning needs. Some of which have been noted to be on the side of the teachers, some problems
could be observed because of the students and some were from the technologies themselves.
Observantly, these have affected the flow of the teaching-learning process.
Conclusion
In this study, the respondents included 53 teachers from the different schools offering special
education in Baguio City. They answered to a self-made questionnaire consisting of 43 named
hardware technologies and 13 named software technologies. Whiteboard resulted to be one of themost available technologies in teaching students with special learning needs, followed byMultimedia Software and electronic dictionary.
	
  
170
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

With the data collected from the teachers themselves, technology integration appears to be aneffective method in teaching students with special needs, whether this technology may be in softwareor in hardware form. Various factors, including time, knowledge in manipulation, financial resources,
and the availability of this technology has affected teaching efficiency and student learning. Anentthese factors, the administration, teachers and the students are considered to be the main proponents
in the integration of technology for teaching-learning process to take place effectively.

	
  
171
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Abbott, J. A. (2003). Integrating technology into preservice literacy instruction: A survey of
elementary education students’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 33(2), 149–61.
Akour, M. A. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on Jordanian college students‘achievements in an introductory computer science course. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 17-24.
Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in
the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 165-175.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_1/16.pdf.
Arend, B. D. (2004). New patterns of student engagement. About Campus, 9(3), 30-32. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/102874/.
Bates, Y. (2011). Integrating technology and professional developments. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://prezi.com/xouttvrt_p_t/integrating-technology-and-professional-developments/.
Bauer, J., and Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/4728.
Blair, M. E. (2003). Independence Through Assistive Technology Act of 2003. A “From the Field”
feature in the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97(10), 667-668.

	
  
172
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Boonmoh, A. (2010). Teachers’ use and knowledge of electronic dictionaries. ABAC Journal, 30(5),56-74. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.abacjournal.au.edu/2010/sep2010/article05_Teacher.pdf.
Cortiella, C. (2009). The State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20243/state.of.ld.2009.pdf
Cotton, T. (2010). Understanding and teaching primary mathematics. Pearson Education Limited.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttps://www.hope.ac.uk/media/liverpoolhope/contentassets/documents/education/media,25539,
en.pdf.
Demb, A., Erickson, D., & Hawkins-Wilding, S. (2004). The laptop alternative: Student reactions
and strategic implications. Computers & Education, 43(4), 383-401. Retrieved August 10,
2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/66682/.
Donovan, M., & Macklin, S. (1999). The catalyst project: Supporting faculty uses of the web withthe web. Cause/Effect, 22(3).
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises andchallenges. Educational Technology Magazine, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/earle.pdf.
Espique, F. (2008). Integrating computer technology in handling students with special learningneeds. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/congress2008/contents/ESPIQUE/Espique%20PAPER.pdf.
	
  
173
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Girgin, U., Kurt, A. A., & Odabasi, F. (2011). Technology integration issues in special education
school in Turkey. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/cjes/article/view/209/pdf_34.
Gokhale, A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(4). Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v33n4/jite-v33n4.gokhale.html.
Gold, M., & Lowe, C. (2009). The integration of assistive technology into standard classroom
practices: A guide for K-12 general educators. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society
for integration technology and teacher education international conference 2009 (pp. 39643968). Chesapcake, VA. AACE. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/31275/.
Green, J., Hughes, E., & Ryan, J. (2011). The use of assistive technology to improve time
management skills of a young adult with an intellectual disability. Journal of Special education
Technology, 26(3), 13-20. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://blogs.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/sets/files/2013/02/mobile_devices_and_students_with_disabilities.
pdf.
Hakverdi-Can, M., & Dana, T. M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers’ use of technology. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 94-112. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://internationalschoolsandict.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/how-do-exemplary-scienceteachers-use-technology/.

	
  
174
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Hasselbring, T. S., & Glaser, C. H. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special
needs. The Future of Children: Children & Computer Technology, 10(2), 102-122. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://familiestogetherinc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/COMPUTERTECHNEEDS.pdf.
Hechter, R., Phyfe, L., & Vermette, L. (2012). Integrating technology in education: Moving the
TPCK framework towards practical applications, 39, 136-152. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://www.erpjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ERP-Submission-Sept-26.pdf.
Hyden, P. (2005). Teaching statistics by taking advantage of the laptop's ubiquity. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 2005(101), 37-42. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.184/abstract.
International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment (2007). The educator: Low
vision. (Volume XX, Issue 1). ICEVI Secretariat No. 3 Professors’ Colony.
http://icevi.org/pdf/educator_july_2007.pdf.
Johanson, J. (1998). Teaching and learning with technology. ACTTive Technology 13(1), Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.wiu.edu/thecenter/articles/teachlearn.html.
Judge, S. L. (2001). Computer application in programs for young children with disabilities: current
status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 29-40. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/91625/.
Kotrilk, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2005). Extent of technology integration by adult basic educationteachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 200-219. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://aeq.sagepub.com/content/55/3/200.short.
	
  
175
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: the laptop
effectiveness scale. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151-163.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/lauricella.pdf.
Man, L. A. (1998) Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom. Euralex 1998 Proceedings Part 2.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex1998_2/Man%20Lai%20Amy%20CHI%20Te
aching%20dictionary%20skills%20in%20the%20classroom.pdf.
Matulac, M. (2004). Experiences in technology integration. ICTs in Basic education. First National
Congress. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/ictcongress/paper/fullpapers/matulac.pdf.
Ministry of Education and the British & Columbia School Superintendent’s Association. (2011).
Supporting students with learning disabilities: a guide for teachers. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/docs/learning_disabilities_guide.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Distance education at postsecondary education
institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Preston, C., Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning and assessment inkindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/smartboard+with+kindergartener.pdf.
Random House Dictionary (2014). Etymology Dictionary. Random House, Inc. USA: New York.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://dictionary.refernce.com/.

	
  
176
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Roblyer, M. D. (2004). If technology is the answer, what’s the question? Research to help make thecase for why we use technology in teaching. In Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education, 2004(1), 27-38. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/13687.
Rodriguez, C. (2007). Building teachers’ capacity to make better use of ICT in Philippines schools.
ICT in teacher education: Case studies from the Asia-Pacific region, 74-85. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ungc/unpan040181.pdf.
Rowand, C. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the internet in public schools. Stats in Brief, ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 442463.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating studentcentered classrooms. Teachers College: New York, 211 pages.
Schaumburg, H. (2001). The impact of mobile computers in the classroom – Results from an
ongoing video study. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://notesys.com/copies/aect01.pdf.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sponder, B., & Hilgenfeld, R. (1994). Cognitive guidelines for teachers developing computerassisted instruction. The Computer Teacher, 22(3), 9-15. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ493273.
Starr, L. (2011). Integrating Technology in the classroom: It takes more than just having computers.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech146.shtml.

	
  
177
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Strommen, E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism Technology and the Future of Classroom
Learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 466-476.
Tinio, V. (2002). Survey of information & communication technology utilization in Philippine publichigh schools preliminary findings. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/downloads/ICT%20Utilization%20Survey.pdf.
Wartella, E., Schomburg, R., Lauricella, A., Robb, M., & Flynn, R. (2010). Technology in the livesof teachers and classrooms: Survey of classroom teachers and family child care providers.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.fredrogerscenter.org/media/resources/TechInTheLivesofTeachers.pdf.
Wernet, S. P., Olliges, R. H., & Delicath, T. A. (2000). Post course evaluation of web ct (web course
tools) classes by social work students. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 487-504.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_1/16.pdf.
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspective of technology integration. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/20005.
Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2005).Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to highlevels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration afterstate mandated technology training, Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in
Education, 5, 53-62.

	
  
178
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
179
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
180
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Faculty Attitudes about Distance Education
Esther Smidt, Brian McDyre, Jennifer Bunk, Rui Li, Tanya Gatenby
	
  

	
  
181
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in distance learning in higher education. Given
this, it is extremely important to understand faculty attitudes about distance education, not only
because they can vary widely, but also because it is the faculty, through their design andimplementation of online courses, that will shape the future of distance education. The purpose of thepresent study is to uncover faculty attitudes about distance education in a specific context, namelythat of a mid-sized mid-Atlantic state university. Data sources consist of posts from two of six
discussion boards written by 21 faculty participants during an Online Faculty Development Program.
Findings are categorized according to (i) philosophical discussions about collaboration, online versus
face-to-face courses, and anonymity, (ii) practical discussions about instructor workload and small
group discussions, and (iii) practical applications on the incorporation of discussion boards, access,and guidelines for discussion board use. The study ends with course design and faculty training
implications.
Keywords: Distance Education; Faculty Attitudes; Effective Practices.

	
  
182
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in distance learning in higher education. In 2013,
the Instructional Technology Council (ITC) reported that the enrollment of students in online courses
continues to increase at a higher rate than overall student enrollment at colleges and universities.
Between Fall 2012 and 2013, those colleges and universities participating in the ITC survey reported
a 5.2% growth rate in online student enrollment. The Department of Education Integrated
Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) reported in Fall 2012 that 26.5% of community college
students and 26.5% of undergraduates at four-year institutions enrolled in at least one distanceeducation course. While online enrollment has continued to show growth since 2004, this survey
found that overall student enrollment is declining and this is particularly evident at colleges anduniversities that offer programs for working adults (Lokken & Mullins, 2014).
Faculty, however, have been resistant to online teaching, especially because the demands are higher
compared to traditional courses (Murphy, Levant, Hall, & Glueckauf, 2007). The results of the 2013
ITC survey found that engaging faculty in online pedagogy was one of the top two concerns reported
by distance education administrators when asked to rank their greatest faculty challenges (Lokken &Mullins, 2014). Conversely, Rudestam (2004) also reported that distance education instructors
describe positive experiences such as collaborative learning and rich online discussions. It was foundthat discussion boards fostered an environment where students could develop higher-order thinking.
This study concluded that online discussion boards are ideal teaching tools that can foster
collaborative learning, create environments where students can interact with their professors andeach other, and engage students in debate and discourse that otherwise would not be available in a
distance education course (Bradshaw & Hinton, 2004). It is thus important to understand faculty
attitudes about distance education, not only because they can vary widely, but also because it is
	
  
183
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

faculty, through their design and implementation of online courses, which will shape the future of
distance education.
The purpose of the present study is to uncover faculty attitudes about distance education in a specificcontext. To achieve this, we will be qualitatively analyzing faculty discussion forum posts that
occurred during an Online Faculty Development Program at a mid-sized mid-Atlantic state
university. To guide our thinking, we asked two related questions:
1.

What do faculty think about distance education?

2.

What do faculty think about discussion forums?

We expand upon previous research by applying the theoretical lens of constructivism tounderstanding faculty attitudes about distance education in a specific university context.

Our

research thus has the potential to make both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically,
we add to the existing body of knowledge surrounding constructivism. Practically, our application of
constructivism will result in pedagogical suggestions with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of
online learning.
What follows is a literature review centered on constructivism in distance education. We present thetheoretical background as well as the benefits and shortcomings of applying constructivism to online
learning. This literature review will provide a useful framework for understanding the diverse
faculty reactions to distance education that are revealed in our qualitative data.
Review of Literature
Following constructivism’s emergence as the most widely accepted view of human learning in the
1980s (Liu & Matthews, 2005), it also began to inform the majority of pedagogical approaches
	
  
184
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

employed during the genesis of distance education (Dass, Dabbagh, & Clark, 2011). Constructivism
remains the most common grounding theory in distance learning, where the instructor’s goal is tofoster a collaborative, reflective, learner-centered virtual classroom environment which focuses on
active, task-based learning through socially constructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen,Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). In today’s technological climate, many scholars havenoted particular advantages of a constructivist approach to distance education, especially theopportunities for reflective, critical thinking via discussion boards, task-based activities using virtualworlds, and collaboration using online grouping strategies.
Success Factors in Distance Education
A review of the literature associated with success factors in distance education reveals several
substantial links with a constructivist approach. Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) established studentrelated issues as “the most important factor influencing satisfaction of online faculty” (p.112),
suggesting a student-centered approach to online pedagogy that is consistent with constructivism.
Menchaca and Bekele (2008) found situated, social learning to be the most important success factor
related to pedagogical strategies as identified by both students and instructors. This sense of value
for community is echoed in a case study by Agosto, Copeland, and Zach (2013), in which the use ofblogs was found to promote knowledge sharing and reflective thought in a manner that was more
effective than a traditional face-to-face model. Shenk, Moore, and Davis (2004) similarly found thatonline discussions inevitably led to higher levels of student satisfaction in which everyone was heard,
higher levels of trust and mutual support among students, and a more thoughtful and relevant
exchange of ideas. Overall, these findings strongly endorse the generally accepted position that

	
  
185
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

student learning outcomes are positively correlated with faculty satisfaction (Fredericksen, Pickett,
Swan, Pelz, & Shea, 2000; Hartman, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2000).
The evolving role of the instructor as a facilitator of learning and a guide through knowledge
acquisition is a well-established principle of a constructivist approach (Baran, Correia, & Thompson,
2013; Honebein, 1996), and persists as a determinant factor for effective distance learning. A casestudy by Baran et al. (2013) cited “changing roles” as the most prominent strategy for success as
identified by instructors who were nominated as exemplary in online instruction. Shenk et al. (2004)
also found in their case study that those discussions in which the instructor moderated or facilitateddiscussion were most productive, and intervened only when they deemed it necessary. Indeed,
Eskey and Schulte (2012) asserted that “[t]he discussion board is the focal point of the online course
classroom.” The importance of such a pedagogical approach was further substantiated through alarge-scale questionnaire study by Olson (2005) in which students (n=185) identified the instructor
and his/her ability to facilitate classroom interaction as one of three key factors crucial to success.
Elsewhere, other researchers have identified interaction as the most critical factor necessary forsuccess (Simmons, Jones, & Silver, 2004).
The opportunities afforded by technology to allow for examination of meaningful, authentic learning
environments through active participation as emphasized by constructivism (Herrington, Reeves, &Oliver, 2006; Honebein, 1996) have likewise been well-documented by recent research. Tam (2000)
offered numerous such opportunities that wouldn’t be otherwise possible without contemporary
technology, such as virtual tours and field trips, and exposure to multiple perspectives on a topic
from multiple sources all over the world.

	
  
186
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Menchaca and Bekele’s (2008) study revealed “multiple tools” to be the most prevalent category of
success factors, with citations emphasizing how the variety of instructional tools appealed to multiple
learning styles and allowed for types of interaction that could occur spontaneously and from many
separate locations. Participants also were quick to note that participation was more evenly
distributed when utilizing multiple tools, allowing those students who were less likely to participate
in a face-to-face class to become engaged and active in the online learning environment. Means,
Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2009), further clarified that it was the perceived ease oftechnology use that multiple tools afforded that was the defining factor rather than the inclusion of
more technology per se.
Obstacles to Distance Education
Although constructivism has been shown to widely inform pedagogical approaches during thedevelopment of the distance education model, certain barriers and limitations have been identified byobserving the application of theory to practice. Huang (2002) identified some of these key issues
relating to constructivism as: (1) a potential for learner isolation in the absence of face-to-face social
interaction, (2) the potential for erroneous learning to occur in a context where a student is learning
primarily from peers and not the instructor, (3) a lack of willingness on the part of the instructor toaccept a new role as facilitator rather than presenter of material, (4) difficulty associated withassessment and evaluation in an online learning environment, and (5) the incompatibility ofcollaborative learning approaches among groups with significant individual differences, such asadults at the university level. A factor analytic study by Muilenburg and Berge (2005) revealed
student-identified barriers similar to those enumerated above, with instructor-related issues (#3, #4)
receiving the highest ranking, followed by lack of social interaction (#1).
	
  
187
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

While pedagogical issues persist at the forefront of the discussions of both success factors andobstacles to distance education, there has been no shortage of research reporting on external factors
which impact the distance learning experience. Hogan and McKnight (2007) found that instructorsof online university-level courses reported high levels of depersonalization along with low sense of
self-accomplishment, which could have negative effects on faculty motivation. Furthermore, many
faculty report low levels of motivation to participate in distance education due to variables such as
unfair compensation for time and workload, lack of administrative support and technical training,
and inadequacy of resources (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009).
Having explored constructivism and its application to distance education, focusing in particular on its
success factors and obstacles as implemented in online learning, we move next to discovering faculty
attitudes about distance education as demonstrated in one particular context, namely a mid-Atlantic
mid-sized state university.
Methodology
As indicated in the Introduction, the research questions of this qualitative study are:
1. What do faculty think about distance education?
2. What do faculty think about discussion forums?
Data sources consisted of posts from two of six discussion boards written by 21 faculty participants
during the Winter 2012 Online Faculty Development Program held in January 2012 at a mid-Atlantic
mid-sized state university. The two selected discussion boards (italicized) were chosen because they
demonstrated “rich, ‘thick’ description” (Merriam, 1998, p.29):
1. Online Student Orientation Assignment
2. Engage Online Learners Discussion
	
  
188
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

3. Effective Online Assessment Discussion
4. Accessible Course Design Discussion
5. Copyright and Library Resources Discussion
6. Effective Online Discussion
The prompt for “Engage Online Learners Discussion” was:! Please post your response to the following prompts by January 9th.
! Please read and respond to at least 2 postings from other members by January 10th.
! Identify an activity that you are currently using in your face-to-face class.
! Discuss how this activity can be transformed to an online activity to engage students.
! Refer to activities discussed in Conrad & Donaldson’s Chapter 5-10 if needed.
The prompt for “Effective Online Discussion” was:! Design a small group discussion activity for one module in your online course and post that
activity in this discussion forum.
! Your activity should include the objectives for the module as well [as] a description of how
students will be assessed.
Using the qualitative software, NVivo 10, the first three co-authors coded the data via both literatureinformed coding as well as arising themes, resulting in a list of codes based on topics. We thenrecoded the data, resulting in the following nodes:

	
  
189
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table 1. Nodes
Nodes
Role of Instructor
Class Management Strategies
Assessments and Expectations
Time Management
Teacher-Student Communication
Collaboration
Other Benefits of Online Format
Anonymity
Photo
Anonymous Comments
Access to Content
Expanded Access to Content
Limiting Access to Content
Workload
Workload for Students
Workload for Instructors
Technical Concerns
Engagement
Higher Engagement Levels
Learning Outcomes
Increased Learning Outcomes
Decreased Learning OutcomesClass Size
Participation
Impact on Teaching Philosophy
Administrative Support
Types of Learners

References
44
28
13
6
40
29
3
13
8
15
7
12
8
19
11
4
9
1
9
8
6
4
1

Finally, we conducted triangulation by selecting representative excerpts.
Discussion
The discussions that the faculty had in the discussion forums can be categorized according to:•philosophical discussions,•practical discussions, and•practical applications.
	
  
190

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Philosophical Discussions
Collaboration
The Online Student. The first area of philosophical discussion revolves around the nature of theonline student. According to AR, “the traditional student is the non-traditional student in most online
programs today”—a working professional with the potential for direct real world application ofcontent in the workplace because of their non-traditional student status, highlighting constructivism’s
emphasis on meaningful, authentic learning (Honebein, 1996). For example, some professors shared
about their students’ requests to allow the discussion boards to be kept active even after their courses
were over:•“In a summer class I taught several years ago, the students were so engaged in the Discussion
Board that they asked if I could make it continue after the course was over. I did, and they did.
I would log back into that course over the fall semester, and they were still in there, chatting
away. Remarkably, they were chatting about course CONTENT! Obviously, not all of themstuck with it, but there were 7 or 8 of them that just hung on. They really wanted to see thisone idea through”. (NN)•“Students in my course continue sharing in the Discussion Board after the course is over as
they implement their teacher leadership plans. They appreciate the support, advice, andencouragement from their peers who are teaching in different contexts but often face thesame challenges.” (EO) This excerpt is also reminiscent of Shenk et al.’s (2004) findings oftrust and mutual support among students.

The potential for real world application, whether arising from a personal connection or professional
interest—“[students discussing] their own athletic injuries or ask[ing] questions about some of the
	
  
191
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

injuries that they see in professional sports” (LR)—is a distinction that should be capitalized,
particularly with the working professional online student. Indeed, EO stated:“I generally touch base with students via e-mail during the fall semester after they return toschool to follow up on the goals and plans they discussed during the summer. It might beinteresting to keep the online group discussion going after the course is over so the teachers
can help and support each other.”
EO’s statement exemplifies the professor’s changing role from that of sage on the stage to that of“moderator/manager in online education”—or Honebein’s (1996) assertion of instructor as a
facilitator of learning—with the concomitant need for “organization, feedback, and clarity” (AR).

Online versus Face-to-Face Courses
Concerns about Course Conversions. As would be expected in an Online Faculty Development
Program, there was much comparison between online and face-to-face courses, particularly in thevoicing of concerns about the conversion of face-to-face courses to online courses. NN shared “Mymain concern about moving course content “online” is that the discussions won’t be as rich, or asinteractive.” TS added “I do struggle with some students not consistently using theory and/or content
in their responses and not going back on to the “board” to respond besides the required amount, even
if a question is raised to them.”More specifically, concerns were voiced about the workload increase for students in the conversion
from face-to-face to online courses. Even without having to learn to use new software, tasks
appeared to take longer to complete online. With the addition of learning to use new software like
Prezi, “a learner who is new to an online course may find it a course within itself to master theapplication before the end of a semester, so deference to a more experienced person may happen”
	
  
192
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

(AR). In view of this, limiting tasks to the most essential tasks, providing students with software
options (e.g. Prezi or PowerPoint), and “assign[ing] an approximate time to each [course] element”(ER) would be helpful.
Besides general conversion and workload concerns, there was also the tendency, albeit inappropriate,of expecting a one-to-one conversion or reproduction effect from the face-to-face to the online
environment, as demonstrated by “I think the laughing is half the fun. I wonder how you would get
the same effect on line.” (YK)
Increased Learning Outcomes. In contrast with the concerns expressed above, and the expectationof a one-to-one conversion or reproduction effect, there was the understanding that converting aface-to-face course to an online course changed the very nature of the learning experience eventhough similar learning outcomes could be obtained. In fact, there was some sentiment that learning
outcomes could be increased—that there were activities that could be completed in the online
environment that might not have been possible to conduct or might have been more difficult tocomplete in the face-to-face environment. This sentiment is explained by the RAT Framework(Hughes, 2005), which explores the possibility (and recommendation) that technology use should not
replace (R) face-to-face activities. Instead, it should be used to amplify (A) or transform (T) whatalready occurs in the face-to-face environment. NE shared:“I’m intrigued by the idea that online discussion may be more substantive that in-classdiscussion. That seems to argue that you can accomplish MORE rather than less in the online
version?”This possibility certainly fits constructivism’s claim of collaborative learning and sociallyconstructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen et al., 1995).
Amplified technology use is hinted at in these excerpts:
	
  
193
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
•

“I don’t normally do discussions in general chemistry – so sad! We are so focused on solving
problems that we rarely discuss anything, except of course, how to solve the problems. … So,
I am thinking about how I could do discussions online that will engage students to think
about other important things such as: ethical issues that scientists face, the influence of
science on politics, the influence of political situations on science, the lack of diversity
among scientists and the effect this might have on what scientific questions are studied, how
they are studied, and how the results are interpreted, and the myths and stereotypes associatedwith science and scientists.” (IN)•

“I too think the value of having students view themselves in a discipline specific context is
important through video-recording … The activity you describe would work great in the
online environment. I think non-verbal communication skills (i.e. body language, voice,posture, eye contact etc) is something that is hard to teach students and have them retain
unless it is in the discipline specific context they will use in the future. Certainly we canlecture about what is appropriate vs non-appropriate and they will “hear” us but will theimportance of the information be learned. The use of videotaping and debriefing with all of
the students will be very beneficial to teaching these skills in a way that the students value as
being important to their future as musicians.” (TS)Anonymity
The third area of philosophical discussion pertains to anonymity involving the use of photos andanonymous comments.
Photos. There was an intense discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of having students
post pictures of themselves. Among those in favor of having students post a picture of themselves
was LN who stated “In my view, a community of readers is more readily established in the presence
	
  
194
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

of familiarity than in anonymity” and IT who believed “posting a picture of the students themselves
is valuable to give a ‘human’ face to an online course.” These sentiments seem in line withconstructivism’s emphases on situated, social learning (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008) and trust andmutual support among students (Shenk et al., 2004).
AR in particular believed very strongly that student photos should not be posted because “students
take online classes for a variety of reasons: anonymity, convenience, equity, privacy, time,transportation, etc.” When she surveyed close associates, five of six revealed that they did not post
photos for reasons “rang[ing] from equity concerns to personal privacy.” AR was particularly
concerned about the propensity for stereotyping in the online environment:•“The online version seems invasive and can alienate. Just think if a person gets correct
presumptions about peers based on a visual image, it could confirm bias. What do I mean? If
the burly, bisexual student … posted a picture, students would have answered on perception,
not meaningful dialogue. If your class deals with bias and perceptions, this could be a good
icebreaker, but still it treads very close to a dangerous borderline.”•“After more thought, I thought about an Asian, African, Indian, or a non-white student
posting a picture and having students answer "who was born outside of the U.S?" Perceptions
could play into their answers and possibly alienate the Asian American, non-white Hispanic
American, or Indian American from California, New York, Alaska, or any part of U.S. Also,
it could possibly alienate the white student who does not want to appear discriminatory.
Moreover, most people select folks who are similar to [them]selves (hence, homogeneous or
default segregated communities and organizations across America). If there are any groupprojects, you could remove diversity in the selection process by folks self-selecting who theywould feel more comfortable with b[ased] on visuals.”
	
  
195

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Among the solutions suggested include:•“I say let it be optional (personal pic or image that describes him/her) and allow space forthose who want anonymity beyond their intellectual input to exist.” (AR)•“the web site or where the pictures and biographies etc are post[ed] needs to be password
protected” (IT)Anonymous Comments. Besides the issue of post-or-not-to-post, some discussion also revolved
around the issue of anonymous comments. The argument against anonymous comments, namely thedesire for “students to take responsibility for their words” (YS) and “the danger … that in online
spaces there is a tendency to rely on stereotyping MORE” (NN), is weighed against the argument foranonymous comments, namely that anonymity may encourage students “to take a flyer on aninterpretation” (YS) and that “anonymity might enhance course content—because the students would
be “embodied” in different ways” (NN).
These concerns raise issues not found in the face-to-face classroom, adding a layer of complexity tostudent identity in the online environment and its impact on teaching and learning.
Practical Discussions
Instructor Workload
A frequent refrain in the category of practical discussions is the time intensive nature of “reading andevaluating student Discussion posts” (NN), primarily because of the large class sizes. 40- to 45student and 60-student classes are mentioned while the “optimum is 5-15 participants” (YR).
Among solutions forwarded include the following:•“Small graduate classes are a great place to start!” (ER),•

Reducing discussion board assignments with 40- to 45-student class sizes,•

Having non-graded discussion board assignments,
	
  
196

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
•

“Group-based collaborative writing assignment using wiki” (II),•Minimizing “instructor “set-up” time” (NN), for example by automating small groupassignments and online quizzes—there is a need to know what the learning management
system (LMS) is capable of, and•Small group graded discussions.

Small Group Discussions
The last solution suggested above, however, resulted in much debate. As mentioned above, some
professors saw small group discussions as a way of managing instructor workload and were moreconcerned about the small group composition, whether to keep the group composition constant orchanging. There was a concern about a tendency towards stereotyping and homogeneous selfselection for group projects if the group composition was to remain constant.
AR, meanwhile, believed strongly that small group discussions were not the answer. She stated:•“Discussion Boards allow all students to participate. … there are more talkative people thanothers. … some students who [are] reserved in class, come alive in discussion boards. …
“Discussion Boards” are spaces for folks to share. … frankly when I ask the class a question,
I expect an answer from any part of the room and discussion boards mirror me asking theentire class a question without putting into “small groups,” which, from my experience,
require extensive monitoring”;•“I don’t find this format difficult at all, nor do my students. I have a class of 60 students andthe students appreciate the flexibility to comment on who they want to, which build[s]interactions. … Personally, small-group projects work for some assignments. However, I DO
NOT think it is appropriate here. I appreciate this format. Why? It is like being at a dinnerparty or fundraising function-- I enter and depart based on my terms. Thus, I am not being
	
  
197

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

held-up among friends observing or being forced to talk to certain folks, particularly ones
who I have to “make” conversation with.”
Practical Applications
Incorporation of Discussion Boards
It should be noted that discussion boards can be used in conjunction with multiple other online tools(Menchaca & Bekele, 2008) in the context of the learning management system. Among thosementioned in the discussion forums include the incorporation of discussion boards with:•Presentation software like PowerPoint or Prezi, with or without audio or animation;•

Synchronous chat like Skype, during which students can do their presentations;•Videos as a source for discussion board collaborative activity, whether obtained via theinternet or created by instructors or students—constructive peer feedback and individualreflective writing can be conducted on the discussion boards (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen etal., 1995);•

Online surveys or online polling like polleverywhere.com;•

Content production for avenues like Wikipedia, wikis, and GoogleDocs;•

Discussion board or synchronous chat data being used as sources for end-of-semesterreflection papers or subsequent assignments—these assignments can be group assignments
which later allow for peer review or individual discussion board response,•

Virtual tours, virtual worlds, and virtual field trips (Tam, 2000), for example where a live
field trip culminates in a virtual experience:“I find the idea of the ‘virtual’ field trip fascinating. A little twist on using virtualworld...I think that we could still require our students to actually go out into the realworld, observe something, and then maybe create a virtual world based on what was
	
  
198

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

observed. So, they could go into an actual restaurant, make observations, then create
their ‘ideal’ restaurant for a particular disability - or multiple disabilities. Other
students could view it and make suggestions to improve. So, students would be
experiencing the real world and sharing it via the virtual world. Obviously, thetechnology to create a virtual world would need to be user-friendly.” (EJ)
It is hoped that conceiving of the discussion board as part of an entire learning management system
package would provide a more coherent online experience which would result in the co-constructionof knowledge in a community of learners (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen et al., 1995).
AccessThe mention of different online tools led to an intense discussion about the issue of access. For
example, although polleverywhere was touted as an excellent polling tool, some professors preferred
Survey Monkey or the LMS’s survey tool even though the latter did not provide instant results
because it did not run into potential problems like the lack of unlimited text affordances orbandwidth problems, which in turn “could lead to disfranchisement” (AR). Indeed, II reminded:“... polleverywhere might not be the best solution. One rule for technology integration is topick a tool that’s mature and has been on the market for a while. … Any technology failureand difficulty can impact your overall course evaluation and make both you and your students
frustrated.”
YS, however, believed that with regards to access, the onus was on students:“Obviously I’m all for making our courses accessible. However, it seems to me that when astudent opts for an online course, the issue of access shifts into the student’s lap(top). So I
think they have to take the responsibility to get up to speed.”

	
  
199
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Guidelines for Discussion Board Use•

Instructions and deadlines. Explicit instructions about posting and responding to posts (e.g.
number of posts and responses) and the provision of requirements and scaffolded deadlines(e.g. post essay, post discussion entry, post responses, watch video, complete a short quiz) are
important. Prompts, course objectives, netiquette expectations, rubrics, and time commitment
for assignments should also be provided.

•

Assessment of group projects. It would be advisable to incorporate “team member
evaluation[s]” (EJ) in group projects to encourage “equal participation” (ER) so that techsavvy students are not left to complete the bulk of the assignments. Having both fixed androtating group compositions would also encourage equal participation.

•

Require authors to reply to comments so that the problem with students “not going back on
to the “board” to respond besides the required amount, even if a question is raised to them”(TS) is averted.

•

Compose in MS Word first. “[H]ave students compose their discussion board messages in
MS Word then copy/paste into [the LMS]” (ER).

In the final analysis, the pedagogically sound use of discussion boards can be remarkably successful,
as aptly encapsulated by ER: “I think discussion intensive courses can actually work quite wellonline. They take a bit more work in the design process to get “right” but I have seen some excellent
examples over the years.”
Implications
In this section, we offer implications that are both theoretically derived from constructivism andempirically derived from our results. Our aim is to offer practical suggestions that arestraightforward yet capture the real-world nuances of teaching online.
	
  
200
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Course Design
Our first set of suggestions is related to course design. First, it is clearly important to give students
opportunities for meaningful, authentic learning (Honebein, 1996). This can be achieved throughservice learning or by simply asking students to apply the course material directly to their own
lives. Also, instructors should realize that this level of learning can occur after a course ends so they
may want to consider leaving the lines of communication open by, for example, leaving discussion
boards open.
Second, consider giving students the option to post photos of themselves as this can engender social
learning and create a learner-centered environment. This does, however, bring up one of the
obstacles of constructivism discussed earlier: collaborative learning can be challenging with diverse
groups (Huang, 2002). That is, minority students may not feel comfortable posting photos for fear of
being stereotyped. Thus, instructor sensitivity is important here.
Third, use discussion boards as they are clearly becoming a crucial centerpiece for many online
courses (Eskey & Schulte, 2012). They can be an effective tool to capture many of the theoreticallyderived success factors we outlined above and, by utilizing the guidelines suggested by ourparticipants, can be successful. Namely, set clear instructions and deadlines, incorporate teammember evaluations, require authors to reply, and suggest that students compose their messages in a
separate word processing program first.
Faculty Training
Our second set of suggestions is related to faculty training. Given research findings that student
learning outcomes are positively correlated with faculty satisfaction (Fredericksen, Pickett, Swan,Pelz, & Shea, 2000; Hartman et al., 2000), it is critical to stimulate satisfaction with effective
training. First, it is important that trainers set expectations about what it will be like to teach
	
  
201
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

online. For example, new online instructors must learn that there cannot be a one-to-one conversion
from face-to-face to online. More broadly related to this, the training should foster a greater
willingness to take on the “new” role of facilitator (Huang, 2002).
Second, trainers should stress that online learning can amplify and transform (Hughes, 2005) throughthe use of collaborative learning that generates socially constructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011;
Jonassen et al., 1995). Indeed, our results show that at least some faculty already understandthis. Therefore, trainers can build on this in the training environment by, for example, having
trainees give examples of how amplification and transformation might occur. Past research suggeststhat one way this may be achieved is by stressing the importance of faculty interaction with students(Olson, 2005; Simmons et al., 2004).
Additionally, a goal of the training program should be to demonstrate how using multiple tools canhelp create meaningful, authentic learning environments with active participation (Herrington et al.,2006; Honebein, 1996). It should be stressed that multiple tools are the means to an end – the end
being increased ease-of-use (Means et al., 2009). Therefore, when using multiple tools, usability
should not be sacrificed.

It is also important that faculty be adequately trained to use thesetools. However, the training should also emphasize sensitivity to access issues. Do not simply
assume that all students will have access to all tools. Sharing the syllabus before the class starts caninform students of expectations about what technologies will be necessary, which can reduce accessissues.
Finally, it is important to note the findings of this study that are relevant for instructors who teachonline or may be thinking about creating an online course. Although there were some concerns aboutmaintaining the interactive nature and richness of a face-to-face course through the transition toonline, it was evident that similar outcomes could be obtained in an online learning environment and
	
  
202
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

in fact, might even be increased. It was felt that online learning offers students the potential to learn
real world applications through discussion board assignments. Instructors did voice their concerns
about the management of reading and evaluating discussion board assignments for large classes.
Several solutions were gleaned from this study including the use of small group discussions, which
was found to be a topic of debate. Some felt it to be a useful pedagogical tool to help manage theinstructor workload while others were concerned about small groups restricting the participation of
students in an online class. It was noted that discussion boards used in conjunction with a variety ofother online tools would provide a more coherent experience for the learner.
Suggestions for future research
A reasonable next step following the present qualitative study on faculty attitudes about distanceeducation is a university-wide quantitative survey and this step is currently under way. Furthermore,besides faculty data, it is also important to collect student data, particularly comparing the student
attitudes of those who have taken online courses as opposed to those who have not. These data canbe obtained via quantitative surveys as well as qualitative semi-structured interviews.
Besides collecting data about distance education indirectly via surveys and interviews, it would also
be a good idea to collect data directly. This can be done through observations of online courses,
taking into consideration the varieties of online courses being offered university-wide—for example
by investigating synchronous and asynchronous implementations of online courses. In addition,
online instructors can conduct action research studies of their own courses, which would result in a
deeper understanding of course dynamics and lead to improvements in the quality of individual
online courses.

	
  
203
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Conclusion
Distance education is undoubtedly driving today and tomorrow’s higher education revolution andthese courses are continuing to grow in number. However, faculty have been more pessimistic than
optimistic about online education (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012). Thus, in order tofurther develop the quality of distance education, it’s important to understand faculty attitudes andviews and how they relate to pedagogical tools.
The findings of this study suggest that faculty are concerned about the conversion of face-to-facecourses to online courses. The conversion not only changes the nature of the learning experience but
also increases the workload for both students and instructors. Faculty are also sensitive aboutanonymity issues, specifically about whether student photos should be optional and discussioncomments should be anonymous. It should be noted that faculty do see the value of online
pedagogical tools, such as discussion boards, and how they can contribute to increased learning
outcomes if designed appropriately with clear instructions, guidelines, and assessment methods.
Access, however, has been an issue when it comes to choosing specific tools to use in the online
courses.
The study offers practical implications for online course design and faculty training. It suggests thatonline courses should offer authentic, meaningful, and long-term learning; students should have theoption to post or avoid posting photos of themselves; and instructors should set clear guidelines interms of discussion board setup and use. The study also suggests that faculty should be trained invarious learning tools as well as how to use them to create meaningful and authentic learning
environments. Additionally, faculty should be informed about online teaching expectations andpotential role changes.

	
  
204
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Although the scale is small, this study sheds light on faculty views of distance education and offers
practical suggestions and implications for online education. We hope this will provide faculty whoare contemplating teaching an online course and those already engaged in online pedagogy valuable
information that will assist them in creating a meaningful, authentic learning environment for online
learners. It is also our hope that these findings give faculty an opportunity to start thinking about
their role in an online environment and the need to learn new tools in order to embrace new teaching
philosophies.

	
  
205
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Agosto, D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the benefits of blended education: Usingsocial technology to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing in face-to-face LIS courses.
Journal of education for library and information science, 54(2), 94-107.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online
education. Pearson.
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher
education: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-41.
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching
and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
Bradshaw, J. & Hinton, L. (2004). Benefits of an online discussion list in a traditional distanceeducation course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(3).
Dass, S., Dabbagh, N., & Clark, K. (2011). Using virtual worlds: What the research says. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 95–111.
Eskey, M. T., & Schulte, M. (2012). Comparing attitudes of online instructors and online college
students: Quantitative results for training, evaluation and administration. Online Journal ofDistance Learning Administration, 15(4). Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter154/eskey_schulte154.html.

	
  
206
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Swan, K., Pelz, W., & Shea, P. (2000). Factors influencing facultysatisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the SUNY learning network. Online
Education: Learning Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction, 239-270.
Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or
independent variable. On-line education: Learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction, 151172.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner,
task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.
Hogan, R. L., & McKnight, M. A. (2007). Exploring burnout among university online instructors:
An initial investigation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 117-124.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G.
Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp.
11-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technologyintegrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism andcomputer-­‐mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 9(2), 7-26.

	
  
207
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lokken, F. & Mullins, C. (2014). Trends in elearning: Tracking the impact of elearning at
community colleges. 2013 Distance Education Survey Results, Instructional Technology
Council.
Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms
examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in
distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study.
Distance education, 26(1), 29-48.
Murphy, M. J., Levant, R. F., Hall, J. E., & Glueckauf, R. L. (2007). Distance education in
professional training in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(1),97-103.
Olson, P. W. (2005). Significant success factors in distance education. International Journal of Case
Method Research & Application, 17(2), 235-245.

	
  
208
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Rudestam, K. E. (2004). Distributed education and the role of online learning in training professional
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 427-432.
Shenk, D., Moore, L., & Davis, B. (2004). Teaching an interdisciplinary distance education
gerontology course: Benefits of diversity. Educational Gerontology, 30(3), 219-235.
Simmons, S., Jones, W., Jr., & Silver, S. (2004). Making the transition from face-to-face tocyberspace. TechTrends, 48(5), 50-85.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming
distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

	
  
209
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
210
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Key Principles of Peer Assessments: A Feedback
Strategy to Engage the Postgraduate International
Learner
Roopa Nagori, Matthew Cooper
	
  

	
  
211
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
The paper reports the findings of a project that assessed the benefits of peer feedback as a formative
assessment intervention for postgraduate international learners in the United Kingdom. The aim wasto improve participants’ understanding of quality in academic writing, and hence improve thesummative assessment scores, by improving the quantity of feedback received in a collaborative
learning environment. The project utilized the action research methodology and qualitative methods
to recommend effective practices for peer assessment. Research findings highlight that although
there was no substantial increase in the average score for the groups that received peer feedback,improvements in summative scores for the higher ability students were observed. All the learners
agreed that the peer feedback should be made a permanent feature of the program; they also
highlighted that the main barriers in giving feedback were lack of experience and hesitation in
critiquing peer’s work. It is recommended that peer assessment is included as a regular feature of
postgraduate programs but with adequate tutor planning and student preparation. Additional
strategies to encourage engagement of postgraduate students with the ‘Peer Feedback’ are required todemonstrate improved results across all ability levels.
Keywords: International Students; Peer Assessment; Peer Feedback; Formative Feedback.

	
  
212
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
In recent years higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK have witnessed unprecedented growthin the enrolment of students from other countries (Hall and Sung, 2011). Newsome and Cooper(2013) believe that previous academic experiences and expectations may lead to international
students’ dissatisfaction, a current challenge to educational institutes in the UK. As highlighted by
Grimshaw (2011), there is a recognized need for the development of the UK HE provision to meetthe needs and challenges faced by international students. The term ‘international students’ usedfrequently in this paper refers to the students from countries other than the United Kingdom.
Although the issues discussed are relevant to all students entering an unfamiliar academic culture forthe first time, the particular focus of this study is on students from Asia and Africa as the researchers
are involved in the management and delivery of modules on a postgraduate program consisting of ahigh number of overseas students, mainly from these two continents. With this in mind, the authors
initiated a peer feedback project for an assessment on the Masters in Business Administration (MBA)course. The MBA curriculum being content full and consisting of 8 modules with 16 assessments;
finding space and time for feedback to individuals by the tutors was challenging. Further, it wasobserved that tutors’ feedback was not being accurately perceived and effectively utilized by thestudents to improve the scores on summative assessments. As recommended by Orsmond et al.
(2002), tutors felt the need to provide more guidance to students regarding the use of feedback forthe international learner. To address these issues; a peer assessment project was piloted in June 2011.
The aim of the project was to implement and evaluate a new learning strategy for timely formative
feedback in an attempt to clarify ‘quality’ in writing (Sadler, 2010). The potential of formalizing peer
assessment as a feedback mechanism has been widely researched and a number of strategies havebeen tested to utilize this as a formative tool for learners in the work of McConlogue (2012),
	
  
213
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Wimshurst and Manning (2013) and Sadler (2010). The researcher investigates the benefits andchallenges involved in formalizing peer assessment practices, specifically for postgraduate
international students studying at a UK Institution.
Main observations and recommendations from the implementations are included in this paper.
Although this process was initiated in 2011, the initiative for ‘Peer Feedback’ could be strengthened
now to address the institute’s strategic objective for excellence which states ‘delivery of inspirational
teaching and investment in the delivery of teaching’ as a priority for strategic plans (EHWLC, 2013).
In addition, the QAA (2005) has been encouraging the development of peer feedback schemes inhigher education. This paper aims to evaluate the benefits of peer assessment for the international
student and recommend effective practices to engage international learners in feedback through peer
reviews.
The main research objectives are:
1. To investigate the strengths and challenges involved in peer assessment as a feedback
strategy.
2. To evaluate the success of ‘Peer Assessment’ for international students, with respect tofour implementations in a MBA program.
3. To recommend effective practices in ‘Peer Assessment’ as a useful tool to engage theinternational student in reflecting on feedback.
Why introduce Peer Reviews for courses involving a large number of international students?
Various authors (Hall and Sung, 2008; Grimshaw, 2011) have expressed views that the international
students’ barriers to learning relate to the tutors’ perceived problems that overseas students bringwith them, such as poor spoken and written language ability; a low level of participation in group
	
  
214
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

work; a reluctance to display critical thinking in study; problems with reference skills and plagiarism.
Newsome and Cooper (2013) are of the opinion that these issues are linked to the cultural, language
and academic differences in addition to the recent geopolitical events that may stereotype theinternational learner in the UK. They elaborate further that the international students in the UK could
be affected by multiple issues, ranging from profound social or psychological factors to seemingly
superficial but potentially very problematic changes of climate, diet or daily routine. A discussion
with the overseas students on the postgraduate program under discussion revealed that theseacademic, social and psychological factors were some barriers to learning that were affecting theiracademic performance. Clearly, learning strategies to encourage participation and engagement withthe content of the course was required.
The researchers realized that low levels of engagement with feedback needed to be addressed in time
for students to modify their own thinking and behavior to improve learning. Popham (2008)
recommends that the students be involved as partners in the assessment of learning and to beequipped to use the assessment results to change their own learning tactics. Formative assessment
seeks to help students to improve their own learning and is important because feedback given only atthe end of a learning cycle is not effective in furthering student learning (Bollag, 2006). The MBA
program was providing opportunities for formative feedback from the tutor as comments on
submitted work however the main challenge was the difficultly for the tutors to engage in dialogue
with all students, due to the large class sizes. Fluckiger et al. (2010) acknowledges that on somecourses planning time for giving students effective feedback is an important and challenging aspectof the teaching and learning process. The researchers realized the need to investigate learning
strategies that might increase feedback dialogue to engage the international student with theformative feedback. One possible learning strategy that could be used to provide timely and
	
  
215
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

developmental formative feedback is ‘Peer Assessment’. Utilizing the framework recommended by
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), the approach adopted was to structure small group break-out
discussions of feedback in class (peer feedback) after students had received tutor comments on theirindividual work. ‘Peer Feedback’ as defined by The Centre of Academic Quality and Development
at Nottingham Trent University is the observation, commenting upon and at times assessment ofstudents’ work by other learners (CADQ, 2013).
The benefits and challenges of introducing peer reviews
McConlogue (2012) is of the opinion that peer feedback prepares students for the kinds of criticalreview skills which their future professional contexts may require of them, especially practice in peer
evaluation and feedback while CADQ (2013) argues that this is a crucial life-skill to offer learners.
The need for peers’ involvement in the feedback process is highlighted by Wimhurst and Manning(2013) who are of the opinion that the students’ understanding of assessment standards iscomplicated by the fact that assessment processes require them to draw upon both explicit and tacitknowledge. The authors believe that this is more relevant in the context of the international learnerwhere, explicit knowledge can be clarified through guidance notes or discussions in lectures. Tacit
knowledge, however, tends to be experiential and is derived from shared understandings developed
among members of academic communities. International learners may not have been exposed to theacademic practices that local students have experienced in their undergraduate studies in the UK.
Students who are still on the periphery of academic communities may not discover these implicit
understandings which usually inform quality work (McConlogue, 2012; Sadler, 2010). It is throughdiscussion of the assessment criteria, peers reviewing others’ work that they begin to get clarity forthe ‘tacit assumptions.’ This is especially true for students from Asian and African continents for
	
  
216
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

whom English may not the first language and tutors may need to invest substantial time todemonstrate the implied meanings in their formative feedback. As emphasized by ASKe (2010), Peer
feedback increases the amount of feedback students receive and they get it more quickly than thetutor route. Another benefit highlighted by Sadler (2010) is that the process of reviewing the work of
their peers clarifies to students what is considered good work, improving their understanding of
quality in writing.
While earlier research on peer assessment identified considerable benefits for student learning, recent
discussions have been more cautious. Wimshurst and Manning (2013) have in their literature
cautioned against attempting to rigorously measure the outcomes of feedback as assessment occurs
within a ‘complex web’ of contextual and relational factors. Bloxham and West (2007) found that
their participants did not enjoy the experience of marking the work of classmates while Cartney(2010) writes of the emotionality and anxiety associated with peer assessment, where students areconcerned about whether some of their fellow markers, in whom they have little confidence, actually
understand the criteria for marking. If the formative and summative assessments are separated bylittle time difference, this may inhibit the effective application for improvement of the summativepiece (CADQ, 2013; Wimhurst and Manning, 2013). These benefits and challenges must be carefully
evaluated in the design and customisation of a peer assessment programme, especially in a diverse
class consisting of international learners.
Reliability of Peer Assessment as compared to Tutor Judgments
Previous research (CADQ 2013, Sadler 2010,) indicates that formative rather than summative peer
feedback is valuable for student development. McConlogue (2012) questions the consistency ingrades awarded to complex tasks and is of the opinion that the value of peer reviews is not as much
	
  
217
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

in assigning marks but more in composing and receiving qualitative peer feedback. The authors
observed that this particularly applied for the international learner for whom a low peer mark has aparticularly disengaging effect. Sadler (2010) is of the opinion that the learning in peer reviews
comes about not through grading but through reading and making assessment judgements aboutpeers’ work; awarding grades to their peers may be an unsettling experience and some culturalbarriers for international learners may inhibit constructive feedback to peers. Awarding grades ormarks to peers could reflect the individualistic view where students compete for grades whereas
formative feedback involving comments rather than grades adopts social constructivism principles
where students expand their knowledge within a social context of interactions and peer learning(Reece and Walker, 1997; CADQ, 2013). Hence, in this context it was decided that the peer review
program should be used for formative and developmental purposes rather than for summativeevaluation purposes.
Guiding Principles for Peer Reviews
A key framework for formative assessment and feedback is provided by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,(2006) in which the student is assumed to occupy an active role in all feedback processes. The model
for self-regulated learning and the feedback principles to develop self-regulation in students (Nicoland Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) recommends that the learners are actively involved in monitoring andregulating their own performance through internal and external feedback using the following steps:
1. Clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, and expected standards);
2. Facilitate the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
3. Deliver high quality information to students about their learning;
4. Encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
	
  
218
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

5. Encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6. Provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7. Use feedback to shape the teaching (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p.203).
In the model, a piece of academic work set by the teacher is the starting point for the feedback cycle.
The learner then engages in actions to achieve these goals by applying tactics and strategies thatgenerate outcomes. Monitoring the goals with the task generates internal feedback while external
feedback to the student might be provided by teachers, peers or others (e.g. placement supervisor).
Peer dialogue is beneficial to student learning as they offer perspectives on alternative approaches
and strategies and it is sometimes easier for students to accept critiques of their work from peers
rather than tutors. The authors found this perspective especially useful since they were dealing withinternational learners; many of whom were not reflecting adequately on the tutor feedback. The
model of self-regulated learning and feedback was applied to four cohorts of international students,
with an emphasis on providing mechanisms for external feedback through peers.

Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange (ASKe), a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning (CETL) based in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University recommends that peer
reviews utilize a process involving three major steps (Figure 1):
STEP 1

Prior to the peer review session, facilitate marking exercises that give students
practice in assessment and feedback using sample assignments

STEP 2

Prepare for and structure the peer review session

STEP 3

Actively facilitate the peer review session, adhere to a strict timetable and tellstudents exactly what they must do and for how long.

Figure 1. The ASKe Framework for Peer Reviews (Adapted from ASKe, Oxford Brookes University,
2010)
	
  
219
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Step 1 in the model suggests that it is important to spend time in the rehearsal marking session
exploring what is a ‘normal’ marking range, so that students know what to expect. Further, it isrecommended that peer feedback is linked to tutor feedback from the outset, discussing how peer
feedback is a valuable addition to tutor feedback (CADQ 2013; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
To provide a bigger picture of coherence, it is recommended by Wimshurst and Manning (2013) thatthe tutors supply students with any available exemplars of marked assignments with staff feedback
statements. The researchers believe that this would assist the international student in particular, as
language difficulties often make the tacit elements only partially comprehendible. Further,
McConlogue (2012) advises that it is assumed that the tutor is an expert marker and this expertise isgained through years of marking and involvement in standardisation procedures, hence somedemonstration of the tutor techniques is advisable. The above were the frameworks and concepts thatwere considered in the design of the learning intervention of peer feedback for the four cohorts of the
postgraduate international students.
A Learning Intervention; Implementation of Peer Feedback
The project was implemented for a MBA program consisting mainly of international students with
mixed abilities. A new learning strategy using the Model of Self-regulated Learning (Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and ASKe Framework (Table 1) was proposed and a ‘Peer Assessment’
initiative was designed as an intervention to engage the international learner with feedback. The
author facilitated implementations of Peer Assessments in two phases for an assessment requiring
responses to a complex task. The project utilised the action research methodology using qualitative
data to make improvements in the second phase of the project. An explanation of why ‘Peer

	
  
220
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Assessments’ is appropriate as a feedback strategy for the international learner and some guiding
principles in its potential to improve teaching and learning follow.
The two-phase project:
A qualitative evaluation of four implementations of peer assessment, involving 138 students was
implemented in two phases, between June 2011 to March 2013. This assignment was a piece offormative assessment in the ‘Managing people’ module that required an analysis of Organizational
Behavior (OB) problems, typically involving divergent responses from different learners. This was a
mid-term assessment; hence the feedback would benefit the summative assessment for this course.
The output required from the peer feedback for the first phase was to award a numerical grade to apeer’s work accompanied with detailed comments in the form of qualitative feedback.
First Phase - June 2011 to June 2012: Two groups of learners-one consisting of 42 and the other of
36 learners were assisted to implement the pilot peer reviews as indicated by the ASKe framework(ASKe, 2011).This involved peers assigning grades (Appendix1) as well as providing comments foreach other’s work (Appendix 2). Each learner received feedback from a minimum of two peers.
Following this, the tutor spent time with each group and reviewed the peer comments and marking.
Based on the feedback, the students reflected on the improvements required in their work. The
implementations were evaluated through observation by the tutor and a questionnaire consisting ofsome closed and an open comments section for the learner to reflect on the effectiveness of the peer
review process (as indicated in Appendix 3).
The results from the evaluation of the first phase were used to improve the second phase. Feedback
from the first phase suggested that students needed more guidance on constructing feedback
comments so, in the second phase exemplars, sample feedback comments were supplied for
	
  
221
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

discussion before the peer review session commenced, as recommended by McConlogue (2012).The
results of phase one indicated that when peers were asked to award marks to each other’s work, thefocus was on awarding marks and most learners ignored the crucial aspects of providing qualitative
feedback and suggestions for improvements.
Second Phase - July 2012 to March 2013: Considering the limitations of the numerical grading ofpeer’s work, the technique of the peer feedback was modified for the next two groups to include
mainly qualitative feedback from peers (Appendix 2).The next two groups of students were
instructed to focus on providing their peers with only qualitative feedback, highlighting good
features and advice for improvement. In both phases, all feedback was returned, so students could
incorporate the suggestions for the summative assessment. The implementations were evaluatedthrough observations of the peer assessment sessions and through an online survey that wasadministered two weeks after the peer review sessions. A gap of two weeks was designed to allow
sufficient time for the learners to reflect on the peer feedback and the benefits and challenges of the
new learning strategy.
A comparison group consisting of learners studying the Marketing module on the same MBA course
was selected to determine the reliability of the peer feedback technique. Qualitative data from theopen comment questions in the questionnaire and from summative class scores was analyzed.
Participants were invited at the end of semester to reflect through an online survey (Appendix 3) toevaluate if they found the peer reviews useful and their perceptions of its challenges and benefits.
Eventually, guidelines for effective peer feedback practices for international postgraduate students
are proposed.

	
  
222
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Findings from the 2-phase implementation:
The analysis of the open comment questions and tutor reflections on the experience offer some
useful guidelines on the success of the peer reviews, in terms of its benefits and challenges. The
tutors agreed that although the initial set-up for the sessions were difficult to achieve, the actual
process was useful in terms of benefits for the staff and learners. Students seemed to value peer
reviews and felt that they had a growing understanding of tutor expectations and the required quality.
Some comments received from learners in the open comments section of the questionnaire follow:‘Feedback from peers who are objective and have a good level of knowledge is useful. It should be a
regular feature of the MBA programme and could be included for all the subjects and also for exams’(Student A)‘It helps build up our ability to give feedback in our work in the future.’ (Student B)‘The most difficult part was for me to assign a mark for another student, who is also my friend, I
found it difficult to say to him that his work was not of a pass level.’ (Student C)‘I think we need more training before we mark another student’s work, we could practice using someexamples first.’ (Student D)
An analysis of the results of the survey highlighted the key benefits and challenges of the peer
reviews as perceived by the learners:
Q. In your opinion, what are the benefits of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.

	
  
223
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The analysis of this question highlighted the main benefits, as perceived by the learners were theopportunity to reflect on and discuss the feedback from the tutor. In addition, the ‘assistance withfocussing on the important aspects of the assignment’ and ‘gaining insights and opinions about
quality of the work expected’ were also listed.
An analysis of the results of the question:
Q. In your opinion, what are the challenges of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.
Peer reviews seemed to be an unsettling experience for some international students, resulting inhesitation to participate in the process in future. An analysis of the main challenges revealed thatstudents seemed to be concerned about their own and their peers’ ability to make marking decisions.
They were also concerned about differences in ability and willingness to critique one another’s work.
For many students, this was perhaps the first time they had seen a range of marks and wereconfronted with subjectivity in marking.
The marks awarded by peers were analyzed to test the reliability of peer marking and these were
found to be on an average 12-19% higher than tutor grades. This agrees with previous research thatstates; Peer assessment of long written tasks poses particular problems as these tasks typicallyinvolve complex learning and solving ill-structured problems which require divergent and variable
responses (McConlogue, 2012; Wimshurst and Manning, 2013). For international students, there
may be a tendency to over mark the peers’ work. One reason for this could be the close-knit
community of international students studying similar programs (Langan et al., 2008); another reason
could be the hesitation to critique each other’s work, linked to the culture prevalent in their countryof origin (Newsome and Cooper, 2013).
	
  
224
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The summative grades achieved by the students who were provided with peer feedback werecompared with the summative grades of learners who did not get the opportunity to receive external
feedback from peers (Table 1). Although the average scores did not increase as a result of the peer
reviews, the proportion of learners achieving scores above 65 (Merit grade) increased asdemonstrated by the figures in Table 1. It was observed that the standard deviation from the averagescores was higher when peer assessment was introduced; a closer examination revealed that thescores at the higher end of the class range increased as a result of introducing the peer feedback
strategy. To test the reliability of these results, benefits of the peer review were evaluated for theMarketing module which demonstrates similar results.

	
  
225
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table 1. Evaluation of Findings for the Managing People in Organisations (MPO) and Marketing
ModulesModuleAverage Scores(Summative)

Percentage of
Merits (>65%)

Standard
Deviation

MPO
No Peer Feedback

61

31.42%

9

Peer Feedback
Provided62

43.75%

13.5

No Peer Feedback49

17.14%

12

Peer Feedback
Provided49

27.77%

19

MarketingNote: Percentage of Merits indicates the ratio of the number of students achieving over 65 out
of 100 marks in the summative assessment on the module. Standard Deviation here measures
the amount of variation of the marks in a module from the average mark.

The benefits of peer reviews are clear from the analysis presented in Table 1; the high performing
students achieve better as a result of the external feedback that they receive from their peers.
Learners in this group are motivated and engaged from the outset, as demonstrated by the quality of
feedback they themselves provided others. However, further investigation is necessary to confirm theextent to which this increase in scores can be attributed exclusively to the feedback strategy of peer
assessments.

Discussion-Implications for practice
	
  
226
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Peer reviews that involve numerical grades tend to limit the amount of quantitative feedback thatpeers provide, the main focus of the review sessions are the grades and conversations that justify themarks awarded. Davies (2006) notes it is important that this process includes feedback in the form ofcomments and not just marks. In the above implementation, peer reviews were utilized to improve
the quality and timeliness of the formative feedback. As a result of this timely feedback, the numberof students achieving a Merit grade in the summative assessment of the MPO module has been
increasing by 10 to 12% over the previous cohorts that did not utilize peer reviews as a formative
feedback strategy. Innovative strategies to engage all learners, especially the learners that find it
difficult to achieve a Pass mark or score higher than 50 % are also necessary.
As highlighted by Popham (2008), consistent use of the above formative assessment has the potential
to transform a traditional, comparison-dominated classroom, where the main purpose of assessment
is to assign grades, into a learning-dominated classroom, where the main purpose of assessment is toimprove the quality of teaching and learning.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This paper discusses experiences from four implementations of ‘Peer assessments’ in a MBAprogram. Results from these implementations demonstrate the benefits and challenges involved inpeer reviews as a feedback strategy for international students studying on postgraduate programs.
Feedback from the learners has highlighted that the main benefits of peer reviews are the opportunity
to reflect on the formative feedback from the tutor. An analysis of the main challenges revealed thatstudents seemed to be concerned about their ability to make decisions about the quality of peers’
output and hesitation to critique each other’s work. Although the benefits of peer reviews are clearer
for the higher performing students, other strategies that can benefit all learners are required.
	
  
227
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Innovative strategies to engage learners across all ability levels are required, that would complement‘Peer Assessment’ as a feedback strategy for international students.
Based on the data gathered from the student surveys and staff interviews, the process for peer
assessments introduced for postgraduate international learners should consider the following guiding
principles:
1. Formative Evaluation - A peer review program should be used for formative anddevelopmental purposes rather than for summative evaluation purposes as recommended by
Huston and Weaver (2008).
2. Rehearse - A simple intervention such as a marking workshop prior to undertaking peer
feedback on an assessed task can significantly increase students’ understanding of theassessment criteria and improve their performance of the task.
3. Specific descriptors - Exact description of the level that should be achieved need to be
included, there should be no ambiguity in the assessment criteria and it should not be open to
diverse interpretation.
4. Provide Exemplars - Tutors could supply students with any available exemplars of marked
assignments with staff feedback statements to provide a variety of comments for students in
use in their feedback
5. Question tutor judgements - Using exemplars, prompt student questioning of tutor assessment
judgements; McConlogue (2012) suggests that this questioning, which involves otherstudents in an open discussion of the tutor’s comments, helps students develop their thinking
in a supportive ‘learning relationship.’

	
  
228
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

6. Plan follow-up sessions - Organize sessions for any learners needing clarification/additional
support. For example, demonstration by a previous student as to how the peer review
improved his/her scores. This would be helpful for learners who do not seem to perceive thebenefits of peer feedback in the initial sessions.
7. Encourage students to foster their own peer feedback cultures e.g. through informal study
groups, reading groups, online discussions and social media/forums. Most international
students frequently form relationships with other international students, and these sometimes
endure years after the study abroad experience. Grimshaw (2011) is of the opinion that if thisculture of peer feedback endures, the learners could benefit from a truly cross-culturalexperience.
These guidelines hope to create a productive classroom climate, engaging the international
student in the process of giving and receiving peer feedback, where the focus is on learning
rather than on grading.
Should Peer Reviews be included as a regular feedback strategy in the design and delivery of the
postgraduate provision of the institute?
Formative peer reviews have the potential to involve students as partners in assessment and use thestrengths of the close knit community of international students to enhance the teaching and learning
process. The authors recommend ‘Peer Assessments’ to be accommodated as a permanent feedback
strategy in at least one or two modules in postgraduate qualifications, especially those involving alarge number of international students.
Specific strategies need to be further innovated to engage a diverse range of abilities in a classinvolving international learners. For every group engaging in peer reviews, a workshop could be
	
  
229
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

introduced to discuss the concept and practices of peer review, distinguish formative assessment
from summative peer review and help participants develop review skills and hence confidence withthe process. If peer reviews can be made a part of a postgraduate course’s learning strategy, the result
would be that individuals are interacting with and learning from, a range of peers with diverse
backgrounds and abilities. The inclusion of peer reviews as an integral component of a programme
would engender a culture of critical review (CADQ, 2013). If this culture of peer feedback endures,
Grimshaw (2011) highlights that the learners could benefit by developing cross-cultural interaction
skills that are valuable in a globalised career.
Future research should explore the specific development of cross-cultural skills for international
students in UK through peer reviews. Another area to explore is the innovation of additional learning
strategies to improve the benefits of peer reviews across all ability levels. Further studies could
consider the potential of technology in facilitating the process of peer feedback for the postgraduate
international learner.
Acknowledgements:
We thank our colleagues Akash Puranik and Seth Lewis, whose support and timely comments were
extremely useful in this research. We would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback they
provided in helping us finalize this paper.

	
  
230
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2007). Learning to write in higher education: students’ perceptions of anintervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching In Higher Education,
12(1), 77-89.
Bollag, B. (2006). Making an art form of assessment. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(10), A8–
A10.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies inContinuing Education, 22(2), 151–67.
CADQ (2013). CADQ Guide, Nottingham Trent University. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.ntu.ac.uk/adq/assessment_awards/creating_effective_assessment_feedback/index.html.
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between
feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–
64.
Carvalho, A. (2013). Students' perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: evidence from a problembased learning course.Teaching In Higher Education, 18(5), 491-505.
Davies, P. (2006). ‘Peer assessment: judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather thanmarks’. Innovations In Education & Teaching International , 43(1), 69-82.
EHWLC (2013). Strategic Plan 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://staff.wlc.ac.uk/staff_portal.
	
  
231
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Fluckiger, J., Tixier, Y., Rebecca, P., & Danielson, K. (2010). Formative Feedback:Involving
students as Partners in Assessment to Enhance Learning. College Teaching, 58, 136-140.
Grimshaw, T. (2011). Concluding editorial: The needs of international students rethought –implications for the policy and practice of higher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice,17(6), 703-712.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: amodel and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),
199–218.
McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex workthrough peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 113-123.
Newsome, L., & Cooper, P. (2013). International students' dissatisfaction is a challenge to theuniversity; Obstacles in intercultural communication and educational engagements in Britain.
Oral presentation at the International Conference on Education IAFOR, Brighton, UK, 12 July2013.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback whenusing student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment &Evaluation inHigher Education, 27(4), 309–23.
Oxford Brookes University (2011). ASKe. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/.
Popham, J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Instruction.
	
  
232
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

QAA (2005). Outcomes from institutional audit: Staff support and development arrangements from
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://heer.qaa.ac.uk/SearchForSummaries/Summaries/Pages/STAFF90.aspx.
Reece, I., & Walker, S. (2007). A Practical Guide to Teaching, Training and Learning. 6th ed.
Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–50.
Wimshurst, K., & Manning, M. (2013). Feed-forward assessment, exemplars and peer marking:evidence of efficacy, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 451-465.

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
233
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 1: Marking Grid
NAME OF STUDENT BEING ASSESSED: ____________________________
Names of peers assessing
2.__________________________

1.

SectionMarks
Assigned

Marks
Assigned

Tutor Mark

Peer 1

Peer 2

Executive Summary

/10

/10

Introduction of the Organization/5/5

Description of the Organizational
Behavior related work problems

/10

/10

A critical analysis of the
problems/issues, using
theories/concepts

/20

/20

Recommendations to improve thesituation using key OB theories in thecontext of the situation

/30

/30

Conclusion

/15

/15

Document Structure and Referencing

/10

/10

	
  

TOTAL

/100

/100

	
  

and Comments

Issue 1
Issue 2

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
234

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 2. Peer Feedback Comments, Tutor Comments and Learner Reflection
PEER 1 FEEDBACK:
Aspects that the learner has handled well:
1.
2.
3.
Suggestions for improvement:
1.
2.
3.

PEER 2 FEEDBACK:
Aspects that the learner has handled well:
1.
2.
3.
Suggestions for improvement:
1.
2.
3.

Tutor Feedback:Tutor Feedback:Learner Reflection:
For my next assessment, I could work on improvements in the following areas:
Do I think that the peer review of assessment is a useful process?
Here’s how it’s helped me (list two to three points):

	
  
235
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 3: On-line Survey
Peer Reviews - Usefulness and Limitations for Post Graduate Programs
1. Which course are you enrolled on
Hospitality Management
MBA - General Management
Postgraduate Leadership and Management
MBA-Hospitality Management
2. Have you participated in a peer feedback session during the course of the study?
Yes
No
3. In your opinion, what are the benefits of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.
Discuss and reflect on feedback from tutor
Insights and opinions of peers on completed work
Opportunity to learn about each other's organization or work area
Focus on important aspects of the assignment

	
  
236
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Understand marking grid for the module better
4. Do you think peer feedback should involve feedback in the forms of comments only or
should marks also be discussed for the completed piece of work?
Feedback in the form of peer comments only
Feedback in the form of suggested marks from peers
Feedback in the form of marks and comments from peers
5. What are the challenges that you faced in giving and receiving Peer Feedback?
No previous experience in giving feedback
Found it difficult to criticize classmate's work
Confidentiality (of chosen organization that the submission was based on)
Cultural differences
Not equipped to make decisions on assignments
Overall, peers were too generous
	
  

	
  
237
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

	
  
238
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Guide for Authors
Article structure
Abstract
A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length of 250 words). The abstract should state
briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often
presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, References
should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or
uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their firstmention in the abstract itself.
Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6 keywords.
Introduction
Present purposes of the study and provide background for your work.
Literature Review
Include a pertinent literature review with explicit international connections for relevant ideas.
Discuss the findings of published papers in the related field and highlight your contribution.
Methodology and methods
Provide sufficient detail to allow the context of the work to be thoroughly understood and/or for thework to be reproduced. Provide sufficient detail for readers to understand how you engaged in your

	
  
239
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

inquiry. Clear descriptions of your context and participants along with strategies used to collect andanalyze data should be described.
Discussion
This section should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. Combining
your results and discussion into a single section may be suitable. Returning to relevant literature fromthe introduction should show how your work connects with or interrupts already published literature.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a Conclusions section, which can include themain findings, the implications, and limitations.
Appendices
If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc.
Acknowledgements
Collate acknowledgements in a separate section at the end of the article before the references and donot, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here thoseindividuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing assistanceor proof reading the article, etc.).
Footnotes
Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using
superscript Arabic numbers.

	
  
240
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Citation in text
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa).
Reference style
Text: Citations in the text should follow the referencing style used by the American Psychological
Association (APA). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition,
ISBN 978-1-4338-0561-5.
List: references should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically ifnecessary.
Reference to a journal publication:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2010). The art of writing a scientific article.
Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51–59.
Reference to a book:
Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. (4th ed.). New York: Longman,(Chapter 4).
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G. R., & Adams, L. B. (2009). How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In B. S.
Jones, & R. Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the electronic age (pp.281–304). New York: EPublishing Inc.
	
  
241
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Please follow the checklist:* Times New Roman font (size 12)* Double-spacing throughout the document; paragraphs, justify.
* Double space (instead of indent) to designate a new paragraph or section* Page numbers at the bottom center of each page
* Top, bottom, and side margins 0.87" or 2.2 cm* Page that includes title, authors, their affiliations, their contact information, and the topic of thesubmission* Authors and affiliations repeated at the beginning of the body of the paper* There is no limit of words or pages, but manuscripts too short or incomplete will be rejected.
IAFOR Journal of Education is following the guidelines and advices proposed by top SSCI academic
journal Teaching and teacher Education on their website.

	
  
242