An applied phenomenological interview approach to the exploration of Taiwanese EFL teachers’ perspectives on language labs

Abstract

This paper details a four month long phenomenological investigation of teachers’ perceptions of two language labs at a national research university’s language center in northern Taiwan. A focus group was formed to investigate the current language lab teaching and learning ecology to determine what direction should be taken in the refurbishment of these labs. The qualitative data generated from the interviews of nine teachers was analyzed and compared to the focus group interactions to determine the preferences of language lab teachers. The data suggested that Taiwanese EFL teachers are seeking teacher-centered technologies that are not activity specific but can be tailored to individual teaching practices in as simplistic of a way as possible. Pedagogical suggestions for EFL language labs are discussed.

Full text

189
An Applied Phenomenological Interview Approach to the Exploration
ofTaiwaneseEFLTeachers’PerspectivesonLanguage Labs
Barry Lee Reynolds
National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan
Bio Data:
Barry Lee Reynolds received his Ph.D. in Learning & Instruction and MA in Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). He has taught university level ESL
and EFL courses in the USA and Taiwan for over 12 years. Currently he teaches courses
primarily in research methods in applied linguistics and TESOL for the Department of
English at National Taipei University of Technology. His current research interests
include incidental vocabulary acquisition, computer assisted language learning, and
second language writing instruction.
Abstract
This paper details a four month long phenomenological investigation of teachers’
perceptions of two language labs at a national research university’s language center in
northern Taiwan. A focus group was formed to investigate the current language lab
teaching and learning ecology to determine what direction should be taken in the
refurbishment of these labs. The qualitative data generated from the interviews of nine
teachers was analyzed and compared to the focus group interactions to determine the
preferences of language lab teachers. The data suggested that Taiwanese EFL teachers are
seeking teacher-centered technologies that are not activity specific but can be tailored to
individual teaching practices in as simplistic of a way as possible. Pedagogical
suggestions for EFL language labs are discussed.
Keywords: EFL, Language Labs, Learning Ecologies, Speaking, Listening,
Phenomenology

190
Introduction
As the number of technologies steadily grew in the last century, so did the supposed uses
in education (Cuban, 1986). Educators and engineers alike have been seeking ways to
utilize these technologies for pedagogical purposes, trying to determine which benefits
these new technologies have to offer a new generation of students (Chen, Liu, Ou, & Lin,
2001; Roschelle & Pea, 2002; Liang et al., 2005). Teachers, especially language teachers,
are constantly seeking efficient methods of incorporating technologies into their classes
to reach all learners (Salaberry, 2001). Both hardware and software technologies have
been explored. Two well-known examples are Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) (Chan
& Baskin, 1990; Chan, 1996; Chan, Hue, Chou, & Tzeng, 2001) and Natural Language
Processing (NLP) (Wible, 2005). Unfortunately, technologies are often introduced into
teaching environments without taking into consideration the multitude of factors that are
involved. Engineers often develop new technologies without interaction with educators
untiltheprocessofdevelopmentends.Thenthesetechnological“toys”areforcedtofit
into every classroom as a one-for-allsolutiontoeducators’problems.Insuchsituations,
due to a lack of collaboration between teachers, programmers, and administrators from
initial integration through to implementation, either teachers attempt to use the
technologies for only a short period of time or these technological innovations are never
used at all (Zhong & Shen, 2002).
Inquiries made by Dunkel (1987) revealed that generations of teachers feel they are in a
state of déjà vu, in other words, these teachers are experiencing the same phenomenon of
failed classroom technology integration again and again. First the radio in the 1920s,
then the television in the 1950s, and finally language labs in the 1960s: all were
considered technological breakthroughs worthy of classroom integration. Regrettably,

191
teachers have continuously witnessed new technologies being eagerly pushed into their
classrooms only to be dragged out a few months later when the expected gains in
language ability was not manifested. Many teachers have become skeptical of any new
technologies and continually place more emphasis and value on traditional teaching
materials (Ilter, 2009; Ismail, Almekhlafi, & Al-Mekhlafy, 2010). One exemplary effort
is that of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative (2011). Like other One-to-One
(Chan et al., 2006) technology initiatives, on the surface the idea seems excellent, but if
explored further, one finds that little investigative work is often done in such situations; at
the time of writing, the OLPC initiative is in danger of failure (Paul, 2008).
One situation in which language teachers often encounter difficulties with technologies
is when required to conduct classes in a language laboratory environment (Zhong & Shen,
2002). When discussing language labs it is helpful to distinguish them from the two
other major types of classroom environments and also the self-access/self-study listening
and language learning facilities that have become quite popular these days. In this study,
theresearcherwillbereferringtothethreebasicclassroomcompositionsas“traditional
classroom,” “one-to-many classroom,” and “language lab.”  The researcher
operationalized the traditional classroom as a classroom that contains no form of
technology, the one-to-many classroom as a type of environment that includes
technologies that allow a teacher to simultaneously “broadcast” content whether it is
audio or audio/visual through a projector and speakers onto a single large display for all
students to experience. Lastly, the researcher broadly defines a language lab as a room
where every student has individual access to some type of device that allows, but is not
limited to, teacher-controlled interaction between paired or groups of students inside the
class. This paper is not concerned with self-access/self-study listening and language

192
learning facilities, whose purpose is “...to provide an inviting listening center…” and
“…offerawidechoiceofappealingaudioandvideomaterialsonavarietyoftopicsand
at a range of proficiency levels” for students' self-paced and individual usage (Morley,
2001).
Language lab environments have often caused unwanted frustrations for both teachers
and students; moreover, some researchers (Gustave, 1962; Schwartz, 1995) have even
claimed they yield worse learning results than traditional language teaching methods.
Still, researchers and teachers alike must understand that throughout the history of the
language lab, the software and hardware have been undergoing continual additions and
refinements. Unfortunately, this has also occurred without much input from the teachers
that actually utilize these labs for language instruction. But thankfully, in recent years,
researchers in the area of distributed cognition have focused more on the interaction
between users and digital tools in varying ecologies (Hutchins, 1994; Hollan, Hutchins, &
Kirsh, 2000). This ecological point of view is quite interesting to language teaching
professionals and researchers because of the ever-increasing reliance that language
learners are placing on computer and Internet technologies (Jarvis, 2005). If the
inventors and those that implement these technologies begin to take the time to
investigate the feelings of the teachers that actually make use of these technological tools,
less frustration and quicker improvements could be the result.
Problem Statement
Consequently, when it was brought to the attention of the director of the Language Center
(LC) at a university in northern Taiwan that the administration was requiring their current
language labs to be refurbished, it was decided that a more encompassing ecological

193
approach should be adopted. This was to ensure that the integration of technology into
the language classroom serve a practical purpose and not simply be integrated for the
sake of integrating technology. Until this point, many teachers that were utilizing the
labs for teaching had expressed grievances and, therefore, the director took it upon
himself to place the main users of the lab, the language teachers, center stage when
deciding how these labs should be refurbished. Taking an ecological view of language
learning, specifically in the language labs, at this university was thought to be best
accomplished through the exploration of the perceptions of the teachers using these labs
for teaching in this particular ecological education environment. As will be described
later, in the short amount of time given, the researcher was able to begin to construct a
relationship with the teachers that utilize these labs for teaching, while investigating the
languagelabsasateachingecologyfromtheteachers’points-of-view.
In order to understand the emotions of these teachers, a phenomenological approach
was taken to investigate how the required use of language labs had affected the teachers
and their teaching. Unlike previous research that used quantitative questionnaire inquiry
to obtain teachers’ perceptions of CALL technologies (e.g., Ismail et al., 2010), a
phenomenological interviewing approach to data collection was necessary to obtain a
first-person perspective of teachers’ experiences and feelings.  No quantitative
questionnaire, regardless of how reliable, can explain the complexities of a teacher’s
situation within an educational ecology without allowing for a teacher to tell his or her
own“story”ofdistresswithallthemessinessofemotionthatcannotbe neatly analyzed
by statistical software. Such inquiry may help in bridging the gap that currently exists
between university administrators, teachers, and information technology engineers; a
better understanding of the emotions of teachers may not only prevent future grievances

194
at this university but also provide a model for other universities to follow when
implementing or upgrading language lab technologies.
Methods and Procedures
In this section, the researcher will first briefly introduce the field of phenomenology
followed by its limited use in foreign language research. Following this brief
introduction of phenomenology, the subjects involved in the study will be introduced,
followed by an explanation of the method of interview item construction and a
description of how these items were used during the semi-structured phenomenological
interviews.
Methodology
Phenomenology is concerned with the first person experiences of individuals.
“Phenomenologystudiesconsciousexperienceasexperienced from the subjective or first
person point of view” (Smith, 2008).  Much of the philosophical phenomenological
research centers around the meanings humans place on objects, events, or tools within
their world. In other words, phenomenology studies various types of experiences one can
havebyattemptingtounderstandanotherhumanbeing’sperceptions,thoughts,memories,
imagination, emotions, desires, or social activities. Phenomenological interview
techniques allow researchers from all areas to connect with research subjects in a way
that“coldquestionnairedata”doesnotallow.
Much of the literature surrounding phenomenological research techniques is in the
nursing field. Thomas (2005) offers an extensive review of how phenomenology has
provided nurses with a better means of connecting with their patients as research subjects.

195
A phenomenological perspective allows a nurse to understand the network of relations
between people, objects, and emotions to be better equipped at pinpointing the root of a
patient’sproblem(Thomas,2005).
Surprisingly, a review of EFL literature utilizing phenomenological research techniques
yielded quite sparse results. However, Perpignan (2003), for example, used
phenomenological research techniques to aid in the communication with EFL writers
when providing written feedback on students’ writing.  Such atechnique allowed for
moretimeto observestudents’behaviorqualitativelyand tointerprettheirreactions to
the feedback instead of just simply counting and coding grammar errors. Perpignan
found such a technique allowed for both the students and the researcher to work out
mutual misunderstandings, judgments, emotions, attitudes and behaviors that were not
possible with traditional forms of teaching and quantitative research inquiry.
Phenomenological face-to-face interviews also provided an opportunity for teaching and
learning through feedback that is not often found in traditional written feedback
instruction. Caputi, Engelmann, and Stasinopoulos (2006) used phenomenological
teaching techniques with non-native English speaking nurses to provide language
instruction through conversation circles that provided both sensitive cultural counseling
and job specific language instruction. These conversation circles created a bond with the
students which both sides appreciated and allowed for discovery of students’ needs.
Furthermore, it was revealed through this phenomenological technique of conversational
sharing of emotions, experiences, and practices that some of the needs provided through
the conversation circles would not just be beneficial to non-native English speaking
nurses but also their native English speaking colleagues as well. Therefore, in order to
gain a first-person understanding of the experiences and emotions of the teachers that had

196
been using the language labs up until the point that refurbishment became a possibility, a
phenomenological inquiry technique involving semi-structured interviewing was
determined the best method to uncover teachers’ needs in this particular educational
ecology.
Subjects
The subjects of this research fall into two distinct groups: a focus group and an interview
group (see Table 1). The focus group was initially comprised of the director of the LC,
one of his PhD students (the researchers), and three full-time LC English teaching faculty
members; midway through the data collection period one member (teaching faculty)
dropped out because of personal issues. This person was still kept informed of the
progress of the group and was encouraged to participate if time permitted, although he
was never able to do so. All eleven full-time English teaching faculty members of the LC
were invited to join this focus group through both face-to-face and e-mail invitation; the
three positive responses that the director received were the individuals that became
involved. The PhD student was given the opportunity to join the group because of his
enrollmentintheLCdirector’sgraduateschoolcourseentitled“InvestigatingLanguage
LearningthroughTeachingEcologies”hismotivation to join the group sprung from his
experience of teaching in language labs and of wanting to improve language-teaching
environments for others. This focus group was instigated by the LC director with the
purpose to investigate the language lab ecology and determine what direction the LC
should take in the construction or refurbishment of its two current labs.

197
Table 1
Participant Groups
Focus Group
Interview Group
Observed Group
Language Center Director
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
PhD Student
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Full-Time Faculty
3 (11)
4 (11)
1 (11)
Part-Time Faculty
0 (9)
5 (9)
0 (9)
Totals
5 (22)
9 (20)
1 (20)
Note. Totals possible are given in parenthesis. The Director and PhD student did not use
the labs for teaching and thus could not be a part of the Interview or Observed Groups.
Technically speaking, the interview group was comprised of the entire LC English
teaching faculty (20 teachers: 11 full-time and 9 part-time) but when asked to participate
in an interview process with the researcher, only nine teachers agreed (four full-time and
five part-time). Therefore, strictly speaking, only the qualitative interview data collected
from the nine teachers determined the composition of the interview group. Furthermore,
those in the focus group had the option to become a part of this second group as well, but
for various reasons, none of them did so.
The focus group was separate from the interview group in order to provide an efficient
andtimelymeansformakingafinaldecisionregardingthelanguagelabs’refurbishment.
Although the teachers that comprised part of the focus group could have participated as
part of the interview group, their main purpose was to keep the task at hand, i.e. the
refurbishment of the language labs, on schedule and on track. After formation of this
focus group, it was determined that more investigation of teachers’ perceptions was
needed and not simply a restatement of previous complaints. The focus group agreed that
because not every faculty member joined the focus group, did not necessarily indicate

198
that they did not join because they felt they would not be affected by the change or did
not have any opinion on the matter at hand. This is when the focus group determined that
a second group, the interview group, should be formed. The interview group would allow
for a qualitative documented history of the experiences of the LC faculty that could be
used to aid in the final decision to be made by the focus group on how the labs should be
refurbished. The focus group also allowed for those individuals that were strongly
motivated to take the initiative to have a say in how their future teaching experience
would be influenced by the intended change in the educational ecology.
Interview Construction
Taking an applied phenomenological view on the problematic teaching situations of the
LC English teachers when using the current LC language labs, the researcher used the
qualitative interview methods outlined in deMarrais & Lapan (2004) as a guide for
interview outline construction (see Appendix A). Throughout the interview process, the
researcher tried to get as close to the teachers as possible; the researcher attempted to
understand their humanistic experience as language teachers in the language lab
environment through the use of various methods of probing and follow-up question
techniques. For example, if teachers happened to mention relevant issues which were not
part of the original interview outline, the researcher would make further inquiry to obtain
background information regarding the topic being discussed. The interviews were
conducted over a period of two months during which the researcher met with each
teacher two times for at least 30 minutes each (see Table 2).

199
Table 2
Interview Session Times
Participant
Interview 1
Interview 2
Teacher 1
62:40
29:52
Teacher 2
37:31
33:01
Teacher 3
28:23
33:31
Teacher 4
53:22
37:27
Teacher 5
33:51
33:42
Teacher 6
73:29
35:39
Teacher 7
82:22
32:31
Teacher 8
73:32
33:19
Teacher 9
26:03
92:52
Total
471:13
361:54
Note. Interview times shown in minutes and seconds.
Procedures
This section provides an overview of how the research data was collected. The data
collection and analysis that involved the focus group are first described, followed by the
details regarding how the phenomenological teacher interviews were conducted and then
later analyzed. Finally, details are given regarding how observation of language labs in
use by the teachers was carried out.
Focus Group Data Collection and Analysis
The focus group met between one and two hours on sixteen occasions (once a week)
within a four-month period; meetings usually took place inside the language labs that
were under discussion. A larger number of participants would have been ideal but only
four members stayed with the group throughout the four months. As outlined in Kleiber

200
(2004), each meeting was conducted so that several questions that had surfaced during
the last meeting would be discussed in a way that all possible answers would be covered.
When present, the director of the LC acted as moderator; otherwise, the researcher took
on this role. An agenda of questions or topics was agreed upon beforehand but acted
more as a tentative guide rather than a fixed schedule of topics to discuss. Notes were
taken at each meeting by the researcher and later distributed through e-mail to all focus
group members. Each meeting was considered as a dialogue consisting of turns taken by
each member of the focus group. A code was assigned to each basic “turn” unit that
included the date and who was speaking (see Figure 1). After initial coding, the meeting
notes were archived for final analysis to take place at the end of a four-month period.
Later, each turn was then coded based on the themes found during the analysis of the
teacher interviews (see section regarding Teacher Interview Data Collection and
Analysis). Finally, they were then used as a reference for the writing of this paper.
Additionally, all members used e-mail as a tool for discussion and reflection throughout
the whole process. At the end of the four-month period the emails were compiled to form
a mini e-mail corpus. Word frequencies were generated to determine which topics
spawned the most discussion; these topics were then compared to those found to be
important to the interviewed teachers.
Unit
Note
Code
5_14_TeacherA
Should we ask the teachers
about an Educart?
Physical Space
Headsets
5_14_Director
Do we know that Wimba
software can be easily
incorporated into
Blackboard?
Language Center
Integration

201
Figure 1. Example Coding Scheme for Focus Group Meeting Notes
The purpose of the first focus group meeting was to elicit the difficulties that the
teachers had when using the language labs. The researcher was introduced to all the
functions in the lab, both hardware and software, and then proceeded to ask focus group
teachers which devices they utilized for their teaching.
Throughout the four months that the focus group conducted meetings, the LC director
assigned several jobs to different individuals and findings would be discussed in
subsequent meetings or through e-mail. These tasks included: (1) surveying information
technology (IT) companies in Taiwan that specialize in designing and implementing
language labs; (2) attending system demonstrations by IT companies; (3) surveying
software packages; (4) evaluating the Blackboard courseware used by the university; (5)
visiting other university language labs; and (6) visiting experimental technology enriched
classrooms. These tasks were assigned to the focus group to aid in the decision-making
process regarding the refurbishment of the labs. The LC director wanted to ensure that
no stone was left unturned and that any and all discoveries could be shared with the entire
teaching faculty. The focus group then decided that the initial interview with teachers
should allow for ample time for experience sharing and an additional interview time
could be scheduled to make further inquires regarding any new technological innovations
that could possibly be incorporated in the refurbished labs. This would ensure an
understandingoftheteachingfaculty’sviewsofthecurrentlabsbut alsoprobethemin
regards to possible changes that could be made to the labs.
Teacher Interview Data Collection and Analysis
Using the interview questions generated by following qualitative phenomenological

202
interview techniques exemplified by deMarrais & Lapan (2004), the researcher
interviewed nine English listening and speaking teachers from the LC (see Appendix A).
These interviews were either conducted inside the current language labs, nearby
classrooms, or an on-campus outdoor café. All interviews were digitally recorded and
transcribed. During the interviews, the researcher also took notes.
Following the methods exemplified by Bruewer (2000), the researcher analyzed the
qualitative data generated by the phenomenological interviews with the LC teachers. The
recorded interviews were transcribed in their entirety, with the most poignant views of
the subjects highlighted.
After targeting the issues of particular interest to the teachers, the researcher began
organizing the interview statements into manageable units of analysis (see Figure 2). The
researcher began by taking the transcription regarding a single question from the
interview and then organizing notes taken during the actual interviews, as well as the
transcriptions, to form subcategories. Then these subcategories were compared to
determine if they could be combined into larger more universally related themes. The
eight thematic categories were labeled as follows: IT Support; Language Lab Problems;
Language Center Integration; After Hours Access; Headsets; Teacher Centered
Technologies Physical Space and Students’ Perceptions. The universal relationship
between these themes seemed to center on whether teachers viewed language labs as a
hindrance or a help to their teaching. The researcher also made a note of the number of
teachers that shared such a view in regard to these categories in order to later be equipped
to report these shared views as research findings. Then the researcher formulated
qualitative descriptions of the ideas expressed by the teachers. At the same time, the
researcher did not ignore negative statements, but instead paid special attention to

203
instances when the majority of the teachers expressed such an opinion regarding a feature
of the language labs, while a minority expressed a counterview.
Figure 2. Process for Thematic Category Generation of Interview Data
Language Lab Observation
There was an attempt by the researcher to observe the language labs being used by each
of the interviewed teachers at least once, but only one full-time faculty member allowed
for observation. Ethnographic observation was used to note the usage of the technology
embedded in the classroom as an aid to the teacher’s instruction (Brewer, 2000).
Immediately after the class was dismissed, the research wrote up an ethnographic
descriptionoftheclassusinga“thickdescription”technique(seeGeertz,1977)including
usageoftechnology,teacher’sactions,andstudents’reactions.
Results
The results are reported in regards to the focus group, teacher interviews, and language
lab observation. A contrast of the views of the language labs by the two participant

204
groups is also provided. The majority of discussion is devoted to the focus group and
teacher interviews due to only one faculty member allowing for language lab observation.
Focus Group Results
From the first meeting, it was determined that the focus group did not want to choose
some “cookie cutter” style language lab that is available from several commercial IT
companies in Taiwan. This is exactly the type of language lab that is currently in place at
the university LC. The focus group understood that in order to facilitate teacher
acceptance of new labs, the new language labs must function in a way that does not add
unnecessary work to teachers while still helping to meet instructional goals. Therefore,
the focus of the meetings often centered on discussing and discovering what the LC
teachers wanted from a language lab.
The teachers that utilize these labs not only teach the textbook materials that are voted
on and approved by the LC, but also incorporate their own teaching materials. Any new
lab must be designed in a way that will allow teachers to easily incorporate both digital
and paper based resources into their teaching practices. Additionally, while opening up
access to teachers, the focus group was also concerned about unnecessary technologies.
They felt that in their own teaching practices, very little of the language lab technology
was utilized, and stressed that a new lab should contain only those functions that teachers
really need. Several concerns about the physical space including the lack of
soundproofing, the fixed position of chairs/desks, and general classroom arrangement
were discussed.
The focus group felt that very few of the devices and software functions available in the
current labs were actually being used because of the difficulty of the teacher control

205
system or the lack of knowledge of the availability of the functions. Some of the focus
group teachers knew about certain functions of the system while others were unaware or
were unaware of how to initiate them. This could be due to the fact that the language labs
are actually only used by the teachers for half a semester because there are not enough
time slots for all teachers to utilize the labs for an entire semester. Many teachers may
just begin to get familiar with the system only to forget it when they are forced into
traditional classrooms. In order to allow all teachers access to the labs, a sharing system
was developed before the current LC director took the position. The system works in the
following manner: when half of the teachers are teaching in the language labs, the other
teachers teach in traditional classrooms; mid-way through a semester (nine weeks) the
two groups of teachers switch.
After four months of focus group meetings, the focus group hoped the labs would be
more for general use where teachers have the option of using the lab for not only
listening/speaking courses but also for other courses such as reading/writing. If the labs
are opened up to those teachers teaching other English language related skills, then those
teachers who prefer a traditional classroom may now be given this option. In addition,
this is one method of solving the problem of transition from the old labs to the new labs.
Focus group members were concerned that teachers would not have enough time to adjust
to the new labs if the old labs were taken away so quickly. Alternatives, including
keeping one old lab, keeping both old labs and adding news labs, and many other ideas,
were also explored. Ultimately, they wished for both of the old labs to be replaced
because of the possibility that some teachers would never want to switch to the new labs,
even though the benefits of switching outweigh the necessity of learning how to use the
functions in the new labs. Still, if teachers have the choice to use a traditional classroom

206
or a language lab, this may alleviate the stress of those teachers that fear using a totally
new type of lab for their teaching. This way, they could use a regular classroom and
slowly be introduced to the benefits of the new lab by their colleagues or IT personnel.
Furthermore, teachers in the focus group felt that a lab that is easily converted from an
environment that focuses on tightly-controlled listening/production skills to those of a
looser nature such as conversation practice would satisfy all teachers. When a final
decision is made on the layout of the new lab, this is something that will take high
priority. At the time of writing, the focus group was still in disagreement as to whether
any current technologies in the lab should be retained or if everything should be removed.
The focus group was concerned about the use of the Blackboard system or other software
packages that could be integrated into Blackboard to assist in the teaching of
listening/speaking courses. If such integration is possible, this may also minimize the
burden of learning a new system/lab. Teachers at the university are familiar with and
many utilize the Blackboard system to streamline their current teaching practices.
IT support has been a thread throughout all focus group discussions. All members were
in agreement that a qualified IT person needs to be on hand in case of breakdowns and
should guide teachers in the first few weeks when they begin using the new labs. This
too may lower anxiety and offer an easier transition into the new labs.
Surveying the IT companies did not really give much insight because none of them
offered any type of real individually tailored packages. However, one member of the
focus group was able to discover a university that had hired a company that they believed
could be promising. Upon contacting this university, she discovered that they were
having similar problems with their language labs; this university is in the process of
replacing its current language labs as well. This gave the focus group courage in that

207
they were stepping in the right direction by not utilizing some pre-packaged lab.
Furthermore, through the interviews with the LC English teachers, the researcher
discovered that the teachers felt many of the language labs that they had taught in
previously were just as cumbersome and troubling as the current language labs.
Therefore, the focus group felt that it might be unnecessary to visit other university
language labs. At one point the focus group felt that one of the demos scheduled could
offer a solution to some of the problems, but after attending, they discovered that the
company’s language lab paradigm is still more in linewith theold fashioned language
labs of the 1960s.
After several meetings trying to discover what would be best for the labs, the focus
group agreed that the best way to get to the point of what teachers really wanted in a new
lab was to actually interview the teachers using the current labs. Based on the general
discussions and concerns of the focus group, the researcher generated a set of questions
as a guide for conducting qualitative interviews based on deMarrais & Lapan (2004) with
all LC English teachers that agreed to be interviewed (see Appendix A). The interview
results are discussed in the following section.
Teacher Interview Results
The results of the interviews are discussed in regards to the eight thematic issues found to
be of interest to the teachers. The issues discussed include: IT Support; Language Lab
Problems; Language Center Integration; After Hours Access; Headsets; Teacher Centered
TechnologiesPhysicalSpaceandStudents’Perceptions.

208
IT Support
Three of the teachers interviewed stated that they wished to have a full time IT person
available to assist them in case of any difficulties encountered with the equipment. These
teachers also stated that currently there is another problem, which is that instead of hiring
full-time IT staff, the LC has employed students that are unequipped at handling IT
problems.
Six of the teachers stressed that they often go into the language labs unaware that
certain problems occurred the day before and have not been fixed. They said it is terrible
that there is not some type of system that could notify them that the facilities are not
going to be available before they enter the language labs. Actually, those teachers
stressed that it would be best if an IT person could be available to take care of problems
immediately or at least in the evening when no classes are being conducted in the
classroom. This way, they felt a teacher would not need to go into a language lab only to
experience frustration at not being able to teach the lesson prepared.
Three of the teachers interviewed expressed interest in having the IT staff assist in the
conversion of antiquated media to a more modern media. An interesting point mentioned
by one teacher was having the IT personnel be present or actually be the one to
demonstrate the system interface during semester training sessions. This teacher stressed
that it is best to have someone from the inside thatunderstandstheteachers’points-of-
view to give these workshops instead of someone from a company that does not
understand the needs of the English teachers at the LC.
Language Lab Problems
Eight of the teachers interviewed stated that in order to conduct their courses they needed

209
a reliable Internet connection and six of the eight wished for students to also be given
Internet access. However, two of the teachers felt the need to have the ability to turn off
the students' Internet access. These two teachers were worried about students abusing
their Internet privileges and not paying attention during teacher-centered instruction.
Three of the teachers interviewed also stated that they felt it is better to just have a
traditional classroom. Again, the biggest problem for them was technology failure. They
said when they entered a traditional classroom they know what to expect; however, when
they enter a language lab they are not sure if they will be able to conduct the lesson that
they haveprepared.Oneofthesethreeteachersmentionedthatshealwayshasa“backup
plan”.Inother words,sheprepares bothatechnology-enhanced lesson, and one that is
more traditional, in case the technologies embedded into the language lab are not
functioning properly.
Language Center Integration
Eight of the teachers interviewed stated that they hoped that the new language labs could
be integrated into the other facilities that are currently available for LC students.
Two of the eight stated that they would like the new language labs to have some facilities
or technologies that could help with integration into the e-portfolio system that would be
launched in the following semester. These two also mentioned that they wished for the e-
portfolio system to be integrated into the Blackboard system since they are familiar with
this environment. They seemed concerned about learning new technologies for both an
e-portfolio system as well as a language lab in the same semester.
The same eight teachers suggested that there should be a fixed video camera in the lab
that allow for students to be filmed when they perform mini dramas, give speeches, or

210
present orally video recordings could be automatically sent tothe students’ computing
devices for simplistic editing. These teachers made it clear that if the editing software did
more than merely allow students to crop the video down, then they would not be
interested. Four of the eight teachers felt that if MP3 recording software was available,
then the same editing features should be made available for sound files as well.
It is noteworthy to mention that one teacher stressed that she would like the language
labs to be opened for students to come in during the afternoons or evenings to practice
listening and speaking activities. This teacher believed that some students may feel
embarrassed to visit other computer labs on campus to access software, especially if non-
LC students hear them speaking in English. This teacher felt that students might be less
inhibited to practice speaking English if the people surrounding them were doing similar
tasks.
After Hours Access
One question asked of the teachers centered on the idea of allowing access to language
lab software outside the labs. Currently, there are few software packages being used in
the language labs. The researcher described a scenario to the teachers in which students
were allowed to meet each other on-line to chat verbally and textually in English while
giving teachers access to a log or possibly a video/audio recording of these interactions.
The teachers did not agree on whether they thought this was a good feature for language
labs or not.
Two teachers stated that if they had access to such software they would simply not use
it at all because they had too much for students to do in class and that outside activities
were unnecessary. Another stated that she had her own materials uploaded to a website

211
that students downloaded and she felt these materials were adequate for extending in-
class activities. However, this teacher stated that if the capacity to use the software was
there, then she would feel encouraged to use computers more in her classroom and
probably students would interact more inside the class through computers rather than
face-to-face as they currently do. Two additional teachers expressed negative opinions
regarding student motivation, saying that even if they forced students to utilize these
types of outside features, many students would not use them. Lastly, two other teachers
gave apathetic responses stating that they would let students be aware of such facilities
but not require students to utilize them. The teachers that held negative opinions
regarding after-hours availability of language lab software stated that if it could be more
interactive and less artificial than the current system, then they would consider
incorporating a few after-class activities in their courses. On the other hand, the
remaining two teachers mentioned that if the LC opened up the language labs after hours
they would ask their students to go to the labs and do extension activities. These two
teachers mentioned that if the software were available on the web, then they would be
more than interested in incorporating web-based homework activities into their courses.
Headsets
The teacher-controlled headsets that are a standard in many language labs were the center
of most of the teacher interviews. Five of the teachers stated that they disliked using
headsets for paired and group activities; in contrast, four of the teachers expressed that
they assisted in these activities. For those teachers that stated they enjoyed the headsets,
their reasoning included ideas about helping lower level students to gain confidence and
the ease that teachers have when monitoring bottom-up skills such as pronunciation or

212
other drill and practice type activities.
All nine teachers expressed difficulties in using the current system, stating that it did
not allow free pairing and grouping of students. Currently, the system can only
group/pair students to those students that are in close proximity. Teachers stated that
students usually sit in the same seats every week, so they seldom have opportunities to
speak with different classmates. Also, if a student comes in late, there is no way to
“freelygroup”thisstudentintoexistinggroups.Allnineteacherswantedmorecontrolof
grouping that could take place both before and after activities have been initiated.
The current headsets are also outdated, only allowing recording through antiquated
cassette tapes. Seven out of the nine teachers interviewed stated that having an MP3
recording feature that allowed students to record individual, pair, group and class practice
would benefit their students. All nine agreed that they would make an effort to use this
system to enrich classroom-based activities if MP3 recording was available.
Teacher Centered Technologies
There are many teacher-centered technologies in place in the current labs and teachers
made it clear that in the future labs, they would like similar or other teacher-centered
technologies to be available. Six out of the nine teachers discussed the difficulty with the
teacher control panel. They thought the existing control panel had too many menus or
buttons to push. They are seeking a control panel that has a single way to do something
and can be done with a minimum of one or two clicks of a mouse.
One teacher also mentioned a quiz function that other university language labs possess.
She said that she has the ability to generate, grade and administer quizzes to students and
then later provide students with statistical data of their performance on assessments.

213
Seven teachers mentioned that they would like to keep the large screen and projector
for teacher-centered activities. One additional teacher mentioned that at universities in
other countries she taught using a SmartBoard that creates digital slides of anything a
teacher would normally write on a regular whiteboard. She thought it might be a good
idea to survey the other teachers to see if they would be interested in such a board
becauseitgivesstudents’accesstoanynotesthattheteacher writes on the board while
also not limiting the teacher to use the SmartBoard for only this feature.
Six teachers also mentioned that they usually use the projector and large screen for
playing DVDs or video clips for students. They felt that it is not necessary to have a
separate machine for playing DVDs if a computer is capable of doing so, but it should be
easy for them to navigate through the program that plays the DVDs. One teacher
referenced a program she was using to play DVDs on the computer and how it was
deleted preventing her from playing DVDs any longer, even after downloading similar
programs. Furthermore, one teacher stressed that since she is an EFL teacher, many of
her DVDs were bought in the United Kingdom and the United States. She needs the
computer’s DVD drive or the DVD player to be region free or she cannot play those
DVDs. She said there is not always a way to get around this problem with software, so
shefeelsfrustratedathaving“wastedallthetimeandmoneybuyingthese DVDs without
beingabletousetheminclasses.”
Three teachers mentioned the camera projector that is located in the current labs.
These teachers felt the camera projector is useful for broadcasting book pages or
handouts to students. These teachers felt that it would be helpful to them to use this
machine if it actually worked properly but currently they felt it was cumbersome to
operate and the resolution of the camera was tolerable at best.

214
When using the camera projector or when displaying a digitalized worksheet for
students to view, four teachers expressed interest in having the option to allow students to
view these images on individual displays and not just the large display in front of the
class. They felt that for some media such as movies or video clips, a large display is
great, but for more detailed work such as reading a handout or viewing a textbook page, it
iseasieronthestudents’eyestobeabletoviewtheseonindividualstudentdevices.
Physical Space
The actual physical space of the classroom was also a topic of interest to the teachers.
Four teachers were very direct and said they thought that language labs are useless and
thatanelectronicpodiumthathadasinglepowerfulteacher’scomputerthatcouldproject
theteacher’sscreenontoalargescreenforstudentstoviewandlistentoaudiowouldbe
enough to satisfy them. Two of these teachers stated that the main reason they disliked
the current language labs is that they have to share the labs with other teachers for part of
the semester. They would rather have a classroom with an electronic podium the whole
semester and let other teachers use the language labs because they do not use the headsets
for any of their classroom practices. The reason given for not using the headsets was that
headsets are “artificial,” giving students the impression that language is isolated and
never encounters noise or interference.
Only one out of nine teachers said she liked the language labs in their current state,
expressing that she enjoys language labs in general. The main reason she gave was that it
allowed her to keep large classes of students (40-60) on task at all times. She said that
language labs give opportunities for big classes of students to talk with multiple
conversation partners and without the lab facilities this would not be possible. She was

215
also the only teacher that said that she liked the fixed classroom seating whereas two
teachers specifically stated that they “hated the current seating.”  The remaining six
teachers mentioned that the current seating arrangements do not allow students to move
around for group or pair activities and they find this limits the types of activities they can
prepare for their classes.
Two teachers expressed difficulties in switching between individual tasks such as
giving quizzes and group activities such as information gap exercises. They thought
bigger dividers should be placed between students during individual tasks. They also
asked if there was a way to have a divider that could easily collapse when not needed.
Teachers had many complaints about the desks. Four of the teachers said that the desks
were too small for university students and seven stated that the room was too small for
the number of students that are currently “crammed” into the classes.  One teacher
mentioned that the acoustics in the classroom are not good and another stated that she
dislikesthestudentmonitorsbecausetheyblockthestudents’faces.
With all the teachers, the researcher made it clear that they did not need to necessarily
focus on the technologies that are embedded in the current labs or that could be
incorporated in the future labs, but many of them still stuck to technologies. Only one
teacher gave some practical recommendations for the future labs including a bigger
teacher’sdesk,alargeworkingclock,asmallstageforstudentminidramas,andalarge
locked cabinet containing all the teaching supplies provided by the LC.
Students’Perceptions
One of the probing questions was in relation to students’ perceptions of the current
language labs. Almost all the teachers stated that students disliked the labs for various

216
reasons including boredom, broken hardware, bad acoustics, small seating, and using
headsets. Interestingly, one teacher suggested that not only teachers should receive
training in how to use the lab but students should receive training as well. Only one
teacher, the same teacher that enjoys teaching in language labs, stated that students enjoy
taking English courses in the current language labs.
Contrasting Views of Participant Groups
One very interesting aspect of the researcher having been a part of both the focus group
and interviewing the teachers individually is that sometimes the focus group would make
claims about all the teachers in the LC only to have those claims contradicted when the
teacher interviews were analyzed. For example, during a focus group meeting the topic
of the LC teachers’ “love” of the current language labs with the student headsets was
discussed. When interviewed individually, every single teacher said she supported
having new language labs constructed. Not a single teacher mentioned wanting the
current labs to stay exactly the same.
Language Lab Observation Results
Only one full-time teacher of an English for First Year Graduate Students beginner level
course allowed for the researcher to observe actual language lab usage. The technology
in the class was surprisingly similar to that found by Zhong and Shen (2002), in that the
teacher used her station to broadcast a revision activity in which students practiced
previously taught content; and there was then the presentation of new content through the
use ofthe teacher’s screen beingbroadcast toindividual student screens as well as the
being projected on the large classroom screen. Next, students were required to watch a

217
video displayed on the large classroom screen. Students then practiced language content
presented in the video as well as being asked comprehension questions. Finally,
homeworkexerciseswereassignedusingthestudents’individualscreens.
It was surprising that the teacher used a VHS tape to play a video for the students. It
was obvious that she had a difficult time rewinding the tape to a section she wished to
replay for the students. The teacher later informed me this was because a series of
lectures on how to give good presentations were purchased by the university but had
never been converted to DVD format. Although the teacher did utilize the students’
screens to display content (e.g., comprehension questions), she still used the classroom
whiteboard to note important vocabulary or points from the video. It seemed that the
technology was used only for content that was prepared beforehand—there was little
“spontaneous” use of the technology in the classroom.  In other words, technology
seemed to play the role of providing a means to distribute content to the students instead
ofenhancingstudents’languagelearning.
Discussion and Conclusions
In the following section, first, the limitations of the study are given, followed the
implications of the research results. Lastly, the conclusions, including future work, are
reported.
Limitations of the Study
To take a true ecological view of the current language labs would require an exploration
of all language lab aspects and all individuals involved in their use. Of course, given the
time and the scope of this paper, that was impractical. Still, the researcher has

218
approached this goal by establishing a focus group, trying to understand the point of view
of administrators and students, attempting to observe the language labs in use and
interviewing all willing teachers that utilize the language labs for teaching listening and
speaking courses. Therefore, to best help the teachers, it was beneficial to take a
phenomenological view of their situations in the labs to better understand where their
frustrations and difficulties in using the labs surfaced. In this way, those involved in the
development of the future labs may lessen their current strife by the introduction of new
LC language labs.
It would have been better if the researcher had had the opportunity to interview all the
teachers that utilize the language labs for teaching. Unfortunately, because of several
issues, this was impossible. Besides, if following the advice of deMarrais and Lapan
(2004), it may be beneficial to set up a series of interviews with the teachers to introduce
them to ideas or concerns that other teachers had in order to get more input and reactions
to these new issues. To an extent, the focus group partially took on this role.
A true ecological view of the LC language labs would have searched out and gathered
input from all individuals involved.  Unfortunately, this was beyond the researcher’s
control and thus was limited to only the views of the nine teachers interviewed and those
thatwerepartofthefocusgroup.Itwouldbeinterestingtoexplorenotonlytheteachers’
opinions, but also others, such as the administration, LC director and students. In order to
get a more global understanding of the opinions and usage of the current labs, this may be
a necessary step in the near future. Furthermore, it may be interesting to see if the
perceived views of the students expressed by the teachers are indeed the opinions of the
students.

219
Implications
Taking the data gathered from the teachers, their concerns regarding language labs and
their views on the benefits of having a regular classroom instead of a language lab, all
seem to be influenced by the problems they have experienced in the current labs. A
language lab requires teachers to learn new technologies, often-unreliable technologies,
which, if unreliable, waste time and keep teachers from doing their jobs. The intended
purpose of a language lab is to increase teaching efficiency and possibly ease the burden
placed on teachers, not cause more difficulties. Teachers who are fully-trained and
prepared to use a lab will have few problems with the lab if it is reliable. Furthermore, if
there are troubles or breakdowns, teachers need to have IT support. Those in the current
situation had no one to turn to for advice and this has caused devastating effects—some
of the teachers have expressed reluctance to being trained to use new labs. Instead, they
would rather just be given traditional classrooms to teach in or they may just end up using
the new language labs as traditional classrooms. In their review of CALL in China, Liu
and Huo (2007) stress the importance of CALL training in alleviating the anxieties and
antagonism of teachers. Now the LC is faced with the problem of convincing the current
teachers that new languages labs could offer some hope to their current problems, not just
add to those problems.
Furthermore, some of the fears that teachers expressed in moving to a new language lab
could be alleviated by giving an IT person the job of converting antiquated media to
newer standard format including VHS to DVD, cassettes to MP3/CD, and paper materials
to a universal electronic format such as PDF. Many teachers expressed that they are
afraid of losing all their valuable hard work that has gone into preparing lessons used
with the antiquated facilities in the current labs. If there is a way to slowly help those

220
teachers to upgrade, they may become more accepting to the idea of the new language
labs.
Some of the negative reactions that some teachers expressed towards offering after-
class, server-based software to students are probably due to the current unstable Internet
connections on campus. Some of the teachers are already preparing dual lessons, so what
should they do if they assign homework assignments that students cannot complete
because of server problems? Having a reliable server supported by IT staff that can
guarantee functionality would solve this problem for teachers. Unfortunately, the LC is
still faced with the problem of convincing the current teachers that the Internet
connections do not have to be as unstable as they are currently. The LC would need to
first alleviate this problem before trying to build new language labs.
Teachers are seeking simplicity and potential power. For example, many of the
technologies that teachers want are not task specific. As suggested by Jarvis (2005),
many of the LC teachers wish to provide their students with a more task-based syllabus,
but language labs are often created with a limited number of assignable language tasks.
Teachers that want something like an electronic podium understand that having a
powerful desktop computer that allows for individual creation of content would be more
beneficial to their teaching than technologies that can only be used for one or two
purposes. Incorporating technologies such as these leaves it up to the teachers to decide
how to use them, while not wasting the initial funding given for the creation of the labs.
From these observations, the researcher has developed a notion of what language
teachers want in a language lab. Teachers want powerful technologies for delivering
multimedia content from one-to-many that are not task specific but can be used for a
multitude of purposes depending on the individual teacher’s needs.  A language lab

221
should offer easy transition between individual and group-based tasks; all activities
should be teacher-centered. Teachers should never need to worry about the technologies
embedded in the language labs because an IT person should be on hand to deal with
technical problems. A one-to-many classroom is most suitable for all teachers except
when students are taking part in individual tasks and then a simplistic individual
computing device for each student may be appropriate.
Future Work
Currently, the focus group has plans to continue to meet for a few months with hopes of
implementing the new labs during the following winter vacation. Now that the focus
group has a better understanding of what the teachers need, collaborative efforts with
engineers can begin. Expansion of the focus group will occur in the following weeks and
include researchers from the fields of Learning and Instruction, Computer Science,
Cognitive Neuroscience, and Networked Learning Technologies. This endeavor will
encourage research studies that will involve not only the newly-created labs but also the
language teachers that will utilize the labs. In addition, the advice gained from these
individuals will be valuable in the subsequent decision-making process regarding the
technologies that are eventually incorporated into the new language labs. With this
approach, the labs will not merely be static classrooms but always evolving, helping
improve the teaching practices of all teachers.

222
Acknowledgements
The author appreciates the time given by the LC teachers for the interviews and the
attention given to this research project by the individuals involved in the focus group.
The author also appreciates the very early comments given by Prof. David Wible on the
proposed research design. Lastly, a large amount of gratitude goes out to anonymous
reviewers and editorial staff at AEJ for the detailed comments on earlier drafts of this
manuscript.
References
Brewer, J.D. (2000). Ethnography. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Caputi, L., Engelmann, L., & Stasinopoulous, J. (2006). An interdisciplinary approach to
the needs of non-native-speaking nursing students: Conversation circles. Nurse
Educator, 32(3), 107-111.
Chan, T.W. (1996). Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global
social learning club. Journal of Intelligence in Education, 7(2), 125-159.
Chan, T.W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasser & G.
Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroads of artificial intelligence
and education. (pp. 6-33). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chan, T.W., Hue, C.W., Chou, C.Y., & Tzeng, O.J.L. (2001). Four spaces of network
learning models. Computers & Education, 37, 141-161.
Chan, T.K., Roschelle, J., His, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., & Hoppe, U. (2006).
One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research
collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3-29.

223
Chen, G.D., Liu, C.C., Ou, K.L., & Lin, M.S. (2001). Web learning portfolios: A tool for
supporting performance awareness. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 38(1), 19-30.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
Teachers College Press: New York.
deMarrais, K., & Lapan, S.D. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through
experience. In K. deMarrais & S.D. Lapin (Eds.) Foundations for research: Methods
of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 51-68). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Dunkel, P.A. (1987). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer-assisted
language learning (CALL): Past dilemmas and future prospects for audible CALL. The
Modern Language Journal, 71, 250-260.
Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gustave, M. (1962). Instructional materials: Educational media and technology. Review
of Educational Research, 32(2), 168-178.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new
foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Information, 7, 174-196.
Hutchins, E. (1994). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ilter, B. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 136-158. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde36/articles/article_9.htm
Ismail,S.,Amekhlafi,A.,&Alekhlafy,M.(2010).Teachers’perceptionsoftheuseof
technologyinteachinglanguagesinUnitedArabEmirates’schools.International

224
Journal for Research in Education, 27, 37-56.
Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and change in English language teaching (ELT). The Asian
EFL Journal Quarterly, 7(4), 213-227. Retrieved September 19, 2012 from
http://70.40.196.162/December05PDF%20issue.pdf#page=213
Kleiber, P.B. (2004). Focus groups: More than a method of qualitative inquiry. In K.
deMarrais & S.D. Lapin (Eds.) Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in
education and the social sciences (pp. 88-102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Liang, J.K., Liu, T.C., Wang, H.Y., Chang, B., Deng, Y.C., Yang, J.C., Chan, T.W.
(2005). A few design perspectives on one-on-one digital classroom environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 181-189.
Liu, M. & Huo, H. (2007). Computer assisted language learning (CALL) in China: Some
common concerns. Asian EFL Journal: Professional Teaching Articles, 19(1).
Retrieved September 19, 2012 from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/pta_April_07_ml&hh.php
Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 69-86).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
One Laptop Per Child (2008). Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://www.laptop.org/
Paul, R. (2008, May 15). Former security director blasts OLPC, suggests a new strategy.
Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080515-
former-security-director-blasts-olpc-suggests-new-strategy.html
Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: a research, learning and
teaching practice. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 259-278.

225
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may
change computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Cognition and
Technology, 1(1), 145-168.
Salaberry, M.R. (2001). The use of technology for second language and teaching: A
retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 39-56.
Schwartz, M. (1995). Computers and the language laboratory: Learning from history.
Foreign Language Annals, 28(4), 527-535.
Smith, D.W. (2008). Phenomenology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
September 19, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
Thomas, S.P. (2005). Through the lens of Merleau-Ponty: Advancing the
phenomenological approach to nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 6, 63-76.
Wible, D. (2005). Language learning and language technology: Toward foundations for
interdisciplinary collaboration. Taipei: Crane Publishing Col, Ltd.
Zhang, Y.X., & Shen, H.Z. (2002). Where is the technology-induced pedagogy?
Snapshots from two multimedia EFL classrooms. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(1), 39-52.

226
Appendix A
Interview Outline
Teacher: __________ Date: __________
1. Please briefly describe your feelings regarding the current language lab.
2. Are there any technologies in the current lab that you wish to be retained in the
future lab? Why?
3. Are there any technologies that are not available in the current lab that you wish
to be incorporated into the new lab? Why?
4. How do you think your students feel about the current lab?
5. Do you think your current teaching practices would be affected if students could
access course and language lab software outside of the lab?
6. Have you ever taught in any language labs at other universities that you felt were
very helpful to your teaching practices?